PDA

View Full Version : Jimmy Arias


Colpo
11-29-2006, 12:17 PM
Not only is he one of my favorite color guys, but he's still packing a wallop of a forehand. Saw his first set yesterday vs. Mac in a Houston seniors event, which Mac won. Mac's secret of success seems to be that this stuff just means alot more to him than anybody else he plays in these events, giving him an immediate leg up. Arias grins half the time, while still competing at a reasonably high level. Anyway, seeing Arias yesterday reminded me again of that one golden year ('83) when he had THE dominant forehand in tennis. By the way, he's playing an o3 Tour these days (remember how the advent of graphites killed him?).

EricW
11-29-2006, 12:49 PM
Not only is he one of my favorite color guys, but he's still packing a wallop of a forehand. Saw his first set yesterday vs. Mac in a Houston seniors event, which Mac won. Mac's secret of success seems to be that this stuff just means alot more to him than anybody else he plays in these events, giving him an immediate leg up. Arias grins half the time, while still competing at a reasonably high level. Anyway, seeing Arias yesterday reminded me again of that one golden year ('83) when he had THE dominant forehand in tennis. By the way, he's playing an o3 Tour these days (remember how the advent of graphites killed him?).

Just because mac seem's more serious outside doesn't mean anyone he plays is any less serious on winning. Pat cash was joking around like no other against wayne ferreira but you could tell he really wanted to make a comeback. The way these people got into their positions is their hate for losing. I'm sure they still wanna win just as much as when they played on the regular tour.

sureshs
11-29-2006, 01:03 PM
I saw the match too. Interesting comments from Courier. Said how Arias was the first out of Bollitierri with a massive FH and everyone including Courier emulated him. Also how his career ended due to injuries and how resentful he was that lesser guys made the wood to metal/graphite transition earlier and beat him.

He also mentioned how he was hitting with Mac in New York and Mac used his old Dunlop Maxply 200, then switched to his current one (Maxply McEnroe) after a while and there was at least a 10 mph increase in his ball speeds. People underestimate the effect of the right racquet.

emerckx53
11-29-2006, 04:15 PM
Macs volleying is still pretty sublime....from anywhere on the court it's crisp and deep and accurate...very impressive for a 47 yeat old...

vsbabolat
11-30-2006, 08:58 AM
I remember a interview that Arias gave saying, that he was probably the only guy on tour that played better with wood racquets than with graphite racquets.

Sureshs, Courier made a mistake with the name of McEnroe's old graphite racquet calling it the Maxply McEnroe 200G. It's real name is the Dunlop Max 200G.

sureshs
11-30-2006, 09:17 AM
I remember a interview that Arias gave saying, that he was probably the only guy on tour that played better with wood racquets than with graphite racquets.

Sureshs, Courier made a mistake with the name of McEnroe's old graphite racquet calling it the Maxply McEnroe 200G. It's real name is the Dunlop Max 200G.

Thank you! I heard the comments on TV, and started thinking Jim Courier is wrong about the name. Actually he said Dunlop Maxply 200G - did not mention McEnroe in it. I was confused because the old Maxply was wood, after which the new one is named. I wanted to look it up on TW, but never got around to it. Also I figured the Dunlop Max 200G is an old model and probably not in TW anymore.

NoBadMojo
11-30-2006, 09:37 AM
I think much of the Arias hype, was just that..hype. he was forever hyped..Bollieittierra was a big hypist...anyone remember a guy named Lendl? I believe their careers intersected and overlapped and his forehand was huge compared to that of Arias....flatter and much more penetrating. The Arias forehand had much of the pace consumed by spin..his forehand was very loopy. he was also quite disliked in his tour days from what i understand, but seems to have become a much nicer person since. the racquets going from wood to graphite is just a bad excuse for his demise..fact is, he really turned into a guy with no weapons and got passed by..no serve..no volley..no return...he had a loopy forehand and a loopy backhand...end....and that is what is so bollietierria like IMO

sureshs
11-30-2006, 09:53 AM
He was #5 in the world once - must indicate something.

Jim Courier described him as "a light which burnt out too quickly"

vsbabolat
11-30-2006, 11:28 AM
Sureshs, I saw that match on TV also. Mac really does look to be in good shape. Also he does look to be hitting his serves harder than a few years ago. I think that has more to do with he is working out in the gym now than the racquet he is using these days.

