I had seen highlights of this match in black and white. It's a thrill to see the complete contest in color. This video is an outstanding contribution to tennis archives and history.
Laver held both balls (white) in his right hand while playing and never guided his backhand stroke with his right. Notice his left arm is 3x the size of his left. No celebration after winning a set or the match. Vince Lombardi once scolded a young player after celebrating a TD saying, "act like you've been there before". It's a different era now in sports. Money has changed the game. Thanks for the upload.
Ashe and Laver crushed the ball, even with wooden racquets! This is classic serve-and-volley tennis. Great quality in the video. Thanks for posting the match.
My thoughts exactly. Ashe really had some power in his serve and a good amount of kick. Surprisingly in the serve power Laver wasn't too far behind. Racket technology has definitely changed the game as now its hit the ball as hard as you can and players don't have time to really come to the net. Wooden racket era there's a limit on how hard one could hit the ball. The only way to win a point was to come to the net and put the ball away. If both players were baseliners it would be all about trying to not make mistakes.
@danguee1 Both great ambassadors of the sport, more importantly than having a court named after them (which is why they got it named after them after all. Players like Connors could've Easily gotten a court named after them- but were too much of jerks/ collecting a paycheck and going off and partying. To each their own, but it's truly an honor one must deserve. & you'd think Nadal would get a court named after him in Paris but no, statue instead, even before he retired 😂
@@Dman9fpIt's not possible to name a stadium after a player from a different country. Nadal will have his stadium in Madrid/Barcelona, Federer in Basel and Djokovic in Belgrade.
@Dman9fp Nadal made the mistake of not being French. The Slams will only name courts after their homegrown legends. Except Wimbledon, where no player’s name is attached to a court. The statues there are only British players, so at least the French Tennis Federation acknowledged Nadal. I still dislike the stadium court at Roland Garros being named for Chatrier instead of Lacoste or at least for all the Musketeers. They get the trophy name; Lenglen gets the trophy and a court. 🤷🏻♂️
Not a chance.. He'd get killed by djokovic Nadal or Federer.. He was a little guy.. Too short to compete with modern players. He was the right player for his era where power wasn't as relevant.
@@Jaz_13-fg1bx He got regularly killed by Gonzalez too, and Hoad when he was fit, and Rosewall. if you watch the re runs of his matches some of his unforced errors are pretty appalling. Ashe wasn't that good either. How he beat Connors in 1975 is one of the great mysteries. actually not, Connors beat himself.
@@jeremyd1021 "He got regularly killed by Gonzalez". You, mean like a 1/3 of the time? *_"They played against each other from 1964 to 1970, and Laver led their head-to-head rivalry 43-22"_*
The game was so different then and much better to watch! It was so much more about about touch and better volleying than today! Rod Laver had the complete game and surely would have the grand slam record if he was able to compete from 63 to 67! Surely the greatest ever tennis player with 2 calender year grand slams! Nobody has done that before or since!
for sure one of the 10 best players ever ....a standard volee or bad hit volee on grass would become a winner thats why I dont like - and dont rate - grass courts ; and the ball doesnt bounce or stay low Roland Garros iis 'my GS' and Borg Vilas Wilander Nadal ' my players'...athletism, technical ability, focus and resilience / never die attitude
Rosewall had the advantage against Laver from 63 to 67. Gonzales missed all his prime in the Grand Slams as did Rosewall and Laver missed part of his prime. All 3 are greats.
All one way? Rosewall won the initial French Open in 1968 when he was 33 and Laver was 29. Rosewall also beat Laver twice in the WCT championships which were best of 5 and the highest paid prize. Lavers last final at a major was 1969 when he won the grand slam whereas Rosewall won 2 Australian opens in 1971 and 72 and made it to the finals of Wimbledon and the US open when he was 39, losing to Connors. Rosewalls record in the Pro Championships was 15 wins 4 losses in the finals, Gonzalex was 12 and 6 and Laver was 8 and 6. I like the Rocket too but all 3 of these players are great champions of their eras just like Roger, Novak, and Rafah are greats of the recent and present era.
I'd say tennis points were high-stakes back then compared to today. Graphite racquets with their large heads, slower surfaces, and baseline-oriented play make it much easier to retrieve, so defensive play is more prominent. I think playing with wood really highlights the advantage of net play because the racquet head is so small and unforgiving that playing from the baseline and expecting winners off the ground is not feasible.
A gem of tennis history. Thank you very much. Arm today's players with these rackets and on that fast grass court and I doubt they would better the quality of tennis played by the greatest of all, and a great.
@@johnholmes912 why would they not "get close"? Impossible to make that assessment without having seen it play out. Wood is obviously harder to play with, but players are still talented and hardworking; why couldn't they play great with wood had they grown up under those times?
Useless to compare eras...and today's player never give props to the old Pro Tour guys who popularized the game for peanuts and oft times got ripped off by corrupt promoters.
I only caught the tail end of Laver's career, from 1968 on, but he remains the best player I've seen. There were wonderful players in the group that followed him, like Ashe, Stan Smith, Tom Okker and most of them were great doubles players, too, unlike today where doubles seems to be specialist teams who don't play singles. Of later generations, Sampras was the best I saw after Laver, and remains so, for me.
The first point are some awesome half-volleys on both wings by Rocket. Roger obviously took notes :) and btw great quality regarding the age and format.
Roger the first time he met Laver (in a car) out of respect did not dare to say a word. He had well-studied The Legend. And skylaxx, really the half-volleys with a wood racquet are pure art...
Ashe's coach told him that if an opponent's shot was an inch out, call it in. Laver's pre-match routine for The US Open was about five gallons of beer until 4am at P J Clarke's. Two gentlemen and tremendous athletes.
Fortunately, there were line judges at the events Ashe played, but I’m sure some of them gave Ashe bad calls. We know that was true in some countries where locals were given preferential calls.
38:42, Ashe had one of the best one-handed backhands. Underrated, in my opinion. He could hit shots like this easily all day, especially on a fast surface.
