Rod Laver and The Mean Streak

[don_budge]

Heaven and Hell…The Collector by John Fowles

Hi Don. No, I got his response re: being "meaner" and the quantification of the amount of his maximum peak performance. Still do. But in order to create the correct dynamic for the article I had to create somewhat of an artificial straw man. It's another side of artistic license. And whereas I am normally pretty reserved and well behaved, I was certainly consciously rude and disrespectful to Mr. Laver. That was also by design in order to make the story more interesting. (And judging by your response, I succeeded!) Yet another side of artistic license by the author. An artist has to do what a writer has to do! At any rate, I am sorry if you were in any way offended, and apparently unable to enjoy the article. And I would like to also extend my apologies to Mr. Laver (even though I suspect he wouldn't remember the interview), as I certainly made him extremely uncomfortable. I had a lot of respect for him before the encounter and even more afterward. He was extremely gracious. But, having said that, if I had it to do all over again I wouldn't change a thing--except maybe to be a little naughtier. Just for fun. I hope that I will only go to Purgatory instead of that other place. Jeff M.

Thanks JeffMac for your thoughtful reply. I actually did understand and enjoy your article very much. One of the attributes from which to judge good writing is "is it thought provoking?" or "is it provocative?". At least it is from my point of view. In this regard your article (story?) was up to the standards of this wonderful website. It was very successful.

But please do not think that I was being judgemental in my response to your story "Rod Laver and the Mean Streak". Using words as an artistic form of expression is fun…and in many ways even therapeutic. I am guilty more than any other in this regard. Plus…I am beyond being offended. I have seen too much of life to be so petty.

Ours is a parallel universe…afterall there is our side of the story and then there is the other guy's side. And in the end…there finally is the truth of the matter. It would be funny to also write the story from the perspective of Rod Laver. What was he thinking? What did you look like to him? What personal problems could he have been contemplating on the red eye flight to Los Angeles? Did the sight of your Prince Racquet bag incite him…as it would me? What year was this? The story has a lot of potential in this regard…perhaps even a scene in a movie or a short two act play.

An example of this parallel exercise in artistic use of words is a book called "The Collector" by John Fowles. The story of a kidnapper and his victim is told simultaneously…albeit in separate chapters about the same experience from the different perspectives of the relative characters.

"The Collector becomes a macabre parable about the captivity that we all experience…in that cellar of the mind and heart where we too are unwilling guests."

Most of all JeffMac thanks for your contribution. Judging from the responses we all "enjoyed" your story and it certainly gave me a lot of food for thought. I think however that we all are sort of existing in a place called Purgatory…negotiating for the better of the two possible outcomes. One never knows…do they?

[JeffMac]

Thank You!

Thanks JeffMac for your thoughtful reply. I actually did understand and enjoy your article very much. One of the attributes from which to judge good writing is "is it thought provoking?" or "is it provocative?". At least it is from my point of view. In this regard your article (story?) was up to the standards of this wonderful website. It was very successful.

But please do not think that I was being judgemental in my response to your story "Rod Laver and the Mean Streak". Using words as an artistic form of expression is fun…and in many ways even therapeutic. I am guilty more than any other in this regard. Plus…I am beyond being offended. I have seen too much of life to be so petty.

Ours is a parallel universe…afterall there is our side of the story and then there is the other guy's side. And in the end…there finally is the truth of the matter. It would be funny to also write the story from the perspective of Rod Laver. What was he thinking? What did you look like to him? What personal problems could he have been contemplating on the red eye flight to Los Angeles? Did the sight of your Prince Racquet bag incite him…as it would me? What year was this? The story has a lot of potential in this regard…perhaps even a scene in a movie or a short two act play.

An example of this parallel exercise in artistic use of words is a book called "The Collector" by John Fowles. The story of a kidnapper and his victim is told simultaneously…albeit in separate chapters about the same experience from the different perspectives of the relative characters.

"The Collector becomes a macabre parable about the captivity that we all experience…in that cellar of the mind and heart where we too are unwilling guests."

Most of all JeffMac thanks for your contribution. Judging from the responses we all "enjoyed" your story and it certainly gave me a lot of food for thought. I think however that we all are sort of existing in a place called Purgatory…negotiating for the better of the two possible outcomes. One never knows…do they?