Rabbit
11-30-2006, 11:35 AM
Arias really wasn't all that. I mean he had some decent results, but he just never had enough game to seal the deal. He can knock the cover off a forehand, but like Colin Dibley, once you get past that, there really ain't that much more.

sureshs
11-30-2006, 01:20 PM
Sureshs, I saw that match on TV also. Mac really does look to be in good shape. Also he does look to be hitting his serves harder than a few years ago. I think that has more to do with he is working out in the gym now than the racquet he is using these days.

Courier attributed it to the racquet, but it is both reasons of course. Courier in fact said that if technology is out there, why not use it?

Colpo
11-30-2006, 03:17 PM
Arias's game was one-dimensional, and it was one-dimension for only the briefest period. What's refreshing is that Arias is likely willing to admit to that. I do differ with the claim that Arias's forehand in its prime was a loopy stroke - he creamed the ball on that side. That's his point about wood frames: when everybody used wood, he hit the biggest wood forehand. For the brief time he excelled, he excelled at what was before him, like winning a largely star-free '83 Italian Open (but he did win it). I don't think anyone's saying he's Borg or McEnroe.

sureshs
11-30-2006, 03:21 PM
Arias's game was one-dimensional, and it was one-dimension for only the briefest period. What's refreshing is that Arias is likely willing to admit to that. I do differ with the claim that Arias's forehand in its prime was a loopy stroke - he creamed the ball on that side.

That is what I thought. When I saw him play that day (and he has a bum back now), there was nothing loopy about his FH. They were almost as powerful as today's top players.

Kirko
12-01-2006, 08:42 AM
Arias's game was one-dimensional, and it was one-dimension for only the briefest period. What's refreshing is that Arias is likely willing to admit to that. I do differ with the claim that Arias's forehand in its prime was a loopy stroke - he creamed the ball on that side. That's his point about wood frames: when everybody used wood, he hit the biggest wood forehand. For the brief time he excelled, he excelled at what was before him, like winning a largely star-free '83 Italian Open (but he did win it). I don't think anyone's saying he's Borg or McEnroe.
Truly. Ariias's backhand was bleak! he just tried to put the ball back into play.

AndrewD
12-01-2006, 11:03 PM
If people are saying Arias' forehand was 'loopy', I'd be guessing they aren't talking about the pace but moreso the wind-up and that sure as heck wasn't 'straight back and through' LOL

Colpo
12-02-2006, 05:05 AM
If people are saying Arias' forehand was 'loopy', I'd be guessing they aren't talking about the pace but moreso the wind-up and that sure as heck wasn't 'straight back and through' LOL

Not that I'm Jimmy's appointed defender by any means, but the context above re: loopy is definitely a knock, as in a slight, substanceless, heavy topspin but not much else ball. His FH was anything but that!

NoBadMojo
12-02-2006, 07:31 AM
his forehand had a very loopy trajectory when he was in his prime..i didnt say he was a pusher or it had no pace..i said it was loopy, which it was all ye expert defenders of the Arias. it certainly was nowhere near the weapon that Lendls forehand was, which is the point I was trying to make earlier. that's what made it unique..it was loopy and it had pace and he had windmill strokes from both wings taking viscious cuts at the ball..no wonder he was injured..i saw him live BACK THEN a couple of times...in fact, i played him when he was a junior. i'm sure it has a much flatter trajectory now as stuff like that gets eaten up

NoBadMojo
12-02-2006, 08:07 AM
Adjunct: I can see why the Arias game got passed by in thinking about it. With the small headed frames and predominately mild grips, his loopy (with pace) groundstrokes made it very difficult for people to defend because the ball was always up so high on them...it wasnt a function of the pace, as much as it was the height in which they were dealing with the balls.
Enter graphte racquets...it wasnt the graphite material making the difference, it was the fact the headsize was larger, making it much easier to deal with those seriously looping groundstrokes.
Whenever I play a guy using a midsized frame (which is almost never)<especially if they have a one hander>, my first thought is to give them something loopy and spinny and deep, and they have a lot of trouble with it.
If anyone is interested in understanding, they should look up the article titled 'The inch that changed tennis forever' <or something like that>. it is the most cogent explanation I've ever seen for how racquets have changed the game...and would explain the sour grapes coming from Arias about how he was the only one losing out when they went from wood to graphite

SC in MA
12-02-2006, 08:42 AM
My memory is fuzzy on this, but I thought it was a significant injury that did Arias in, and not the racket technology changes that may have occured about the same time as his injury. Once he had the injury (I can't remember what it was) he was never the same. He made a few attempts at comebacks with an altered game without the killer forehand, which he could no longer hit on a regular basis as the result of the injury. And without the killer forehand, he wasn't the same player since he no longer had a real weapon. That's my recollection of it which could certainly be wrong.

