Old Riggs vs Budge match 1942

[gzhpcu]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8jhKS-yMCs

Good quality video!

[vrc10s]

Nice shot of Budge serving with 3 balls in his hand !!

[GeoffWilliams]

The video proves that neither of these guys could beat a top 4.5 or 5.0 player. They would not be able to win a local 5.0. Sad to see.

Here is don budge park in oakland, where there were some gun shots and gang attack recently:

My town, oakland ca. known all over the world for two things: the home of some famous people and the murder capital of the west coast. Sorry that Oakland named a ghetto court after Budge. Not very respectful, even if the ante has gone up in the game, his courts are next to a pick up basket ball court, in a neighborhood you don't want to walk in at night.

[don_budge]

You Cannot Be Serious...

The video proves that neither of these guys could beat a top 4.5 or 5.0 player. They would not be able to win a local 5.0. Sad to see.

Without question...the most ignorant comment that I have read in this forum. Ever. Congratulations!

Btw...the comments about John McEnroe run a close second.

I just love the little conversation that he and Bobby Riggs have for the camera's sake at the conclusion of the match. At the very end good old Don Budge looks to be a bit peeved with something that someone said. "No, no...no more," he says as he turns his back on the offending party and exits stage left. I can just imagine how he would have reacted to your ignorant comment...he probably would have just smiled and not been as emotive as he was here.

He was such a kind and gracious person it is difficult to imagine him looking so perturbed here but you know...people say really stupid things sometimes. It almost seems that they do it on purpose. Just to get a rise out of you or something useless and stupid as such.

[GeoffWilliams]

Video doesn't lie. Their form, footwork, pace of shot, recovery, serve pace, lack of rpms, and either would be blown away by a top 4.5 or 5.0. Just try playing them. Top guys play down, and are really a step up from their level stated. These guys look like local duffers who pray on those who can't deal with consistent pushers. Their continental grip styles cannot handle the high topspin shots hit by most advanced players, nor their kick serve seconds. Their forays into net off slow and weak approaches would be destroyed for the most part. Like I said, sad to see how the game has passed the legends by. Btw, Mac admitted to six yrs. of steroid use but he said, "I didn't know I was being given sterioids." Does anyone buy that? He's often complained about how stringers are now "millionaires", in a resentful voice. He often makes mistakes about which string/tension/equipment a player uses as if he knows. Good commentator, bad guy on the court, bad guy off the court imo.

[stotty]

Video doesn't lie. Their form, footwork, pace of shot, recovery, serve pace, lack of rpms, and either would be blown away by a top 4.5 or 5.0. Just try playing them. Top guys play down, and are really a step up from their level stated. These guys look like local duffers who pray on those who can't deal with consistent pushers. Their continental grip styles cannot handle the high topspin shots hit by most advanced players, nor their kick serve seconds. Their forays into net off slow and weak approaches would be destroyed for the most part. Like I said, sad to see how the game has passed the legends by. Btw, Mac admitted to six yrs. of steroid use but he said, "I didn't know I was being given sterioids." Does anyone buy that? He's often complained about how stringers are now "millionaires", in a resentful voice. He often makes mistakes about which string/tension/equipment a player uses as if he knows. Good commentator, bad guy on the court, bad guy off the court imo.

Could Don Budge wield a modern racket like Djokovic? Could Djokovic play like Djokovic using a wooden racket?...or would he more likely play like Budge, as all his power and rpm's would be irrevocably removed.

It's all nonsense...the comparison ridiculous...probably unfair.

Wood versus modern technology? Two different games. It's pointless comparing the two. I stopped doing so long ago. In doing so I gained greater appreciation and respect for the wooden era and those who played in it. Players like Nastase and McEnroe were out of this world. I've watched both from just feet away. How lucky was I?

I would have happily strung their rackets for free all day long.

[GeoffWilliams]

No more unfair than comparing track times, Jesse owens was slower than Flo jo, ie, and she died from ped poisoning. Hey, Mac, have those horse steroids destroyed your lymph nodes yet?

Talk to Bobby Bonds about that. Or Walter Payton. Or Lyle Alzado. Etc. Flo Jo. Etc. Only a matter of time before the reaper comes due for the ped abusers.

Barry bonds saw what they did to his own father and that didn't stop him.

[don_budge]

The Hyper Extended Comparison...Classic vs. Modern

Video doesn't lie. Their form, footwork, pace of shot, recovery, serve pace, lack of rpms, and either would be blown away by a top 4.5 or 5.0. Just try playing them. Top guys play down, and are really a step up from their level stated. These guys look like local duffers who pray on those who can't deal with consistent pushers. Their continental grip styles cannot handle the high topspin shots hit by most advanced players, nor their kick serve seconds. Their forays into net off slow and weak approaches would be destroyed for the most part. Like I said, sad to see how the game has passed the legends by. Btw, Mac admitted to six yrs. of steroid use but he said, "I didn't know I was being given sterioids." Does anyone buy that? He's often complained about how stringers are now "millionaires", in a resentful voice. He often makes mistakes about which string/tension/equipment a player uses as if he knows. Good commentator, bad guy on the court, bad guy off the court imo.

