A bronze sculpture of a golfer stands in a club near London. Few fans looking at it will recognise his face, let alone his hands.
However, here stands Harry Vardon, whose way of gripping a club is used by 99 per cent of those who play the game today.
As the years roll by, it is easy to forget the sporting greats of the past. Vardon died more than 70 years ago, and few fans know that he won a record six British Open Championships.
My passion for sports, however, has not withered over the years, helped by the fact that I wasn’t exactly born yesterday.
As a child in short pants, I watched some of all sports’ greatest players, and later as a journalist wrote stories about many of them.
However, still stark in my memories is the time I watched a scrawny, red-headed Australian tennis player deal aces before a delighted crowd in my hometown of East London in South Africa.
His name was Rod Laver, and he was the greatest tennis player the world has ever seen.
Amid all the racket about the current feats of Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray, and earlier Pete Sampras, Roy Emerson and Bjorn Borg, Laver stands as a beacon. Add to the media mix John McEnroe, whose antics on court were hard to ignore amid the strawberries and screams of Wimbledon.
Laver is hardly forgotten and regularly watches the modern greats of the game who deal aces before delighted fans. I wonder what he is thinking? A modest man, I am sure Laver will not murmur a word about where he stands in history.
Laver was a member of Jack Kramer’s touring circus and I had the privilege of watching him, Ken Rosewall, Lew Hoad, Pancho Gonzalez and others play.
Who then would have foreseen that Laver would win the game’s Grand Slam – the Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon and the US Open titles – in one year twice, a feat matched only by the queen of women’s lob, compatriot Margaret Court?
Federer leads the list of Slam winners with 17, Sampras and Nadal 14, Roy Emerson 12 and Laver and Bjorn Borg 11.
However, it should be remembered that Laver was banned from 1963 to 1967 when professionals weren’t allowed to compete in the major tournaments. Laver was beating up the opposition in those days and he could have easily added several Slams to his tally. It was no surprise when he served up more of the same in the open era.
I am sure that Laver didn’t have to sleep in the back of his car like some of the golfing greats such as Ben Hogan, Byron Nelson and Sam Snead did.
But he had a grip on the game as good as Vardon’s and his feats linger long in my memory.
Bill Cord
Guest
Would like to re-visit my 2014 comment and move Federer to number 2 on the GOAT list considering his 3 majors won in 2017-18. Considering that Murray and Djoker are probably done from winning majors this year, Federer might get one or two more this year.
Luke Reppucci
Guest
Now he has to reach AT LEAST 20.
Luke Reppucci
Guest
I disagree. Federer has created a new category of greatness with his unsurpassed longevity, winning three slams after the age of 35 (all within 12 months). And it is a very real possibility that he will add to that number in the next couple of years.
Luke Reppucci
Guest
Now Federer's won three after 35. That should put to bed this H2H nonsense against Nadal.
Bill Cord
Guest
Borg was 7-7 against McEnroe but in similar fashion to Federer 95% of the matches were played on grass, hard court, or indoor carpet, which was McEnroe best surfaces. The odd twist is Borg continued to play high dollar exhibition matches, in 1982-84, and posted a 5-2 record against McEnroe. The most famous of those matches occurred in Asia, in late 1982. Borg defeated Lendi and McEnroe in straight sets to win tournament. Borg had beefed up his upper body and had a more powerful serve that simply blew McEnroe off the court. I do not understand why Borg's break-even record with McEnroe would lead to placing Connors above Borg since Connors had losing records against Borg and McEnroe (14-20). In the GOAT listing, I rate Laver as number 1 followed by Borg, Nadal, and Federer. I really hate putting Nadal over Federer but the H2H is so lopsided (yes, most were played on clay) and Nadal will probably win one or two more slams (French 2015-16) that will put him one behind Federer.
Johnno
Guest
Bill Bjorg didn;t have the best record vs Mcenroe in grand slam finals but I think Bjorg was as good a player as Mcenroe. Also was awesome on clay, Mcenroe wasn't.
Bill Cord
Guest
To determine the GOAT the players have to be judged on two-three factors. One is domination of era, two is number of grand slam wins and before 1968 pro slam wins need to be counted since players could not play the traditional slams. An added factor is the pro slams were harder to win because they truly matched the 8-16 best players in the world. The third and lesser factor is H2H against top rivals. It is impossible to rate Connors over Borg for two reasons. Borg won H2H 15-8 and won the last ten matches in mostly straight set victories. Borg dominated tennis from 1977 to mid-1981 in a similar fashion to Federer 2004-07. Nobody beat Borg during that time span. Someone commented that Laver had an easier time winning calendar slams in 1962-69 because three were played on grass. This is the reason players cannot be compared across eras because despite the slams being played on four different surfaces today, the grass is super slow and the red clay plays faster than the 1960s and 1970s. The point is nobody has won a calendar slam since Laver, in 1969, and that makes a huge statement. Federer would have the best claim among today's player for GOAT except for his H2H against Nadal, Murray, and Djokovic, which is losing against Nadal and almost even with the other two and that will probably change in the next two years since a mid-30s Federer will find it hard to beat late 20s opponents. A player cannot be the GOAT when he has losing H2H records with top rivals.
