Facts, Not Fiction

 
Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 130
  1. Collapse Details
     
    #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogery- chwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch, Wales
    Posts
    12,011
    Laver a very good call.

    But when talking best all-around players, don't forget the only man in history to win a career Super Slam - the four Grand Slam tournaments, plus the Olympics - Andre Agassi.
    There are no strings on me
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
     
    #12
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    west of Westeros
    Posts
    61,732
    I didn't follow tennis all that closely when I was a lad, but from a neophyte fan's point of view, Laver certainly left the biggest impression on me. While today's guys (particularly Federer & Nadal, obviously) can get (good) returns on things perhaps unheard of in the past, I gotta think that monster racquets with huge sweet spots have changed the nature of the game mightily, swinging the pendulum a bit back in the rocket's favour.
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
     
    #13
    Quote Originally Posted by catson52
    Quote Originally Posted by bambam
    Here's some quotes from tennis greats not in contention for this title. Andre Agassi, when asked who were the five greatest tennis players ever, said, "Sampras, Sampras, Sampras, Sampras, Sampras." Stan Smith, former Wimbledon champion, asked about 5 years ago if Sampras was the greatest ever, "I think you still have to go with Laver." Jack Kramer, great from the 40s, said if he had to pick one man to play one match for Planet Earth in the Universal Davis Cup, said he would pick Lew Hoad.
    It would be good to check carefully over the Hoad-Gonzales matches in the Kramer circuit. I know that many people well versed in tennis, say Hoad at his best (and his form after 1955 was up and down) was virtually unbeatable. (My vote goes to Gonzales by the way, and I have seen him play, easily beating Sedgeman, the Wimbledon Champ of that time). One point of interest. I believe in his second Wimbledon Final, Hoad beat Ashley Cooper in 3 sets, giving up something like 2-5 games total. The next year (with Hoad a pro) Cooper became Wimbledon Champ.
    I never forget one sentence from an interview with Jack Kramer in the English mag World Sports in 1958. Kramer talked about the legendary Hoad-Gonzales series. "Early in that series Pancho was playing the best tennis of his life, yet Hoad was beating him regularily until his back gave out"

    Kramer himself was certainly one of the all time greats. He had a great record against Gonzales.

    One thing about Sampras. He sure did not have anybody like a Nadal around.

    Agassi can't be compared to Nadal.

    I suppose I still think Laver is the greatest but it gets hard.
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
     
    #14
    How to measure the GOAT of tennis???

    For pure dominance it is hard to pick against Laver... if pros had been able to play in the major tourneys when he was in his prime then Laver would surely have put the grand slam wins record out of any modern player's reach. Still, he was just a little guy ( I had the honor of meeting him a couple of times), and it is hard to imagine him matching up physically with modern stars.

    Gonzales was so dominant that the early pro-tour changed the rules for him (a la the Lew Alcindor no-dunk rule in NCAA hoops). For a while they eliminated second serves, thinking that it would force Pancho to take some pace off his serves and level the odds a bit. Instead, he was undeterred and his opponents were the ones who got more tentative.

    Sampras at his best was, I think, right in the mix with Federer and Nadal. And they are a cut above the earlier generation of the 70's and 80's.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
     
    #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Chattanooga
    Posts
    4,740
    Something being overlooked is the change in racket technology. How would the modern players do with the wooden racket, which emphasizes shot-making and takes some power out of the game? And vice-versa. I don't think any sport has been changed more by technology than tennis.

    Something very interesting about tennis is the different surfaces and that no player has won a grand slam since the US Open went to hardcourt. If a player can ever pull off that sweep, it would be hard to deny him GOAT, IMO.

    Could Nadal win a baseline game against the patient, great shot-making of Borg? Could Federer play with McEnroe's great all-around game? It's hard to pick, but I have to go with Laver. However, the comments on Lew Hoad cought my attention. I know nothing about him, but he must have been great.

    BTW I pay little attention to the claims that today's players are more athletic. The players of yesterday were plenty athletic. That is a write-off.

    Edit: Interesting quotes from Wiki on Pancho Gonzales. Sports Illustrated wrote: "If earth was on the line in a tennis match, the man you want serving to save humankind would be Ricardo Alonso Gonzalez." And Bud Collins said: "If I had to choose someone to play for my life, it would be Pancho Gonzalez."
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
     
    #16
    Lew Hoad with todays rackets would have been something. He had enormous strength.
    The knock on Lew, as far as I remember, was that he was a bit lazy. At least compared to Rosewall and Laver.
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
     
    #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    3,917
    Quote Originally Posted by BillVol
    Interesting quotes from Wiki on Pancho Gonzales. Sports Illustrated wrote: "If earth was on the line in a tennis match, the man you want serving to save humankind would be Ricardo Alonso Gonzalez." And Bud Collins said: "If I had to choose someone to play for my life, it would be Pancho Gonzalez."
    I have heard that quote about Gonzales's serve - but I wonder if now the answer would be Sampras. Everyone I have talked to who knows a lot about Sampras says there is one thing that in absolutely a given - Sampras had the greatest second serve ever. It was so good it effectively gave him two first serves and a huge advantage as a result.
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
     
    #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    beyond help
    Posts
    12,742
    I still think it's Laver.
    "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
    by Thomas Henry Huxley
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
     
    #19
    Quote Originally Posted by jhc68


    Gonzales was so dominant that the early pro-tour changed the rules for him (a la the Lew Alcindor no-dunk rule in NCAA hoops). For a while they eliminated second serves, thinking that it would force Pancho to take some pace off his serves and level the odds a bit. Instead, he was undeterred and his opponents were the ones who got more tentative.
    Yes, that was part of the VASSS ( Van Alen Simplified Scoring System) which
    the pros used for a while.
    Basically Table Tennis scoring. Matches went to 31 points. Had to win by two points. In Some tournaments the players were limited to one serve only.
    JamesVan Alen also invented the tiebreak system that is used today.
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
     
    #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Pego
    I still think it's Laver.
    I do, too, although I have no clear recollection of having seen Gonzalez.
    Reply With Quote
     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •