At 16 October, 2007 08:12,  Nikmad said...

First sentence mentions "Sampras's birthday" instead of "Laver's birthday"  

At 29 November, 2007 10:11,  Anonymous said...

It amazes me that the media doesn't talk about the 18 grandslams of Laver.
If Laver were American, there would certainly have been a drumbeat of his phenomenal accomplishment and there would be unanimous agreement that this is the benchmark to beat.

Similarily, the media never mentioned the 12 grandslams of Emerson as being the benchmark for greatness until Sampras passed it. Suddenly 14 is the only number ringing loudly in our ears all day.

It is no wonder then that we are having a hard time getting behind Roger. Even greats in other sports are in awe of his talent and accomplishments, but yet most people in the biggest sports market in the world do not even know him.

It is high time the media credit Laver just as much as they do Nicklaus.

Incidentally they both have the same number of slams/majors - 18.  

At 05 December, 2007 21:44,  Anonymous said...

I agree. The benchmark is 14 because Sampras is US citizen not an american.Laver won on everything. Fed is a lot better than Sampras and in my opinion better than Laver and I think Laver agrees.

The problem is that Laver won 7 Sñams in the Pro circuit and so they do not count them. Budge was great also but the war stole its place in the rankings. All in all, I think Fed will beat Laver if both were to meet at their primes.  

At 17 December, 2007 19:49,  Anonymous said...

I do agree with both of the previous comments. Most US citizens fans are sore by the fact that no US citizen has been number one for a longtime. But I do consider Fed the bewst. His versatility and acomplishments speak out for themselves. Of course it is difficult for Sampras to agree, but to put the benchmark in 14 Slams is because he got 14. Why not on 18 ad Laver did or why not in the 8 years Pancho Gonzalez was number one. I remember that the rules were changed during Pancho`s prime to serve an volley. He had to serve and wait for the ball to bounce back on his side of the court before going to the ney. Imagine his domintation., No wonder his serve was ranked the best of all time by tennis magazine. Look at Roger he beat Nadal on clay and the last set was a bagel, and I think that most people will agree that Nadal is a modern Borg on clay. Who can say that of Sampras in his prime. If he had had such great groundies, he should have gotten to the final of the French. Laver was a great all around champ, but I think that he could not match Fed variety and power. Even he places Fed ahead now.  

At 17 May, 2008 07:13,  Anonymous said...

I suppose now one will take Roger Federer seriously until he surpasses 14 Grand Slam wins. Will it even make news? How many French Open finals did Pete Sampras reach?  

At 24 May, 2008 00:06,  Anonymous said...

I do believe that Rod Laver is the best tennis player that has graced the tennis courts. Pete and Roger are certainly a class act . However correct me If I am wrong Laver was the master on all surfaces and achieved something the others could not do 2 Grand slams and both achieves in the same year. and I certainly do not Believe that either Pete or Roger could have beaten him on clay.
Merv McCullough  

At 29 October, 2008 18:51,  Anonymous said...

The above stats say that Laver won Wimbledon in 1964,65,66 and 67. The winners in those yesrs were Roy Emerson (1964 & 65), Manuel Santana (1966) and John Newcombe (1967). Laver is credited with 11 grand slam singles titles (not 18).  

At 10 May, 2009 12:31,  Unknown said...

Laver is the greatest. In a head to head against all the greats, he would have the best won loss record.  

At 09 June, 2009 18:02,  Anonymous said...

We should not count the pro record of Laver vbecause he was playing against pro's only. What about the amateurs. It is easier to play about a small bunch of people you already know their games perfectly and with whom you measure force every day.

It is a whole different equation where there are hundreds of hungry guys after you day after day, tournament after tournament. Besides The surfaces that the Slams had were clay and grass, no hard court.  

At 09 June, 2009 21:50,  Anonymous said...

i think winning grandslams nowadays is harder than it was in the 60's. apart from the way the game is played today,there were hardly any other tournaments other than the grandslams,and also the competition is huge as so many youngsters play the game today than in the 60's  

At 21 June, 2009 02:19,  JJ said...

