Tweet
-
Last edited by gzhpcu; 03-14-2011, 03:25 AM. -
Never did care that much for Tilden's serve, not dynamic like Pancho's or Lew's or Rodney's. -
He may have been around 50 though in this sequence.Comment
-
Yes, John, but it doesn't look much better than the one under Stroke Archive...
http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/...TServeSide.mov
and he is younger here....Comment
-
I, for one, never did understand all the hype about Bill Tilden. On all the clips I have seen of him, he seems woodeny, I don't see the grace of, for example, the great Pancho Gonzalez. IMHO, he just played during a period where there were not so many players, and those that were around were not so great. Look at Cochet, for example.
I find that the first signs of good tennis came with Don Budge, perhaps with the exception of the Ellsworth Vines serve. Then with Kramer and Gonzalez, tennis really took off...Comment
-
I agree about Tilden. He certainly doesn't look that good. And there was a fairly big gap before other great players came along. Although an ageing Tilden joined the pro tour for while in 1941 (aged 48) and had results against Vines and seven wins against Budge - when Vines and Budge were at their prime. So work that one out!
Budge, aged 38, had results against Sedgman, Gonzales and others when he toured against them in their prime.
Tennis is mysterious like that. Kramer dominated Gonzales for a long time. Gonzales in his forties beat a 20 year-old Jimmy Connors very easily. And we all know Gonzales, when aged 41, beat Rosewall, Ashe, and Newcombe when they were in their prime.
In fact, if you player hop around thru generations you get things like this:
Gonzales beat Hoad -who beat Laver - Laver beat Tom Okker - Okker beat Connors - Connors beat Edberg - Edberg beat Sampras - and Sampras beat Becker.
If you trace the paths of players who had long careers like Gonzales, Connors, Rosewall and Agassi. You can trace lines back thru tennis that are extraordinary. These players' careers intersect with past greats - and they often lost!
Looking at the old clips it's hard to conceive. But player-tracing throws up some irrefutable facts that can't be denied.StottyComment
-
Tilden not getting his due
Stotty, Great point about the connections through time. I never thought of it that way. Phil thanks for the footage but I think your selling Big Bill short, he dominated tennis for over what 5-10 years, and was the first great U.S. player. In the words of Rod Laver all you can do is be the best in your era. The really interesting thing about him is that he didn't even make his college tennis team at Penn, but through sheer hard work and determination he became the best in the world.Comment
-
I don't think Big B looks that bad...what about the 4 aces story? No legs, remember cause you couldn't leave the ground.
For what it's worth I played mixed doubles a few times with Alice Marble. She was on that tour with Budge and Big Bill--which Budge dominated. She told me though that several times Big Bill came into her dressing room before going out and told her "Alice, tonight I will teach the young man a lesson." He won every one of those matches.Comment
-
With all respect, he may have dominated tennis during his day, but how many players were actually competing then? Not so many. In those days, tennis was an elite sport and also looked upon as a sport for pansies, compared to other sports like football, by the Americans, in any case.
As the saying goes, "in the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king...".
I, for myself, just don't see the grace of movement that a Pancho Gonzalez or Roger Federer have... Which does not mean he wasn't a great thinker about the game.Comment
-
Big Bill was the man
Phil, If tennis was such an obscure sport in Tilden's day why did they build the West Side Tennis Club and Roland Garos stadiums just to find a place to seat all the people that wanted to see Big Bill play. He was the Babe Ruth of tennis. Furthermore, he was clocked in 10 flat in the 100 which was pretty fast for that time. Go back and watch the footage of him in his prime, as he races around the court with perfect balance, you could put a glass of water on top of the man's head and he wouldn't spill a drop. He also had a serious knee injury that hampered his movement the last ten years of his career when most of the films were made, and he still won most of the matches.Comment
-
Chuck,
I have yet to see a video of Tilden which convinced me. I have yet to see a video of Gonzalez which didn't convince me. Never saw a video where Tilden had anywhere close to the feline movement of Pancho.Comment
-
I agree with you, Phil. But my earlier post about about Bill's career briefly intersecting with other greats like Budge and Vines tells a story in itself. Tilden had victories in his 40s against these players when they were at their zenith. When you trace paths back in tennis you get startling results.
Don Budge beat Pancho Gonzales when Gonzales was alrady considered the best player in the world.
So you get my drift. If Tilden beat Budge...and Budge beat Gonzales...Tilden couldn't have been all that bad
StottyComment
-
Here is Tilden's first match as a pro...
http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=4676
Sorry, it does not impress me... compare the athleticisim of Federer/Nadal... the stroke elegance of Federer....Comment
-
It doesn't impress me either. Looks pedestrian and boring. But no one can argue with facts of the past. Budge looks pretty corny to me, too, but at the age of 38 he beat Gonzales, and Gonzales looks like poetry to me. How can these things be explained?
Gonzales and Kramer both say Budge had the best backhand ever, but it doesn't look much to me. Gonzales and Kramer had modern tennis to compare Budge's backhand with too. Now either Gonzales and Kramer are prisoners of their generation or they knew things we don't.
On another note, God only knows what the rackets and strings were like in the days of Tilden!
StottyComment
-
Beating someone once or twice doesn't mean anything. You can have a bad day...
Tilden has no athletic stance...Comment
Comment