Roscoe Tanner Redux...

[gzhpcu]

What does that mean?
.....
Why acquire skills? I don't know...how about just for the hell of it.

Too much money at stake nowadays. If the teaching pros, coaches and partents to not instill passion and love of the game, but are just interested in quick results and prize money, how can this change? Still, nowadays tennis is not all that bad...

[stotty]

Cui bono?

Too much money at stake nowadays. If the teaching pros, coaches and partents to not instill passion and love of the game, but are just interested in quick results and prize money, how can this change? Still, nowadays tennis is not all that bad...

I'd have to go along with don_budge. The serve and volley game was sold down the river years ago, and much of the art of volleying has been lost forever with it.

Let us ask the question Cicero, the famous Roman statesman, would have put to his audience thousands of years ago: Why? Cui bono?

[captnemo]

Acquire skills? The top players have amazing amazing skills. They have skills that win on the modern tour with the slow courts, high bounces, super rackets and magic strings. The game will never match again the drama in a McEnroe match, ad out, second serve, serve and volley against Borg or Connors. But if serve and volley was really an option on the tour you'd see it. Hopefully there is a new genius around the corner that will somehow make it viable again.

[klacr]

Acquire skills? The top players have amazing amazing skills. They have skills that win on the modern tour with the slow courts, high bounces, super rackets and magic strings. The game will never match again the drama in a McEnroe match, ad out, second serve, serve and volley against Borg or Connors. But if serve and volley was really an option on the tour you'd see it. Hopefully there is a new genius around the corner that will somehow make it viable again.

It may not take genius, it will take courage, confidence and intelligence from both player (to execute) and coach (to teach, educate, grow). Once Federer leaves the game, who will be the model and who will inspire us? Whose name will we mention to our students as the "model"?

How long can this game continue being played from the baseline with shots getting stronger and forcing floating returns? Will it truly be a battle of attrition or will bravery and IQ win out when someone realizes they can attack that floating ball, take time away from their opponent and apply both physical and mental pressure with their presence at net? Just wondering. Tennis does evolve and I'm hoping the forecourt is in that metamorphosis.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[gzhpcu]

As I mentioned before elsewhere, late 60's articles were bemoaning the sad state of tennis after the Wimbledon final where Fred Stolle beat John Newcombe and it was practically only big serves and volleys with no groundstrokes, saying how boring it was.

Be nice to find something in between...

[don_budge]

Don't believe everything that you hear...

As I mentioned before elsewhere, late 60's articles were bemoaning the sad state of tennis after the Wimbledon final where Fred Stolle beat John Newcombe and it was practically only big serves and volleys with no groundstrokes, saying how boring it was.

Be nice to find something in between...

Those articles that you cite are speaking of the natural ebb and flow of the game that went through cycles where the game emphasized either defense or offense or perhaps baseline play or net play. Tilden wrote of this in his book. He felt that the Californians had tipped the scales to overemphasis on attack at one point. He thought that Elsworth Vines was over the top.

What you are witnessing now is a totally man made fiasco. captnemo captured it perfectly.

"Acquire skills? The top players have amazing amazing skills. They have skills that win on the modern tour with the slow courts, high bounces, super rackets and magic strings. The game will never match again the drama in a McEnroe match, ad out, second serve, serve and volley against Borg or Connors."-captnemo.

It's all man made and in the end it destroys the natural order of things. It's engineered baby. It makes it impossible to have any meaningful discussion on the relative comparison between players of classic tennis era and modern tennis era. Two entirely separate entities and separate things. It's tragic to any true lover of the game of real tennis.

But many refuse to believe their own eyes and prefer to believe that everything is as it should be. Nothing could be further from the truth actually. The simple cold hard fact of the matter is that the game is at an all time low level in terms of variety of play...therefore the lack of variety of skills.

Many older guys...like yourself perhaps are willing to give the game a free pass because the new equipment gives them the illusion that they are still playing good tennis. A new lease on life. Who wouldn't grab onto that?

