Yesterday's tennis: I find Bill Tilden overrated

[don_budge]

Or Bill for short...

Worldsbestcoach...you just got my respect. You're right. No one aims for a target they cannot see.

It's worldsbesttenniscoach not Worldsbestcoach...Worldsbestcoach might be a bit of a stretch.

[stotty]

It's worldsbesttenniscoach not Worldsbestcoach.

Amended...

[gzhpcu]

One point I am trying to make is that in the "old" days (pre-50's), there were not so many tennis players around. The player pyramid was not as broad as it it started to be from the 70's onward. I just feel that if you have a lot more players competing, you will naturally end up with higher quality players, and those that reach the top must really be strong...

[stotty]

Numbers are no guarantee

One point I am trying to make is that in the "old" days (pre-50's), there were not so many tennis players around. The player pyramid was not as broad as it it started to be from the 70's onward. I just feel that if you have a lot more players competing, you will naturally end up with higher quality players, and those that reach the top must really be strong...

The game seems to be shrinking, not expanding. In the UK many more people played tennis in the 70s than now...and this seems to be reflected in other countries.

I would argue we have a handful of extremely good world-class players around today...and a big drop in standard after that, and this despite the bigger pool of players being around these days than in the pre 50's. Standards have peaked and troughed over the years. They don't always steadily rise as people automatically assume. We can't assume just because more people play a sport standards will automatically rise. More people play soccer in England than ever before but our national team is woeful compared our national teams of the 50's and 60's...hard to work out why, but a fact. Numbers mean nothing if you lose your way in a sport.

All generations have had a handful of players who have separated from the rest...just like today. The top players today are extremely good at one dimensional tennis. They can also switch from defense to attack and vice versa in a flash, something I find intriguing, skillful.

But the big mistake in today's tennis has not so much been the rackets or strings, but the courts. You can play the same brand of tennis on all courts and get away with it. That's not right.

Even Borg HAD to learn to serve and volley to win Wimbledon. Nadal, Djokovic and Murray have all managed it with just fleeting, comparatively, trips to the net. On grass it's a sham if you can do that. I can understand why the Wimbledon committee slowed the courts down (boring two/three shot Ivanisevc v Sampras finals) but they went too far.

But yes while the odds must go up the more competitors there are, it's no guarantee.

[tennis_chiro]

Changes in the mid-60's

One point I am trying to make is that in the "old" days (pre-50's), there were not so many tennis players around. The player pyramid was not as broad as it it started to be from the 70's onward. I just feel that if you have a lot more players competing, you will naturally end up with higher quality players, and those that reach the top must really be strong...

there were some massive changes that took place in the middle to late 60's. When I (3 years after you) was a junior and senior in high school just beginning to play and aware of National Junior rankings, 5 of the top ten an 10 of the top 20 nationally ranked boys were from CA (Borowiak and van Dillen from Northern Cal). And that ration permeated all the rankings. Largely because permanent indoor facilities were rare before the mid-60's. They started to be a viable and interesting business and a lot of places were put up or warehouses were converted at this time. Also, I don't think there were any bubbles before the mid-60's (not sure about that); at least they were not as common. In about 1970, they started to go up all over the place on municipal courts; 1970 was the year I got hired to go to NY to teach on the bubbled NYC public courts at Mullalley Park in the Bronx across the street from Yankee Stadium. I believe this was a breakthrough kind of a deal between Steve Hartman's HCK and NYC; Steve was one of the founders of NJTL.

As a college player and an open player in the late 60's and early 70's, there wasn't much respect granted anyone ranked below the very top in any section outside of CA or Florida or maybe the South. That all change in the 70's. Up until that time, most of the good players came from CA or Florida. One of the reasons I had so much fun that first year in NY is I was one of the best players around and actually available. In Los Angeles, the current and former USC and UCLA players would routine me in early rounds of good SoCal tourneys.

Another point to remember: when we played Europeans, we were always wary of the fact they could run forever, but they rarely had really good serves. Tennis on TV became ubiquitous in the 70's and players around the world had the chance to see good service motions and emulate them. Americans had great service motions because most of us had learned to throw a baseball or a football before we learned to play tennis. Not so for the rest of the world that was busy playing soccer with all their free time.