My understanding is that he wasn't necessarily a very likeable guy during his hey day, but I think he's really turned that around. He's now very personable and he's become a great tennis commentator who offers up a lot of insight.

Colpo
12-02-2006, 09:46 AM
his forehand had a very loopy trajectory when he was in his prime..i didnt say he was a pusher or it had no pace..i said it was loopy, which it was all ye expert defenders of the Arias. it certainly was nowhere near the weapon that Lendls forehand was, which is the point I was trying to make earlier. that's what made it unique..it was loopy and it had pace and he had windmill strokes from both wings taking viscious cuts at the ball..no wonder he was injured..i saw him live BACK THEN a couple of times...in fact, i played him when he was a junior. i'm sure it has a much flatter trajectory now as stuff like that gets eaten up

NoBad, thanks for the detailed op. All I can say is that we'll continue to disagree on this, and that's fine. First, Lendl's forehand was loopy by your definition, in that he's raised the racquet high on the FH backswing with a bent, raised elbow. You're essentially saying that Lendl had a better FH than Arias, and as far as Jimmy's '83 season goes, I'll gently disagree. Lendl did hit a heavy, hard, deep ball, but Arias's FH was akin to Agassi's FH when AA first hit the tour with authority in '88, very slappy with alot of low pace and fast. I too saw Arias play live (I recall a match I saw on a hooky day during the old WTC Tournament of Champions in '83 or '84 where I was literally in the front row while Jimmy went to town on some poor guy) and he hit avery fast ball on the FH, lots of winners. If you can get your hands on the World Tennis mag's '83 Annual issue, their consensus is Arias had the premier FH in the game, and Lendl finished the year ranked 2 ahead of Jimmy's 5.

NoBadMojo
12-02-2006, 10:10 AM
NoBad, thanks for the detailed op. All I can say is that we'll continue to disagree on this, and that's fine. First, Lendl's forehand was loopy by your definition, in that he's raised the racquet high on the FH backswing with a bent, raised elbow. You're essentially saying that Lendl had a better FH than Arias, and as far as Jimmy's '83 season goes, I'll gently disagree. Lendl did hit a heavy, hard, deep ball, but Arias's FH was akin to Agassi's FH when AA first hit the tour with authority in '88, very slappy with alot of low pace and fast. I too saw Arias play live (I recall a match I saw on a hooky day during the old WTC Tournament of Champions in '83 or '84 where I was literally in the front row while Jimmy went to town on some poor guy) and he hit avery fast ball on the FH, lots of winners. If you can get your hands on the World Tennis mag's '83 Annual issue, their consensus is Arias had the premier FH in the game, and Lendl finished the year ranked 2 ahead of Jimmy's 5.

no worries....i wasnt talking about loopy as in stroke mechanics, i was referring to loopy as in trajectory, and i dont think you can dispute that Lendl hit with a much flatter trajectory on both wings (which was the point i was originally trying to make). yes, i would say that Lendl had a far better forehand than that of Arias <just my opinion>. The Arias one was unusual and that made it tough to deal with <for a while> <think Nadal>..they got on to it after a while, and he got passed by, because he really had an incomplete game.

many people seem to confuse trajectory with spin. ..they really are two different things. you can have a rapidly spinning ball with a flatter trajectory (think Fed at times), and it is possible to hit with pace with a loopy trajectory (think Nadal)..they really are two different things. perhaps we saw Arias live at two different time periods. all i know is he got passed by, was very unpleasant, and was oft injured which makes sense hitting the ball at 100% with that technique on every ball..i think he has matured finally and he seems pleasant and insightful in his broadcasting now. also, a magazine declaring someone as having the 'premier forehand' in the game in one year, isnt the same as declaring it the biggest forehand in the game, which i think is what you are implying.

so we disagree..it's fine. surely you wouldnt also say that his backhand wasnt loopy too(trajectory).

caesar66
12-02-2006, 10:17 AM
I never saw Arias play in his heyday, but I did watch his match w/ mac on the tennis channel the other day, and I thought all the tools were there, he just needs fine tuning. His strokes were solid, he just needs to get match tough and practice more and he could be a threat on the seniors tour.

