Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Rod Laver doco 50 years after 1st Grand Slam
66 views
Skip to first unread message
DavidW
Oct 8, 2012, 7:18:44 PM10/8/12
to
http://www.abc.net.au/austory/
- - - - -
The Slam - Part One
08/10/2012
Introduced by Caroline Jones and including interviews with Roger Federer, John
Newcombe, Ken Rosewall, Tony Roche and others.
In this fiftieth anniversary year of Rod Laver's first tennis Grand Slam,
Australian Story revisits a golden era in the sport when Australia ruled the
courts, manners mattered and Rod Laver was king of them all.
Laver, the 'Rockhampton Rocket' remains the player most revered by today's top
professionals. World Number One Roger Federer was overcome with public tears
when he received a trophy from Laver.
Laver's record of winning the Grand Slam TWICE (all four major singles titles in
one year) remains unsurpassed. There is consensus that it will be impossible for
any player to ever emulate that feat.
With access to family and friends - here and in the USA - plus interviews with
some of the biggest names in tennis, and unseen archival and behind the scenes
footage, Australian Story profiles his extraordinary life.
And in the story of Rod and his American wife Mary, the program uncovers a
personal saga of love and devotion in the face of adversity.
- - - - -
The full video is on the site. There's a lot of good stuff in it. I don't know
if it's geo-blocked because I live in Aus (did you get that, Scott?). If it is
there's also a transcript. Part 2 is next week.
A couple of choice quotes on turning pro:
Newk: "The glamour's gone. No more Wimbledons, no more Davis Cup."
Neale Fraser: "You were feted and recognized and sought after because of this
sport, whereas if you went off and played professionally you were soon forgotten
playing in town halls and things like that."
In other words, professional tennis had _zero_ prestige, whereas the slams
maintained their prestige. That ought to put an end to the ridiculous
proposition that Pancho Gonzales was the GOAT, or even a GOAT candidate. He won
two USOs and that's all.
Finally, "Rockhampton Rocket" was an ironic nickname (these are very common in
Australia). Laver got it because early in his career he was slow.
- - - - -
The Slam - Part One
08/10/2012
Introduced by Caroline Jones and including interviews with Roger Federer, John
Newcombe, Ken Rosewall, Tony Roche and others.
In this fiftieth anniversary year of Rod Laver's first tennis Grand Slam,
Australian Story revisits a golden era in the sport when Australia ruled the
courts, manners mattered and Rod Laver was king of them all.
Laver, the 'Rockhampton Rocket' remains the player most revered by today's top
professionals. World Number One Roger Federer was overcome with public tears
when he received a trophy from Laver.
Laver's record of winning the Grand Slam TWICE (all four major singles titles in
one year) remains unsurpassed. There is consensus that it will be impossible for
any player to ever emulate that feat.
With access to family and friends - here and in the USA - plus interviews with
some of the biggest names in tennis, and unseen archival and behind the scenes
footage, Australian Story profiles his extraordinary life.
And in the story of Rod and his American wife Mary, the program uncovers a
personal saga of love and devotion in the face of adversity.
- - - - -
The full video is on the site. There's a lot of good stuff in it. I don't know
if it's geo-blocked because I live in Aus (did you get that, Scott?). If it is
there's also a transcript. Part 2 is next week.
A couple of choice quotes on turning pro:
Newk: "The glamour's gone. No more Wimbledons, no more Davis Cup."
Neale Fraser: "You were feted and recognized and sought after because of this
sport, whereas if you went off and played professionally you were soon forgotten
playing in town halls and things like that."
In other words, professional tennis had _zero_ prestige, whereas the slams
maintained their prestige. That ought to put an end to the ridiculous
proposition that Pancho Gonzales was the GOAT, or even a GOAT candidate. He won
two USOs and that's all.