Could Don Budge wield a modern racket like Djokovic? Could Djokovic play like Djokovic using a wooden racket?...or would he more likely play like Budge, as all his power and rpm's would be irrevocably removed.

It's all nonsense...the comparison ridiculous...probably unfair.

Wood versus modern technology? Two different games. It's pointless comparing the two. I stopped doing so long ago. In doing so I gained greater appreciation and respect for the wooden era and those who played in it. Players like Nastase and McEnroe were out of this world. I've watched both from just feet away. How lucky was I?

I would have happily strung their rackets for free all day long.

Interesting discussion...it seems to be impossible but is it? Let's just apply what we know for a fact and leave the nonsense out of the equation.

First let's take a look at this tournament that was played in 1972 and was won by none other than the "Mercurial One" Ille Nastase. He defeated Arthur Ashe in a brilliant display of all court tennis in five sets. Both players were using standard sized racquets.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Share/Event-Draws.aspx?e=560&y=1972

For the sake of comparison let's use this years Wimbledon tennis as an example to us and to be played against the 1972 U. S. Open draw. We are creating a fictitious petrie dish in order to carry out an experiment.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Share/Event-Draws.aspx?e=540&y=2014

The experiment is to play the players of the classic era versus the modern era under both the conditions of both eras. Let's take the contest to the conditions of 1972 at the U. S. Open first. Every single player in the draw at the Open was capable of playing all court tennis which includes playing serve and volley tennis. None of the players in the modern era are capable of playing true all court tennis which includes serve and volley tennis. Advantage the classic player.

Next...the modern players are going to all use standard sized racquets. It is a logical foregone conclusion that every single modern player will be playing way below their usual standard because the size of the racquet is going to be a variable that they are not going to have an answer for. So...the combination of the ability to play all court tennis and being accustomed to the equipment is an overwhelming advantage to the classic player. The advantage is insurmountable. The players of the classic overwhelmingly dominate their modern counterparts playing under the classic conditions with the classic equipment.

Keep in mind to the technical aspects of the swings. The ATP forehands that everyone is so impressed with are rendered virtually useless against the artists of the classic era. It is a very ineffective swing when you are playing on a slicked up grass court...without the snowshoe sized racquet that you have always been accustomed to. Try out that ATP forehand using the Dunlop Maxply Fort with 70 square inches. It's a whole new ball game and the ball don't lie. Remember also that in 1972 three of the four majors were played on grass so all of the players of the classic era with have a distinct advantage over every single modern player...they are playing a game that the other is unfamiliar with.

With me so far? Sorry to burst some of those bubbles out there but it must be done. Video doesn't lie...but people do. Not always on purpose...sometimes out of ignorance. Sometimes for other reasons.

Now lets take a look when the conditions are reversed. Classic players were very capable of playing all court tennis. This included playing from the baseline as well. They may not have played with the extreme spin but remember they were limited because of the equipment. Given only two weeks each and every one of those classic players would be able to adapt to the new equipment and instantly be able to adjust to any new tactics or anything else the modern players would be able to throw at them.

So now we are playing under the 2014 Wimbledon conditions. It is still grass even though it is the hybrid stuff that has been manufactured in a laboratory someplace to keep the bounce much higher than it used to be in yesteryear. It doesn't matter though. The classic players are still armed with the all court game. The ability to attack the net and hit consistently good approaches and solid knifing volleys. They won't get discouraged because they get passed a couple of times. All of their service motions are geared to them scooting towards the net and they have all of the skill to play the middle of the court in the transition to the net. If Roger Federer could have just mounted a very average attack based on the sound principles of all court tennis you are going to have to conclude he probably would have won that match easily. Novak Djokovic was completely incapable of mounting anything resembling a net attack. Once again the classic players of old are going to dominate. The conditions are going to be fast enough for their strokes to give the ATP forehand and two-handed backhands all kinds of tactical fits.

So draw your own conclusions...try not to fantasize or believe the hype.

[stotty]

Celluloid versus digital

Video...TV coverage...hmmm

Wood versus modern bats...celluloid versus digital...the filmmaker laments just the same as us...ask Tarantino.

Neither celluloid or digital shows the truth. I've watches matches live and arrived home later to watch the same match recorded...two different games I can tell you. Djokovic versus Stephenek at Wimbledon this year was played at quite a conservative, slow pace from Djokovic's standpoint. I saw the whole match on centre court in a prime position near the front. I got home that evening to watch the recording and all of s sudden it looked much quicker...far quicker than it was. That I found odd.

[gzhpcu]

Neither celluloid or digital shows the truth. I've watches matches live and arrived home later to watch the same match recorded...two different games I can tell you. Djokovic versus Stephenek at Wimbledon this year was played at quite a conservative, slow pace from Djokovic's standpoint. I saw the whole match on centre court in a prime position near the front. I got home that evening to watch the recording and all of s sudden it looked much quicker...far quicker than it was. That I found odd.

I have had the same impression. I saw Wawrinka playing live 3 years ago in Lugano at the ATP Challenger Tournament which he won, and his strokes did not look as quick as on TV. What TV did not capture, however, was the sense of spin the players were using.

