Stan Smith...on the serve

[don_budge]

One more thing...

I just remembered one more thing from my conversation with Stan. I asked him how he thought the players of today would fare using the equipment of yesterday.

His comment was..."they would have to be clean strikers of the ball." I wonder how clean they would be striking it with 70 square inches of wood instead of the 90 plus of graphite they are used to nowadays.

Just a thought.

[gzhpcu]

Stan was always the gentleman. Anybody remember the famous Davis cup tie match in Romania which Stan won against Tiriac, the vampire from Transylvania? With the linesmen giving bad calls against Stan, who, however kept his cool and won?

Here is a writeup: http://www.americatoday.com/sports/tennis/

In 1972, the United States again played Romania in a Davis Cup final, this time in Bucharest. It was one of the most controversial Davis Cup ties of all time. Tiriac was determined to win the coveted Cup by any means, fair or foul. The matches were played on the American’s worst surface, a slow clay court, before a partisan crowd of screaming Romanians and corrupt line judges. Arthur Ashe remarked that the “cheating by local officials reached an abysmal low.”

[chuck62]

Stan ranks right up there

Don B,

A nice bit of journalism. Surely Stan with the modern equipment would be able to compete very well today. He had size, speed, a superior strategy, and could consistently hit the sweet spot with those little wooden racquets. Case in point, there is one bridge players i.e. a guy with an old school game playing in a more modern era who was able to compete well and still does: "Stefan Edberg edged Marat Safin 7-6(5), 2-6, 10-8 (Champions Tie-Breaker) Sunday to win the $120,000 The Residences at the Ritz-Carlton Grand Cayman Legends Championships". This proves that these serve and volley guys would have done very well in today's game. Its not that the attacking game wouldn't work its just that today's top players (other than Federer) have never tried it.

[tennis_chiro]

real class

I just got off the phone with Stan, tennis_chiro. It turns out we were members of the same fraternity in college...good old Beta Theta Pi. What a nice guy...soft spoken and really down to earth. He really floored me in this respect...plus the fact that he called me back in the first place. Here I am in Sweden, out in the woods, watching the French Open on a Monday morning and my wife called me to tell me that someone was on the phone for me. I answered and there was this extremely nice, quiet voice saying, “Hi "don_budge", this is Stan Smith calling.” I was speechless...for a moment.

You were dead right, Don...he would not come out and say that he would be number one in the world in todays game but he certainly made it clear he did not feel he would fall out of the top ten. I believe that you are dead wrong about his level of athleticism, though. Rafter used a Prince racquet...it only made Rafter "appear" to be a much better athlete...not that he wasn't a great athlete either. This guy, Stan Smith that is, dominated tennis in an era when the level of play was extremely high. Kramer ranked him in the top twenty of all time. So much for the discussion of him breaking into the top hundred today. Some of this athleticism you refer to may be more attributed to “other” factors other than modern training and equipment.

We discussed the racquets and string issues and the change in playing styles. We talked a little bit about Laver, Borg, Nastase and the Australians. I mentioned to him the only time that I saw him play in person was in the 1984 US Open against John Newcombe...whom he defeated in three sets in the veteran singles. He is maybe the most modest man I have ever spoken too...just like Mr. Budge. He spoke so quietly...he chuckled as I sort of tried to provoke him to say he would of been every bit as competitive for the top spot in tennis as he was back then. He thought it was very cool that I posted his video on TennisPlayer.

At the end of our conversation he said something very similar to what you wrote...he said "it's a question we will never know the answer to." He is a true classic, in the traditional sense of the word.

I'm not the least bit surprised he would demonstrate that much class and courtesy.
don

PS We need to start a forum where we get old-timers (even new-timers) to be on line at an appointed time for interviews and questions that bloggers like us could participate in. I think Gene Malin does something like that with on-line radio. I have lost the link. Some appointed time each week when we get someone to be available to field questions. There's probably a lot like that out there already and I don't know about it, but I think there definitely would be an audience.

[bottle]

Pretty impressive all the way around-- the pictures, the clip, Steve's call, Stan Smith's return of the call. Now if Steve can just get a similar return of call from Robin Soderling's father. The phone rate can't be that high for Sweden to Sweden!

[gzhpcu]

Unfortunately no.... but I did find this....
http://www.ina.fr/video/CAF95051528/...-smith.fr.html

[don_budge]

Doubles...?

Any video clips of them playing the lost art of doubles, Phil?

Great pics btw! Love the white izod shirts!

[gzhpcu]

Stan....

[gzhpcu]

I went go high school in L.A. wth the Lutz brothers at St. John Vianney. Thanks to them, the school won the Camino Real championships. Bob Lutz became Stan's doubles partner. Though I was already playing tennis, I didn't try to make the team. I was certainly not in their league....