Rod Laver & Arthur Ashe are undoubtedly two of the greatest players in tennis history, but I have loved a Wimbledon final between Pete Sampras & Bjorn Borg even more, but Rod Laver seems to be an extraordinarily tactical player because of his intelligent moves
Laver, the ultimate master of Tennis and if he stayed as an 'amatuer' he would be holding the record for most Grand Slams won, despite what others may say.
Laver couldn't play any Grand Slams between 1963 -1967 - 20 grand slams, because he was. no longer an amateur. These years were Laver's prime. I estimate he would have won 25 slams if he could have played in those years.
@@marisoltostesonrosen9016 except that his competition would then also have included Gonzalez and Hoad, (maybe the 2 best players of all time) who beat him regularl,y as well as Rosewall, who beat him with frequency and others who had his number on the professional tour. Also he was so ugly!
So you believe he’d have won 14 of 20 Slams? Are you assuming Hoad, Rosewall, Gimeno and the other pros would have been absent in those years? I would politely note that other than his two Grand Slam years, Laver won one Slam in 1960, one in 1961 and one in 1968. I’d certainly say he’s have won at least a handful more if he had remained an amateur, but unless all of the other pros remained banned, your number seems like quite a stretch based on Laver’s other years of play. You’re also not considering the potential of illness or injury. Just a big number.
@@robertwebb3546 I am not sure what you are talking about. Hoad and Gonzalez (especially Pancho) were far better than Laver, as was Rosewall most of the time. Had unfortunately suffered from injuries, but laver himself said that Hoad was the best player. Actually, Gonzalez was, by far, but maybe Laver was prejudiced, coming as he did from nowheresville in Australia
@jeremyd1021 please re-read my comment. The OP said he thought Laver would have ended up with 25 Slams if he hadn’t turned pro. My question was whether he meant Laver would have remained an amateur while the others were ineligible as pros or if they had all been eligible. Hoad was hailed by everyone as one of the great talents the game has known. Gonzalez said he thought Hoad was the only player who would beat him if Gonzalez was playing his best. Laver said Hoad at his best played the best tennis he ever saw. BUT Hoad hurt his back lifting weights in 1957 or 58 and was never the same player. He finally got relief through surgery that fused some of his vertebrae but that was in 1978. The doctor was amazed he could walk let alone play tennis. His bad back contributed to inconsistent play during his pro years. He could beat anyone or lose to anyone, and the scores of the matches reflected the pain he was in in that day. Gonzalez had a 4-11 record against Laver in Open Era matches, but he was 40 and up in those years. My point is that if Hoad, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Gimeno and others were ALL eligible to play during the years Laver was a pro, there’s no way he wins 14 of 20 Slams as OP suggested. Just no way. Even if all of the others remained ineligible, I still can’t see Laver winning 70% of the Slams in those years.
This is a thinking man’s game, love the way they both approach the game, it’s science plus heart. They hangin there staying aggressive even when losing a string of points. They size eachhother up,learn where the likely return will go. Game of geometry chess game.
Ashe's serve is great, and is ahead of it's time for power motion. He keeps the racquet chambered and low behind until quick unloading, similar to Shelton and Roddick.
God Laver I wouldn’t say God as his tennis to me looks only amazing in simplicity and efficiency. I would say that with a different style of play he reminds me of Borg solid predictable and super efficient The magic came from a McEnroe or today Federer
Rod was the Idol of Borg for personality and the Idol of Mc for tennis style. Roger could not say a word for respect in the first meeting with Laver in a car.
@@sebbytennis4298 Excellent. It´s the best way. I enjoy the comparisons but I love all the champions and his different styles. Enjoy the magic of tennis of all times.
Arthur Ashe is one of only four gentlemen who managed to beat Björn Borg at Wimbledon! And if there were a GOAT in tennis (I don´t like comparing different eras), it would surely have to be Rod Laver! No one else came close, really. Even technically, he played better volleys with those tiny wooden frames than Federer does with today´s huge Rolls Royce rackets.
Are you serious what planet are you on. They wouldn't get a game with slice backhands. Come on do you watch today's tennis. Not just the rackets. The size of the players. Laver was 5.8. The technique has changed beyond measure.
@@captainkirk21101967size has nothing to do with it. It's about speed, reflexes, technique, accuracy, etc. Laver was the best returner of serve I have ever seen. He might have got aced a few times, but nobody can keep up that power and consistency for a whole match.
They go out and get the job done. The job being winning grand slam titles and methodically grinding down the opposition. Always on the offensive, always putting angles and pressure and pace on their opponent. Even when they lose they are always applying the pressure. They come to the net like a linebacker going after a running back. End the point. Win the match. On their terms. Offensive tennis at its best from both.
There was nobody like Laver. Not only in his ability, but there was never even a hint of celebratory behavior after hitting a great shot. Tennis is a gentleman's sport, but not as gentlemanly as it used to be.
none of this crap of collecting all the balls before every serve, inspecting them all, throwing back all but two. these guys just take whatever the ballboy tosses to them, and play. so refreshing.
Laver has incredible hands, it’s obvious watching Rod here that McEnroe worshipped Laver , copying his walk, stance, net play. McEnroe and Laver are almost the same person with that left hand. Love the way they both play, no nonsense ,on to the next point, aggressive, to the net.
Thanks to the catchy phrase, grand Slam, the meaning is changed so when you see Rod Laver won two grand slams the reality was, he won all four majors in a calendar year, TWICE! The only GOAT!!!!
S/F and the baselines are still in good shape, how different from modern times and baseline rallies dominating. It was a shame they slowed the grass down, even with the modern rackets and strings there would be a chance for some more serve and volleying. I got bored with constant serve and volley like Edberg v Becker but it would be good to see it being used around 25% of points.
@@thebigmonstaandy6644 What the hell does that mean? Given that S/F means semi-finals - so what's an S/F player? Surely every tournament has 4 S/F players?