Finally, "Rockhampton Rocket" was an ironic nickname (these are very common in
Australia). Laver got it because early in his career he was slow.
number_six
Oct 8, 2012, 7:51:55 PM10/8/12
to
On Oct 8, 4:18 pm, "DavidW" wrote:
> http://www.abc.net.au/austory/
>
> snip <
> http://www.abc.net.au/austory/
>
> snip <
> Laver's record of winning the Grand Slam TWICE (all four major singles titles in
> one year) remains unsurpassed. There is consensus that it will be impossible for
> any player to ever emulate that feat.
Unsurpassed? Nay, it remains *unequaled*.
> one year) remains unsurpassed. There is consensus that it will be impossible for
> any player to ever emulate that feat.
TT
Oct 8, 2012, 8:33:26 PM10/8/12
to
9.10.2012 2:18, DavidW kirjoitti:
Oh, it's been 50 years already. How time flies...
:-P
> In other words, professional tennis had _zero_ prestige, whereas the slams
> maintained their prestige.
Exatly. That is why Emerson is seen as one of the true greats. Oh wait...
Oh, it's been 50 years already. How time flies...
:-P
> In other words, professional tennis had _zero_ prestige, whereas the slams
> maintained their prestige.
TT
Oct 8, 2012, 8:36:50 PM10/8/12
to
9.10.2012 2:18, DavidW kirjoitti:
> Newk: "The glamour's gone. No more Wimbledons, no more Davis Cup."
>
Ouch. NO MORE DAVIS CUP. Ouch.
>
DavidW
Oct 8, 2012, 9:27:29 PM10/8/12
to
DavidW
Oct 8, 2012, 9:29:02 PM10/8/12
to
to ever emulate that feat." It's very difficult, but not impossible and some
super future player might do it.
pltrgyst
Oct 8, 2012, 10:58:57 PM10/8/12
to
On 10/8/12 7:18 PM, DavidW wrote:
> In other words, professional tennis had _zero_ prestige, whereas the slams
> maintained their prestige. That ought to put an end to the ridiculous
> proposition that Pancho Gonzales was the GOAT, or even a GOAT candidate. He won
> two USOs and that's all.
How many slams did Hoad win? How many years did he stay at the top of
> In other words, professional tennis had _zero_ prestige, whereas the slams
> maintained their prestige. That ought to put an end to the ridiculous
> proposition that Pancho Gonzales was the GOAT, or even a GOAT candidate. He won
> two USOs and that's all.
the heap?
Are you really that simple, or just young and unread?
-- Larry
DavidW
Oct 8, 2012, 11:16:02 PM10/8/12
to
tennis was seen at the time - it was nothing more than a series of meaningless
exos.
Here's another quote:
JOHN NEWCOMBE: In those days there were two distinct ranks of players: there
were the amateurs and the professionals. As an amateur you could play in all the
Grand Slam tournaments and Davis Cup of course. And if you were really good you
could just eke a living out of it. The glamour of course was on the amateur
side, because with Davis Cup you got that great recognition within your country.
And if you could win Wimbledon or do well there you got international
recognition. The professionals had their own circuit and they had eight to 16
guys that used to travel around and play their own little tournaments and play
exhibition matches against one another. It was a hard life, and often it was
night after night, town after town. But they made good money.
So, eight to 16 players. It was like one Kooyong after another, and just as
important. That's my point. There was no legacy value. Players like Pancho
exchanged their historical significance and importance for money.
Carey
Oct 9, 2012, 12:48:30 AM10/9/12
to
the OE.
There was *always* an ongoing assessment by the cogniscenti of the
relative positions of the Pro and Shamateur players.. it's unfortunate
that
Aussies-at-large have such an inferiority complex so as to need
external
validation by the masses. Ah, well..
