John McEnroe versus Serena Williams...

[bottle]

Oh da poor men always getting beat up on. Anyone want to join me in a money-making venture? Let's start a handkerchief factory.

[bottle]

Serena is not from Grosse Pointe or Franklin Park and neither am I.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

I don't care. But it's where I'm living, in a not quite resurgent industrial park. Huge freight trains roar past my spacious second floor windows. Huge planes flash past too. And the moon last night, nicely centered in one of the windows, was a thin silver sliver. The voluminous traffic speeding south on I-39 makes a constant noise. And the huge super or maintenance manager of this small apartment building is named Demetrious Lockett and looks and acts like my favorite analyst on MSNBC, the experienced CIA operative Malcolm Nance.

Coming here from Grosse Pointe is a great financial step down as the installer of internet in this room was so eager to point out. He thought I am a nut (correct) and should be moving from here to there (incorrect).

Cheap as supposed to be is this neighborhood to which I moved from a homeless shelter, however, the rent was threatening to put me permanently out of business and soon. Then miraculously and out of the blue I received a "grant." I won't go into the details other than to say it was sport related yet not tennis related which means it is rowing related. Number two and number five from my eight-oared crew (1957-61!) got together and came up with some money to keep me doing exactly what I am doing. That would be reading and writing and maybe tutoring kids in these subjects in the neighborhood. And fighting the superiorist bullies don_budge and Donald Trump of course and never giving either an inch.

Note: Serena speaks with her racket. That is enough for me. I understand that sport celebrities are supposed to speak a certain way, that is if the person saying so is a moron. Babe Ruth certainly thought so. Every time someone brought around a microphone he made a speech about how young boys should keep their nose clean and work hard. Then he would climb under the table and give someone a hotfoot. I know because my father was a sports reporter and editor who was there.

[bottle]

God knows I've put the boot in often enough myself. It's sexist right to the core.

You are not a sexist. You are a gentleman, one of the finest I have ever met-- very masculine and entirely different. (Okay, okay, you called your sister a cow.)

[stotty]

What are you talking about Stotty? Some men are pigs? Tell us something we don't know. But are women any better? Don't be naive. It's a war on men now. It has nothing to do with the natural order of things. It's all social engineering. McEnroe isn't going to fall. If he does...it means war.

I certainly don't think he will fall over his Serena comments, but he's skating on thin ice with this kind of thing (look what happened to Ray Moore). McEnroe has enjoyed taunting the fairer sex here and there over their playing standard compared to men. And, at one point, while still young enough, he would love to have played Serena and carved her up, which he would have done, very easily, as we all know he would, and perhaps still could...at 58.

Men versus women is a non-contest. A young man at my club was until recently ranked around 60 in the UK. He was a hitter for women during the Wimbledon fortnight a few years ago. He rallied better and moved better than all the women he hit with during the fortnight. He could beat them all very easily and, if he had a ranking, it would be quite well below 700. But we all of us on the forum know this, which is my point. Much though I dislike Serena, I wouldn't enjoy seeing her being carved up by McEnroe or battered to a pulp by Tursonov, which she would be. I wouldn't like to see a man assert his physical superiority in that kind of way.

[10splayer]

I certainly don't think he will fall over his Serena comments, but he's skating on thin ice with this kind of thing (look what happened to Ray Moore). McEnroe has enjoyed taunting the fairer sex here and there over their playing standard compared to men. And, at one point, while still young enough, he would love to have played Serena and carved her up, which he would have done, very easily, as we all know he would, and perhaps still could...at 58.

Men versus women is a non-contest. A young man at my club was until recently ranked around 60 in the UK. He was a hitter for women during the Wimbledon fortnight a few years ago. He rallied better and moved better than all the women he hit with during the fortnight. He could beat them all very easily and, if he had a ranking, it would be quite well below 700. But we all of us on the forum know this, which isy point. Much though I dislike Serena, I wouldn't enjoy seeing her being carved up by McEnroe or battered to a pulp by Tursonov, which she would be. I wouldn't like to see a man assert his physical superiority in that kind of way.