[don_budge]

Don't you think Stan's game would hold up pretty well today. I don't think he was as good an athlete as Rafter, but his volley technique was probably just as good or better. His first serve was far more effective and with modern training and equipment...

I doubt you will get much satisfaction in your request for a response from Stan about how he would fare against today's players, but I feel quite sure he would tell you that he would love to have been able to have that challenge.

We'll never know the answer, but it is an interesting question to ponder.

don

I just got off the phone with Stan, tennis_chiro. It turns out we were members of the same fraternity in college...good old Beta Theta Pi. What a nice guy...soft spoken and really down to earth. He really floored me in this respect...plus the fact that he called me back in the first place. Here I am in Sweden, out in the woods, watching the French Open on a Monday afternoon and my wife called me to tell me that someone was on the phone for me. I answered and there was this extremely nice, quiet voice saying, “Hi "don_budge", this is Stan Smith calling.” I was speechless...for a moment.

You were dead right, Don...he would not come out and say that he would be number one in the world in todays game but he certainly made it clear he did not feel he would fall out of the top ten. I believe that you are dead wrong about his level of athleticism, though. Rafter used a Prince racquet...it only made Rafter "appear" to be a much better athlete...not that he wasn't a great athlete either. This guy, Stan Smith that is, dominated tennis in an era when the level of play was extremely high. Kramer ranked him in the top twenty of all time. So much for the discussion of him breaking into the top hundred today. Some of this athleticism you refer to may be more attributed to “other” factors other than modern training and equipment.

We discussed the racquets and string issues and the change in playing styles. We talked a little bit about Laver, Borg, Nastase and the Australians. I mentioned to him the only time that I saw him play in person was in the 1984 US Open against John Newcombe...whom he defeated in three sets in the veteran singles. He is maybe the most modest man I have ever spoken too...just like Mr. Budge. He spoke so quietly...he chuckled as I sort of tried to provoke him to say he would of been every bit as competitive for the top spot in tennis as he was back then. He thought it was very cool that I posted his video on TennisPlayer.

At the end of our conversation he said something very similar to what you wrote...he said "it's a question we will never know the answer to." He is a true classic, in the traditional sense of the word.

[tennis_chiro]

Better than we remember

Btw...I tried to call Stan Smith today to see what he thought about his chances of breaking the top 100 if he were in his prime. Didn't get through...yet.

Don't you think Stan's game would hold up pretty well today. I don't think he was as good an athlete as Rafter, but his volley technique was probably just as good or better. His first serve was far more effective and with modern training and equipment, I think he would have been putting in 70% of his first serves in the high 130's.

And check the Davis Cup record. I doubt many of today's pampered players could post career records like he did in the face of partisan fans and officials that created an atmosphere simply not seen in today's game.

I doubt you will get much satisfaction in your request for a response from Stan about how he would fare against today's players, but I feel quite sure he would tell you that he would love to have been able to have that challenge.

You pointed out that he won so many titles and 2/3 of all the singles finals he played. But less recognized is that he won 70% of his clay court matches (23 and 9 at Roland Garros)B and 5 titles on clay.

We'll never know the answer, but it is an interesting question to ponder.

don

[don_budge]

Break on through to the other side...

Stan's discussion on permutations...

Thank you Phil for your response.

A man of few words has just spoken a rather large volume with just one word...permutations. I would add "combinations" to begin to think in terms of linear algebra in order to maximize and minimize all of the possible outcomes so that they are in your favor on the tennis court. I would suggest that there is only one player today who has been successful by making a career of doing just that. He is at the end of a glorious run but he dominated all of the current players because they basically played one style and he had it figured out. That would be Roger Federer, of course...he is the living proof.

This game, and particularly holding serve under pressure, is more about the mind than anything else.

Thank you Don for your response.

In your more lengthy response you have touched on a number of very important and key elements about the game of tennis. The one that I have chosen from all of your valid points is the one about the mind. The reason why tennis and golf are God's gifts to mankind in terms of recreation is because they are activities that challenge a man on all levels of his humanness. Tennis represents the finite and golf represents the infinite. The challenges in these activities are on intellectual, physical, emotional and spiritual levels. You have absolutely hit the nail on the head with your remark...

"This game, and particularly holding serve under pressure, is more about the mind than anything else."

This game on an intellectual level is about knowing your opponent, as well as knowing yourself, analyzing his relative strengths and weaknesses and how they measure up to your relative strengths and weaknesses, developing a strategy based on that information...complete with the tactics that you will need to implement your strategy.

There is much more to the moral of this story than meets the eye. In my opinion.

Btw...I tried to call Stan Smith today to see what he thought about his chances of breaking the top 100 if he were in his prime. Didn't get through...yet.

[tennis_chiro]

The biggest weapon

Hey guys...Phil, Don, Stotty, glad that I have you all here in one place. Love your thoughts by the way, especially when you don't agree with me!