Whisper
Oct 9, 2012, 6:05:12 AM10/9/12
to
Whisper
Oct 9, 2012, 6:06:52 AM10/9/12
to
On 9/10/2012 1:58 PM, pltrgyst wrote:
> On 10/8/12 7:18 PM, DavidW wrote:
>
>> In other words, professional tennis had _zero_ prestige, whereas the
>> slams
>> maintained their prestige. That ought to put an end to the ridiculous
>> proposition that Pancho Gonzales was the GOAT, or even a GOAT
>> candidate. He won
>> two USOs and that's all.
>
> How many slams did Hoad win? How many years did he stay at the top of
> the heap?
He was literally 1 match away from the calendar slam, falling at the
> On 10/8/12 7:18 PM, DavidW wrote:
>
>> In other words, professional tennis had _zero_ prestige, whereas the
>> slams
>> maintained their prestige. That ought to put an end to the ridiculous
>> proposition that Pancho Gonzales was the GOAT, or even a GOAT
>> candidate. He won
>> two USOs and that's all.
>
> How many slams did Hoad win? How many years did he stay at the top of
> the heap?
last hurdle in USO final.
Whisper
Oct 9, 2012, 6:07:45 AM10/9/12
to
for cash.
Whisper
Oct 9, 2012, 6:09:38 AM10/9/12
to
Hopman who said the amateurs were better - but the pro titles they
played for had zero prestige. Laver himself admits it.
TT
Oct 9, 2012, 4:12:14 PM10/9/12
to
Now if Djokovic, Nadal, Federer, Murray and rest of current top ten
wouldn't play at Wimbledon, how much "historical significance" would
that title have?
Yeah, none.
guyana
Oct 9, 2012, 4:36:46 PM10/9/12
to
Newc is the biggest jerk around, no backhand chump!
MBDunc
Oct 9, 2012, 5:31:05 PM10/9/12
to as...@dprk.kp
tiistai, 9. lokakuuta 2012 23.12.13 UTC+3 TT kirjoitti:
>
> Now if Djokovic, Nadal, Federer, Murray and rest of current top ten
>
> wouldn't play at Wimbledon, how much "historical significance" would
>
> that title have?
You can easily test this: Try to remember - without looking it up - who won Wimbledon 1973...(when every top player but Nastase - who lost early - boycotted the event).
>
> Now if Djokovic, Nadal, Federer, Murray and rest of current top ten
>
> wouldn't play at Wimbledon, how much "historical significance" would
>
> that title have?
.mikko
TT
Oct 9, 2012, 5:51:20 PM10/9/12
to
Joe Ramirez
Oct 9, 2012, 6:11:19 PM10/9/12
to
precisely *because* he won such an unusual Wimbledon.
DavidW
Oct 9, 2012, 7:36:21 PM10/9/12
to
discussion and "Aussies-at-large have such an inferiority complex so as to need
Whisper
Oct 10, 2012, 3:09:17 AM10/10/12
to
smart, as that's a chance gone forever.
Whisper
Oct 10, 2012, 3:12:27 AM10/10/12
to
He was a multi slam champ & finalist at 3 of the slams - very worthy
Wimbledon champ.
Wimbledon loses no prestige here. Kodes improved his chances
dramatically due to some top players staying away (note Borg & Connors
played).
Dave Hazelwood
Oct 10, 2012, 6:21:50 AM10/10/12
to
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 18:09:17 +1100, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:
Yeah but still better than losing in R2 to #100 in the world no?
wrote:
Sakari Lund
Oct 10, 2012, 10:17:31 AM10/10/12
to
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 18:12:27 +1100, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:
>On 10/10/2012 8:31 AM, MBDunc wrote:
>> tiistai, 9. lokakuuta 2012 23.12.13 UTC+3 TT kirjoitti:
>>>
>>> Now if Djokovic, Nadal, Federer, Murray and rest of current top ten
>>>
>>> wouldn't play at Wimbledon, how much "historical significance" would
>>>
>>> that title have?
>>
>> You can easily test this: Try to remember - without looking it up - who won Wimbledon 1973...(when every top player but Nastase - who lost early - boycotted the event).