You dislike (as do I) Serena, because you have a keen spidey sense. She's an idiot. Then again, so is Mac. and Bottle. So what are we left with?

[bottle]

You dislike (as do I) Serena, because you have a keen spidey sense. She's an idiot. Then again, so is Mac. and Bottle. So what are we left with?

10splayer!

[tennis_chiro]

No question that women could not compete on the men's tour. I spend a lot of time with the USC men's tennis team and I don't think Serena could break the top six of their lineup and until just recently none of their players had an ATP ranking in the top 1000. The UTR system may shed some real light on where women rank vs the men, but I think there is another way to look at the question of who is the best tennis player. Consider men's and women's gymnastics; different skills that require different talents and emphasize different capabilities. Likewise ice skating.

Now let's look at tennis. How well have the best players mastered the variety of tennis skills that are required to play the game. i like to talk about consistency, accuracy and power, but in mastering the total array of tennis skills we should consider grace and balance as well. Think of all the skills a tennis player can work on: serving, returning, forehands, backhands, volleys, overheads, half-volleys - those are pretty obvious and very few have mastered the art of playing the front court the way Laver, Rosewall and McEnroe did. Who among today's players demonstrates as complete a mastery of their skills as the Sao Paolo Swallow did back in the 60's? Who moves around the court as effortlessly as the Mindless Maniac from Bucharest, Ilie Nastase? The one woman I would have gladly paid to go watch back in the 70's was Evonne Goolagong; I'm not sure anyone has ever covered the court as artistically as she did. Does anyone come close to the surgical precision of Frank Sedgeman's conclusive volleys back in the 50's? These player's skills would all by overcome competitively by the sheer raw power and speed of today's players, but the skill they had developed is unmatched in today's players.

Similarly, I would look at skill development and how close they came to achieving their potential. Serena comes as close to perfection as any women's player ever in terms of service proficiency and in that sense, it may be the greatest weapon in the history of the game, but when we look at her proficiency in the front court, she is way behind Goolagong, King, Court and Navritilova to name just a few. Nevertheless, she would blow them off the court. Federer may be the generally acknowledged most complete and talented player of the modern game and almost certainly would dominate any player from the past (although that is an unfair comparison because those players didn't have Fed's equipment or competition), and while his front court game shines relative to his contemporaries, it looks dim in comparison to McEnroe, Laver, Hoad, Rosewall or Gonzales. These players had all learned to carve the ball off of their shoe-tops into their opponents' deep corners. Yes, today's players would simply run over to those beautifully placed shots and blast 100 mph passing shots with their 12 oz bazookas, but wouldn't you love to see them have to do it.

Imagine the movement that took place in the Laver-Rosewall WCT finals: up and back, parry and thrust, side to side and all variety of shot; they had to develop all of their skills. They couldn't just blow their opponents off with power. The Queens final between Cilic and Lopez just last week was a great example of this kind of contrast, but it only happened because Lopez had to use his slice backhand and get to the net to hurt Cilic in any meaningful way. It was really a wonderful match. Cilic was clearly the more powerful player, but Lopez used the slice to cut him up and get to the net and throw a huge wrench into Cilic's game plan. It was really great to watch.

So think about it. Is Serena the most dominating relative to her opponents in every facet of the game? Probably in the serve, but we would have to bring Sampras into the conversation; and maybe Gonzales and Navratilova. Ground strokes and return of serve are pretty good, but how does that match up to Federer or Nadal' forehand; or maybe Borg's backcourt play? Net play: there are a lot of competitors who have done a better job of mastering the forecourt. How about movement around the court? Serena is good, but did you ever see Goolagong float along the baseline or Nastase retrieve overhead after overhead until he broke his opponent down. Did you ever see Rosewall carioki up to the net with a backhand approach only to hurry back for a lob that went over his head and then come back up again and take control of the court (he didn't waste any opportunities to get back into the point to try a "tweener" for the crowd)? And what about cutting up your opponent: did you ever see the Magician, Fabrice Santoro slice and dice some of the best players in the world until they wanted to pull their hair out? Those are also critical skills that a complete player can try to master; players like King and Bueno and Emerson and Riggs had very complete toolboxes to work with and they were constantly working to sharpen those tools.