You can discuss the relative merits of Stan's style, whether or not we should be shooting people for losing tennis matches or "false prisms"...that's great. But I have a question for each of you guys. Did you watch the video of Stan's discussing the number and variety of possibilities for the serve? This is what I was hoping for. Nobody wants to discuss service tactics. But they love to talk biomechanics until the cows come home.

I threw the bit in there about Stan's effectiveness once reaching the finals of an event because as far as I know a big factor as to whether a man lost or won in the finals of an event was how well he served on that particular day. It made a difference...it made the difference most of the time. The tactics he is discussing are...well, at least were...really important in the game of tennis. With "The Man's" win-loss percentage in the finals of tournaments, including doubles, it appears to me that he served well under pressure.

Smith and Rosewall not making the top hundred, though...did you smoke your breakfast today, Stotty? I would dearly love to ask either of those guys what they think of your assessment of their speculative ranking in the food chain of professional tennis past and present.

I remember the Victor Imperial...was that an upgrade on the Superb? It used to be so simple compared to the neighboring discussion going on about the string jobs.

You know, d_b, Geoff might be right. Dropping out of the 70's into today's game, Ken and Stan would probably struggle to get into the top 100...for about 6 months. In that time they would be able to adapt to the equipment, strings, courts and balls...and they would most definitely be in the top 100. I don't think they could be the dominant players that they were without growing up learning to use that equipment, but I still believe the biggest weapon any tennis player possesses is the 6 inches between his ears, ...and also the competitor's "heart", wherever that resides. Take any of those players and give them the equipment and about 12 months to learn to use it and they would do just fine. And if they had grown up with the equipment, they would have adapted just fine. After watching that movement of Smith against Nasty, don't you think Smith at 6'4" could have held serve as well as Ivo? And if he could hit passing shots that well with a 70" racket, just think what he would have done with a 90" frame! Maybe he would have only served 135, but with the kind of serve strategy and tactics d_b is talking about, he would have done just fine. This game, and particularly holding serve under pressure, is more about the mind than anything else.

The ability to play every point and every shot in every point with absolute focus, hitting every ball with specific intention...try it sometime. I don't mean most of your shots. I mean EVERY shot. It's like the difference in getting away with walking into a lioness's den (or cage) when she is sated from a full meal and walking in when she is awake and you are standing next to her cubs.

If Gonzales or Rosewall (and God bless him, he had a problem last week and ended up in the hospital in Rome and we all wish him well) or Connors had someone in his sights, it was not a good feeling. Of course, the same would be true for great champions from any age. We all have our favorites. But don't discount them because they all had a pretty good weapon in that 6 inches between their ears. And Ilie,..., he had so much talent he would have found a way. In fact, the point penalty system would have made him a much better player. There would have been no room for shenanigans.

That's one reason we should be mindful of how much we tinker with the strings, racket sizes, surfaces, etc.. It was phenomenal watching the hitting from Rome this last weekend. If it is really true that the strings have created so much more topspin that that is the reason no one can go to the net (it's said they can't volley those heavy balls, but I see the doubles players volley just fine); if that is true, then we need to roll back the technology a little bit to preserve SOME of the tradition of the game.

Thoughts?!
don

[gzhpcu]

Stan's discussion on permutations is interesting, but, we need to figure out a tactic based on it. Guess Stan would go into this further later in the video.

In general, variation is great to keep the returner guessing, and not to allow him/her to get into a groove.

Obviously if there is a glaring weakness, then serve to it.

Serve and volleyers like Edberg and Rafter use kickers to get to the net fast. A high kicker to the backhand is usually very effective.

Kramer liked the wide slice to deuce side, and then a volley to the open court.

Where you serve determines the possible angles for the return.

[don_budge]

Ahem...Attention please...

Hey guys...Phil, Don, Stotty, glad that I have you all here in one place. Love your thoughts by the way, especially when you don't agree with me!

You can discuss the relative merits of Stan's style, whether or not we should be shooting people for losing tennis matches or "false prisms"...that's great. But I have a question for each of you guys. Did you watch the video of Stan's discussing the number and variety of possibilities for the serve? This is what I was hoping for. Nobody wants to discuss service tactics. But they love to talk biomechanics until the cows come home.

I threw the bit in there about Stan's effectiveness once reaching the finals of an event because as far as I know a big factor as to whether a man lost or won in the finals of an event was how well he served on that particular day. It made a difference...it made the difference most of the time. The tactics he is discussing are...well, at least were...really important in the game of tennis. With "The Man's" win-loss percentage in the finals of tournaments, including doubles, it appears to me that he served well under pressure.

Smith and Rosewall not making the top hundred, though...did you smoke your breakfast today, Stotty? I would dearly love to ask either of those guys what they think of your assessment of their speculative ranking in the food chain of professional tennis past and present.

I remember the Victor Imperial...was that an upgrade on the Superb? It used to be so simple compared to the neighboring discussion going on about the string jobs.