>>
>> .mikko
>>
>
>
>Jan Kodes.
Everyone knows that exactly because it is a famous case because of the
boycott.
wrote:
>On 10/10/2012 8:31 AM, MBDunc wrote:
>> tiistai, 9. lokakuuta 2012 23.12.13 UTC+3 TT kirjoitti:
>>>
>>> Now if Djokovic, Nadal, Federer, Murray and rest of current top ten
>>>
>>> wouldn't play at Wimbledon, how much "historical significance" would
>>>
>>> that title have?
>>
>> You can easily test this: Try to remember - without looking it up - who won Wimbledon 1973...(when every top player but Nastase - who lost early - boycotted the event).
>>
>> .mikko
>>
>
>
>Jan Kodes.
boycott.
Arnab
Oct 10, 2012, 1:03:42 PM10/10/12
to
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 1:12:28 PM UTC+6, Whisper wrote:
> On 10/10/2012 8:31 AM, MBDunc wrote:
>
> > tiistai, 9. lokakuuta 2012 23.12.13 UTC+3 TT kirjoitti:
>
> >>
>
> >> Now if Djokovic, Nadal, Federer, Murray and rest of current top ten
>
> >>
>
> >> wouldn't play at Wimbledon, how much "historical significance" would
>
> >>
>
> >> that title have?
>
> >
>
> > You can easily test this: Try to remember - without looking it up - who won Wimbledon 1973...(when every top player but Nastase - who lost early - boycotted the event).
>
> >
>
> > .mikko
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Jan Kodes.
>
>
>
> He was a multi slam champ & finalist at 3 of the slams - very worthy
>
> Wimbledon champ.
>
But you didn't see this final. You were a 7 year old boy in Croatia and 7 years away from watching your first ever tennis match, in your own words.
> On 10/10/2012 8:31 AM, MBDunc wrote:
>
> > tiistai, 9. lokakuuta 2012 23.12.13 UTC+3 TT kirjoitti:
>
> >>
>
> >> Now if Djokovic, Nadal, Federer, Murray and rest of current top ten
>
> >>
>
> >> wouldn't play at Wimbledon, how much "historical significance" would
>
> >>
>
> >> that title have?
>
> >
>
> > You can easily test this: Try to remember - without looking it up - who won Wimbledon 1973...(when every top player but Nastase - who lost early - boycotted the event).
>
> >
>
> > .mikko
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Jan Kodes.
>
>
>
> He was a multi slam champ & finalist at 3 of the slams - very worthy
>
> Wimbledon champ.
>
My question is how on earth can you give off a vibe in your posts as if you lived through this era as a spectator and make authoritative comments about it?
You're full of shit. Stop the posturing.
Whisper
Oct 10, 2012, 3:12:17 PM10/10/12
to
Sakari Lund
Oct 10, 2012, 5:22:58 PM10/10/12
to
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 06:12:17 +1100, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>
So? Everyone doesn't know those, but I was saying that everyone knows
Kodes won in 1973.
Kodes won in 1973.
DavidW
Oct 10, 2012, 9:18:54 PM10/10/12
to
DavidW wrote:
>
> Here's another quote:
> JOHN NEWCOMBE: ... And if
>
> Here's another quote:
> you could win Wimbledon or do well there you got international
> recognition....
Notice no mention of the other slams. Wimbledon was the big one.
Whisper
Oct 11, 2012, 1:04:37 AM10/11/12
to
On 11/10/2012 4:03 AM, Arnab wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 1:12:28 PM UTC+6, Whisper wrote:
>> On 10/10/2012 8:31 AM, MBDunc wrote:
>>
>>> tiistai, 9. lokakuuta 2012 23.12.13 UTC+3 TT kirjoitti:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Now if Djokovic, Nadal, Federer, Murray and rest of current top ten
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> wouldn't play at Wimbledon, how much "historical significance" would
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> that title have?
