Re: Trabert: Laver the best ever
- From: gregorawe@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:37:23 -0800 (PST)
On Jan 31, 5:24 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 31, 11:46 am, gregor...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
http://www.tennisweek.com/news/fullstory.sps?iNewsid=528242#top
Tennis Week: In baseball, DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak, Cal
Ripken's consecutive games played streak and now Bonds breaking Babe
Ruth's home run record are considered the most hallowed marks in the
sport. In terms of tennis history what is the most sacred record? What
is the gold standard of tennis records? Is it Laver's '62 and '69
Grand Slams? Is it Graf's Golden Slam? Is it Sampras' 14 majors? Is it
Navratilova's all-time title record?
Tony Trabert: I still maintain that Rod Laver is the best player who
ever played the game because he's done something no one has ever done
in the 120 or 140-year history of our sport: he won the Grand Slam as
an amateur and he won the Grand Slam as a pro. If someone in some
other sport held a world record no one else had, you would say that
person was the best in that sport. So in my view, you've got to say
Laver is the best player of all time. All the records you mention are
very worthy and Steffi's Golden Grand Slam is terrific and I salute
all of them and all of the players who have won the Grand Slam, but
that Laver record is one that has never been done and you will never
see it done again.
Trabert's opinion is certainly reasonable on the whole, but I disagree
with establishing a criterion that can no longer be met because of
permanent structural changes in the sport. Winning the amateur grand
slam is no longer possible because the tournaments are open. Winning
the grand slam "as an amateur" is no longer feasible because everyone
is a pro from the get-go. Thus, Laver's amateur grand slam is not a
"record" that might be matched or broken, but simply a feat that was
performed in a different environment and can no longer be used as
basis of direct comparison. It's similar to Connors' feat of winning
the U.S. Open on three different surfaces, which also would be
inappropriate as a GOAT criterion. Trabert should simply have said
that Laver won the grand slam twice, or just focused on his 1969 slam,
which is by far the more valuable.
Great interview, by the way. Trabert is an excellent observer of the
historical, political, and tactical sides of tennis.
Joe Ramirez
Yes, and even Laver would not rate his amateur slam that highly, as he
knew the competition was weak.
He struggled for the first year or two in the pros the year after he
won it, particularly against Rosewall.
.
- References:
- Trabert: Laver the best ever
- From: gregorawe
- Re: Trabert: Laver the best ever
- From: Joe Ramirez
- Trabert: Laver the best ever
- Prev by Date: Re: The 23 wonders of Sport..
- Next by Date: Re: Ali KO
- Previous by thread: Re: Trabert: Laver the best ever
- Next by thread: Re: Trabert: Laver the best ever
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
