What it takes....

[stotty]

This BBC video clip and article lay out what it take to become a top flight tennis player in the modern game. The self-effacing comment by the tennis coach at the very end of the clip is about the way I see things too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/29019495

[don_budge]

Sheer and Utter Nonsense…pure propaganda

From the article...

The evolution from small, wooden racquets to super-size composite racquets at the end of the 1970s changed the game for good, increasing spin, power and shot creativity.

"The old, heavier wooden racquets were very unforgiving and by the fifth set you could be exhausted," explains Ralf Schwenger, director of research and development for racquet manufacturer Head. "Modern technology has helped a lot.

"The carbon or graphene frame can now weigh around 250g while a wooden racquet was 400g. The trend is also towards a mid-plus size racquet, which is 96-105 square inches (600-680 cm square).

"The revolution of the racquet is important. Now it's easier to have a margin of error, to play defensively and have less fatigue in your game."

Total bullshit. Glorifying the dumbed down version of the original game. The new racquet increased shot creativity? This is as retarded as it gets. You cannot deny the suped up racquets and the shiny exercise equipment. But the bolded quote above must be translated for the dumbed down retarded public.

Basically the game is so much easier to play now because of the equipment. This was evident from the get go. But to say that this is evolution or revolution is the dead give away makes this "bullshit" so transparent. It was neither…it was a simple garbaging of all traditional values and "reinventing" through engineering.

Easier to have a margin for error? Damn straight! You saw the final between Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal last Sunday didn't you? You saw how badly they were miss hitting balls that went ricocheting into the stratosphere of the arena. Those balls would have been complete misses with the traditional equipment. Countless other shots would have been framed or badly mishit.

Thanks for posting this article…it's a great example how propaganda is the substitute for the truth nowadays. Sheer and utter nonsense. Pat Cash was one of the early turnabouts to the Prince Racquet. He's a mouthpiece for the modern game. Still trying to make a living at it. You cannot blame him…not anymore than you can blame the mouthpiece from the Head director of research and development. Parasites. I guess we are all parasites…on the host Earth.

Glorifying the "physicality" of the game today. Oh yeah…it's so much more demanding isn't it? Anybody remember what it was like trying to serve out a match at 14-13 in the fifth set? Give me a break. It's a dumbed down version. It's a backcourt game played on one surface fits all mentalities.

I love articles like this one. They demonstrate how closely tennis is a metaphor for much that is going on in modern life these days. Take a look at the news…Tony Blair apologized for essentially destroying several countries and killing millions. He apologized. Isn't that funny?

[stotty]

From the article...

The evolution from small, wooden racquets to super-size composite racquets at the end of the 1970s changed the game for good, increasing spin, power and shot creativity.

"The old, heavier wooden racquets were very unforgiving and by the fifth set you could be exhausted," explains Ralf Schwenger, director of research and development for racquet manufacturer Head. "Modern technology has helped a lot.

"The carbon or graphene frame can now weigh around 250g while a wooden racquet was 400g. The trend is also towards a mid-plus size racquet, which is 96-105 square inches (600-680 cm square).

"The revolution of the racquet is important. Now it's easier to have a margin of error, to play defensively and have less fatigue in your game."

Total bullshit. Glorifying the dumbed down version of the original game. The new racquet increased shot creativity? This is as retarded as it gets. You cannot deny the suped up racquets and the shiny exercise equipment. But the bolded quote above must be translated for the dumbed down retarded public.

Basically the game is so much easier to play now because of the equipment. This was evident from the get go. But to say that this is evolution or revolution is the dead give away makes this "bullshit" so transparent. It was neither…it was a simple garbaging of all traditional values and "reinventing" through engineering.

Easier to have a margin for error? Damn straight! You saw the final between Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal last Sunday didn't you? You saw how badly they were miss hitting balls that went ricocheting into the stratosphere of the arena. Those balls would have been complete misses with the traditional equipment. Countless other shots would have been framed or badly mishit.

Thanks for posting this article…it's a great example how propaganda is the substitute for the truth nowadays. Sheer and utter nonsense. Pat Cash was one of the early turnabouts to the Prince Racquet. He's a mouthpiece for the modern game. Still trying to make a living at it. You cannot blame him…not anymore than you can blame the mouthpiece from the Head director of research and development. Parasites. I guess we are all parasites…on the host Earth.

Glorifying the "physicality" of the game today. Oh yeah…it's so much more demanding isn't it? Anybody remember what it was like trying to serve out a match at 14-13 in the fifth set? Give me a break. It's a dumbed down version. It's a backcourt game played on one surface fits all mentalities.

I love articles like this one. They demonstrate how closely tennis is a metaphor for much that is going on in modern life these days. Take a look at the news…Tony Blair apologized for essentially destroying several countries and killing millions. He apologized. Isn't that funny?

Yes, the article was overhype. And the young players making the comments about today's game have no inkling what it was like to play in the 60's for example.

I wondered how long it would take you to get to the "creativity" comment in you post. You got there by your third sentence. Quick.

I think what the writer of the article should have said is that modern rackets give greater possibilities on tricky balls, not that they make the player more creative.

It would be nice if I could find some middle ground between modern and wood to appease both yourself and those critical of your comments about the modern game, but there is none. Wood and modern tennis are two different games. Two different skill sets. If Djokovic played McEnroe on a fast 1980's grass court using a wooden racket, I think he would lose. I really do. If a 22 year-old McEnroe played Djokovic on a 2015 hard court using modern rackets, I think he would lose.

The morphing from wood to modern was a gradual process, and players switching from wood to graphite all those years ago gained very little...relatively speaking. It took years for techniques to morph in tandem with bigger head sizes and supa-dupa materials.

The game was more creative back then because, in rallies at least, one player couldn't blow another away, so players had to be more creative and thoughtful to overcome an opponent.

I think players are very athletic along the baseline these days, but their forecourt movement is often not as good as past players, and very few modern players read the net well. Sometimes you see players get passed too easily at the net these days and wonder, why? Reading the net is a split second thing and a player can look slow in the forecourt if he doesn't develop reading skills. But of course a player will never develop such skills if he only ever goes to the net on a dead cert.

The bottom line is people see the gains of modern tennis, but rarely do they see what has been lost. And a great deal has been lost.

Two different games, don budge, two different games...and never the twain shall meet.