I just think it is a waste of time trying to speculate on how women' would do against men. A better question is who has done the best job of perfecting their craft and skill to come as close as possible to their potential. In some ways, I think you might have to say diminutive Justine Henin did more with her natural gifts to win multiple major championships and reach the number one ranking despite being just 5' 6" tall.

don

[stotty]

Well that's a terrific post and certainly the best way of looking at things.

I think the bottom line is wooden rackets required ever facet of the game to be learned and learned well. A player could get away with nothing untoward. Looking back, even the players we thought weren't great volleyers back then were far better than today's volleyers. Modern equipment can deliver so much power that it's kind of killed the need for a full repertoire, which is a terrible shame.

And yes Nastase remains the best mover I have ever seen to date...so swift and natural.

[don_budge]

No question that women could not compete on the men's tour. I spend a lot of time with the USC men's tennis team and I don't think Serena could break the top six of their lineup and until just recently none of their players had an ATP ranking in the top 1000. The UTR system may shed some real light on where women rank vs the men, but I think there is another way to look at the question of who is the best tennis player. Consider men's and women's gymnastics; different skills that require different talents and emphasize different capabilities. Likewise ice skating.

Now let's look at tennis. How well have the best players mastered the variety of tennis skills that are required to play the game. i like to talk about consistency, accuracy and power, but in mastering the total array of tennis skills we should consider grace and balance as well. Think of all the skills a tennis player can work on: serving, returning, forehands, backhands, volleys, overheads, half-volleys - those are pretty obvious and very few have mastered the art of playing the front court the way Laver, Rosewall and McEnroe did. Who among today's players demonstrates as complete a mastery of their skills as the Sao Paolo Swallow did back in the 60's? Who moves around the court as effortlessly as the Mindless Maniac from Bucharest, Ilie Nastase? The one woman I would have gladly paid to go watch back in the 70's was Evonne Goolagong; I'm not sure anyone has ever covered the court as artistically as she did. Does anyone come close to the surgical precision of Frank Sedgeman's conclusive volleys back in the 50's? These player's skills would all by overcome competitively by the sheer raw power and speed of today's players, but the skill they had developed is unmatched in today's players.

Similarly, I would look at skill development and how close they came to achieving their potential. Serena comes as close to perfection as any women's player ever in terms of service proficiency and in that sense, it may be the greatest weapon in the history of the game, but when we look at her proficiency in the front court, she is way behind Goolagong, King, Court and Navritilova to name just a few. Nevertheless, she would blow them off the court. Federer may be the generally acknowledged most complete and talented player of the modern game and almost certainly would dominate any player from the past (although that is an unfair comparison because those players didn't have Fed's equipment or competition), and while his front court game shines relative to his contemporaries, it looks dim in comparison to McEnroe, Laver, Hoad, Rosewall or Gonzales. These players had all learned to carve the ball off of their shoe-tops into their opponents' deep corners. Yes, today's players would simply run over to those beautifully placed shots and blast 100 mph passing shots with their 12 oz bazookas, but wouldn't you love to see them have to do it.

Imagine the movement that took place in the Laver-Rosewall WCT finals: up and back, parry and thrust, side to side and all variety of shot; they had to develop all of their skills. They couldn't just blow their opponents off with power. The Queens final between Cilic and Lopez just last week was a great example of this kind of contrast, but it only happened because Lopez had to use his slice backhand and get to the net to hurt Cilic in any meaningful way. It was really a wonderful match. Cilic was clearly the more powerful player, but Lopez used the slice to cut him up and get to the net and throw a huge wrench into Cilic's game plan. It was really great to watch.