>>
>>>
>>
>>> You can easily test this: Try to remember - without looking it up - who won Wimbledon 1973...(when every top player but Nastase - who lost early - boycotted the event).
>>
>>>
>>
>>> .mikko
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jan Kodes.
>>
>>
>>
>> He was a multi slam champ & finalist at 3 of the slams - very worthy
>>
>> Wimbledon champ.
>>
>
> But you didn't see this final. You were a 7 year old boy in Croatia
Sydney
> On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 1:12:28 PM UTC+6, Whisper wrote:
>> On 10/10/2012 8:31 AM, MBDunc wrote:
>>
>>> tiistai, 9. lokakuuta 2012 23.12.13 UTC+3 TT kirjoitti:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Now if Djokovic, Nadal, Federer, Murray and rest of current top ten
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> wouldn't play at Wimbledon, how much "historical significance" would
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> that title have?
>>
>>>
>>
>>> You can easily test this: Try to remember - without looking it up - who won Wimbledon 1973...(when every top player but Nastase - who lost early - boycotted the event).
>>
>>>
>>
>>> .mikko
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jan Kodes.
>>
>>
>>
>> He was a multi slam champ & finalist at 3 of the slams - very worthy
>>
>> Wimbledon champ.
>>
>
> But you didn't see this final. You were a 7 year old boy in Croatia
> and 7 years away from watching your first ever tennis match, in your own words.
>
> My question is how on earth can you give off a vibe in your posts as if you lived through this era as a spectator and make authoritative comments about it?
>
> You're full of shit. Stop the posturing.
>
weren't there in person right? What's the difference watching it on tv
live or 50 yrs ago? It's still just video on a tv screen either way.
MBDunc
Oct 11, 2012, 2:02:09 AM10/11/12
to
On Thursday, October 11, 2012 12:22:56 AM UTC+3, Sakari Lund wrote:
> >Nope. I know every Wimbledon finalist & score in open era. So? Everyone doesn't know those, but I was saying that everyone knows Kodes won in 1973.
...yep here...but I bet 80% tennis oriented journalists do not know it without looking it up...
> >Nope. I know every Wimbledon finalist & score in open era. So? Everyone doesn't know those, but I was saying that everyone knows Kodes won in 1973.
Harder question: Who did Kodes beat in Wimb final?
(as whisper pointed out: Kodes had creds...2 FO:s and 2 time finalist in USO...one of those "proofs" that even tier2 players of that era could do good job it in all surfaces).
.mikko
Whisper
Oct 11, 2012, 3:29:48 AM10/11/12
to
& made 3 of the 4 slam finals. He also lost a close 5 set USO final on
grass to Newk, so no reason someone with those credentials couldn't win
Wimbledon.
The only losers are the guy who stay away & then bitch about it. Do
they think anyone cares about their crying?
Whisper
Oct 11, 2012, 4:56:48 AM10/11/12
to
On 11/10/2012 5:02 PM, MBDunc wrote:
> On Thursday, October 11, 2012 12:22:56 AM UTC+3, Sakari Lund wrote:
>> >Nope. I know every Wimbledon finalist & score in open era. So? Everyone doesn't know those, but I was saying that everyone knows Kodes won in 1973.
>
> ...yep here...but I bet 80% tennis oriented journalists do not know it without looking it up...
>
> Harder question: Who did Kodes beat in Wimb final?
>
Without looking it up I'd say;
> On Thursday, October 11, 2012 12:22:56 AM UTC+3, Sakari Lund wrote:
>> >Nope. I know every Wimbledon finalist & score in open era. So? Everyone doesn't know those, but I was saying that everyone knows Kodes won in 1973.
>
> ...yep here...but I bet 80% tennis oriented journalists do not know it without looking it up...
>
> Harder question: Who did Kodes beat in Wimb final?
>
Alex Metreveli 61 98 63.
Not 100% sure about that scoreline, but it's close.
0 new messages