Frankie Hughes
Guest
Rod Laver's Calender grand slam is a meaningless statistic. On both occasions Laver achieved the calendar grand slam, 3 of the majors where played on grass. So hardly as bigger challenge as in the modern era.
Jayden
Guest
I think Federer and Laver are rather inseparable right now, that being said if Nadal reaches 16/17 slams it'll be between the three of them to me. I'm less qualified to comment on womens.
clipper
Guest
The pro and amateur being combined is misleading as the two were on separate circuits - I don't think either carries the same weight as when the pro and ameteur eras combined, as neither side where playing all the best players all the time. The big question is - would Laver have got the first GS in 1962 if Rosewall was playing? Rosewall quite often bet Laver when Laver turned pro, so it is quite possible that in his peak years Rosewall may have won one or more of the slams in the 1962 period.
Bill Cord
Roar Rookie
Laver also won eight pro slams and a pro grand slam in 1967. From 1965-67, he won nine of eleven pro slams and totally dominated the tour. To determine the GOAT you have to look at how the player dominated his era because racket and string technology make players of the last fifteen years appear to be better than anyone that ever played tennis. Nadal plays with string technology that was outlawed thirty-five years ago because tennis officials deemed the odd spin was unfair. Until a player can win two-three calendar slams coupled with total domination of an era that spans longer than four years, Laver has to be the choice as GOAT
JGK
Roar Guru
To criticise Laver for not winning Slams in the 70s is very harsh. He was 32+ at the time and in the last 40 years very few other players have won slams in their 30s.
sheek
Roar Guru
Johnno, There was no shortage of competition for Laver in the 60s, although most of it came from fellow Aussies. Rosewell, Emerson, Newcombe, Roche & Stolle weren't to be trifled with. The American Ashe & Spaniard Santana were top-notch. Although in the veteran class, Tex-Mex Gonzales was still an imposing figure. He dropped off in the 70s, but heck, everyone wanes sooner or later.
sheek
Roar Guru
Hi Andrew, Rod Laver is my favourite all-time tennis player. But whether he's the greatest of all is hugely debatable.But I'll admit to bias in his favour! In favour of the modern player is the fact that the four majors are played on four different surfaces. In Laver's time, three of the four majors were on grass, one on clay. Here's some further info for tennis fans to digest. During the professional circus, there were three majors - US Pro, Wembley Pro & French Pro. But not all three were played all the time. Post WW2, the US Pro was the first to get going again in 1945, but it wasn't until 1958 that all three were being contested each year. From 1963-67, Laver & Rosewell shared the 15 majors between them, Laver just shading Rosewell 8-7. The record of leading players who appeared in each of the amateur/open & professional eras is as follows: Rosewell - 8 amateur/open + 14 professional = 22 majors. Laver - 11 + 8 = 19. Gonzales - 2 + 12 = 14. Sedgman - 5 + 3 = 8. Trabert - 5 + 2 = 7. Laver didn't win another major after 1969 when he was 31, but in 1973 he & John Newcombe were a two man wrecking ball, demolishing the US in the Davis Cup final tie 5-0.
Andrew Jardine
Roar Guru
I forgot to mention the number of slams that Laver (11) and Court won (24), a record that still stands, won.
Andrew Jardine
Roar Guru
You left out that Laver won 11 Slams and Court 24, a record hat still stands.
Johnno
Guest
I wasn't including Laver in this, as he wasn't at his peak in the 70's.He won no grand slams in the 70's other than the wimbledon double's grand slam in 1970.
Rod
Guest
Laver played well into the seventies and was past his peak, but he still was playing good tennis and did well against the the top young guns coming through that era.i would argue his era was an incredibly tough one.
Johnno
Guest
best since 1970 1)Nadal 2)Fed 3)Jimmy Connors 4)Sampras 5)Bjorg 6)Mcenroe 7)Joker 8)Agassi 9)Becker 10)Wilander 11)Lendl 12) Edberg Laver never had as much competition, as the 70's boys onwards in the open era. Best ladies 1)Graf 2)Navratalova 3)Evert 4)Serena Williams 5)Seles 6)Billy Jean King 7)Henin 8)Davenport 9)Venus 10)Capriati 11)Hingis 12)Clisters
Hugo
Guest
Good stuff, Andrew. When the pro tour was Gonzales, Hoad, Rosewall, Sedgman, Segura, Buchholz, - I saw them all many times - Gonzales drove his Thunderbird to various venues and now and then slept in it. The others checked into Norman Bates motels. Weirdly, Gonzales could be the happiest man on a tennis court at tourneys like Beckenham, but when he played Queens, he more than once got himself disqualified by his arguing with officials. He had quite a winning record over Kenny while Lew did better against him but ultimately couldn't keep his talent together over a five setter. By the time Rod came on the scene Gonzales was a little past his best and Rod would often destroy him in straights. As for Rod's silence re where he stands, he did say once that of all the top players he'd seen after he'd retired he figured he'd have the hardest time against Agassi. He also said he never learned to hit his serve as hard as he should have. Maybe that explains why he feared Andre.