Fan Nation
Forums
Forum list
Search forums
Rules & Policies
Podcast
Mobile App
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Shop
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Horned Frog Athletics
Scott & Wes Frog Fan Forum
TCU Men's Tennis - 2020-2021
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jared7" data-source="post: 3017343" data-attributes="member: 7831"><p>Well, in my view, if we're going to have a tennis GOAT discussion, we simply have to divide it into the "modern" or "Open" era v. that which existed prior to 1968 (or really, 1975, after the formation of the ATP and the establishment of the pro Slams as they are now). Before that, it was just a different game, with wood racquets, an emphasis on spins, finesse and placement and, most importantly, almost exclusively amateur in which most players played a few years and then moved on to their real lives. In the Before Era, the French 3 Musketeers, Bill Tilden, Pancho Gonzalez and, especially, Rod Laver are the GOAT competitors. Tilden had a .938 WP; Laver won 9 Slams, but for 7 years (in which there were 28 Slams) he was ineligible because he was a Pro (and could have won at least 10 more) and Gonzalez was a shotmaker extraordinaire, who you probably should have bet on to win any given match; even against Laver. And there were other tourneys - the U.S. Pro, the Wembley Pro, the French Pro and the WCT that were at least as important as the Slams - and the Davis Cup was WAY more important than today. It was something else than it is today - not really all that comparable.</p><p></p><p>Having said that, I think the current crop would have just walloped the older guys because of the racquet technology and the emphasis on speed, size and power. But who's to say? Tilden, Laver and Gonzalez could have adapted - but how well? And the competition is way tougher now too - would Laver have won as many if he had hundreds and hundreds of competitors rather than a mere few dozen?</p><p></p><p>In the Modern Era, I'm still in the Federer camp. Nadal, like Borg, is too clay-focused and, although great, isn't in the "greatest" category, in my view. Djoker is close; but not there quite yet. Because Fed is still playing and no longer in his prime, we don't think of him the same way we would had he retired. Djokovic is clearly better than Federer now and if he keeps winning all the Slams, he'll pass him. But the jury is still out.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jared7, post: 3017343, member: 7831"] Well, in my view, if we're going to have a tennis GOAT discussion, we simply have to divide it into the "modern" or "Open" era v. that which existed prior to 1968 (or really, 1975, after the formation of the ATP and the establishment of the pro Slams as they are now). Before that, it was just a different game, with wood racquets, an emphasis on spins, finesse and placement and, most importantly, almost exclusively amateur in which most players played a few years and then moved on to their real lives. In the Before Era, the French 3 Musketeers, Bill Tilden, Pancho Gonzalez and, especially, Rod Laver are the GOAT competitors. Tilden had a .938 WP; Laver won 9 Slams, but for 7 years (in which there were 28 Slams) he was ineligible because he was a Pro (and could have won at least 10 more) and Gonzalez was a shotmaker extraordinaire, who you probably should have bet on to win any given match; even against Laver. And there were other tourneys - the U.S. Pro, the Wembley Pro, the French Pro and the WCT that were at least as important as the Slams - and the Davis Cup was WAY more important than today. It was something else than it is today - not really all that comparable. Having said that, I think the current crop would have just walloped the older guys because of the racquet technology and the emphasis on speed, size and power. But who's to say? Tilden, Laver and Gonzalez could have adapted - but how well? And the competition is way tougher now too - would Laver have won as many if he had hundreds and hundreds of competitors rather than a mere few dozen? In the Modern Era, I'm still in the Federer camp. Nadal, like Borg, is too clay-focused and, although great, isn't in the "greatest" category, in my view. Djoker is close; but not there quite yet. Because Fed is still playing and no longer in his prime, we don't think of him the same way we would had he retired. Djokovic is clearly better than Federer now and if he keeps winning all the Slams, he'll pass him. But the jury is still out. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Which team did TCU defeat in the College Football Playoffs?
Post reply
Forums
Horned Frog Athletics
Scott & Wes Frog Fan Forum
TCU Men's Tennis - 2020-2021
Top