What kind of heresy is this? No sitting down on changeovers. No toweling off between points. No asking for all the balls in the stadium on each serve, to inspect God knows what, and then scatter them all over the ground for the ball kids to pick up. No bouncing the ball a hundred times before each serve. No excessive celebratory acts. No berating officials. No obsessive-compulsive disorder rituals before each point. And what is that I see on the majority of the points? Strategy? Not just blasting the hell out of the ball from the backcourt. And what the hell is that on those heavy, wooden frames? Natural, biodegradable gut? Not 21st century, synthetic, environmental unfriendly, nonbiodegradable polimers? What kind of madness is this?
The tennis is so much better then! It was about everything and not just power! Rod Laver the greatest of them all! With Jimmy Connors just behind! Oh Those times were were so much better with great players who all had differing styles whereas all todays players all play the same way!
I thought it was funny to see the greatest player ever, walk off centre court at Wimbledon after winning his semifinal, with just 4 rackets🤣. Players today carry a dozen rackets minimum atleast. The power Ashe had on his first serve was bloody good with that wooden racket. One can only imagine how hard and fast his serve would be with a modern racket and strings, Struth!
At 5-1 in the second with Ashe serving at 15/30 Laver hits a high sliced backhand return that Ashe lets go thinking it is going long. It is called out but the commentator says when it bounced it threw up chalk indicating it caught the line, and Laver and Ashe clearly think it landed in, with Ashe even saying to the linesperson “You’ve got to be kidding.” That’s the kind of person Ashe was; telling a linesperson they should have called the ball in even though that would mean he would lose the point. But the chair umpire doesn’t overrule the call. Laver says nothing, of course, that’s not his way. Nowadays half the pros would argue with the umpire over that kind of call.
Yes, from watching a few of Rod Laver's videos I think that with modern equipment he would have been just as impressive a player in the 90s, if not more.
In my opinion Laver´s service is more fluid than Ivanisevic's. Goran uses his thin and tall body as an explosive accelerator much more than the small Rod that is more static based on the arm and hand to place the ball. Both serves very good from different ages.
On one level I love this - the artistry and variety etc. But it's such a primitive game - those tiny-headed racquets, those string, those ridiculous plimsolls, the uneven grass mean there are too many errors to enjoy fully. I've become accustomed, in the modern game, that only the players make errors - and even those are fairly rare.
laver, ashe, hoad, gonzales, newcombe, roache, emmerson and rosewall all better than to-day's big three; the strength of the field and the skill of the players was so much better then
I don't know about that. Maybe Laver Hoad and Gonzales. Give them the new rackets or the big 3 the old rackets. Nadal would suffer with the old rackets because of his whippy forehand, but Federer and Djokovic have an all-court game they would be fine and could compete with Laver Gonzales and Hoad. They could play old style tennis. That's how Federer beat Sampras, in 2001. He came to the net at lot in that match.
@@derrickc1353 Djokovic trying to beat a legendary S/V player on fast grass with a 65 sq. in. 14 oz. racquet? C’mon, he’d be crushed. The game has completely changed since the 80’s. Sadly, it’s lost a lot of what made it beautiful; geometry, touch, net reflexes, etc.
Yeah, again in these old WImbledon matches we can see why McEnroe later blew up with his phrase "That ball was on the line, chalk flew up!" Kudos to the composure of the players in the Laver/Ashe era, but from these videos I understand why McEnroe did what he did.
Such beautiful tennis. The modern game is impressive but too sterile. Everyone has the same technique, same game strategies and plays the same game. We've lost the unique styles that each great player used to have. Look how little time they take to serve the next point. Players today bounce the ball incessantly, wipe down after every point. It's a bit silly.
No carrying your towel over to the side of the court after each interchange and no 30 seconds in between every single point to go use said towel like in todays game. The pace of play matters and thats why watching a mens 5 set match in todays grand slams feels like watching a whole netflix series in one afternoon. Its grueling.
Ashe was capable of brilliance then a bunch of Blah. Reminds me of Hana Mandlikova,he could beat anyone on any given day but more often than not was not a consistent slam event winner.
Compared to today's matches, that was a highlight reel! They didn't go to the towel after every point, question line calls or fist pump after every winner!
They weren't really playing shots near the line to be questioning them. And nowadays there is a lot more power in the points, the game needs more energy, that's why they are making bigger breaks now. And if you really pay attention to the points, a lot of them were short and you'd win it by making one smart move, unlike now, where you have to play at least 5 winners from that time to have a point. Of course, these were wooden rackets and every sport has developed since that age, but today's game really is a prime of tennis.
If Ashe had gotten more first serves in it would have been much closer. Laver ate his second server alive. Ashe constantly getting first volleys below knee level.
Please, You think the big 3 didn't have these skills? They would be top players in any era using the equipment, training, and nutrition available in that era and the same goes for grand slam champions like Laver and Court. Stupid comments like yours give us all headaches so your screen name is completely appropriate.
The pace of the game is much better than today's game. Why do the players have to waste 2 minutes after every point walking to a towel to dry themselves off??!?!?!!?!
The nowadays-ubiquitous shot type of winner off a short ball off the ground is not present in this match. This actually agrees well with my limited experience with wood, namely it is more difficult to control that kind of shot than a volley.
Part of this is that grass back in the day had terrible consistency of bounce. As such, players didnt spend a lot of time training to put away short balls on grass. This is one of the main reasons serve/volley was THE style. Hit the ball before it can bounce and mess up your shot. This is also why, unfortunately, players from that era have relatively poor groundstroke consistency. They shortened the points tremendously ALSO because they knew trying to play from the back with inconsistent groundstrokes was asking more from their game than they could deliver. So they trained serve / volley, and they played serve volley. Groundstrokes were an exercise in patience to wait till they had half a chance to get to the net. Players from that era would get destroyed today IF THEY PLAYED THE SAME WAY. Read that again. I have no doubt they could play with modern rackets and train in modern ways. They are after all athletes. Did they possess raw skill? Undoubtedly. But if we are to truly compare era's AS IS, then todays players are much better prepared. They have all manner of additional training that gives them an extra 1% here and there, that when you add it all up, is a huge difference.
