Classical Tennis, Modern Tennis, Your Tennis

[johnyandell]

Would love to get your thoughts on "Classical Tennis, Modern Tennis, Your Tennis"!

[stotty]

Unanswered theory...

Would love to get your thoughts on "Classical Tennis, Modern Tennis, Your Tennis"!

You cannot begin to imagine how much I loved this article. But there is one thing that remains unanswered, however - a conundrum:

Why were players in the classic era virtually all one-handed? When rackets weighed around 15 ounces it must have been easier, when first starting the game at least, to play the shot two-handed? If you give a kid a 15 ounce racket today, he will naturally grab it with two hands. You can only assume that the coaching years ago forbade such a thing. Perhaps the games' first players were adults who enjoyed success with one-handed backhands...on the back of their success it was deemed one-handed was the way to play...we all know how hard coaching myths are to break down once they become established.

[klacr]

Excellent article-now the rantings and ravings of a tennis/food obsessed fan.

Would love to get your thoughts on "Classical Tennis, Modern Tennis, Your Tennis"!

John,

A masterpiece. I loved it.

As a tennis teaching professional, so often I am approached by players who want to improve their tennis games and have desires to emulate Roger, Rafa and Novak to a much lesser degree of course. However, those same players refuse to understand the basics and fundamental elements that go into those shots. Sure, equipment has helped no doubt, but you still must know how to wield the tool and the components of the shot. It's hard to create the style and tradition of sashimi with a butter knife. It's even harder to create sashimi if you have an aversion to seafood (Most of my posts seem to mention a comparison with food. Never intend to go there but my mind just does). In other words, remembering the classic and fundamentals is importantly vital as to what we can build from it, but so few recreational players are willing to go back, look at the past, in order to build on their future. Modern tennis and classical tennis. Love and marriage. You can't have one with out the other. Then again, I'm still single so who knows.

This article was poignant, informative and hopefully gets read by every tennisplayer.net subscriber. Perhaps a required reading segment of tennisplayer.net in the future? Required reading to all new tennisplayer.net subscribers. They must complete the reading before they are allowed to move on to other parts of the website. This will have to be the first article. All other articles that show promise in the past, present and future will only follow this one.

A bit radical yes, but a man can dream.

John, I'm a fan of your work and a fan of your cause. Keep it up. The tennis world is better for it. Thank you.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[klacr]

You cannot begin to imagine how much I loved this article. But there is one thing that remains unanswered, however - a conundrum:

Why were players in the classic era virtually all one-handed? When rackets weighed around 15 ounces it must have been easier, when first starting the game at least, to play the shot two-handed? If you give a kid a 15 ounce racket today, he will naturally grab it with two hands. You can only assume that the coaching years ago forbade such a thing. Perhaps the games' first players were adults who enjoyed success with one-handed backhands...on the back of their success it was deemed one-handed was the way to play...we all know how hard coaching myths are to break down once they become established.

Stotty, great question. I often wondered the same thing...so I thought about it some more and did some research. Hope this helps

Tennis had been played competitively for almost 100 years before the two-handed backhand began making an impact. Strange that many other sports that have been around for essentially the same amount of time use two-handed swing patterns, like cricket, baseball, golf, and hockey. So, it strikes me as odd that so few of the top players emerged using two-handed strokes during that era.

Style of play was serve and volley. And, the slice backhand was the stroke of choice for almost all players, both from the baseline and as an approach shot.

Author Paul Fein wrote a book called Tennis Confidential, in it he reported that after Bjorn Borg won the 1974 French Open, reporters asked him when he was going to start using a one-handed backhand.

Jack Kramer said in 1949: “The use of two hands not only weakens your strokes but robs you of confidence and gives your opponent a psychological advantage.” OUCH! Respect for Kramer and no wonder why so few explored hitting or considered teaching the two-handed backhand!

1884 to 1996, over 110 years, Just one woman player using a two-handed backhand ever won a Wimbledon singles title (Chris Evert). Since 1997, only one women’s Wimbledon title has been won by a single-handed backhand player (Amelie Mauresmo, 2006).

Two handed backhands were not unknown back in the day. In the 1930’s and 1940’s there were two Australians, John Bromwich and Geoff Brown, both very good players used the two-hander. After seeing Bromwich and play, Aussie Davis Cup Captain Harry Hopman made a prediction when he was reported saying in 1951, in Sporting Life magazine: “I believe that we have not seen the last of the two-handed players.”Mr. Hopman was spot on!

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[stotty]

Stotty, great question. I often wondered the same thing...so I thought about it some more and did some research. Hope this helps

Tennis had been played competitively for almost 100 years before the two-handed backhand began making an impact. Strange that many other sports that have been around for essentially the same amount of time use two-handed swing patterns, like cricket, baseball, golf, and hockey. So, it strikes me as odd that so few of the top players emerged using two-handed strokes during that era.

Style of play was serve and volley. And, the slice backhand was the stroke of choice for almost all players, both from the baseline and as an approach shot.

Author Paul Fein wrote a book called Tennis Confidential, in it he reported that after Bjorn Borg won the 1974 French Open, reporters asked him when he was going to start using a one-handed backhand.