And finally, we should not forget tennis went open in 1968 and had begun that journey in earnest about 1965 with the two competing touring pro groups. I don't remember the names for both groups, but I think WCT had the 'Handsome Eight' and there was another group with Laver, Rosewall, Gimeno, Bucholtz and Gonzales who were really the core of Kramer's touring pro business before Hunt got involved; I might have that backward as far as who was in Hunt's WCT group, but I think the Handsome Eight included Drysdale, Newcombe, Roche,
... I had to look it up: see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Championship_Tennis

The other group was National Tennis League with Laver, et al.

Anyway, when tennis went open with the French in 1968, everything began to change. Tennis got a lot more exposure and the 5 to 12 year-old kids that saw those players, ... well, a lot more of them around the world decided to become tennis players. Then Satellite circuits began to develop in the 70's and by the 80's the ITF had a world-wide circuit that players could use to climb to the top. None of that existed except for a privileged few prior to those developments.

So, no, kids in bombed out Dresden in 1946 didn't get to watch tennis players like kids in Serbia practicing in swimming pools or kids in Moscow going to a program in a park in the middle of nowhere, ... and so on around the world.

But I would still suggest to you that there are a lot more 5 to 12 year-olds walking into tennis clubs somewhere in America for their first exposure to tennis than in all of Eastern Europe or all of Western Europe (maybe not the two put together) with more resources available behind them to become players and yet...35 year old Mike Russel was the best performing American man anywhere in the world this week

don

[worldsbesttenniscoach]

I'm sure that the USTA spreads survey results that supposedly show there are so many American tennis players now, but . . .

from what I see in last half of the 20th century & early 21st century is that tennis used to be a far more important sport to the American media & to the American public than it is now. And in terms of popularity, while American tennis courts today are relative ghost towns, they used to be so in demand that fights were frequent over which players were there first & thus had right to playing time first.

The dwindling of enthusiasm by the American public for tennis definitely has led to a concommitant dwindling of American competitiveness on the international circuit. Of course tennis competition has spread the world over, but American tennis is not what it used to be.

[johnyandell]

don,

here is a factoid I learned. By age 18 there are only 10,000 kids in the US still playing tournaments. AND over two thirds of all kids all ages never play a second usta tournament. The first experience crushes them.

[GeoffWilliams]

3,300 kids playing out of millions? That's disgusting. Not enough folks out here who can encourage regardless of loss. Sampras lost 19 times in a row when one handing. How many kids would do that now in the us? Self belief allowed him to turn it on at 4-4. How many kids can do that? No one believes in themselves in this game in the us anymore.

[tennis_chiro]

don,

here is a factoid I learned. By age 18 there are only 10,000 kids in the US still playing tournaments. AND over two thirds of all kids all ages never play a second usta tournament. The first experience crushes them.

Take that at face value and call it 5000 boys and 5000 girls. I just looked and there are 20 USA men ranked in the top 300. That 5000 boys and girls is every year. One in 500 should be able to get into the top 300 and they might average a 5 year effort, but we'll say just 4. That's 40, not 20 men that should minimally be in the top 300 in the world. I'm quite sure that 1 in 100 has the potential if they had the opportunity to face the right challenges and competition as they were going through their teen years and then in their early post-adolescence. The right competitive environment and opportunities would bring out the kid who can cut it.

If they wanted to, the USTA could create that kind of opportunity and I really believe it would produce more American players than the current system. Of course, that's not saying a lot.

don

[johnyandell]

And another fact: about 250,000 kids play high school tennis.

[stotty]

Not looking good for you or the Brits

And another fact: about 250,000 kids play high school tennis.

You think you've got problems:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/10513277/Tennis-funding-at-risk-as-sports-suffer-big-decreases-in-participation-in-England.html

This one is interesting from the BBC because they give stats from Spain and France...and some about your good selves over the pond.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/22912754

Looks like we're both in a deep puzzle. If you come up with any good ideas can you PM them along to me...

This thread started off about Bill Tilden and look where we've ended up. Don't you just love the way threads have a life of their own.

