Rod won 11 majors. But that's only half the story. Rod won the Grand Slam in 1962 as an amateur. He turned professional in 1963, and claimed the number 1 ranking within the year. He held that ranking for the next seven years. Professionals were not allowed to compete in what we call the majors today until the beginning of the Open Era in 1968. Rod won Wimbledon in '68. In 1969, Rod won the Grand Slam again.
From 1963-1967, Rod was ranked number 1 and in the prime of his career (he was 24 in '63). Rod won the U.S. Pro Championships 3 times, the Wembley Pro Championship 5 times, and the French Pro Championship 2 times (These three tournaments were known as "The Prestige", the de facto majors of the day). Toss these in, and Rod has a record 21 majors. What if there were a fourth "prestige tournament" in Australia? How many times would he have won that with the home crowd cheering him on?
Rod won on every surface. Grass, clay, indoor wood, quicksand...it didn't matter to good old Rod. No matter the surface, tennis is tennis, and Rod knew tennis.
Hey Julius Heldman, what was Rod's style like?
Julius Heldman pointed out, "He is competent on low balls, handling them with underspin for control, but he will cream any ball at waist level or higher."
Well, what did Bud Collins think?
Bud Collins wrote, "I remain unconvinced that there ever was a better player than Rod Laver".
I agree, Bud.
Bibliography
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Laver
For the record, I recently had an argument over who would win a tennis match today between Rod Laver, age 70, and me. My dad is certain Rod would take me to school. I think I could drop shot him, and then lob him if he got there. What do you think?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteYou're argument shows that he was the most dominant, but you must be taking crazy pills if you think Laver could beat any of the guys in the top 100, let alone Nadal or Federer. The game has evolved-- better competition leads to better weight-lifting and fitness techniques. The difference in the physical nature of today's players alone puts them in a different level.
ReplyDeletecome on Dave
ReplyDeletethe old 'game has evolved' argument is moot... you have to adjust for all the components of the game in order to really compare people of different eras (or you should just not compare them at all)
otherwise, trying to say something like 'Bill Russell was one of the greatest NBA centers of all time' would sound crazy because Shawn Bradley could probably take him now for 25 and 10
how is it moot? if they're better, they're better. plain and simple. that's it. nick (and bud collins) are arguing that there was never a greater player. this point cannot be moot when arguing who is THE GREATEST, but it is moot when arguing who is THE MOST DOMINANT. there is a difference.
ReplyDeletechamberlain was the most dominant. russell was not as dominant but was better than chamberlain. shawn bradley could not put 25 and 10 on a cardboard cutout of bill russell. in terms of pure skill, russell is one of the greatest. the evolution of the game of basketball from when russell played to now is far less than the evolution of tennis from laver's time to our time. with a few exceptions, the level of fitness and pure physicality as played a larger role in the evolution of tennis than basketball, which was my previous point.