[轉錄]Who is the best ever?
Who is the best ever?
We finally present the case of Sampras vs. Laver
Posted: Monday October 6, 2003 3:51PM; Updated: Monday October 6, 2003 3:52PM
Though I did none of the heavy lifting, I'm pampering myself by going on
paternity leave this week. I'll be back next Monday for our usual half-baked,
online tennis kaffeeklatsch, but I figured this would be a good time to let
you guys sound off.
Herewith, our long-awaited discussion: Who rightfully deserves to be called
"The Best Tennis Player of all Time -- Rod Laver or Pete Sampras?" Sure, it
would easy to call Laver the best player of his generation, Sampras the best
player in the modern/Open era and leave it at that. But doing so would be
entirely too diplomatic and controversy-free. Plus, I would still have to
write a column this week.
As a preliminary note, designating anyone as "the best ever" in a given field
is a) ultimately pointless and b) ultimately becomes an exercise in Clintonian
phrase-parsing. Does "best" mean the most skilled practitioner ever to draw
breath? Or does "best" mean most accomplished? Or is there some alternative,
pastiche-y definition that is sensitive to history while accounting for the
fact that modern athletes are more evolved than their predecessors? In this
case, I think even the most ardent Laverite has to concede that if both players
are at their best, using equal technology, playing on a neutral surface,
Sampras likely wins a head-to-head match. Likewise, the most zealous
Pete-a-phile, if you will, must admit that on paper, Laver is superior by
virtually every measure.
Before we go further, I think it bears pointing out that this topic generated
a fair of amount of disagreement in the press room during the U.S. Open. In a
highly unscientific straw poll, I'd say the vote was 60-40 for Laver, telling
me that, if nothing else, this is ripe for spirited debate and no one is
"crazy/moronic/high" for choosing either player. (We're less inclined to
accept the case for Bjorn Borg, Bill Tilden, etc.)
Anyway, as I tried to articulate a few weeks ago, my vote goes to Sampras.
I know, I know. Laver beats him on clay. Laver would have eclipsed Pete's
record of 14 career Slams had he played in the Open era. Laver was a better
doubles player. Laver had more rivals. Laver didn't have the luxury of flying
the Concorde, employing a personal masseuse, playing with graphite or Luxilon
string. (Plus Pete was dreadfully boring, wore white after Labor Day, used the
wrong fork and denied your niece Madison an autograph at LAX.)
But I still have a hard time dismissing Sampras' singular focus -- six straight
years at No.1 -- and his ability to summon superior tennis when the stakes
were highest. What's more, last year at Wimbledon I had occasion to watch a
clip of Laver against Ken Rosewall, at least I think it was Rosewall. I knew
there weren't going to be 120 mph serves or forehands that left skid marks on
the court. But the tennis resembled the contemporary women's game. Lots of
consistency and entertaining rallies, but lots of balls batted back innocuously
to the middle or the court, lots of gimme volleys that floated back to the
opponent. Lots of lobs (that today's players would smash back unreturnably)
that were, instead, allowed to bounce and then returned meekly. It was also
hard not to help think that the most marginal player today -- say, a Sargis
Sargsian, who is fast and well-conditioned and consistent and solid; but won't
win any Majors and can barely even smell the top 20 -- has a repertoire of
shots that compares favorably to the top players from 30 and 40 years ago.
This is nothing against Laver or his contemporaries, who, viewed with
historical sensitivity, were tremendous in their own right. It's the natural
evolution of sports. Something would be profoundly wrong if Barry Bonds
couldn't hit Cy Young, if Warren Sapp couldn't beat Dick Butkus in a footrace,
if George Mikan could school Shaquille O'Neal, if Serena Williams couldn't
overpower Chris Evert or Billie Jean King.
Anyway, I'm sticking with Pete. We've disagreed before and we'll disagree again
Here's a sample from the vox populi. Thanks to everyone who wrote in. See you
next week, same time and place.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's tempting to declare Sampras as the best ever -- but my vote goes to Laver.
Sampras never won the Grand Slam; Laver won it twice -- as an amateur and then
as a pro. Then there were all those years when Laver wasn't eligible for Grand
Slam events. So the comparison between Sampras and Laver is not made on a level
playing field. And, yes, to win a Grand Slam you have to win on clay, which
Sampras failed to do. He should have prevailed at the French Open if he is to
be compared to Laver.
--David Doig, Grafton, Ontario
I disagree with your judgment that Sampras is the best ever. At the very least,
you could have said it is a tie between Pete and Laver. How could you just
sweep aside the French Open as part of the barometer when deciding who is the
greatest? Sampras certainly tried his hardest to win it year in and year out,
and never did. If he had won it at least once, then I would say he is the
greatest. Just because Americans don't do well in the French, the tournament
is now dismissed? I guess I have to wait for an American to win the French
before you give the tournament its due. Really, Wertheim, you've lost your
marbles on this one.
--Tony, Italy
The problem with tennis is that we don't have stats to back things up. You and
many others have anointed Sampras as the greatest ever. OK, I can see why
because of his 14 majors. However, we have to examine the fact that Sampras
played in the Open era. Sampras, like another Pete (Rose) is an accumulator of
titles because he played in a lot of majors. Does anyone call Rose the best
hitter ever because he has the most hits? Don't get me wrong, he was a great
player -- but certainly not the best. If you are going to say a person is the
best, back it up with stats. Major titles won is important, but if that's the
end-all, then Roy Emerson is the second-best player ever -- and obviously
that's not true.
--Raymond, Manhasset, N.Y.
