how good is the great serbian slayer

[huntingyou]

Mentioning any pre OPen Era player in the same breath with Borg; let alone Sampras is blasphemy. Even the great Laver takes back seat.....I can elaborate outside this thread but I have done it so many times it's getting boring.

So, just for perspective how these players compare:

Sampras>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Laver


We can leave it there. Please proceed.

There is so much wrong in this post that I dont even know where to begin . Why is it that we always penalize the 60s or 70s players by bringing them forward to the 90s or 00s and compare them to those players . The conditions were so different then that its impossible to compare the 2 . I am positive that if we give Pete a wooden racquet and ask him to face peak laver , laver would win that match 9 times out of 10

Racquet technology has helped the modern players a huge deal and we just cant compare players before and after that Why cant we just admit that both were the best players of their times and leave it at that

Simpler minds would leave it at that.

In the other hands, unbiased analysis of the facts would lead you to the unequivocal conclusion.

It's not just racket technology but the DEMANDS such technology place on the modern tennis player. Laver was playing in slow motion compare to even the late 80s professional players. The pool of talent was basically country club tennis in "The Hampton"

There is a lot of material on this topic, at the end of the day I really couldn't care less about white players in the 60s returning serves at less than 100 MPH and ground strokes that feel like eternal pushing by today's standards. Laver himself was merely 5'8''........I wonder if he could even muster top 20 in today's game.

 

[tennisville]

Simpler minds would leave it at that.

In the other hands, unbiased analysis of the facts would lead you to the unequivocal conclusion.

It's not just racket technology but the DEMANDS such technology place on the modern tennis player. Laver was playing in slow motion compare to even the late 80s professional players. The pool of talent was basically country club tennis in "The Hampton"

There is a lot of material on this topic, at the end of the day I really couldn't care less about white players in the 60s returning serves at less than 100 MPH and ground strokes that feel like eternal pushing by today's standards. Laver himself was merely 5'8''........I wonder if he could even muster top 20 in today's game.

Laver was playing in slow motion because he had wooden racquets . If you dont hit the middle of a wooden racquet , the ball will fly out and you will lose the point . So they had to hit in the right moment . Racquet technology had come in the late 80s and the new racquets had come then , so of course those guys could hit the ball faster . Thats what the new racquet does :sleepy:

And you wonder if Laver who was merely 5'8'' could even muster top 20 in today's game , well why dont you wonder whether Rafa would even be in the top 20 of the 60s where he did not have any spin whatsoever on his forehand and backhand . Nadal without spin is a recipe for disaster in my books .

Thats what I am saying , you just cant compare the two . The biggest problem I have is how people sell the past generation short of the current one . I am sure the next generation will sell this one useless in 30 years time

 

[huntingyou]

Simpler minds would leave it at that.

In the other hands, unbiased analysis of the facts would lead you to the unequivocal conclusion.

It's not just racket technology but the DEMANDS such technology place on the modern tennis player. Laver was playing in slow motion compare to even the late 80s professional players. The pool of talent was basically country club tennis in "The Hampton"

There is a lot of material on this topic, at the end of the day I really couldn't care less about white players in the 60s returning serves at less than 100 MPH and ground strokes that feel like eternal pushing by today's standards. Laver himself was merely 5'8''........I wonder if he could even muster top 20 in today's game.

Laver was playing in slow motion because he had wooden racquets . If you dont hit the middle of a wooden racquet , the ball will fly out and you will lose the point . So they had to hit in the right moment . Racquet technology had come in the late 80s and the new racquets had come then , so of course those guys could hit the ball faster . Thats what the new racquet does :sleepy:

And you wonder if Laver who was merely 5'8'' could even muster top 20 in today's game , well why dont you wonder whether Rafa would even be in the top 20 of the 60s where he did not have any spin whatsoever on his forehand and backhand . Nadal without spin is a recipe for disaster in my books .

Thats what I am saying , you just cant compare the two . The biggest problem I have is how people sell the past generation short of the current one . I am sure the next generation will sell this one useless in 30 years time

It all depends to how far technology and training can go...there is a point of diminished returns and I feel in tennis with are past that point when it comes to nutrition, training and technology.

As far as Nadal, he is an one in a lifetime talent proving himself in the modern game where balls comes at you with wicked spin and pace. I'm sure his overall talent, athletic ability and mental toughness would have saw him to the top of the sport when short elite rich guys were ruling it.

There is no comparison, you are right in that one. Can't look at todays F-22 fighter and match them against WW2 German crafts.....thus Sampras>>>>>>>>>>>>>Laver

Simple logic really. If I can excel when the demands are at the highest they have ever been, what makes you think I can't excel with inferior requirements?