I am very happy to hear that you enjoyed the article! To answer your question: The interview took place in February 1992. It is actually two chapters out of thirty-five in the mental game book that I am writing, which is mentioned in my bio at the end of the article. Geoff Williams mentioned that he thought it was well written. Thanks to Geoff, as well. John Yandell, my friend of 30 plus years, did a superb job (as usual) of editing a lot of text, and deserves far more credit for the quality of the article than I do. Thanks John! I like your intriguing idea of turning it into a two act play. Or my ego does! So Don, if it were to become a play would you be interested in playing either myself or Laver? With your obvious intellect, I suspect that you would be a good actor. And if not yourself, who would you choose? As for myself, at the age of sixty-six I must recuse myself and abdicate. I am only fit to play geezers, and the play would need more energy than I could bring to the role. If it were up to me, I might go with DiCaprio as me cause he can be edgy and obnoxious. Clooney too. As for Laver...no one is coming to mind...Anyone have any ideas?

[GeoffWilliams]

I'd make a good laver. Good on ya, mate. ryan harrison against Stakhovsky, aussie open

[don_budge]

don_budge…the Actor george_clooney

I am very happy to hear that you enjoyed the article! To answer your question: The interview took place in February 1992. It is actually two chapters out of thirty-five in the mental game book that I am writing, which is mentioned in my bio at the end of the article. Geoff Williams mentioned that he thought it was well written. Thanks to Geoff, as well. John Yandell, my friend of 30 plus years, did a superb job (as usual) of editing a lot of text, and deserves far more credit for the quality of the article than I do. Thanks John! I like your intriguing idea of turning it into a two act play. Or my ego does! So Don, if it were to become a play would you be interested in playing either myself or Laver? With your obvious intellect, I suspect that you would be a good actor. And if not yourself, who would you choose? As for myself, at the age of sixty-six I must recuse myself and abdicate. I am only fit to play geezers, and the play would need more energy than I could bring to the role. If it were up to me, I might go with DiCaprio as me cause he can be edgy and obnoxious. Clooney too. As for Laver...no one is coming to mind...Anyone have any ideas?

Funny that you would say so JeffMann. There is something in me that pretends to be an actor. An imagination teetering on hallucinations. It's not that I am so smart but I do have one wicked sense of irony…and I have a way with words. Or so I've been told.

My acting credits are limited to a performance one night…the culmination of several months of acting classes. With three other "actors" we put on two one act plays. The first was a scene where I played a beatnik taxi driver and my passengers were a prostitute, a priest and some other loser. Driving deep into a New York night with three other lost souls. I was contemplating the ironic nature of life from behind the wheel and left the scene singing to the audience an old Bob Dylan tune…"A Simple Twist of Fate".

http://vimeo.com/35839961

I had grown a goutee and wore my hair long. For the second one act performance I played a "geezer" in a dinner scene with three other like minded characters…we were making small talk and remembering some of the old days. Sipping on a martini. Tommy Dorsey…you know, things of that nature. Stumbling over foggy memories. Much as I do nowadays here on the forum.

For the second scene I transformed my self into the "geezer" in the bathroom. I shaved off the goutee and used this product to make my hair silver. I donned a pair of silver rimmed glasses and a sport coat. Voila…instant "geezer". Afterwards in the bathroom this kid saw me and he said to me…"you remind me of Jack Nicholson". That was good enough for me and concluded my acting career right then and there. My Oscar performance. Quit while you are ahead. Nobody actually knew that it was me in both parts…my disguise and change of character was that good.

Later on in life after running out of fortune with yet another girlfriend I decided to embark upon a life of dancing…focusing in the end on the Argentine Tango while searching for my next. As it turned out some of the ladies were calling me "George" and I wasn't certain why until the Italian Diva who was my instructor informed me that they were referring to George Clooney. My partner in golf schools here in Sweden insists that I keep my hair short so that the customers see me as a George Clooney facsimile. The Diva was a real looker…learning dance from her was sort of like learning how to drive in a Ferrari. Or learning how to play golf in Hawaii on a golf course nestled between the two biggest volcanoes in the world…which I did also. That Tonya was really built…she could really move.

So I think the perfect casting would be me as you and GeoffWilliams as Laver. I can play edgy…even though 10splayer and hockeyscout have more or less suggested that I am rather lame in the past on one or two occasions. But you must allow me the artistic licence when harassing "Rod Laver" through the airport. You must allow me to resort to my own devices and antics and I promise that I will rise to the occasion. It will be so fun. Just give GeoffWilliams and me about fifteen minutes to go at each other no holds barred. Well you get the picture. It won't necessarily be pretty…but I promise it will be "hysterical". I'm thinking of portraying you as a Jack Nicholson knockoff from "The Shining". Can you say…"here's Johnny"? GeoffWilliams could be doing a John Goodman bit in virgin territory…even for Goodman.