He probably was. Come to think of it, not many great players wore glasses. There was Drobny in the fifties, and later Clark Graebner, and of course Billie Jean in the ladies. I can't think of too many more.
People making “Big Three” comparisons aren’t thinking this through. With modern equipment, the Big Three beat both of these guys 6-0, 6-0. With wooden rackets, these guys beat the Big Three … maybe not 6-0, 6-0, but very, very badly.
The pace of the shots in this video should put to rest all those lazy and ill informed: "I am club player and I could easily beat (insert earlier era great's name here) comments endemic to youtube tennis videos.
questi giganti dell'epoca fanno ridere al cospetto dei tennisti di oggi ,la loro velocità di movimento è ridicola se confrontata al modo di stare in campo dei tennisti moderni.Jasmin Paolini oggi li avrebbe fatti secchi entrambi 😂
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
I had seen highlights of this match in black and white. It's a thrill to see the complete contest in color. This video is an outstanding contribution to tennis archives and history.
Laver held both balls (white) in his right hand while playing and never guided his backhand stroke with his right. Notice his left arm is 3x the size of his left. No celebration after winning a set or the match. Vince Lombardi once scolded a young player after celebrating a TD saying, "act like you've been there before". It's a different era now in sports. Money has changed the game. Thanks for the upload.
I disagree. I play in USTA and Other leagues, the oldsters are just as worse. They don’t get paid.
Well, he had a 1HBH.. why would he guide it with his non-dominant arm? Or am i missing something?
Idk what you mean by your first sentence
People back in that had class and acted with dignity. People for the most part today are classless garbage, with very few exceptions.
@@shadeyfang8564He means the Rocket did not play with a sissy two-handed backhand
Ashe and Laver crushed the ball, even with wooden racquets! This is classic serve-and-volley tennis. Great quality in the video. Thanks for posting the match.
My thoughts exactly. Ashe really had some power in his serve and a good amount of kick. Surprisingly in the serve power Laver wasn't too far behind.
Racket technology has definitely changed the game as now its hit the ball as hard as you can and players don't have time to really come to the net. Wooden racket era there's a limit on how hard one could hit the ball. The only way to win a point was to come to the net and put the ball away. If both players were baseliners it would be all about trying to not make mistakes.
Ashe would change his Wilson to a Head racket.
I played with Ashe Head Composite back in 1977. Maybe 5% or less power than wood.
@@dansmith9724 Isner,Kyrgius,Groth or Perricard use same serve technigue as Laver and serve fast than 125 mph with eas.
@@thebigmonstaandy6644 how many slams did those 4 guys win? Or slam arenas named after them?
It’s cool to see a match between two men with grand slam arenas named after them.
Laver arena; Ashe stadium.
One of whom won 19 major championships - and the other won 3.
@danguee1 Both great ambassadors of the sport, more importantly than having a court named after them (which is why they got it named after them after all. Players like Connors could've Easily gotten a court named after them- but were too much of jerks/ collecting a paycheck and going off and partying. To each their own, but it's truly an honor one must deserve. & you'd think Nadal would get a court named after him in Paris but no, statue instead, even before he retired 😂
@@Dman9fpIt's not possible to name a stadium after a player from a different country. Nadal will have his stadium in Madrid/Barcelona, Federer in Basel and Djokovic in Belgrade.
@Dman9fp Nadal made the mistake of not being French. The Slams will only name courts after their homegrown legends. Except Wimbledon, where no player’s name is attached to a court. The statues there are only British players, so at least the French Tennis Federation acknowledged Nadal. I still dislike the stadium court at Roland Garros being named for Chatrier instead of Lacoste or at least for all the Musketeers. They get the trophy name; Lenglen gets the trophy and a court. 🤷🏻♂️
This is so impressive. Such purity , grace and quality ... Rod Laver is the greatest player ever.
lol
Not a chance.. He'd get killed by djokovic Nadal or Federer.. He was a little guy.. Too short to compete with modern players. He was the right player for his era where power wasn't as relevant.
@@Jaz_13-fg1bx He got regularly killed by Gonzalez too, and Hoad when he was fit, and Rosewall. if you watch the re runs of his matches some of his unforced errors are pretty appalling. Ashe wasn't that good either. How he beat Connors in 1975 is one of the great mysteries. actually not, Connors beat himself.
@@jeremyd1021 "He got regularly killed by Gonzalez". You, mean like a 1/3 of the time? *_"They played against each other from 1964 to 1970, and Laver led their head-to-head rivalry 43-22"_*
@@danguee1 possible, but laver was 10 years younger. Gonzalez was by far the best. He even beat Jimmy Connors in 1972 when he was about 47
The game was so different then and much better to watch! It was so much more about about touch and better volleying than today! Rod Laver had the complete game and surely would have the grand slam record if he was able to compete from 63 to 67! Surely the greatest ever tennis player with 2 calender year grand slams! Nobody has done that before or since!
That's a matter of taste, I don't think it was better to watch, but it was interesting.
for sure one of the 10 best players ever ....a standard volee or bad hit volee on grass would become a winner thats why I dont like - and dont rate - grass courts ; and the ball doesnt bounce or stay low Roland Garros iis 'my GS' and Borg Vilas Wilander Nadal ' my players'...athletism, technical ability, focus and resilience / never die attitude
Rosewall had the advantage against Laver from 63 to 67. Gonzales missed all his prime in the Grand Slams as did Rosewall and Laver missed part of his prime.
All 3 are greats.
@@Marc-rf9eiRosewall was more experienced than Laver in the early days. Once Laver caught up with him it was all one-way.
