Bobby Riggs and Jack Kramer: Part 1

[don_budge]

Luckily for me...first hand knowledge began for me as a young man having Don Budge himself as a friend for a couple of summers. They broke the mold with guys like him. Players of these eras perhaps did not completely understand the "significance" of the money. Their roots were in amateur tennis. Sure...they played for the money. But there was something else that prevailed in those days. Call it what you will.

You can call it...for the love of the game.

[don_budge]

Good article....

It's amazing the money that was around for the very top players of that era. That $100,000 Budge and Riggs play for would be the equivalent of $1,326,549 today. And that's just for one winner-take-all match. Not bad.

I think Kramer became a giant in men's tennis. Most sources have Kramer leading Riggs 69- 20 in head-to-heads. Kramer was smart too. He knew when his time was up and bailed out 100 to 40 up in head-to-heads against Gonzales. He knew Gonzales, who had turned pro at just 21, was getting significantly better and becoming a serious rival. Kramer was the link to the past and the future in so may ways. He witnessed Tilden play many times and also trained with Tilden as a junior. Kramer also, some years later, played Gonzales. Kramer spanned a significant era. He also presided over men's pro tennis for many years. Kramer saw and witnessed so, so much. The downside of this, however, is he seemed to be riddled with bias and prejudice, which means his accounts may not be completely reliable, at least not in my view.

I think the tennis in those days repeatedly highlighted where a player's weaknesses lay. The patterns of play must have become like a kind of check-mate in many rivalries when you consider players were playing each other over a 100 times. Little wonder Hoad took 6 months out to retool on his backhand wing in order be able to combat stronger opponents.

I had a friend who watched many of those pro tour matches and he told me many of the points got opened up and played out in exactly the same way, same pattern. It could be repetitive in that sense. But when a player repeatedly lost over and over, he had to change something. That's what you do. You change something if you keep losing to the same guy over and over again.

Can someone please tell Nishikori he has to change that serve if he wants to get any further....

Not sure which is better, This article on Riggs and Kramer (which is excellent) or this post by Stotty. Good stuff.

I find this Riggs/Kramer era so fascinating. Few ever write or discuss this era. The frame of mind that the world was in at the time and the style of play that was executed to near perfection over and over again. Wish I had a time machine.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

Good article...Riggs has his limitations as far as being interesting in a sense. He's like a character out of the old "Bowery Boys" circa 1943. "The Dead End Kids". Mugs Mugginess. The Boys in the hood. But the program and characters were so good that they still were playing it regularly on television well into the '60s and '70s. I can see Riggs as one of the boys. He's interesting alright.

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

Like the old "Bowery Boys" the saga of old time tennis is brought to us in black and white. The characters come out of the story like the ghosts of tennis past. I love this stuff. My dear old tennis coach always emphasized being a student of the game and that included studying the history as well as the playing styles of all the great players. Luckily for me...first hand knowledge began for me as a young man having Don Budge himself as a friend for a couple of summers. They broke the mold with guys like him. Players of these eras perhaps did not completely understand the "significance" of the money. Their roots were in amateur tennis. Sure...they played for the money. But there was something else that prevailed in those days. Call it what you will.

Tilden...Budge...Riggs and on to Jack Kramer. So on and so forth. Connect the dots...that includes the Gonzales' and Hoad's. Laver to McEnroe and Borg. Then it ends...in a new beginning. Classic Tennis morphs into Modern Tennis. "Bowery Boys" morph into "2 1/2 Men". No contest. Know your history coaches. Stotty was lucky to have a friend familiar with the old pro tour. What a rich nugget of knowledge that is.

I attended one pro tour match in Detroit around 1964. Years before I actually started to play tennis. It was at the old Olympia in Detroit. The old hockey arena. They moved the furniture around to make it into the scene of one of the old pro tour stops. They rolled out the court and presto...instant tennis. Tennis in a box. They were all there. The names were too many to remember. I was just a boy and now it seems like a dream. A dream out of one of those old black and whites. Ghosts from the past.