Looking at the old video, the Bobby Riggs serve does not seem particularly fast, compared to today's standards. Budge's looks quite a bit better.

So, it seems to imply that if video makes the game seem faster, then the Budge - Riggs match, would have seemed slower live, than it already seems on the video.

Also, to play an all court game is a lot easier to play if the speed of the strokes and the amount of spin applied is a lot less.

So, all in all, I agree with Geoff... (Had Budge learned to play in our era, he probably would have been a lot stronger, of course, with modern equipment, but on this video, play seems very casual and relaxed.)

[stotty]

Yes hard to fathom, isn't it? Yet Budge, in his late thirties, made the US Open Pro Championship final in 1953, losing to your hero (and highly acclaimed by all) Pancho Gonzales in four sets. And he scored a win over Gonzales in 1954. So work that one out...beating Gonzales when Gonzales was at his zenith...when Budge himself was 38?

You see it really isn't that simple. Some things can't be explained away and cast aside that easily.

There have been no quantum leaps in tennis when players have used the same equipment.

Jack Kramer said of Don Budge this:

"Budge was the best of all. He owned the most perfect set of mechanics and he was the most consistent.... Don was so good that when he toured with Sedgman, Gonzales, and Segura in 1954 at the age of thirty-eight, none of those guys could get to the net consistently off his serve—and Sedgman, as quick a man who ever played the game, was in his absolute prime then. Don could keep them pinned to the baseline with his backhand too."

[don_budge]

Neither celluloid or digital shows the truth. I've watches matches live and arrived home later to watch the same match recorded...two different games I can tell you. Djokovic versus Stephenek at Wimbledon this year was played at quite a conservative, slow pace from Djokovic's standpoint. I saw the whole match on centre court in a prime position near the front. I got home that evening to watch the recording and all of s sudden it looked much quicker...far quicker than it was. That I found odd.

What you found odd was the impression that was left on you from watching in person did not match up exactly with what was digitally presented. The key word is impression. The indelible impression. The impression is something only the trained eye can pick up because the brain has been trained to this infinitesimal degree.

From all of those years of viewing at Wimbledon you have acquired this knack...this intuition. The power of discernment that the untrained eye...the untrained and ignorant brain is not in tune with.

You see it really isn't that simple. Some things can't be explained away and cast aside that easily.

There have been no quantum leaps in tennis when players have used the same equipment.

Well it really is pretty simple except that people want to make it seem more complicated than it really is...in this way they can heap more credit on to themselves. This is the nature of the game...the game of human interpretations.

Consider this...our esteemed colleague from Switzerland has that:

"Looking at the old video, the Bobby Riggs serve does not seem particularly fast, compared to today's standards. Budge's looks quite a bit better.

So, it seems to imply that if video makes the game seem faster, then the Budge - Riggs match, would have seemed slower live, than it already seems on the video."

What about this little fact of the matter...what you see with the Riggs and Budge "video" is not truly video. It is a facsimile that was copied from super 8 or whatever the camera format of the day was. In the same way that high speed video may have left an impression on you that the action was faster on the digital than in reality...the camera's of those days...the technology of those days would probably leave you with the impression that things were slightly slowed down.

Forget about the cameras...they lie. Or at least they give a false impression. Try and walk your way through it. Think about it tactically and take the swings and the equipment into account. Realize that the players of those classic eras were actually playing their game based on a Plan A and if that wasn't working they had a B and a C. Hands down...classic tennis was a superior product. I believe that I have solved this interesting equation in my logical presentation in post #8. Try to think your way through it. A lost art in itself. Most believe something that they are told...it's easier. But lazy.

Mom was right...she said, "Don't believe everything you hear and only half of what you see". I think that effectively she was telling me to not be intellectually lazy...use your head. Given equal conditions in either era there is not question as to who were the superior tennis players. Federer may have been just another challenger in the draw in 1972. Wouldn't that be something? He may not have been competitive at all given his lack of tactical acumen in traversing to the net. Nastase and Ashe followed every single serve to the net without exception during their entire match...first and second serves. Any idea what kind of pressure that puts on the receiver. The modern players of today would be no match for the classic on grass which was the original form of tennis. It was called "lawn tennis" for a reason.

[klacr]

Different eras, different rules, different equiptment. This argument will go on for as long as tennis is around. the only way to find the answer is to hop in the time machine. I have full respect and admiration for the generations before me and I have respect for the current. There is not one that is inherently better than the other.

Giving players of yesteryear the technology and sport science information we have today who knows what could have happened and what records could be broken. Giving players of today antiquated equiptment, enforcing service rules and having 3 of 4 majors on grass we may see the cream that truly rises to the top.

Always a good discussion but this one is waiting for an answer, just waiting for that time machine.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[gzhpcu]

Look at this:

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

Bobby Riggs does not have a strong serve.

And furthermore there were a lot less people playing tennis back then as opposed to now.

[don_budge]

Here's Bobby...

Look at this:

Here's Bobby...he agrees with Louis CK...the best part of marriage is divorce.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxHrO8pwSww