So think about it. Is Serena the most dominating relative to her opponents in every facet of the game? Probably in the serve, but we would have to bring Sampras into the conversation; and maybe Gonzales and Navratilova. Ground strokes and return of serve are pretty good, but how does that match up to Federer or Nadal' forehand; or maybe Borg's backcourt play? Net play: there are a lot of competitors who have done a better job of mastering the forecourt. How about movement around the court? Serena is good, but did you ever see Goolagong float along the baseline or Nastase retrieve overhead after overhead until he broke his opponent down. Did you ever see Rosewall carioki up to the net with a backhand approach only to hurry back for a lob that went over his head and then come back up again and take control of the court (he didn't waste any opportunities to get back into the point to try a "tweener" for the crowd)? And what about cutting up your opponent: did you ever see the Magician, Fabrice Santoro slice and dice some of the best players in the world until they wanted to pull their hair out? Those are also critical skills that a complete player can try to master; players like King and Bueno and Emerson and Riggs had very complete toolboxes to work with and they were constantly working to sharpen those tools.

I just think it is a waste of time trying to speculate on how women' would do against men. A better question is who has done the best job of perfecting their craft and skill to come as close as possible to their potential. In some ways, I think you might have to say diminutive Justine Henin did more with her natural gifts to win multiple major championships and reach the number one ranking despite being just 5' 6" tall.

don

Beautiful talk about an era of tennis that is lost in time. All of those names...like ghosts on the lawn of Wimbledon. Wooden racquets...John McEnroe and Bjorn Borg were the very end of that story. What a story it was. Now what we have is something that cannot be compared to the other. That racquet that Roger Federer uses casts an illusion of him as well. He demonstrated as much when he over-sized just a measly 8 square inches to 98 square inches. We are so impressed with the image (remember image is everything) that we forget that in the hands of such a supreme talent it is like a magic wand. Any warts are auto air brushed into the next world.

The 1984 U. S. Open Men's semifinals was the first tournament that all four contestants used the over-sized graphite racquets. I was there that day. Stan Smith played John Newcombe in the senior finals. Pat Cash played Ivan Lendl in one men's semi. Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova were up next in the "Ladies" final. It was John McEnroe versus Jimmy Connors in the last match that lasted almost till midnight. I was there from start to finish.

Each match went the distance. Either best of five or best of three. Bud Collins for years maintained it was the greatest day of tennis ever. Even he glossed over the fact about the racquets. He never breathed a word about that little omitted fact. Orwell had it right. 1984...the worm turned.

My sister taped that day of the U. S. Open on VCR tape. She gave it to me as a gift on that Christmas. Guess what all of the commercials were of that day on CBS? Computers...the first commercial computers. Big and slow...like dinosaurs compared to our i-phones. Like wooden racquets compared to over-sized graphite. Anybody else see the irony here. Thirty-three years on down the road.

[bottle]

Beautiful talk about an era of tennis that is lost in time. All of those names...like ghosts on the lawn of Wimbledon. Wooden racquets...John McEnroe and Bjorn Borg were the very end of that story. What a story it was. Now what we have is something that cannot be compared to the other. That racquet that Roger Federer uses casts an illusion of him as well. He demonstrated as much when he over-sized just a measly 8 square inches to 98 square inches. We are so impressed with the image (remember image is everything) that we forget that in the hands of such a supreme talent it is like a magic wand. Any warts are auto air brushed into the next world.

The 1984 U. S. Open Men's semifinals was the first tournament that all four contestants used the over-sized graphite racquets. I was there that day. Stan Smith played John Newcombe in the senior finals. Pat Cash played Ivan Lendl in one men's semi. Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova were up next in the "Ladies" final. It was John McEnroe versus Jimmy Connors in the last match that lasted almost till midnight. I was there from start to finish.

Each match went the distance. Either best of five or best of three. Bud Collins for years maintained it was the greatest day of tennis ever. Even he glossed over the fact about the racquets. He never breathed a word about that little omitted fact. Orwell had it right. 1984...the worm turned.

My sister taped that day of the U. S. Open on VCR tape. She gave it to me as a gift on that Christmas. Guess what all of the commercials were of that day on CBS? Computers...the first commercial computers. Big and slow...like dinosaurs compared to our i-phones. Like wooden racquets compared to over-sized graphite. Anybody else see the irony here. Thirty-three years on down the road.

We all want to see more coming to the net, but the overall situation is not as dire as your running and tiresome harangue portrays.

Science has a place in the world and in sports other than tennis and even in tennis itself. The new strings, e.g., provide more spin, and spin is good, and fun.