[don_budge]

The Book is Bill Tilden...Part 1

http://www.britishpathe.com/video/tennis-4/query/Tilden

http://www.britishpathe.com/video/big-bill-comes-back/query/Tilden

http://www.britishpathe.com/video/big-bill-tilden/query/Tilden

http://www.britishpathe.com/video/professional-tennis-in-u-s-a/query/Tilden

http://www.britishpathe.com/video/battle-of-tennis-stars/query/Tilden

http://sportsmansdaily.com/thescrum/wp-content/tilden.jpg

http://tpatennis.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/wpid-19564-050-E5537571.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/1-scedu_tilden1919.jpg

Anecdotes...video...facts...the ability to discern and extrapolate

The don_budge paradigm of tennis...The Book is Bill Tilden. The Model is Richard Gonzales with the Don Budge backhand. Harry Hopman is the coach and Roger Federer is Living Proof.

Stotty,

Here is an first hand anecdote that backs up your Tilden conclusion. About 1980 when I was teaching at Golden Gate Park Alice Marble showed up one day. Yes that Alice Marble who won 5 Slam titles.

She wanted to play doubles and she and I played two other regulars, the 3 of us all being ranked 5.0 or 5.0 men players. First of all at the age of about 65 she held her own and I was very thankful she and I won and I made all my volleys, because it was clear she was not going to be happy with any other outcome.

Afterwards she was holding court and decided to tell us why Tilden was the greatest player of all time. Turns out she was on that same tour as the warmup act with Budge and Tilden. She claimed that before each and every match Tilden won, he came into her dressing room and announced: "Tonight I shall give the young man a lesson." I guess Tilden knew how much he had left and when.

A precious moment in time...even though there is no video of this story. If a tree falls in the forest and there was no video evidence...did it really fall? In this case...considering the source I would say yes.

It may just be me, but I never found Bill Tilden's game particularly attractive and overrated.

I look at old clips and find his strokes not particularly aesthetic ("wooden" is the word I would use)... His movement not particularly athletic.

Reminds me of the old saying "in the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king"...

Tennis worth the word starts with the Jack Kramer/Pancho Gonzalez era.

I doubt if it is just you. Cameras and mirrors. Throw in a little smoke and snake oil. Decades of dust too. There are millions out there that have been deceived about the game, sport and history of tennis. You are in good company...as far as numbers go. Tennis worth the word? Bill Tilden is the word. All the brothers in the city of Detroit are saying "WORD" when you mention the name of Bill Tilden when it comes to tennis.

The book is Bill Tilden. He wrote the "Bible" on tennis way back when. Original copyright..1923. Harry Hopman considered "Match Play and the Spin of the Ball" the Bible with regards to tennis. He is my coach...the father of the great Australian Legacy in tennis. Bill Tilden all but invented the game of modern tennis...aka classic tennis.

Tilden was missing a finger...but he was no “one-eyed king” who ruled by default. Both Jack Kramer and Richard Gonzalez had much to thank Bill Tilden for with regards for a basis to learn the game and make their own rich contributions to the game. They were not just reading his book either.

Yes, but just look at the videos: not at all impressive play, standing straight legged, funny looking groundstrokes, etc.

Yep...just look at the videos. Everything looks strange through the eye of the technology available back in the days of Tilden. You keep referring to the video of Bill Tilden in action...my question is "What Video"? All of these clips add up to virtually nothing realistically speaking. What there exists of Bill Tilden in video is truly lacking in any kind of clarity that might do justice to the genius or the playing skills of "The Father of Classic Tennis".

Take for example his teaching videos...they too are the first of their kind. Black and white. He actually invented the tennis instructional video. Like his contemporary Bobby Jones did in golf. But I suppose that you would find Bobby Jones unimpressive as well. It’s sort of interesting that this “golden era” of American sports produced such iconic characters such as Bill Tilden, Bobby Jones, Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth.

This incremental comparison is misleading. Compare Tilden directly to Federer, Nadal, Wawrinka, etc. and the gap is huge.

The pictures and videos speak for themselves. Top player in an era where the sport was elitist (looked upon as a pansy sport in the States), with virtually no competition worth mentioning.

First of all to even for a moment believe that you can compare Bill Tilden's era to the era of today is in a word...a dream. Or hallucination. Nothing more needs to be said about this. You cannot even compare the tennis of 1983 to that of the present let alone the 1920's. The great thing about your argument and the arguments that the social engineers will be presenting to the masses is that everyone that could possibly defend it...is dead. Except me of course.