Steve Huff
12-02-2006, 10:36 PM
Arias' big, loopy forehand was very effective against net rusher (which a lot of players were back then), but once players figured out that you couldn't just rush the net, and waited for a good shot to come in on, Arias had problems passing them. Unfortunately, Arias was just another victim of Bolletari's "Killer Forehand" theory.

javier sergio
12-20-2006, 08:08 PM
I remember a interview that Arias gave saying, that he was probably the only guy on tour that played better with wood racquets than with graphite racquets.

Sureshs, Courier made a mistake with the name of McEnroe's old graphite racquet calling it the Maxply McEnroe 200G. It's real name is the Dunlop Max 200G.

He was not alone; Jose Luis Clerc, Borg, and others......suffered the same thing changing from wood to graphite those days

tennis playa
12-25-2006, 09:07 AM
Not only is he one of my favorite color guys, but he's still packing a wallop of a forehand. Saw his first set yesterday vs. Mac in a Houston seniors event, which Mac won. Mac's secret of success seems to be that this stuff just means alot more to him than anybody else he plays in these events, giving him an immediate leg up. Arias grins half the time, while still competing at a reasonably high level. Anyway, seeing Arias yesterday reminded me again of that one golden year ('83) when he had THE dominant forehand in tennis. By the way, he's playing an o3 Tour these days (remember how the advent of graphites killed him?).

what killed Arias was a one dimensional game, a lot of guys who played the same time as Jimmy Arias made the transition from wood to garphite guys like Andres Gomes, Yannick Noah for instance so i don't quite buy the story that the wide spread use of graphite killed his game

Fedace
12-25-2006, 09:42 AM
Not only is he one of my favorite color guys, but he's still packing a wallop of a forehand. Saw his first set yesterday vs. Mac in a Houston seniors event, which Mac won. Mac's secret of success seems to be that this stuff just means alot more to him than anybody else he plays in these events, giving him an immediate leg up. Arias grins half the time, while still competing at a reasonably high level. Anyway, seeing Arias yesterday reminded me again of that one golden year ('83) when he had THE dominant forehand in tennis. By the way, he's playing an o3 Tour these days (remember how the advent of graphites killed him?).

There was a great article by Jimmy Arias this month in Tennis magazine titled Great shots, Nadal's Forehand, most feared shot in pro tennis.:grin:

Colpo
12-28-2006, 07:49 AM
what killed Arias was a one dimensional game, a lot of guys who played the same time as Jimmy Arias made the transition from wood to garphite guys like Andres Gomes, Yannick Noah for instance so i don't quite buy the story that the wide spread use of graphite killed his game

You're not taking into account Arias' size. He's well under 6' tall, with a commensurate weight. The names you mention, Noah and Gomez, are both over 6'4"! Arias thrived for a brief but memorable period when wood was still commonplace on tour. When his much bigger, stronger opponents augmented their physical qualities with more powerful composite frames, it sure didn't help!

dirkgnuf
12-29-2006, 04:17 PM
I heard from someone that Jimmy Arias is the guy on the ATP logo. Is that right? If not, then who is it?

CyBorg
08-08-2009, 06:36 PM
A brief glimpse of Jimmy at 16 with his doubles partner Andrea Jaeger in 1981: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odkYmRziVsw&feature=channel_page

Near the end of the video.

ClarkC
08-08-2009, 08:45 PM
Arias' big, loopy forehand was very effective against net rusher (which a lot of players were back then), but once players figured out that you couldn't just rush the net, and waited for a good shot to come in on, Arias had problems passing them. Unfortunately, Arias was just another victim of Bolletari's "Killer Forehand" theory.

You got it backwards. Nick Bollettieri learned the killer forehand from Jimmy Arias. He has written articles about it, mentioning the first time he saw this kid from Buffalo play. Every other student of his since then has had to learn the Arias forehand, basically.

Datacipher
08-09-2009, 01:35 PM
My memory is fuzzy on this, but I thought it was a significant injury that did Arias in, and not the racket technology changes that may have occured about the same time as his injury. Once he had the injury (I can't remember what it was) he was never the same. He made a few attempts at comebacks with an altered game without the killer forehand, which he could no longer hit on a regular basis as the result of the injury. And without the killer forehand, he wasn't the same player since he no longer had a real weapon. That's my recollection of it which could certainly be wrong.
.