All one way? Rosewall won the initial French Open in 1968 when he was 33 and Laver was 29. Rosewall also beat Laver twice in the WCT championships which were best of 5 and the highest paid prize. Lavers last final at a major was 1969 when he won the grand slam whereas Rosewall won 2 Australian opens in 1971 and 72 and made it to the finals of Wimbledon and the US open when he was 39, losing to Connors. Rosewalls record in the Pro Championships was 15 wins 4 losses in the finals, Gonzalex was 12 and 6 and Laver was 8 and 6. I like the Rocket too but all 3 of these players are great champions of their eras just like Roger, Novak, and Rafah are greats of the recent and present era.
I'd say tennis points were high-stakes back then compared to today. Graphite racquets with their large heads, slower surfaces, and baseline-oriented play make it much easier to retrieve, so defensive play is more prominent. I think playing with wood really highlights the advantage of net play because the racquet head is so small and unforgiving that playing from the baseline and expecting winners off the ground is not feasible.
The comment is a year old but spot on.
I Agree too
It’s why evert didn’t win 9 wimbledons, Martina did. Shows what an excellent player evert was to do as well as she did playing 10 Wimbledon finals.
Nailed it and the game was better then and more enjoyable to play and watch
Just wonderful, elegant tennis. Such etiquette and class. No time wasting between points,one or two bounces of the ball,serve..
Lucky enough to hit with Rod several times whenever he was in Encinitas to visit. Such a nice guy.
A gem of tennis history. Thank you very much. Arm today's players with these rackets and on that fast grass court and I doubt they would better the quality of tennis played by the greatest of all, and a great.
Enjoy the old fashion guys, Rajen. Thanks for watch.
they wouldn't get close
@@johnholmes912 why would they not "get close"? Impossible to make that assessment without having seen it play out.
Wood is obviously harder to play with, but players are still talented and hardworking; why couldn't they play great with wood had they grown up under those times?
Useless to compare eras...and today's player never give props to the old Pro Tour guys who popularized the game for peanuts and oft times got ripped off by corrupt promoters.
Except Federer
Thank You for posting a classic Grass Court tennis match.
You welcome
Rod Laver was the finest tennis player I ever saw; Arthur Ashe was right behind him.
I agree. Only Federer near in finest. And Pancho rivalize him with power.
I only caught the tail end of Laver's career, from 1968 on, but he remains the best player I've seen. There were wonderful players in the group that followed him, like Ashe, Stan Smith, Tom Okker and most of them were great doubles players, too, unlike today where doubles seems to be specialist teams who don't play singles. Of later generations, Sampras was the best I saw after Laver, and remains so, for me.
As a true tennis purist.....I love this
I love the way Arthur Ashe moved. He just glided, or floated on the court.
The first point are some awesome half-volleys on both wings by Rocket. Roger obviously took notes :) and btw great quality regarding the age and format.
Roger the first time he met Laver (in a car) out of respect did not dare to say a word. He had well-studied The Legend. And skylaxx, really the half-volleys with a wood racquet are pure art...
Ashe's coach told him that if an opponent's shot was an inch out, call it in.
Laver's pre-match routine for The US Open was about five gallons of beer until 4am at P J Clarke's.
Two gentlemen and tremendous athletes.
Fortunately, there were line judges at the events Ashe played, but I’m sure some of them gave Ashe bad calls. We know that was true in some countries where locals were given preferential calls.
Thanks for posting. I agree 100% with zimo zino. It's a pleasure and a huge treat to see!
Thanks to you bruceschaffer101. Attention to the next classics....
38:42, Ashe had one of the best one-handed backhands. Underrated, in my opinion. He could hit shots like this easily all day, especially on a fast surface.
The Ashe backhand is overlooked, but check out his indoor mastery over Vilas in 61 76 match.
Rod Laver & Arthur Ashe are undoubtedly two of the greatest players in tennis history, but I have loved a Wimbledon final between Pete Sampras & Bjorn Borg even more, but Rod Laver seems to be an extraordinarily tactical player because of his intelligent moves
Borg could handle him easily on clay no match at wimbledon
thanx , i really appreciate this match, genious Laver and Ashe, high level tennis, magic touch
Thanks to you for your love for classic tennis
Remember that there are more games with The God Laver, Ashe, Newcombe, Roche, Rosewall in this channel and several more will come
I'm "homogenizing" the channel and re-upload this match in "One-Pack" with "Black Enmark" and with the "God Laver Mark"
More classics on the way zimo zino....
Laver, the ultimate master of Tennis and if he stayed as an 'amatuer' he would be holding the record for most Grand Slams won, despite what others may say.
Laver couldn't play any Grand Slams between 1963 -1967 - 20 grand slams, because he was. no longer an amateur. These years were Laver's prime. I estimate he would have won 25 slams if he could have played in those years.
@@marisoltostesonrosen9016 except that his competition would then also have included Gonzalez and Hoad, (maybe the 2 best players of all time) who beat him regularl,y as well as Rosewall, who beat him with frequency and others who had his number on the professional tour. Also he was so ugly!
So you believe he’d have won 14 of 20 Slams? Are you assuming Hoad, Rosewall, Gimeno and the other pros would have been absent in those years? I would politely note that other than his two Grand Slam years, Laver won one Slam in 1960, one in 1961 and one in 1968. I’d certainly say he’s have won at least a handful more if he had remained an amateur, but unless all of the other pros remained banned, your number seems like quite a stretch based on Laver’s other years of play. You’re also not considering the potential of illness or injury. Just a big number.
@@robertwebb3546 I am not sure what you are talking about. Hoad and Gonzalez (especially Pancho) were far better than Laver, as was Rosewall most of the time. Had unfortunately suffered from injuries, but laver himself said that Hoad was the best player. Actually, Gonzalez was, by far, but maybe Laver was prejudiced, coming as he did from nowheresville in Australia
@jeremyd1021 please re-read my comment. The OP said he thought Laver would have ended up with 25 Slams if he hadn’t turned pro. My question was whether he meant Laver would have remained an amateur while the others were ineligible as pros or if they had all been eligible. Hoad was hailed by everyone as one of the great talents the game has known. Gonzalez said he thought Hoad was the only player who would beat him if Gonzalez was playing his best. Laver said Hoad at his best played the best tennis he ever saw. BUT Hoad hurt his back lifting weights in 1957 or 58 and was never the same player. He finally got relief through surgery that fused some of his vertebrae but that was in 1978. The doctor was amazed he could walk let alone play tennis. His bad back contributed to inconsistent play during his pro years. He could beat anyone or lose to anyone, and the scores of the matches reflected the pain he was in in that day. Gonzalez had a 4-11 record against Laver in Open Era matches, but he was 40 and up in those years. My point is that if Hoad, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Gimeno and others were ALL eligible to play during the years Laver was a pro, there’s no way he wins 14 of 20 Slams as OP suggested. Just no way. Even if all of the others remained ineligible, I still can’t see Laver winning 70% of the Slams in those years.