The rise of Pete Sampras didn't happen when he first beat Andre Agassi. It
happened in the 1990 U.S. Open when he defeated Ivan Lendl in the round-of-16
to first reach the semis before beating Agassi in the Final. Lendl had been
in the U.S. Open Final for a record eight straight years and was ranked No. 1
at the time. Nobody liked Lendl, but he was one of the all-time greats until
Sampras broke all these records. Pete is great, but please remember it was
Lendl whose game and habits paved the way for Pete and it's some of Lendl's
records that Pete has broken.
--Cedric Moffett, Merritt Island, Fla.
Your comments about Sampras being the best ever do not hold water and are
overly simplistic. There are many other factors to be considered when comparing him
to Laver. This is not to detract from Pete's achievements, which have been
tremendous, but consider the following:
Tennis was still an amateur sport during the Laver era and he was excluded
from all Grand Slams until the Open era began in 1968.
The racket in the Laver era was not like today's monstrosities. The emphasis
back then was on pure skill and shot placement, as well as power.
Today's players don't exert as much energy as they did during the Laver era.
Back then, there were no tiebreaks (at least not until the early '70s),
players were not allowed to sit down during the changeover and matches went
on much longer.
Laver was also an accomplished doubles player and actively participated in
mixed doubles. Is Sampras one of the all-time greats? Absolutely. Is he the
best ever? Not a chance.
--Tony Smidowicz, Holbrook N.Y.
Rod Laver himself declared Sampras "the best tennis player of all time." In
my mind, despite not winning the French Open, Sampras has proved that he is
the best player of his generation. If we say that the last generation of tennis
players was superior to previous generations, then ipso facto, Sampras is the
greatest of all time.
--Bev Broadman, Arlington, Mass.
Sampras won more Grand Slams, but for a long period of time, Laver couldn't
even participate in a Slam. Laver would have won more Slams if he could have
played in them. However, if the best pros had not been skimmed off the top by
the lure of the professional ranks, Laver never would have won the Slam in '62.
Finally, depth of field adds a variable that can't be accurately evaluated in
terms of how it affects Slam wins. Pete obviously competed against a much
deeper field, how much that affected his chances of winning Slam events is
anyone's guess. Finally, the changes in of racket technology adds another
unknown. Would Pete's superior athleticism matter as much with wood, which sets
certain limits on shot-making? Would Laver's tree-trunk of an arm matter as
much if he had the advantages of modern racquet technology? Let's call it a
draw.
--Laine Torgrud, Winnipeg, Canada
Do you really think Sampras is the best ever? Would he have as many Grand Slam
titles as Rod Laver if Sampras had not been allowed to enter Grand Slam
tournaments for a bunch of years in the prime of his career? I don't think so.
While I would agree that Sampras may be the best grass-court player ever and
maybe even the best hard-court player ever, he has never made a dent on clay.
Laver and Rosewall won Grand Slam titles on both grass and clay, which were
the only surfaces used in major tournaments in their heyday. I have real
trouble anointing Sampras as the best ever when he never won the French or even
came close.
--Jack Wallace, Atlanta
I am sure that Sampras' 14 Slams are more impressive than Borg's 11, especially
considering that the era during which each man played represented the most
extreme change in surfaces (and therefore, a completely different field of
serious competitors). Had there been no Borg, Guillermo Vilas would have
undoubtedly been the premier clay-courter. Instead, it was Borg, who was also
the dominant grass-court player of his generation. And despite playing five
more years than Borg, Sampras won only two more professional tournaments. So
are the accomplishments of players such as Borg unfairly discounted in the
rush to ordain Sampras the greatest ever?
--Darin Tuggle, Atlanta
Sampras is the best ever? How can this be? His French Open results are a joke.
Without his serve, he wouldn't be ranked in the top 20 all time. The French
Open clearly tells the story. The serve isn't a big factor on clay, and
Sampras' ground stroke was inferior to that of many players. He may be the
best server of all time, but definitely not the best player.
--William O'Brien, San Diego
I must take umbrage at your declaration of Sampras being unequivocally the
"best ever." Laver was 11-5 in Grand Slam Finals -- that's not quite as
impressive as Pete's 14-4 mark, but remember Laver was an amateur for a lot of
his career. Laver also had to face tougher competition, and won the French
twice. I'm not saying Laver is the greatest and I'm not saying Pete isn't, but
to compare the two we must make a lot of assumptions. And to quote Maxwell
Smart, Secret Agent 86, when we assume we make "ass" of "u" and "me."
--Anthony, Redwood City, Calif.
Jon Wertheim's Mailbag:
Sports Illustrated senior writer Jon Wertheim covers tennis for the magazine
and is a regular contributor to SI.com.
--
‧ ★ ◣▁▂▃▅▄▂▁_ █▇▉◢▇◣◢▇◣█◣▉◢▇▉█▇▉◢▇◣█▇◣
▂▄▅◢█ ▁▃▅ ▉▉▉█ ▉█ ▉██▉█▅▆ █ █▆▉█▅█
▄▂◥█◤▁▃▅█ ˙ ‧ ▉▉▉◥█◤◥█◤█◥▉▇▅◤ █ █ ▉█◥▆
˙ ▆▄▂█▆▅▃▂▁_盈月與繁星 歡迎蒞臨參觀 ms.twbbs.org IP：210.201.78.53
盈月與繁星提供您免費撥接 帳號：cf06 密碼：cf06 電話：40508888(全省通用)
※ Origin: 盈月與繁星 (MoonStar.twbbs.org) ◆ From: 61.62.37.49
--
[Modified by SamSampras] From: 61.62.37.49(03/10/11 7:00:59 )
--
[Modified by SamSampras] From: 61.62.37.49(03/10/11 7:03:44 )
Sampras 近期熱門文章
PTT體育區 即時熱門文章
15
21