Let’s be fair here... Imagine Roger missing 5 years of Slam events at his peak as Laver did. Take away Rogers results (all slam events) from age 24 to age 28... what’s left? Laver won a GS on each side of that (ages 23 @ 30!!) Speaks volumes.  

At 21 June, 2009 04:00,  JJ said...

As for tennis being ‘easier’ consider Ashe d. Okker 14-12, 5-7, 6-3, 3-6, 6-3 (1968 U.S. Open F) then Gonzales d. Passeral 22-24, 1-6, 16-14, 6-3, 11-9 (1969 Wimbledon 1st rd) Pancho (41) dropped dead after that. (...JUST KIDDING!!) Laver in winning his second GS beat Roche 22-20 in the second set in a 4-1/2 hr SF in Australia (1969). Tennis became ALOT easier after the tiebreaker was introduced in 1973. Finally, go buy a vintage wood then practice and play sets with it. Each shot will be MUCH harder to hit well and will take more out of you. You'll probably ache afterwards (like Laver did) and have a new respect for how amazingly well these guys played w. those racquets back then. PS. Laver played well on ALL surfaces besides clay and grass... carpet, concrete and yes, hardcourts.  

At 07 July, 2009 13:34,  Anonymous said...

JJ.

How many slams did Ashe won. How many did Gonzalez. Are they statistically meaningful. Take a math course my friend. When Laver turned pro he also shut off all amateurs from compete against him, so you can take that against him too.
Was Roy Emerson an amateur during that time? Did he won more Slams than Laver. Does that rings a bell to you. Is not that record soft, provided that he did not play against the ( now) third guy in the list of Grand Slams winner during that years?.  

At 07 July, 2009 13:43,  Anonymous said...

To JJ. How many Slams did Laver won on hard, carpet or concrete my friend. Do not extrapolate.Besides he was too small to complete against a big man ( for purely physical reasons). Show me a Wimbledon Champ smaller than 5 11 in these days and then you will have a point. Just look at Nadal. Pete, Fed, Krajicek, Agassi.Of course that cannot be stated as definite but, competition is a lot harder now. His clams in the Pro Era does not count because he did not play against the great amateurs like Santana, Emmo et all. Well in fact he did not play Wimbledon does years- He chose to be a pro so he made a mistake. I rembember once that he was interviewed that he mentioned that he could not beat a guy a guy like Rafter, just because of his size and power. Now he his changing the tune... Pete acknoledged Fed as the best. That is enough for me. I am fifty somethin and I have seen them all ( tapes of Laver). Fed is the best.  

At 11 July, 2009 14:24,  Anonymous said...

to JJ

Laver missed five uyears because he wanted not because he was banned. He chose to be a pro. Don Budge played Pro events during his prime ( the war years, Tilden also played Pro french and so) and nobody say nothing.

The issue seems to be that now tha Fed broke Pete record even Laver is changing the tune.

Laver was a midget. Imagine him playing guys like Karlovick, Nadal, Fed Dokovic. He wont last just for purely physical reasons. The very best middleweith champ of box of all times against a good heavyweight will be no contest, for purely
physical reasons. It is like Graf at her best playing Blake. No matter how good she is and hos polished is her technique she wont be strong enough to sustain the pace agianst a male. Same applies to a boxer. How many Wimbledon Champs of the Open era were less than 5 10. I guess the answer is zero. Imagine the physical strenght of just reaching the final, now extrapolate and see what happens in fiver straight years of that kind of abuse ( Just look to what happened to Michael Chang or Marcelo Rios). So JJ and all Fed detractors, user your head for once.

The GOAT is now Fed wheter you all like it or not. Until his recorsd and consistency is broken he is and will be the GOAT. Thast is the end of the discussion.  

At 18 July, 2009 21:06,  Anonymous said...

In his first or second year as a Pro, Laver was beaten by Lew Hoad 8 straight times. 8-0 in a single year. And Laver had recnetly won his first Grand Slam. Rosewall beat him badly that year too. Pancho Gonzales was 10 years his senior and beat him many times when Laver was at his peak and Gonzales was above 30. So tell me about dominance, consistency and all that crap. Borg beat Laver ( you can see the tapes in you tube). I think all in all Fed is the best.  