And the 1984 scenario you repeatedly propound is much more applicable to the present inhabitant of Mar-de-Loghead than to the change to larger rackets.

Tennis interest-- somehow-- will survive even the loss of Roger Federer. What goes down comes up.

[don_budge]

You dislike (as do I) Serena, because you have a keen spidey sense. She's an idiot. Then again, so is Mac. and Bottle. So what are we left with?

idiot savant |iːdjoʊsæˈvɑː̃|

noun (pl. idiot savants or idiots savants pronunc.same)

a person who is considered to be mentally handicapped but displays brilliance in a specific area, especially one involving memory.

Perhaps John McEnroe is an "idiot savant". Like the character in Fyodor Doestoyevky's epic novel..."The Idiot". A genius in his own right. I admit that I have a weak spot for Johnny Boy. He straddled the end of the Classic Era and dominated the beginning of the "Fake Tennis Era". He has this fantastic dichotomy about him. The two sides of the coin. The two masks of drama...laughter and tragedy.

But two out of three ain't bad in this case. The other two are stone cold idiots.

Two Out of Three Ain't Bad...Meat Loaf (1977)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5hWWe-ts2s

Baby we can talk all night
But that ain't gettin us nowhere
I told you everything I possibly can
There's nothing left inside of here
And maybe you can cry all night
But that'll never change the way I feel
The snow is really piling up outside
I wish you wouldn't make me leave here
I poured it on and I poured it out
I tried to show you just how much I care
I'm tired of words and I'm too hoarse to shout
But you've been cold to me so long
I'm crying icicles instead of tears

And all I can do is keep on telling you
I want you, I need you
But-there ain't no way I'm ever gonna love you
Now don't be sad
'Cause two out of three ain't bad
Now don't be sad
'Cause two out of three ain't bad

You'll never find your gold on a sandy beach
You'll never drill for oil on a city street
I know you're looking for a ruby in a mountain of rocks
But there ain't no Coup de Ville hiding at the bottom
Of a Cracker Jack box

I can't lie, I can't tell you that I'm something I'm not
No matter how I try
I'll never be able to give you something
Something that I just haven't got
There's only one girl I'll ever love
And that was so many years ago
And though I know I'll never get her out of my heart
She never loved me back
Oh I know

I remember how she left me on a stormy night
She kissed me and got out of our bed
And though I pleaded and I begged her not to walk out that door
She packed her bags and turned right away

And she kept on telling me
She kept on telling me
She kept on telling me
I want you, I need you

But there ain't no way I'm ever gonna love you
Now don't be sad
'Cause two out of three ain't bad
I want you, I need you
But there ain't no way I'm ever gonna love you
Now don't be sad
'Cause two out of three ain't bad
Baby we can talk all night
But that ain't getting us nowhere

With McEnroe you might find some gold on a sandy beach. A ruby in a mountain of rocks. There just may be a Coup de Ville hiding at the bottom of a Cracker Jack Box. There is a redeeming quality about McEnroe. If only in the obvious imperfections. There is an awareness of the comic nature of his frail or seemingly frail nature. But the other two are clueless and totally unaware as to how ridiculous they are or appear to be to others. So that is what you've got...two out of three. It ain't bad...in this case it's perfect.

[bottle]

Readers, have we ever known anyone as politically stupid as don_budge? Poor real J. Donald Budge to ever have been associated with such a dope.

[stroke]

You dislike (as do I) Serena, because you have a keen spidey sense. She's an idiot. Then again, so is Mac. and Bottle. So what are we left with?

Bottle, what a epic loser, if Tomic were on this message board, I think he would have his own thread with a snappy name like A New Years something.

[bottle]

Bottle, what a epic loser, if Tomic were on this message board, I think he would have his own thread with a snappy name like A New Years something.

O, you're right, such a wise man. So which dwarf are you? "Dopey" is already taken.

[bottle]

A Roulette Wheel in Las Vegas

ad hominemhominemhominemhominemhominemhominemhominemh ominemhominemhominemhominemhominem. See, don_budge and Donald Trump aren't the only ones who can depress one with echolalia.