This is a thinking man’s game, love the way they both approach the game, it’s science plus heart. They hangin there staying aggressive even when losing a string of points. They size eachhother up,learn where the likely return will go. Game of geometry chess game.
Ashe's serve is great, and is ahead of it's time for power motion. He keeps the racquet chambered and low behind until quick unloading, similar to Shelton and Roddick.
Laver was so good and so technically tactically to the point and seemed to have zero doubt in his mind: incredible!
Laver is God. No doubt.
God Laver I wouldn’t say God as his tennis to me looks only amazing in simplicity and efficiency. I would say that with a different style of play he reminds me of Borg solid predictable and super efficient The magic came from a McEnroe or today Federer
Rod was the Idol of Borg for personality and the Idol of Mc for tennis style. Roger could not say a word for respect in the first meeting with Laver in a car.
God Laver if you don’t mind I’ll just stick to tennis and the way these champions go about their game
@@sebbytennis4298 Excellent. It´s the best way. I enjoy the comparisons but I love all the champions and his different styles. Enjoy the magic of tennis of all times.
Rod Laver really was the master of his racket! The greatest all round tennis player with Jimmy Connors just in arrears!
Connors did not win nearly as much as Tilden, Budge, Rosewall, Gonzalez or the big 3 and he never won the French.
Historical match, film is in good condition 🤩🤩🤩!
Not everyone is aware of the additional obstacles Arthur had to overcome just to be there. Full respect to a true icon.
What were they?
@@s9t5 - look in the mirror...get it? got it? good. You're not as dumb as you pretend.
Yeah - what were they? Obviously, he had to overcome systemic racism in the US. What were the 'additional' obstacles?
None other it just sounds good to say
@@danguee1He was sent to the war ¿Enough?
So young and full of life here!
Arthur Ashe is one of only four gentlemen who managed to beat Björn Borg at Wimbledon!
And if there were a GOAT in tennis (I don´t like comparing different eras), it would surely have to be Rod Laver! No one else came close, really. Even technically, he played better volleys with those tiny wooden frames than Federer does with today´s huge Rolls Royce rackets.
Do not forget Pancho Gonzales.
I wd never class Federer as a great volleyer.
Rosewall 23-12 Laver 19-12 Rosewall 7 Laver 5 in 5 set championship finals not counting 1970 and 1971 wct championships won by Rosewall.
@@marcbrandes9682 No one is ever going to understand what you wrote there. Or what point you're making. And why not count WCT championships?
Today the living legend turns 80. Happy Birthday, Rocket!
skylaxx ,sorry for not answering I was very busy. It's true God Laver reaches 80 !!!!
Its The Week of Legends: August 8, Roger - August 9, Rocket - August 12, Pete Sampras....
Both of these great champions would be able to beat many of today's players. 💪
But not playing with those rackets!
Are you serious what planet are you on. They wouldn't get a game with slice backhands. Come on do you watch today's tennis. Not just the rackets. The size of the players. Laver was 5.8.
The technique has changed beyond measure.
@@captainkirk21101967size has nothing to do with it. It's about speed, reflexes, technique, accuracy, etc. Laver was the best returner of serve I have ever seen. He might have got aced a few times, but nobody can keep up that power and consistency for a whole match.
I think size does matter especially the serve and the wing span.
Two of the greatest champions the sport has ever seen.
The two guys who have stadiums named after them, great chance to see them play against each other.
Laver's gait and his reactions after every point remind me of Federer.
They go out and get the job done. The job being winning grand slam titles and methodically grinding down the opposition. Always on the offensive, always putting angles and pressure and pace on their opponent. Even when they lose they are always applying the pressure. They come to the net like a linebacker going after a running back. End the point. Win the match. On their terms. Offensive tennis at its best from both.
One of Martina’s coaches, Mike Estep use to say, “if they aren’t passing you, you aren’t doing your job.”
There was nobody like Laver. Not only in his ability, but there was never even a hint of celebratory behavior after hitting a great shot. Tennis is a gentleman's sport, but not as gentlemanly as it used to be.
none of this crap of collecting all the balls before every serve, inspecting them all, throwing back all but two. these guys just take whatever the ballboy tosses to them, and play. so refreshing.
Players hit with nowhere near as much topspin as they do today; balls simply didn't wear out as much as they do now.
Its because they were playing for a good meal out (+ the trophy)
James West I think the prize for the champion was £5000
Laver has incredible hands, it’s obvious watching Rod here that McEnroe worshipped Laver , copying his walk, stance, net play. McEnroe and Laver are almost the same person with that left hand. Love the way they both play, no nonsense ,on to the next point, aggressive, to the net.
i think Gonzales and Laver are more simular.
You could remove the hissing background noise in a few minutes if you ran it through a noise reduction part of a lot of sound apps
How smart, clean n' tidy they both look. refreshing methinks!
Thanks to the catchy phrase, grand Slam, the meaning is changed so when you see Rod Laver won two grand slams the reality was, he won all four majors in a calendar year, TWICE! The only GOAT!!!!
Impressive how they just get on with it. For example compare how quickly they get on with their service compared to someone like Djokovic.
And no constant towelling off.
Arthur Ashe looks so different to when he played Connors in 75 at wimbledon!
