Modern Tennis Myths

[tcuk]

Today's players are better than those of yesterday, right? Before you answer, consider this:

Jack Kramer beat Lew Hoad, Lew Hoad beat Gonzales, Gonzales beat Jimmy Connors, Connors beat Borg, Borg beat McEnroe, McEnroe beat Becker, Becker beat Agassi, Agassi beat Sampras, Sampras beat just about everyone around today and had a tough-as-it-gets 5 setter with Federer at Wimbeldon.

The above is undeniable, it happened. I can come up with a hundred permutations just like it involving players like Laver, Edberg, Emerson, Lendl, or anyone you care to mention.

Tennis eras don't exist, not really. The pro tour is just a never ending cycle of tennis matches where careers intersect. I'm surprised no one else has ever picked up on tracing players' careers back to see who they intersect with. The results are amazing. Try it yourself. Players who had long careers such as Pancho Gonzales, Rosewall, Connors, and Agassi throw up the most interesting results. Gonzales in his 40s beat a certain 20 year-old Jimmy Connors. Seems those old fogeys' games aren't as dated as they look.

The bottom line is this: equipment has changed the game, and technique along with it. Could todays players play as effectively with the rackets of, say, 30 years ago?

Be great to see Nadal and Federer contest a slam final with a couple of Dunlop Maxplys strung with strings as they were 30 years ago. Then we could really compare them with players from the past.

[airforce1]

I'm surprised no one else has ever picked up on tracing players' careers back to see who they intersect with. The results are amazing.

Actually they have. I've seen this a couple of times in tennis magazine over the years.
I think you make an interesting point though.

[carrerakent]

modern rackets

okay..i hear john mcenroe and drysdale and everyone else talk about how modern rackets have changed the game. have any of you used the racket federer uses? ok. have you used the prince pro that came out in the early 80s. i've used both...the prince gave twice the power and spin that feds wilson does...so this argument should be put to bed once and for all. where fed is concerned, his racket is from the 70s...so to speak. it feels like it, off center hits react like it.

the myth that needs to be challenged is that coaches, players, spectators, analysts, and our own john yandell fail to realize that tennis is decades behind all of the other sports in utilizing leg explosion, backwards body angle, torso/core rotation to maximize power. tennis was a game of finesse....it's taking decades to get over that and the people mentioned above are too stuck in tennis technique thinking to realize body mechanics are simply evolving as players realize it's okay to be an ATHLETE.

[johnyandell]

Yes my argument has always been that it is not under any circumstances ok to be an athlete.

[carrerakent]

athletes

john,

my observations have been that the tennis world is so slow in realizing what other sports have known for decades that we now seem to be trying to analyze why "shoulder turn" for example is such a big new thing in the new game and how can it apply to "you". assuming that "you" isn't capable of pro athlete athleticism. you guys just keep analyzing natural biomechanical responses as though they were a new evolution. athletes have been doing this stuff forever, but just not with tennis rackets in their hands.

this argument is worth digging around for examples from articles on here. i'm glad this site is here. i'm not glad that the tennis world doesn't understand athleticism. it frustrated me for years when coaches told me i was wrong because "proper technique" does go that way, for them to now be telling people how genius players are for evolving there....oh well

[johnyandell]

So you are a misunderstood "athlete" ? I think we can all agree that some players have had coaches that may have held them back by trying to impose certain ideas...I don't think it's accurate however to generalize that to the enitre sport shy of you and one other person. If anything I think Tennisplayer is an open forum for all ideas, at least if they can be substantiated by reference to things that actually occur when good players hit tennis balls.

[carrerakent]

good point

john, you are making a good point. although i have not spent time with every coach, i did spend 20 years trying to find someone that could take my understanding to a new level. that's how i found this website. since i can name only three male professional tennis players in the top 30 that utilize what my coach and i believe to be optimum use of physics, biomechanics, etc. then i think i might be safe in saying that noone out there is teaching it...i may be wrong, but examples speak for themselves.

let's quit bickering...readers are asking for better methods. unfortunately many of the coaches with articles on here are not getting readers and players all over the rankings to where we are all wanting. i think people are challenging you and this website because they, just like me, are not finding what takes players to new levels...we see it in the videos, we hear analysis, but the instructions do not match what the best pros are doing. it's so obvious.

[jperedo]

i can name only three male professional tennis players in the top 30 that utilize what my coach and i believe to be optimum use of physics, biomechanics, etc. .

How about a hint on who the 3 players are? My guess....federer,nadal, verdasco?