You are absolutely right, but there is more to it than even that. Arias also had technique problems, around the time he was switching to graphite. His grip started changing and this also destroyed his forehand. He admitted in retirement, that he actually played many matches simply bluffing. He was without his forehand, and he knew it, if somebody hit to it, he'd try to really swing at one, hoping they'd stay away from it and not figure out that it wasn't a weapon anymore, and he couldn't hit it the same way anymore.

This is probably why some of the posters here have a critical opinion of his forehand.

rod99
08-09-2009, 03:33 PM
arias's problem is that he developed a severe form of mono at the end of 1983 and was bedridden for 2 months and didn't touch a racket for 3 months. he then started practicing indoors in buffalo on a very quick court with low bounces. b/c of the court, he adjusted his forehand from a semi-western grip to an eastern grip. this wasn't successful for him when he got back on the tour but when he tried to switch back to a semi-western, he never regained the confidence and his forehand was never the same.

Borgforever
08-10-2009, 09:07 AM
I only watched Arias up close once -- in the DC-final 1984 losing to Sundström in a tight match. I really like what I saw from him. His forehand was sublime -- sharpshooting 20-25 times in a row (on slo-mo wet dirt indoors) the corners forcing the flailing, jumping, scrambling Henrik all over the court. I usually admire retrievers -- but if the enforcer is beyond a certain level and consistent to boot -- my taste-loyalties switch. Henrik barely won it. With just a tiny bit of luck Jimmy should've pulled it off. I thought it was his match and that Henrik got very, very lucky.

Very sad to see Arias wonderful potential wasn't reached...

pmerk34
08-10-2009, 09:52 AM
I saw the match too. Interesting comments from Courier. Said how Arias was the first out of Bollitierri with a massive FH and everyone including Courier emulated him. Also how his career ended due to injuries and how resentful he was that lesser guys made the wood to metal/graphite transition earlier and beat him.

He also mentioned how he was hitting with Mac in New York and Mac used his old Dunlop Maxply 200, then switched to his current one (Maxply McEnroe) after a while and there was at least a 10 mph increase in his ball speeds. People underestimate the effect of the right racquet.

That's because half the people here claim a graphite 200G and Wilson Pro staff is "similar" to wood,

pmerk34
08-10-2009, 09:55 AM
Arias really wasn't all that. I mean he had some decent results, but he just never had enough game to seal the deal. He can knock the cover off a forehand, but like Colin Dibley, once you get past that, there really ain't that much more.

That's easy to say but getting past his forehand was a problem.

Tshooter
08-10-2009, 11:37 PM
The first time I remember watching Arias was against Solomon in '81 at the USO. Arias ran out of gas and had to retire but before he retired he started to hit every single forehand for a winner. For a kid (he must have been around 16 or so at the time) he could really hit the forehand hard and flat. His backhand stunk though. It was a weird stroke especially when he tried to hit it with topspin. Mechanically flawed in my view. Weak serve too though not, of course, as weak as Solomon who had one of the worst serves ever for a top ten male player.

Rabbit
08-11-2009, 06:29 AM
That's easy to say but getting past his forehand was a problem.

Yeah, you and I would have a problem getting around his forehand.

Apparently it wasn't too hard to get around for the other pros. What was Arias' major count again? 0? How many major finals did he make again? 0?

Arias finished with 5 titles, Palermo (clay) Indianapolis (clay) Florench (clay) Rome (clay) and Tokyo (clay). All of his titles were in 1983 except for Tokyo.

His biggest title was Rome where he beat Higueras in 4 sets.

Other than that, he made 11 finals, peaking in 1985 at the age of 21.

His best results at the majors were:

Australian Open 3R - 1991
French Open QF - 1984
Wimbledon - 4R - 1984
U.S. Open - SF - 1983

In December 1983, his best year, the top ten was:

1. John McEnroe - Arias was 0 - 5 lifetime against McEnroe
2. Ivan Lendl - Arias was 0 - 6 lifetime against Lendl
3. Jimmy Connors - Arias was 0 - 5 lifetime against Connors
4. Mats Wilander - Arias was 0 - 3 lifetime against Wilander
5. Yannick Noah - Arias was 1 - 3 lifetime against Noah
6. Jimmy Arias - N/A
7. Jose Higeraus - Arias was 1 - 1 lifetime against Higeraus
8. Jose Luis Clerc - Arias was 2 - 2 lifetime against Clerc
9. Kevin Curren - Arias was 2 - 0 against Curren
10. Gene Mayer - Arias was 0 - 1 against Mayer

Arias' overall against the final top ten from 1983 was 6 - 26.