S/F and the baselines are still in good shape, how different from modern times and baseline rallies dominating. It was a shame they slowed the grass down, even with the modern rackets and strings there would be a chance for some more serve and volleying. I got bored with constant serve and volley like Edberg v Becker but it would be good to see it being used around 25% of points.
wait 5-10 years.S/F players will come.
@@thebigmonstaandy6644 What the hell does that mean? Given that S/F means semi-finals - so what's an S/F player? Surely every tournament has 4 S/F players?
@@danguee1 i suppose S/F = serve and volley player.
@@danguee1maybe in a tournament of 3 players, there’d be 3 semifinalists 😅
This guys come in on both first and second serve every single time. Who comes to net on a second serve? Wow. They’d be passed left & right today.
the last 5'9" Wimbledon champ that we'll ever see.
The same Rod Laver said no place for short men in modern tennis. In this case I´m not agree. Agassi 5'11" made a revolution in 90's tennis.
Near in time Lleyton Hewitt 5'10"
@@starigniter2308 ruclips.net/video/ZVH0Ff9H6jc/видео.html
One day a 4'9" man will win. They're just hard to find. Danny Divito on grass.
Most listings I see have him at 5'8.
The poor gentlemen did not have chairs to sit on between games!!
Old fashion tuff guys. Pre-Nintendo Boys.
Back then there was no stopping on change overs. You just got a quik drink and kept playing.
@@MrPernell27 game was not physically.
Did not show the handshake between the players for some reason.......
How do they hit those low volleys so crisp.
Arthur was a great man.
What kind of heresy is this?
No sitting down on changeovers. No toweling off between points. No asking for all the balls in the stadium on each serve, to inspect God knows what, and then scatter them all over the ground for the ball kids to pick up. No bouncing the ball a hundred times before each serve. No excessive celebratory acts. No berating officials. No obsessive-compulsive disorder rituals before each point. And what is that I see on the majority of the points? Strategy? Not just blasting the hell out of the ball from the backcourt. And what the hell is that on those heavy, wooden frames? Natural, biodegradable gut? Not 21st century, synthetic, environmental unfriendly, nonbiodegradable polimers?
What kind of madness is this?
Old-Fashion Guys. Tuff Guys.
The tennis is so much better then! It was about everything and not just power! Rod Laver the greatest of them all! With Jimmy Connors just behind! Oh Those times were were so much better with great players who all had differing styles whereas all todays players all play the same way!
First game, first seconds, and Laver already made a couple of half-volleys, one of them from the baseline...
I thought it was funny to see the greatest player ever, walk off centre court at Wimbledon after winning his semifinal, with just 4 rackets🤣. Players today carry a dozen rackets minimum atleast.
The power Ashe had on his first serve was bloody good with that wooden racket. One can only imagine how hard and fast his serve would be with a modern racket and strings, Struth!
Yes but they tend not to smash them so 4 are enough
Ashe played with a Head graphite racket for most of his professional career.
At 5-1 in the second with Ashe serving at 15/30 Laver hits a high sliced backhand return that Ashe lets go thinking it is going long. It is called out but the commentator says when it bounced it threw up chalk indicating it caught the line, and Laver and Ashe clearly think it landed in, with Ashe even saying to the linesperson “You’ve got to be kidding.” That’s the kind of person Ashe was; telling a linesperson they should have called the ball in even though that would mean he would lose the point. But the chair umpire doesn’t overrule the call. Laver says nothing, of course, that’s not his way. Nowadays half the pros would argue with the umpire over that kind of call.
Digging up those low volleys with such ease - both men wow
Rod Laver hits the ball hard even with heavy wooden racquets! Wow!
Yes, from watching a few of Rod Laver's videos I think that with modern equipment he would have been just as impressive a player in the 90s, if not more.
Quel âge avaient t-ils ?
NO muestran a Ashe...Al final.??
Notice they don’t have chairs at change of end
wow I didn't know laver's service action was similar to ivanisevic or melzer's service action. Pretty cool to watch
In my opinion Laver´s service is more fluid than Ivanisevic's. Goran uses his thin and tall body as an explosive accelerator much more than the small Rod that is more static based on the arm and hand to place the ball. Both serves very good from different ages.
I agree :) very interesting though to see that classic lefty serve technique pioneered by laver.
Laver was coached as a boy to use a smooth 'Vines' like motion. (Ellsworth Vines 1930's #1)
Its high time to have exhibition matches where modern players played with wooden racquets and classic court conditions.....
you putting up the sponsorship money big man?
two serve and volley masters...and no fist pumping.
Old Fashion. Tuff Guys
any of you vintage guys know what that racket is ashe is using...I know its wilson but...pro staff or ????
Pro staff
this looks pretty damn modern
How were they so consistent with those things??????😳😬😬
As an old wood racket player, you'd be surprised how controlled the ball comes off the strings, gut or nylon.
Great match
On one level I love this - the artistry and variety etc. But it's such a primitive game - those tiny-headed racquets, those string, those ridiculous plimsolls, the uneven grass mean there are too many errors to enjoy fully. I've become accustomed, in the modern game, that only the players make errors - and even those are fairly rare.
laver, ashe, hoad, gonzales, newcombe, roache, emmerson and rosewall all better than to-day's big three; the strength of the field and the skill of the players was so much better then
I would have to counter with borg, connors, nastase, vilas, mcenroe, and gerulaitis, using wood or metal racquets of course
The Quality was much better than 2021,more class more wit.
Impressive Personalities even among the women.
The Rocket Rod Laver would go on to do the Grand slam and Arthur Ashe would have to wait till 1975 to be crowned Wimbledon Champion forever.
I don't know about that. Maybe Laver Hoad and Gonzales. Give them the new rackets or the big 3 the old rackets. Nadal would suffer with the old rackets because of his whippy forehand, but Federer and Djokovic have an all-court game they would be fine and could compete with Laver Gonzales and Hoad. They could play old style tennis. That's how Federer beat Sampras, in 2001. He came to the net at lot in that match.