You're a great character JeffMann. I knew that you were when I read your post in "putting the brakes on technology" thread. I certainly hope to see more of you on the website and it would be great if you were a regular poster as well. We won't hold your association with "The Wizard" for the past thirty years against you.

[don_budge]

The End…Curtain Falls. Game, Set and Mats.

The scene ends with the two characters, you (me) and "Rod Laver" (Geoff Williams) getting hammered together drinking tequila and beer in the airport bar while unloading all of their earthly woes on each other. At the same time they are trying to pick up on two wonderfully attractive foreign "ladies" of questionable repute. The beginnings of a wonderful friendship...no doubt.

[GeoffWilliams]

All great players have a great desire to dominate, destroy, humiliate their opponents, and create fear in others so that the domination is easier to accomplish. No work or sacrifice is too great. It's part of the separating factors that make them great. Talent is only part of it. Will as well. That great hunger to destroy:::: ::::: is all important. Great players are great murderers, and they don't just win, they kill. The Romans conquered the european world with a 27" infantry short sword and the desire to kill with tactical precision and insane discipline. Part of the reason tennis is dying is the difficulty of the general public's understanding of player psychology and the stifling of player emotions by the powers that be. A gentleman's sport in a murderous world only appeals to gentlemen. So the fan base drops each year. With each girlish and pathetic racquet abuse warning, worthless and shitty equipment abuse, language abuse, ball abuse, crappy time penalty, etc, warning, another 10,000 fans are lost. We have nerdy bespectacled referees who make $275 per tournament deciding the fates of the great players. Refs who are at best, 4.5 players who are wannabees and who never got a single victory or atp point ever. And yet, our great players have to eat shit shovelled into their mouths by these worthless cogs. Let the machines call the lines and leave all else to the public and the players. We don't need refs anymore. We need fans.

We need emotional players and emotional fans, who live for attention and to experience greatness.


That and nothing less will revive the game.

Do the fans scream: futbol, soccer, football, baseball, mma, basketball, etc.? Golf does not count. You will never see a pro 60 yr. old tennis player beating a pro 20 yr. old. (Unless it's one of my matches and my serve becomes world class. Hey, JY, let's make that happen.) What would happen to the site if I learn to serve 135 mph on the lines at will?

[JeffMac]

You're Hired!

The scene ends with the two characters, you (me) and "Rod Laver" (Geoff Williams) getting hammered together drinking tequila and beer in the airport bar while unloading all of their earthly woes on each other. At the same time they are trying to pick up on two wonderfully attractive foreign "ladies" of questionable repute. The beginnings of a wonderful friendship...no doubt.

It's official! Headline reads: D. Budge and G. Williams slated to star in the off broadway production of The Mean Streaka.k.a. the life and philosophy of Rodney Laver, Ph.D in Match Play Manners. You both have the necessary smarts, creativity and gravitas to bring prodigious artistry to your roles. There is an alternative version of the play in which I likened Laver to Woody Allen. (I know that this is sacriligious! Excuse me.) I have also thought of Steve Buscemi. My agent has unsuccessfully attempted to reach their people. Their misfortune is your good luck!! We begin production immediately in Don's Sweden a.k.a. Valhalla. I have decided to cast myself in the only other two roles: the airplane pilot and the guy who sells Laver and I coffee. This production is deeply existential and benefits by a parsomony of props and scenery. In fact, we can just use kitchen chairs for airplane seats, positioned against a black, infinite backdrop. Of course, D.B. will have to sport the dirty, green Prince bag. I no longer have one so you'll have to use yours. LOL Sorry about that!, but for the sake of accuracy it must be done. Actually, we need a buxum stewardess figure (get that play on words?). I'm thinking Beyonce. And there is also a skycap character. That would have to be Kanye West--my personal exemplar and hero. And yes, of course, when we've rehearsed and given our one performance, we'll get drunk in the O'Hare airport and invite the real Laver to join us! D.B. reminded of me of my post from a couple weeks back re: the "speed of the game." At the end I posed the retorical question: What to do, what to do? The obvious answer is nothing. Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" will determine the fate of the game. But tennis has nothing to worry about! It (or something very much like it) will always be there for reasons that Geoff W. alluded to. People are acutely tuned into dominance and success. Tennis and golf (and all sports, really) will always be driven by personalities. Fans will always be interested in who is on top, and who is beating whom. These considerations are embedded in our primitive reptilian brains and thus in our psyches because to be aware of "dominance" has tremendous impact for the survival of our species. So let them serve 160, and hit groundstrokes 115. We'll adapt as best we can--as both players and fans--and to the victors go the best mates and the most loot. To quote the great evolutionary biologist David Byrne of the Talking Heads, "Same As It Ever Was."