[airforce1]

john, you are making a good point. although i have not spent time with every coach, i did spend 20 years trying to find someone that could take my understanding to a new level. that's how i found this website. since i can name only three male professional tennis players in the top 30 that utilize what my coach and i believe to be optimum use of physics, biomechanics, etc. then i think i might be safe in saying that noone out there is teaching it...i may be wrong, but examples speak for themselves.

let's quit bickering...readers are asking for better methods. unfortunately many of the coaches with articles on here are not getting readers and players all over the rankings to where we are all wanting. i think people are challenging you and this website because they, just like me, are not finding what takes players to new levels...we see it in the videos, we hear analysis, but the instructions do not match what the best pros are doing. it's so obvious.

I think you are on to something here. Clearly our coaching systems are caught between 3 or more worlds.

In one world, how good of coach are you if your instruction does not match with the old tried and true.
In another world, how good of coach are you if you are not on the cutting edge of what the top players are actually doing in the slams.
Then of course, you are really out there if you are ahead of the curve, talking about things that will be used on tour in 2-5 years.

Balancing these issues is one of the biggest challenges for coaches within themselves, along with how the market their work IMO.

[tcuk]

It always amazes me when a thread gets started how it digresses into a different subject after just a couple of replies.

The main thing when replying to a thread is to stay on subject!

My point was: comparing players with those of previous generations isn't as straightforwardly in favor of the modern generation as many would think. By tracing players' careers back and seeing where they intersect with those of a previous generation throws up some interesting results.

I could expound this further if anyone wants?

[airforce1]

It always amazes me when a thread gets started how it digresses into a different subject after just a couple of replies.

The main thing when replying to a thread is to stay on subject!

Well, sort of.
I thought you made a good point and said as much, but I think most folks figure that if you put a new stick and strings in a 20-30 yr old Pancho or Tildens hands today, they would be kicking some serious butt once they have some time with that set up and the current competition. These guys had raw ability that would translate for sure. I don't see that as any big surprise.
Would anybody argue that?

As for staying on topic- well, threads have a way of getting a life of their own on the net. That's just how it is. People are free to comment on what interest them.

[carrerakent]

new strings for tilden

tcuk...i agree and apologize if i digressed. back on track..one thing i've never doubted is that top players from previous decades would adapt in todays game, but that is not what people are comparing. considering that guys as early as Borg's era had pathetically slow racquet head speed compared to today, didn't use their bodies nearly as well, and were conditioned to play defensive in situations where today's player would hit winners...and after watching several of his matches from the late 70s, early 80s the other day, i doubt he would make it inside the top 500 today...given that he falls off balance outside his backhand whenever rushed on it, and today he would be way more rushed than anything he ever saw, and most of the time that i've studied, he and his counterparts hit so many short balls that would lose them the point every time today.

i hit with someone that won a grand slam back in the early 80s, back when they are at the top of their game...and i've hit with guys in the top 300 this past year. there is no comparison in how well the current guys move, explode, manipulate the ball with so much more spin and power...it just seems like a worthless effort to compare across decades.

borg had gut, tilden had gut, put gut in federers racquet and the results will still be the same. no one responded to whether or not they've used Fed's racket. i use nadals racket although his is weighted even heavier than i weight mine, but given feds racket it is even more amazing at what he can do with a ball. does not amaze me what nadal can do with the racket he uses.

[tcuk]

Thanks for your response, carrerakent. One thing I know a lot about is tennis strings, though. I have a business selling tennis strings and machines. I can tell you with certainty that the strings players use today are a huge improvement over those of 20 years ago. Even natural gut bares no comparision to the highly evolved natural gut of today. Strings are getting better all the time and are perhaps more of an issue than racquets - which seemed to have improved only a little over the last ten years.

An interesting thing would be to see how well Federer or Nadal could play with wooden racquets. One assumes they'd have to regress technically as it would be simply impossible to play in the way with wood as they do with a Babolat or a Wilson.

I'm getting some regional players later in the month to play a round robin event with wooden racquets. I have a sponsor putting up some prize money. It will be interesting to see how it goes. I can hardly wait!

[airforce1]

good post Carrerak imo.

[carrerakent]

wooden rackets

tcuk.

you don't think Feds racket plays like a wooden racket? nadal already has to contort his body to make up for his style of play, (you can see him on the outside of his foot often about to fall over during a stroke...) but i think federer wouldn't change a thing and you would simply see the exact same game with less spin and power. if everyone went to wooden rackets...federer would win every grand slam for the next 10 years! ha ha

our club has wooden racket competitions several times a year. i am the only guy in our club of 800 plus players that has what Yandell calls the modern forehand. my ball is the only one that stays much closer to what it is with my babolat. the guys with older generation swings/strokes have their shots totally disappearing because those games were built around wrong biomechanics.