Jack Kramer said in 1949: “The use of two hands not only weakens your strokes but robs you of confidence and gives your opponent a psychological advantage.” OUCH! Respect for Kramer and no wonder why so few explored hitting or considered teaching the two-handed backhand!

1884 to 1996, over 110 years, Just one woman player using a two-handed backhand ever won a Wimbledon singles title (Chris Evert). Since 1997, only one women’s Wimbledon title has been won by a single-handed backhand player (Amelie Mauresmo, 2006).

Two handed backhands were not unknown back in the day. In the 1930’s and 1940’s there were two Australians, John Bromwich and Geoff Brown, both very good players used the two-hander. After seeing Bromwich and play, Aussie Davis Cup Captain Harry Hopman made a prediction when he was reported saying in 1951, in Sporting Life magazine: “I believe that we have not seen the last of the two-handed players.”Mr. Hopman was spot on!

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

Thanks for the considered reply, Klacr. Yes influential people like Kramer would likely have suppressed the emergence of the two-hander. I suggested as much in post number 2. If the pioneers of the game were successful as one-handers, it's probable that it was deemed the best possible technique...and so the myth began.

It's strange that the successful, unorthodox players of yesteryear (Bromwich, Segura; two handed on both wings) weren't convincing enough to break the mould. We had to wait for Borg and Connors to tip the balance and start the slow, steady revolution of the two-hander.

Racket-wise these days there is less reason to be two-handed than in say Kramer's day, when rackets were head heavy and weighed 15 ounces at least. It must have been a real slog for juniors...just look at Lew Hoad (and have in mind the phenomenon he was) hitting a backhand in the article below...you can see it's a struggle for him to wield the racket, and he was one strong kid.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/champions/Ed_Atkinson/ed_atkinson_lew_hoad/ed_atkinson_lew_hoad.html

Nature says grab a heavy object with two hands, coaching says grab it with one...odd that. You can only stab at the reasons why the two-hander took so long to gain acceptance...no way of knowing for sure...at least not that I'm aware of.

[aarioli]

classical vs modern

two connected points on modern stroke differences and on sports performance getting better over time:

One feature of pros' strokes today on both forehand and backhand, that is far more pronounced than in older eras, is racket-head lag. In modern players, as can be seen in the videos, there's a big move with torso, shoulder and arm that leaves the racket head lagging by as much as 90 degrees. The ball is almost there, the arm has come around, and the racket, only then, catches up all at once to contact. This type of swing produces much higher racket head speed then you see in the old footage. I think this is the result of simply trying for more in order to succeed and move up the ranks in a competitive solo sport with a bigger and bigger competing population. Modern competitors have to go for more to make a mark, and they have found ways. They stand on the shoulders of prior players, who gave them a standard to exceed. I think this effect is found in many sports.

[stotty]

Hmm...

two connected points on modern stroke differences and on sports performance getting better over time:

I think this is the result of simply trying for more in order to succeed and move up the ranks in a competitive solo sport with a bigger and bigger competing population. Modern competitors have to go for more to make a mark, and they have found ways. They stand on the shoulders of prior players, who gave them a standard to exceed. I think this effect is found in many sports.

You might be right to a degree. But like the article states, it's taken modern rackets, improved strings, and slower surfaces to get us to this point. I've often stated that Borg and McEnroe took the game about as far as it was going to go with wooden rackets, whether Federer could have gone even better with wood we'll never know...but it's good fun to debate and ponder over the idea.

Sport doesn't always get better by default. Boxing has always been about two guys pitting it out wearing shorts and gloves...equipment largely unchanged for years. The best heavyweight era was Frazier, Ali and Foreman. No one has ever boxed better or anywhere near as good those three...and that was 40 years ago. Keeping equipment the same makes measuring progress, or lack of it, much easier.

Improvements in equipment has changed tennis out of all proportion.

[johnyandell]

Guys,

Thank you all for fabulous thoughtful comments.

On the conumdrum: yeah that Kramer quote rings true. I am old enough that Chrissie Evert and Connors were young upstarts. And I remember the unspoken rule--it's just one hand. It's almost as if hitting with two was some type of moral failing. Interesting though my best friend who was the top junior in the Missouri Valley throughout the juniors played with two hands...

I think this modern classical debate is an archetype of many of the common arguments in society--and it's almost about types of persons or personalities.
You just won't convince some people that playing like Rafa isn't legit, just like you won't convince them of, well, so many things. Either you are in for the dialogue or not...

[aarioli]

modern vs classical

Once again, the factor that has not been addressed enough here, and that, I think, is a driving force in the rise of performance in many sports over the generations, is the simple effect of competitive pressure in trying to find ways to better whatever the standard of the time may be. In basketball, for example, there was the influx of one-handed shots and jump shots. They were regarded as showboating, flash-in-the-pan techniques at the time, but they came to be the new standard. In reality they were normal developments to take advantage of the possibilities for scoring. They turned out to be the new normal. In tennis there were certain attitudes about what was the 'correct' shot from the baseline, for example - how much to go for, how offensive-minded you could be. The players have had to up their ambitions as part of that drive to excel, to succeed by trying for more. If you look at how much effort today's players put into each of their shots, how much they go for, what they must do to even be in the mix, I think you'll find a lot of the answer to the difference between tennis eras. Of course equipment has improved (interestingly, not really in basketball, swimming, or some other sports where performance is at a much higher level today), but I would maintain that competitors find a way, and coaching follows in the footsteps. The example of boxing as a counter-argument to this idea is interesting, though. I think the effect in professional boxing is muted by a host of factors, but it's too much to go into here.