@@derrickc1353 Djokovic trying to beat a legendary S/V player on fast grass with a 65 sq. in. 14 oz. racquet? C’mon, he’d be crushed. The game has completely changed since the 80’s. Sadly, it’s lost a lot of what made it beautiful; geometry, touch, net reflexes, etc.
Yeah, again in these old WImbledon matches we can see why McEnroe later blew up with his phrase "That ball was on the line, chalk flew up!" Kudos to the composure of the players in the Laver/Ashe era, but from these videos I understand why McEnroe did what he did.
The greatest....Rod Laver
Amazing how the real Laver emerges in the 2nd set.
Such beautiful tennis. The modern game is impressive but too sterile. Everyone has the same technique, same game strategies and plays the same game. We've lost the unique styles that each great player used to have. Look how little time they take to serve the next point. Players today bounce the ball incessantly, wipe down after every point. It's a bit silly.
I don't find today's game impressive at all. One-dimensional and boring.
@@fundhund62 agree,that time,classy,relaxed,all round skill. u can just follow their motive😏👏
So they didn't have chairs to sit down on during changeovers? That's crazy.
Look at Laver owning the net!
No carrying your towel over to the side of the court after each interchange and no 30 seconds in between every single point to go use said towel like in todays game. The pace of play matters and thats why watching a mens 5 set match in todays grand slams feels like watching a whole netflix series in one afternoon. Its grueling.
Ashe was capable of brilliance then a bunch of Blah. Reminds me of Hana Mandlikova,he could beat anyone on any given day but more often than not was not a consistent slam event winner.
Les joueurs ne s'assayaient pas pour se reposer tous les deux jeux ?
Ashe is elegant...
Compared to today's matches, that was a highlight reel! They didn't go to the towel after every point, question line calls or fist pump after every winner!
They weren't really playing shots near the line to be questioning them. And nowadays there is a lot more power in the points, the game needs more energy, that's why they are making bigger breaks now. And if you really pay attention to the points, a lot of them were short and you'd win it by making one smart move, unlike now, where you have to play at least 5 winners from that time to have a point. Of course, these were wooden rackets and every sport has developed since that age, but today's game really is a prime of tennis.
@@95Minja you make some good valid points.
If Ashe had gotten more first serves in it would have been much closer. Laver ate his second server alive. Ashe constantly getting first volleys below knee level.
Damn these guys were good.
Todays players wish they had all these skills
Please, You think the big 3 didn't have these skills? They would be top players in any era using the equipment, training, and nutrition available in that era and the same goes for grand slam champions like Laver and Court. Stupid comments like yours give us all headaches so your screen name is completely appropriate.
Before Tie Breaks / Chairs / Multi Millionaire players shouting at umpires / Hawk Eye / Social Media / 32 Stroke Rallies /
The pace of the game is much better than today's game. Why do the players have to waste 2 minutes after every point walking to a towel to dry themselves off??!?!?!!?!
I think Ashe played better with a wood racket than he did later on with the Head comp.
Lavers left arm was massive... noticeably so
Damn..Ashe was a beast!!
The nowadays-ubiquitous shot type of winner off a short ball off the ground is not present in this match. This actually agrees well with my limited experience with wood, namely it is more difficult to control that kind of shot than a volley.
Part of this is that grass back in the day had terrible consistency of bounce. As such, players didnt spend a lot of time training to put away short balls on grass. This is one of the main reasons serve/volley was THE style. Hit the ball before it can bounce and mess up your shot.
This is also why, unfortunately, players from that era have relatively poor groundstroke consistency. They shortened the points tremendously ALSO because they knew trying to play from the back with inconsistent groundstrokes was asking more from their game than they could deliver. So they trained serve / volley, and they played serve volley. Groundstrokes were an exercise in patience to wait till they had half a chance to get to the net.
Players from that era would get destroyed today IF THEY PLAYED THE SAME WAY. Read that again.
I have no doubt they could play with modern rackets and train in modern ways. They are after all athletes. Did they possess raw skill? Undoubtedly. But if we are to truly compare era's AS IS, then todays players are much better prepared. They have all manner of additional training that gives them an extra 1% here and there, that when you add it all up, is a huge difference.
Wonder how he would hold up in the Open Era against today's players.
today's equipment, training and nutrition? A champ.
No 12 bounces nor elaborate rituals for serving…they just get right to it
Completely different game to today with tiny wooden racquets.
On voyait très bien les balles avec les balles blanches à la télévision. Pourquoi avoir imposé les balles jaunes dans ce cas?
Was Ashe the last great player to wear glasses?
He probably was. Come to think of it, not many great players wore glasses. There was Drobny in the fifties, and later Clark Graebner, and of course Billie Jean in the ladies. I can't think of too many more.
People making “Big Three” comparisons aren’t thinking this through.
With modern equipment, the Big Three beat both of these guys 6-0, 6-0.
With wooden rackets, these guys beat the Big Three … maybe not 6-0, 6-0, but very, very badly.
Just to think all the current players like Novak and Rafa were not even conceived when Ashe and Rod played this match
amazing how they just get on with it, none of the crazy time wasting you have today.
Well if it's 1969, we know who won this match.
AUSTRALIAN OPEN VS. US OPEN
The pace of the shots in this video should put to rest all those lazy and ill informed: "I am club player and I could easily beat (insert earlier era great's name here) comments endemic to youtube tennis videos.
questi giganti dell'epoca fanno ridere al cospetto dei tennisti di oggi ,la loro velocità di movimento è ridicola se confrontata al modo di stare in campo dei tennisti moderni.Jasmin Paolini oggi li avrebbe fatti secchi entrambi 😂
If she played with the same wooden racquet and same shoes as Laver or Ashe, she would lose 6-0 6-0.
In Hartford CT with my brother Paul, I believe in the early to mid-seventies, I saw Ashe defeat Laver for the first time on a fast carpet court.
@@brianboucher4248 I envy you, Brian... Greetings from Argentina....
Was one month old. Rocket was some player
Why would anyone care how old you were?
@@zeddeka ok troll.