But if you played any of the above mentioned pretenders to the throne of Tilden on any kind of even platform...including a wide and diversified set of surfaces...I am betting the farm on Tilden. Three of the four Grand Slams were played on grass as well and it wasn't the hybrid engineered turf excuse for lawn they are playing on now.

Pansies? Bill Tilden had something to with that too. His sex life was in a word "pathetic"...and that is all that I will say in that regard. Homosexuality? To each his own. It leaves more women for me.

Have you ever read...Match Play and the Spin of the Ball? Just curious.

Yes...what does it have to do with it? Only this...Bill Tilden all but invented the game of tennis. Everything that happened after he laid the foundation of technique and tactics were mere derivatives. Even the modern game can be explained and analyzed on the basis of "Match Play and the Spin of the Ball" alone. Include his "How to Play Better Tennis: A complete guide to technique and tactics” and you have an complete manual to provide any decent tennis coach everything that he needs to know. That is...if the coach can still read. Reading is another lost art...relegated to the mulch pile with much of the original game of tennis.

Richard Gonzales was sort of a Tilden protege in the most raw and carnal form. A cat with an instinct and brain for ultimate tactics. Truly a killer instinct honed in real life and he fought the machine for what was his. A Latino in a white man's world. He looked like an Aztec...one of the few that survived "the New World Order". But a scholar he was not...not in the sense of Bill Tilden. I have his book too...the photos of this great athlete are worth the price of the book alone.

Don, yes I have read it. What does this have to do with Bill Tilden being over-rated? Lots of persons have written good books on tennis, without being a tennis champion.
He might write well, but theoretical knowledge but inferior to the instincts of a Pancho Gonzalez, for example, who wrote a couple of small books, which were nothing special, but he was the heck of a player...

I fail to see the logic in this post. Nobody has written anything remotely close to what Tilden wrote and condensed the cerebral aspect of the game to. Everybody after Tilden...is a wannabe. A Tilden wannabe.

[don_budge]

The Book is Bill Tilden...Part 2

Ladies and Gentleman of the jury. You have heard the various arguments in the case. We have vastly differing opinions on the quality of Bill Tilden's tennis. His supporters provide anecdotes and argue the age factor in his beating younger world-class opponents.

I would say that a video is worth a thousand words...

This is no trial. It is a conversation...and a very good one. I am so proud of Stotty to see that he is making the case clear and unwavering. There is no need to waver...Bill Tilden is everything and probably more. His personal life undoubtably tarnished his legacy to say nothing of his reputation when he was alive. He was surely vilified by some very important people but he was so large...so much larger than life that he held his own on all of the playing fields. Morality included. Kings and Presidents get away with murder...he got away with some as well. But the facts are somewhat murky and better left alone at this point.

There is no video of an entire match that Tilden played. Considering how much tennis he played and the extent of his record that is a shame. I am certain that if Bill Tilden had the opportunity to just have the right cameras and lighting we would not be having this discussion. Bill Tilden invented tennis. Not only theoretically but practically as well. He put his theories to the acid test against any and all competition of the day. Even beyond his days. To play the best in the world at the ages that have been cited is almost beyond belief. The anecdote that John cites is just one of thousands. When I watch any video or whatever you want to call the archaic images that we have of Tilden I am able to extrapolate that into a stream of consciousness that goes on and on infinitum. Five set matches, Davis Cup victories...you name it. He dominated it.

He did all of that without the benefit of having era upon era preceding him from which to study. He made it all up. He invented it. Comparing him to any of the modern day pretenders is like comparing Fyodor Dostoyevsky to John Grisham. Far fetched at best.

I felt the backhand of Don Budge on my racquet...he was my age at the time. Fifty-nine. I was eighteen...young, strong and wild. We were playing classic tennis with wooden racquets. Tilden beat Don Budge when Budge was in his prime and Tilden was essentally “an old man”.

You mention Bill Tilden looking wooden...wood is good. Wood is life. Wood springs to life when you bend it. It flexes. Don Budge? What a wonder to behold. He was a disciple of Tilden. I look at Tilden's movement and I see perfection. He never is out of position. It was the 1920's and 1930's and 1940's and 1950's....he was simply marvelous!

Overrated? It looks to me as if he has been undervalued.