[gzhpcu]

This article prompted me to pick up "The Education of a Tennis Player" by Rod Laver with Bud Collins and leaf through it.

In his introduction, he says,

I don't think any athlete has had such far-flung success as I enjoyed in 1969, winning tournaments on four continents. I wonder if a tennis player will ever have a season like that again? I rather doubt it....

Which looking now at it in retrospect, is also at the odds of the modest Rod Laver picture I always had in my mind...

Quoting again from his book:

"Chapter Two: The Killer Instinct":

When Charlie Hollis, my coach, decided that I wasn't homicidial enough, he sent me out with the intent of winning every match 6-0, 6-0...

"Chapter 17: A Man Named Gonzales":

When I first played him in a pro tournament at College Park, Maryland, he was a very savage man... It absolutely killed him to lose. He fought you for everything, intimidated everybody in the place if he could - opponent, linesmen and umpires, ballboys and spectators. ..... He is still capable of calling a linesman an idiot, of irresponsibly pitching his racket so that it could split a bystander's skull, of trying to strange a photographer whose clicking irks him.

[stotty]

Chapter 17

"Chapter 17: A Man Named Gonzales"

When I first played him in a pro tournament at College Park, Maryland, he was a very savage man... It absolutely killed him to lose. He fought you for everything, intimidated everybody in the place if he could - opponent, linesmen and umpires, ballboys and spectators. ..... He is still capable of calling a linesman an idiot, of irresponsibly pitching his racket so that it could split a bystander's skull, of trying to strange a photographer whose clicking irks him.
:

That was an an interesting chapter. In it you learn how Pancho had learned to look after himself after being screwed in his early days by Kramer. Pancho sued Laver and others for violation of anti-trust laws after Laver and a group of others formed their own playing organisation called IPTA. In court Pancho won the right to negotiate his own deals with any tournament he played in, and Laver had to pay court fees of $7000...a lot back then. The experience completely unnerved Laver.

The chapter gives good insight on how appealing the public found Pancho to be. He was an irresistible tennis performer who put bums on seats. Laver concedes this and how important persona and charisma is to the game.

[gzhpcu]

From page 99, Chapter 7 "South Africa":

When I first came into the pros I was annoyed that the only man in the troupe who got much attention from the public was Pancho Gonzales....

in the U.S., Gonzales was the only tennis name immediately recognizalbe to any group of sport nuts...

We were bothered by the general feeling that Pancho was the only name who could sell tickets in the US...

"Without Pancho you guys would be out of business". We heard that over and over.... It was disheartening even to consider that Pancho was holding the pro game together through the force of his fiery personality.

[don_budge]

Rod Laver vs. Jimmy Connors…1974

Rod Laver at 36 against a much younger Jimmy Connors at 22 years old.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SptdffCeVmM

[don_budge]

1975 WCT Dallas Tennis World Championship…Rod Laver vs. Bjorn Borg

36 year old Rod Laver vs. 18 year old Bjorn Borg in a semi final match. Starts at 10.25 in the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhg1BxDpp4A

[stotty]

Rod Laver at 36 against a much younger Jimmy Connors at 22 years old.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SptdffCeVmM

I see from the first point in the that Laver hasn't bought into the idea yet that his right foot can now leave the ground when he serves...old habits. He is still moving very well at 36.

The second point...I had almost forgotten how good that two-handed backhand of Connors was. Before he struck it I was trying pick what he was going to do with it...just take a look yourself. A beauty. Still the best backhand ever for me.

Incredible ball control that Connors had...matched only by his coach Segura apparently.

Nice find. I enjoyed watching it so much. Thanku.

[gzhpcu]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcalpD9qw_E

Rod Laver serve...

[JeffMac]

Those Lucky Let Cords!

Rod Laver at 36 against a much younger Jimmy Connors at 22 years old.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SptdffCeVmM

I remember watching that match from home on TV with my father. What I'll never forget were the two, I believe, let cords that Connors got. Weren't they near the end of the match? In the fourth set, perhaps? Connors was on the ascent at the time to #1 in the world, and clearly the better player. Nevertheless, it highlights the reality that whereas tennis is, of course, essentially a game of skill, it also helps to be "lucky as well as good." And Jimmy, with those razor thin for margin of error, flat groundstrokes had all the luck in Las Vegas? At Caesars Palace, as I recall. And Laver had a one-way ticket to World Team Tennis.