At 16 August, 2009 23:04,  Anonymous said...

Laver just behaved disgracefully, backing up from his previous comments on Fed being the greatest. He his no true champion. Sampras acknowledged like a man.
·1. Fed
·2. Sampras.  

At 24 August, 2009 13:46,  Anonymous said...

Laver lost 4 straight Frech Pro finals to Ken Rosewall (at Laver peak: You can see in the FrenchPro history. So for all Federer detractors. This shows that Laver at his peak was compeltely dominated on clay by Rosewall. Take into account that at the time only a small bunch of Pros played among themselves. As pointed out before by anohter blogger, Hoad beat Laver 8-0 in a single Year. Laver benefit was that only a small group of playes existed at that time.  

At 09 September, 2009 00:26,  Anonymous said...

According to wikipedia, from 1963 to 1967 (i.e every tournament in which Rod Laver took part) French Pro Championship was held at Stade Pierre de Coubertin on indoor wood, not on clay.

Therefore it can hardly be used as an argument as to what results Rod Laver would have had in a clay grand slam tournament.

As as side note, for the same period (1963-1967), the United States Pro Championship was played on grass, at the West Side Tennis Club in 1963 and at the Longwood Cricket Club for the subsequent editions, while the London Indoor Professional Championship was played at the Wembley Arena (it was an indoor tournament as the name indicates).

As for the four grand slams tournaments from 1963 to 1967 (actually this holds true for the whole carrier of Rod Laver except the 1975 US Open which was played on clay), the French Open was played on clay while the other three were all played on grass at that time.  

At 14 December, 2009 09:25,  Anonymous said...

Of course, there is no Laver vs. Federer. Federer, unquestionably a great player, is a multi-millionaire international celebrity, who was developed, coached and trained by an international team of experts, with all of the freedom and opportunity that vast wealth makes available. This does not diminish his achievement, but it makes comparisons with Laver rather silly.
Read Peter Rowley's "Ken Rosewall, Twenty Years at the Top" or E. Digby Baltzell's "Sporting Gentlemen, Men's Tennis from the Age of Honor to the Cult of the Superstar" or, if you can wade through Bud Collins's cute and breezy prose, his book with Laver "Education of a Tennis Player" to see what players in the '50s and early '60s lived through.
Some comments have emphasized Laver's size as a factor in making him less "great" than Federer, comparing them to boxers. Many boxing fans have considered fighter like Willie Pep or Sugar Ray Robinson to be "the greatest" boxers rather than any of the less skillful but bigger heavyweights who would unquestionably have beaten them in the ring.
Greatness in a sport can be measured in other ways than by head to head comparisons across different eras, which are all imaginary, anyway. Bill Tilden, for instance, more or less invented many of the strategies and shots that are now standard, such as the drop shot, the hard flat serve down the middle, the combination of different spins within a single point to throw off the opponent's timing, the idea of the all-court game. Tilden was the first to argue that a player must incorporate all of these skills (among others). Or look at Rosewall, perhaps the smallest man ever to play at the top level, and a natural lef-hander to boot. overcoming so many times the challenges of great players like Laver and Gonzales. Or, if you dare, just look at the achievements of Stefanie Graf. Not just the 22 slams, but the perseverance, the style, the consistency, the determination to overcome and injury and the press in her long career played at such a high level.
Everyone has different challenges. Great tennis players are an inspiration to those of us who love the game.
I think that people so concerned about who is "the greatest" should go out and practice their own games a little bit. Pop a few serves out wide, pass a couple of net-rushers, and leave this discussion to a late-night conference between Roger and Tilden's ghost, during which the answer will be divulged.  

At 26 January, 2010 00:38,  Anonymous said...

there's no way to realistically determine who was greater -- Laver or Federer. Laver didn't have the benefit of today's technology in rackets & strings. But we ought to be able to at least agree that the number to "beat" is 18 - the number of times Laver beat the best players in the world 3 out of 5 at Wimbledon, etc. Federer might get there, & if he does, I'm sure he'll pull another annoying jacket out of his bag, this one with a "19" on the back.  