[stotty]

Once again, the factor that has not been addressed enough here, and that, I think, is a driving force in the rise of performance in many sports over the generations, is the simple effect of competitive pressure in trying to find ways to better whatever the standard of the time may be. In basketball, for example, there was the influx of one-handed shots and jump shots. They were regarded as showboating, flash-in-the-pan techniques at the time, but they came to be the new standard. In reality they were normal developments to take advantage of the possibilities for scoring. They turned out to be the new normal. In tennis there were certain attitudes about what was the 'correct' shot from the baseline, for example - how much to go for, how offensive-minded you could be. The players have had to up their ambitions as part of that drive to excel, to succeed by trying for more. If you look at how much effort today's players put into each of their shots, how much they go for, what they must do to even be in the mix, I think you'll find a lot of the answer to the difference between tennis eras. Of course equipment has improved (interestingly, not really in basketball, swimming, or some other sports where performance is at a much higher level today), but I would maintain that competitors find a way, and coaching follows in the footsteps. The example of boxing as a counter-argument to this idea is interesting, though. I think the effect in professional boxing is muted by a host of factors, but it's too much to go into here.

Great post...interesting.

I think the Darwinian theory has its place in the argument...but a limited one....boxing proves it...Cassius Clay in the sixties....has anyone boxed better?...doubt it...boxing has gone backwards. There is only so far you can take a sport, once all the moves, and finite number of techniques have been exhausted...then it's down to someone's innate natural ability to take things further. It's hard to play better than Borg or McEnroe did with wooden rackets, though Federer could well of pipped them...who knows?....sad thing is we'll never know.

In tennis, equipment has moved the game forward. You just cannot play like Nadal and Djokovic with a wooden bat...no way.

[johnyandell]

aa,

I would say that with the new rackets--yes the players found the way to evolve what was possible--just as in the wood days they occasionally used what are usually labeled "modern" technique.

[don_budge]

Classical vs. Modern...Evolution vs. Engineering? Mute point.

Would love to get your thoughts on "Classical Tennis, Modern Tennis, Your Tennis"!

You are tackling one huge gargantuan subject. Superb layout and outline in the first addition. I look forward to the rest of these articles. It sounds very promising. I like to use the word bridge when thinking about this website. In the past few months there has been some considerable attention being paid to past elements of the game. I think that shows respect for the game...which is of ultimate importance. Not surprisingly I think that this important element of the game has been lost in some respects too.

One question that I have, is one of ethics. Perhaps you as an ex-theology student may have some thoughts on this. This revolves around the equipment issues. It seems to me that any game that is played on a finite court should have standardized equipment. One thing about traditional tennis is the unspoken rule of etiquette..."Thou shall not seek unfair advantage over your opponent."

It would be preposterous to think that tennis at this point would go back to all wood or even standard sized equipment. That would be tantamount to asking all smart phone users to go back to the dial or push button land lines.

Those guys in the transitional period had some real decisions to make as pioneers into the great foray of unlimited choices of equipment. McEnroe, Borg, Lendl, Connors and the rest of the cast. I really have a ton of admiration for them. The overlap must of been a great source of individual soul searching at the time. What was the thought process that these transitional characters went through? Obviously it wasn't easy for them. Borg had some real difficulties with this issue...as did a slew of other players. Recently it was brought to light that Miloslav Mecir was the last player to use a wooden racquet in a Grand Slam event.

This is a great time for you to take this tact with your teaching and your publication. "The Bridge" as you referred to it...as I referred to it in my comments about Tennisplayer.net. More and more it appears that your website is relevant...to me and the tennis world at large. Thanks for all of the valuable information and discussion. Most of all...thanks for the respect that you pay to the game with your philosophy of paying some homage to the past. Lest we forget it...which would be a real crime.

I think that tennis has some issues to resolve related to equipment.

[stroke]

I really don't think there have been any significant racquet improvements since Prince introduced their Graphite Oversize in the early 1980's. Strings, now that is a different story.

[GeoffWilliams]

Let's make the grand prix race drivers use model t cars. Let's make the golfers use wooden clubs. Etc. All those who are making the arguments will never succeed. Manufacturers, public, pros, nobody will go along with old school demands against progress. Is that not obvious? And anyone who thinks that Laver could beat the top guys now, is in the same delusional boat. Look at the video. Best of all time is only relevant to best of his own time. Five hour grinding finals are now common place. No one was watching three shot rallies.

[stroke]

Geoff, I know you are a very knowledgeable equipment guy. What are your thoughts on the evolution of racquets since the prince graphite oversize?