Against his clone, Aaron Krickstein, he was 3 - 3.


So yeah, I guess it is pretty easy to say once you got past his forehand, he was pretty easy to beat. It was even easier for you to be dismissive with absolutely no evidence to back it up. Next time it might help to know a little something first.

pmerk34
08-11-2009, 06:57 AM
Yeah, you and I would have a problem getting around his forehand.

Apparently it wasn't too hard to get around for the other pros. What was Arias' major count again? 0? How many major finals did he make again? 0?

Arias finished with 5 titles, Palermo (clay) Indianapolis (clay) Florench (clay) Rome (clay) and Tokyo (clay). All of his titles were in 1983 except for Tokyo.

His biggest title was Rome where he beat Higueras in 4 sets.

Other than that, he made 11 finals, peaking in 1985 at the age of 21.

His best results at the majors were:

Australian Open 3R - 1991
French Open QF - 1984
Wimbledon - 4R - 1984
U.S. Open - SF - 1983

In December 1983, his best year, the top ten was:

1. John McEnroe - Arias was 0 - 5 lifetime against McEnroe
2. Ivan Lendl - Arias was 0 - 6 lifetime against Lendl
3. Jimmy Connors - Arias was 0 - 5 lifetime against Connors
4. Mats Wilander - Arias was 0 - 3 lifetime against Wilander
5. Yannick Noah - Arias was 1 - 3 lifetime against Noah
6. Jimmy Arias - N/A
7. Jose Higeraus - Arias was 1 - 1 lifetime against Higeraus
8. Jose Luis Clerc - Arias was 2 - 2 lifetime against Clerc
9. Kevin Curren - Arias was 2 - 0 against Curren
10. Gene Mayer - Arias was 0 - 1 against Mayer

Arias' overall against the final top ten from 1983 was 6 - 26.

Against his clone, Aaron Krickstein, he was 3 - 3.


So yeah, I guess it is pretty easy to say once you got past his forehand, he was pretty easy to beat. It was even easier for you to be dismissive with absolutely no evidence to back it up. Next time it might help to know a little something first.

Who really cares though? He had a weird career.

Rabbit
08-11-2009, 09:10 AM
Who really cares though? He had a weird career.

Well apparently you cared enough to post.

pmerk34
08-11-2009, 09:14 AM
Well apparently you cared enough to post.

Yes but I didn't care about all those head to heads. He was good player whose strokes got messed up. weird.

Rabbit
08-11-2009, 09:19 AM
Yes but I didn't care about all those head to heads. He was good player whose strokes got messed up. weird.

No, that is the point. Arias was as one dimensional as they come. As such, it was easy to get past his forehand.

In Joel Drucker's book, he discusses how Pancho Segura watched Krickstein (Arias...release 1.1) play Connors at the Open. He commented that the difference between the two was the Connors had the opportunity to hone his game and learn how to play from all areas of the court. Krickstein (and Arias) did not. They were bums rushed into the professional ranks.

The H2H records represent just how easy it was for the top 10 to get past Arias' forehand which is in direct contradiction to the statement you made earlier.

Now that is not to say that Courier, Agassi, and the rest of the NB crew don't owe Arias some $'s. They do, because Arias paved the way for the academy game. But Arias was a paper tiger when he started his sophmore effort on tour because he had no plan B, just like the rest of NB's first crop.

hoodjem
08-11-2009, 10:39 AM
I think Arias (and Bolletieri) deserve a lot of the blame for the current sad state of tennis--full of baseline bashers.

AndrewD
08-11-2009, 03:00 PM
(remember how the advent of graphites killed him?).

I love that excuse - which came directly from Arias himself (he also claimed that he lost his grip position). The change from wood to graphite didn't kill Jimmy's career, it was the complete and utter lack of anything resembling a functioning backhand as well as a very ordinary serve that did him in. Once the top players had adjusted to his forehand there wasn't anything else in his game to trouble them.