Stotty's old friend. Passing it forwards. It's one of the things I like about tennisplayer.net. There is still a certain reverence for the past. Traditionally speaking.

[klacr]

The Duel of The Decade. Riggs vs. Kramer

"Of 16,052 tickets sold, only 938 people failed to show up. Columnist Jimmy Powers of the New York Post called it "the greatest tribute to an indoor athletic event in the history of sport." The $55,730 in gross receipts was second only to $58,120 taken in at the opening of the Ellsworth Vines and Fred Perry tour in 1937."

Pretty cool to think about people's dedication to seeing these two great players.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[klacr]

Good article....

It's amazing the money that was around for the very top players of that era. That $100,000 Budge and Riggs play for would be the equivalent of $1,326,549 today. And that's just for one winner-take-all match. Not bad.

I think Kramer became a giant in men's tennis. Most sources have Kramer leading Riggs 69- 20 in head-to-heads. Kramer was smart too. He knew when his time was up and bailed out 100 to 40 up in head-to-heads against Gonzales. He knew Gonzales, who had turned pro at just 21, was getting significantly better and becoming a serious rival. Kramer was the link to the past and the future in so may ways. He witnessed Tilden play many times and also trained with Tilden as a junior. Kramer also, some years later, played Gonzales. Kramer spanned a significant era. He also presided over men's pro tennis for many years. Kramer saw and witnessed so, so much. The downside of this, however, is he seemed to be riddled with bias and prejudice, which means his accounts may not be completely reliable, at least not in my view.

I think the tennis in those days repeatedly highlighted where a player's weaknesses lay. The patterns of play must have become like a kind of check-mate in many rivalries when you consider players were playing each other over a 100 times. Little wonder Hoad took 6 months out to retool on his backhand wing in order be able to combat stronger opponents.

I had a friend who watched many of those pro tour matches and he told me many of the points got opened up and played out in exactly the same way, same pattern. It could be repetitive in that sense. But when a player repeatedly lost over and over, he had to change something. That's what you do. You change something if you keep losing to the same guy over and over again.

Can someone please tell Nishikori he has to change that serve if he wants to get any further....

Not sure which is better, This article on Riggs and Kramer (which is excellent) or this post by Stotty. Good stuff.

I find this Riggs/Kramer era so fascinating. Few ever write or discuss this era. The frame of mind that the world was in at the time and the style of play that was executed to near perfection over and over again. Wish I had a time machine.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[stotty]

Good article....

It's amazing the money that was around for the very top players of that era. That $100,000 Budge and Riggs play for would be the equivalent of $1,326,549 today. And that's just for one winner-take-all match. Not bad.

I think Kramer became a giant in men's tennis. Most sources have Kramer leading Riggs 69- 20 in head-to-heads. Kramer was smart too. He knew when his time was up and bailed out 100 to 40 up in head-to-heads against Gonzales. He knew Gonzales, who had turned pro at just 21, was getting significantly better and becoming a serious rival. Kramer was the link to the past and the future in so may ways. He witnessed Tilden play many times and also trained with Tilden as a junior. Kramer also, some years later, played Gonzales. Kramer spanned a significant era. He also presided over men's pro tennis for many years. Kramer saw and witnessed so, so much. The downside of this, however, is he seemed to be riddled with bias and prejudice, which means his accounts may not be completely reliable, at least not in my view.

I think the tennis in those days repeatedly highlighted where a player's weaknesses lay. The patterns of play must have become like a kind of check-mate in many rivalries when you consider players were playing each other over a 100 times. Little wonder Hoad took 6 months out to retool on his backhand wing in order be able to combat stronger opponents.

I had a friend who watched many of those pro tour matches and he told me many of the points got opened up and played out in exactly the same way, same pattern. It could be repetitive in that sense. But when a player repeatedly lost over and over, he had to change something. That's what you do. You change something if you keep losing to the same guy over and over again.

Can someone please tell Nishikori he has to change that serve if he wants to get any further....

[johnyandell]

Let's discuss Tom LeCompte's latest article, "Bobby Riggs and Jack Kramer: Part 1"