At 01 February, 2010 17:54,  Anonymous said...

The blog has not been updated, but Fed is superior. Fed played without a coach in this era for a long time. Besides, I do accept comparisions with boxers. Muhamad Ali8 at his best would beat all light heavy weights and down. This is to say that unfortunate as it is size does matter in sports. Laver would not stand today atheletes of today, they are to big for him. Look at what happened to Michael Chang. How many guys less than 511 have woon Wimbledon in the last 15 years or a major for that fact. The speed of the ball does not allow a small player like Lavr to stand toe to toe with a big guy. Slams today are more competitive than then when pros knew each other game to perfection and only played among them. Otherwise Laver lost like 8 straight times to Rosewall in a single year and the same applies to Lew Hoad.

Fed is has now surpassed Laver and that is it.  

At 26 February, 2010 01:21,  Anonymous said...

This is how I see it. Assuming that the info above is correct, Laver has 19 Grand Slams. But note that his first 6 Slams were achieved as an amateur, and every body agrees that during those years there were better players than Laver in the pro circuit. Which means that you have to substract those 6 Slams from his 19
count. Leaving Laver with 13 Slams.

So in a way, having that amateur and pro circuit "apartheid" helped Laver achieve his first calendar Slam. So I don't credit Laver with having won 2 calendar Slams. I only credit the second.

Another point is that I think is unfair to compare on who is the best between the two based on how they would fare against each other. That's because there is no question that the guy that came years later is going to be better, all the time. Federer is quicker, bigger, stronger. Fitter. If they played each other, Federer would probably triple bagel Laver, irrespective of what racket he used! Wood, graphite, ping pong paddle. But I do think that you can compare how they dominated the sport. And Roger has dominated the game more than Laver did. Ok, he has not won a calendar Slam. But hey, I don't think that is important at all. He's been two sets in 3 years, and let's face it, it is much harder to win a Slam now than it was in the 1960's in which tennis was not a sport that brought many young players to it. There was no pay (unless you became a pro, which is why Laver became a pro) like today. Today, you have a lot of incentives to try to become a professional tennis players. And that is thanks to the old generations. So Federer's 16 vs Laver "13" is superior.

Another thing. Back in those days 3
of the Slams were in grass. Imagine how Federer would have done if it was still like that today. He would have more than 16, I can assure you that ;)

And the game is more physical now. Today, you can't expect a tennis player to dominate for 20 years like in the 50's. By age of 30 you are in a down slope and the young guns take over. Is really hard to pull an Agassi. And even he says that the reason he lasted so long is because he took big breaks. I think Fed can pull the Agassi.

Federer has my vote for the greatest player ever.  

At 18 March, 2010 18:21,  Anonymous said...

It´s rubbish¡¡

I mean, has anyone consider that tennis is just a visual spectacle? the right question is ¿which player did we enjoy the most watching during more hours?

Rod is not only the greatest at this, but he played a more complete set of big champs than federer.

Roger is a superb player but, besides Nadal, is there any real greatness in Roddick - a modern Roscoe Tanner at most-, Del potro, Murray or Djoko?

before 2020 we can´t even dare to compare Roger´s greatness to Rod - who at 35 was able to compete against Borg or Connors, much better than today´s nº 3,4,5,6......  

At 10 May, 2010 12:47,  Anonymous said...

What all the Federer fans seem to forget is that players like laver, Rosewall, Emerson were never dominated by a single player in the grand slams in their own era, let alone at the peak of their career.

Nadal owns Federer. How can Federer be considered the greatest ever if he cant beat Nadal on any surface? He has lost on clay, grass and hard court to Nadal, who started off as a clay court specialist and then CHANGED his game to win those titles.

Until Federer proves that he can beat Nadal, and as long as Nadal owns that dominant head to head grand slam record, Federer can never be considered GOAT.  

At 10 June, 2010 04:08,  Anonymous said...

i think lew hoad would beat laver or federer in a wimbledon final  

Post a Comment

Back to Federer Magic Homepage