Mens Tennis Forums banner
121 - 124 of 124 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,455 Posts
Discussion Starter · #121 ·
Hardly a fossil, side arm serve Rosewall was late 30s and younger than Federer currently is when Connors humiliated him. But yea, at least you have backed off of the ludicrous claim that those non-regularly scheduled, small, three to four round pro events of Laver's Era were "slams." They certainly were not, and no amount of cutesy, effeminate peppering of emoticons will make them that. Laver has 11. Now if you want to argue that his CYGSs make up for only having 55% of, nine less slams than contemporary greats then have at it. Odds are you won't get much mileage beyond Laver buttboy, senile Cliff Drysdale, if he's even still making the argument since the slam numbers of the big three have spiked. I don't know.

PS After Djokovic's Vera Zvonereva stunt, crying on the court between points I'm reluctant to consider him among the greats. In fact I retract the allusion. It's a two man discussion now, with Nadal getting the nod as he owned Fed head to head when they were playing in their primes.
I've retracted nothing.

Sir Rod Laver.
19 slams
3 CYGS
3 CGS
4 Davis Cups
374 weeks at #1
200 titles.

You cannot be in the GOAT discussion without multiple CYGS. The notion is absurd. Nadal has never been in the discussion. His Wimbledon record is embarrassing. Rosewall's records and accomplishments are much more impressive than the big threes by the way. Cope.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,155 Posts
I've retracted nothing.

Sir Rod Laver.
19 slams
3 CYGS
3 CGS
4 Davis Cups
374 weeks at #1
200 titles.

You cannot can be the GOAT without multiple CYGS. The notion is absurd. Nadal has never been in the discussion. His Wimbledon record is embarrassing. Rosewall's records and accomplishments are much more impressive than the big threes by the way. Cope.
Of course you can be the GOAT without multiple CYGS, even without a four slams in a row, because e.g. Federer's 8 slams + 2 RG finals in ten consecutive slams ( 3 slams + F + 3 slams + F + 2 slams ) is a considerably greater result than Laver's F + W+ 4R + CYGS i.e. 5 slams + 1 final in ten consecutive slams, let's not even talk about his amateur CYGS vs depleted field or his so-called pro CYGS as some kind of a holy grail, because it is an insult to any triple slam season in the open era.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,455 Posts
Discussion Starter · #123 ·
Of course you can the GOAT without multiple CYGS, even without a four slams in a row, because Federer's 8 slams + 2 RG finals in ten consecutive slams is a considerably greater result than Laver's F + W+ 4R + CYGS i.e. 5 slams + 1 F in ten consecutive slams, let's not talk about his amateur CYGS or pro CYGS because it is insult to any triple slam season in the open era.
The only person with a counter argument is Budge: 6 consecutive slams inclusive of the holy grail. Laver's three slams and overall resume trumps Budgie for me. Rosewall deserves a mention for his Pro slam and overall resume. Big three don't have a leg to stand on and only serve to underline the modern sickness that is recency bias. If you don't win a CYGS you haven't dominated the season; you haven't proved that you are head and shoulders your contemporaries on your tour. You haven't dominated, you've merely been more dominant. If you haven't even proven that how can you be GOAT ?: spoiler, you can't. Djokovic, for example, played five huge events this season and lost two. Fed couldn't beat Nadal on clay. Rafa lost in Melbourne. The bar is high, but then so are the stakes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
913 Posts
Of course you can be the GOAT without multiple CYGS, even without a four slams in a row, because e.g. Federer's 8 slams + 2 RG finals in ten consecutive slams ( 3 slams + F + 3 slams + F + 2 slams ) is a considerably greater result than Laver's F + W+ 4R + CYGS i.e. 5 slams + 1 final in ten consecutive slams, let's not even talk about his amateur CYGS vs depleted field or his so-called pro CYGS as some kind of a holy grail, because it is an insult to any triple slam season in the open era.
Absolutely.

Even though I was never a supporter of his, but the single most impressive piece of stat to me is Federer's performance at Slam tournaments between 2004 and 2009. Out of a total of 24 Slams, he made it to at least the SF stage on 23 occasions and made it to the finals on 20 occasions. That's some 83% over 6 long years. Simply incredible, especially if one considers that in early 2008, he was hampered by mono (though, contrary to many Federer fans' claims, it never had an impact on his RG and Wimbledon runs).

This is something that I don't believe we will ever see again. Of course, the weak era argument is bogus, always have been. That version of Federer would have been a force of nature in any era, against any competition. In fact, his superiority was what made the likes of Roddick, Hewitt or Gonzalez less impressive than they actually were.

So yes, I completely agree that no CYGS is necessary for a player to be considered the greatest.

Especially since what the CYGS means today is not what Laver achieved back in the sixties. CYGS today = 28 matches won in BO5 format, over 3 different surfaces. Back in those days the AO was actually skipped by practically any players who weren't from Australia or New Zealand, and there were only 6 AO matches to be played instead of 7. It was a depleted field, with only 6 matches to be won – that's not what we call a Slam today. Also, whoever claims that surfaces are so similar these days that HC can practically play and feel like clay has absolutely no idea about how tennis works. These things are only claimed by those who never actually played tennis in their lives.

So Laver achieved something back then which, by modern standards and understandings, was not CYGS at all. To claim that Laver's achievements were equivalent to what we consider CYGS today would be similar to stating that modern F1 drivers have nothing on the drivers of the sixties because champions back then were able to seal their WDC titles after only 9-10 races in a year while modern champions need as long as 18-20 races per year to achieve the same end result, completely ignoring the fact that back in the sixties, there were only 9-10 races per year.

If Djokovic, Nadal and Federer were required to win only 27 matches on only 2 different surfaces while playing against a heavily depleted field in one of the "Slams", they would have easily done the "Laver CYGS" by now, multiple times each.
 
121 - 124 of 124 Posts
Top