I know I have caught myself comparing my game to Don Budge's game at my age. I played tennis with him when I was 18 years old...now that I am his age I have caught myself hallucinating that I am playing as well as he did back then. Imagining that I could win the senior doubles at Wimbledon like he did that year I was last at his camp. What a lie I can tell myself...I wake from my self induced slumber and realize he was playing with the old wooden racquet.

I would have to see those articles that you have referenced...not that I don't believe you. Don't believe everything that you hear and only half of what you see...my mother told me that.

[gzhpcu]

I would have to see those articles that you have referenced...not that I don't believe you. Don't believe everything that you hear and only half of what you see...my mother told me that.

Voila... from "Tennis Observed" by Bill Talbert, 1967

[don_budge]

The Truth...

Tennis does evolve and I'm hoping the forecourt is in that metamorphosis.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

Does it klacr? Does it truly evolve? Or are we confusing evolution with engineering? Tennis does continue to be engineered...is perhaps nearer to the truth.

[don_budge]

Evolution vs. Engineering

Voila... from "Tennis Observed" by Bill Talbert, 1967

I would like to read more of this...I used to own this book. Or rather I should say my father owned it. It is a very interesting and astute observation about a single tennis match. He is not bemoaning the same things that I am referring to. Even in this quote he is mentioning that power tennis reached its height...an indication of ebb and flow of the game and sport of tennis.

Again...I will refer to you to William Tilden. The game continued to evolve from the point where the esteemed Bill Talbert made this astute observation about the game of tennis...or to more accurately quote him it was about a single match. I might disagree with him too about his observations. Newcombe was a very thoughtful player...as was Fred Stolle. Two ultimate Aussie tacticians. The word "power" must be thought of in context. Certainly he was not referring to the kind of speed at which the game is being played today...due to the engineering.

The sport continued to evolve to a more baseline and net balanced attack shortly after this citation to the Jimmy Connors style of play and continued to evolve through the Björn Borg and John McEnroe duels where baseline duels met net approach duels and each opponent was forced to concede to each others style and was forced to be able to play both ends of the stick...the spectrum. This is where it stopped evolving and the engineering took over.

[don_budge]

Boring?

Voila... from "Tennis Observed" by Bill Talbert, 1967

Where does Talbert say that it was boring? Is that your interpretation of what he said? Your subjective experience of the words?

[gzhpcu]

Where does Talbert say that it was boring? Is that your interpretation of what he said? Your subjective experience of the words?

Well, if it is mostly serve ace. serve return error. serve put away volley. Continuously short points, that is what it is IMHO. Of course, maybe you like that kind of game...

[don_budge]

Evolution vs. Engineering

Well, if it is mostly serve ace. serve return error. serve put away volley. Continuously short points, that is what it is IMHO. Of course, maybe you like that kind of game...

Evolution...as opposed to engineering below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBtqhLlRsz0

I would appreciate it if you stay objective...you cannot extrapolate the quote you cited to Talbert saying that the game was boring. Additionally the kind of game that I might prefer is of no consequence...and of less importance to this discussion. I am only discussing tennis philosophically...as well as scientifically. But that is not to say that I do not enjoy the banter.

The "Evolution of the Past" as compared to the "Engineering of the Future".

[gzhpcu]

Evolution...as opposed to engineering below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBtqhLlRsz0

I would appreciate it if you stay objective...you cannot extrapolate the quote you cited to Talbert saying that the game was boring. Additionally the kind of game that I might prefer is of no consequence...and of less importance to this discussion. I am only discussing tennis philosophically...as well as scientifically. But that is not to say that I do not enjoy the banter.

The "Evolution of the Past" as compared to the "Engineering of the Future".

Don, I remember seeing the match on TV, so if I interpret Talbert to say it was boring, well, I certainly found it very boring. Practically no exchanges. But then, I guess boredom is in the mind of the beholder...

[gzhpcu]

Caution subjective opinion:

Matches I like are Tanner - Borg, Rafter - Agassi, Becker -Edberg