PDA

View Full Version : unbelievable!!!!!!!


The Gorilla
12-06-2006, 07:24 PM
scroll down to the bottem of this page where it mentions how top '50's pro's forehand drives were electronically measured for speed,surprising results!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancho_Segura

JW10S
12-06-2006, 07:43 PM
It's funny to me how people automatically assume that today's players are far better than players of the past. I believe that if you made modern players players play with wooden rackets, or long pants, or not be able to sit down during change-overs, have no tie-breaks, wear canvas shoes, etc., like the players of the past did they would have a hard time holding their own with the best players of past. Rafael Nadal simply could not play like he does now with an old wooden Dunlop Maxply--no way.

The Gorilla
12-06-2006, 07:47 PM
I can't get over pacho gonzales' 112mph forehand drive,that's amazing!That means federer doesn't have a particularly powerful forehand in contrast to those players playing with wooden racquets in the '50's!

Zets147
12-06-2006, 07:51 PM
they meant 112km/h

Mick
12-06-2006, 07:53 PM
It's funny to me how people automatically assume that today's players are far better than players of the past. I believe that if you made modern players players play with wooden rackets, or long pants, or not be able to sit down during change-overs, have no tie-breaks, wear canvas shoes, etc., like the players of the past did they would have a hard time holding their own with the best players of past. Rafael Nadal simply could not play like he does now with an old wooden Dunlop Maxply--no way.

I am one of those people :)

i think today tennis players are better because they are much better athletes. Tennis players from the past have great tennis skills, no doubt, but I don't believe they trained hard to get their bodies in peak shapes like today's tennis players do.

JW10S
12-06-2006, 07:59 PM
they meant 112km/hWhere do you get that? American players would be rated in mph, not kmh...

skuludo
12-06-2006, 09:58 PM
Pancho Gonzales hit the fastest, 112.88 mph

Are you blind?!

It says mph

serveitup911
12-06-2006, 10:07 PM
That is definitely wrong. They couldn't hit forehands as fast as serves. It must mean 112 km/h.

haerdalis
12-06-2006, 10:34 PM
I read somewhere that Bill Tildens serve was measured at 170 mph. I just dont trust the measurement they made in those days. Actually I dont think you can even compare the speed measurements made today with those made 15 years ago.

BreakPoint
12-06-2006, 10:54 PM
they meant 112km/h

It clearly states 112.88mph.
That's what happens when you use a 16 oz. racquet with loose tensions and hit the ball completely flat, unlike today's 11 oz. racquets hitting massive topspin, which slows the ball way down.

BTW, if you scroll to the middle of this webpage, under the paragraph "Forehand", it mentions the speeds again in mph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis

arnz
12-07-2006, 02:04 AM
I am one of those people :)

i think today tennis players are better because they are much better athletes. Tennis players from the past have great tennis skills, no doubt, but I don't believe they trained hard to get their bodies in peak shapes like today's tennis players do.

I do think that today most tennis players are getting themselves as fit as possible because the competition is more fierce, the prize money is way up than ever before.

However that being said, tennis is still mostly a game of skill, and I'm sure the players of the past would have adapted to todays conditions.

Consider the fact that at 35 years old Andre Agassi was top 10 last year, at that age getting to the finals of the US open. He has beaten roddick and blake consistently, and has an equal record against Daydenko and Ljubicic.

That same agassi who has a lifetime record of 2-6 against Lendl, the same Lendl who has a 2-5 lifetime record against the dominating Borg, who has a 7-6 record against Ashe, who has a 2-12 record against Laver, etc etc.

If laver could beat ashe, who could beat Borg, who beat Lendl, who beat Agassi, who beats up on Roddick and blake, I really think the past greats are greatly underestimated against today's champs.

VGP
12-07-2006, 01:20 PM
I do think that today most tennis players are getting themselves as fit as possible because the competition is more fierce, the prize money is way up than ever before.

However that being said, tennis is still mostly a game of skill, and I'm sure the players of the past would have adapted to todays conditions.

Consider the fact that at 35 years old Andre Agassi was top 10 last year, at that age getting to the finals of the US open. He has beaten roddick and blake consistently, and has an equal record against Daydenko and Ljubicic.

That same agassi who has a lifetime record of 2-6 against Lendl, the same Lendl who has a 2-5 lifetime record against the dominating Borg, who has a 7-6 record against Ashe, who has a 2-12 record against Laver, etc etc.

If laver could beat ashe, who could beat Borg, who beat Lendl, who beat Agassi, who beats up on Roddick and blake, I really think the past greats are greatly underestimated against today's champs.

I'm not discounting the players of the past, but by your logic, Blake would be the greatest since he's 3-0 over Nadal who's 6-2 over Federer and on and on.....

arnz
12-07-2006, 02:22 PM
I'm not discounting the players of the past, but by your logic, Blake would be the greatest since he's 3-0 over Nadal who's 6-2 over Federer and on and on.....

I am saying that they are all competitive. I'm not saying head to head is a sure sign of who is better, but that the fact that generations overlapped and competed well against each other means that they could well compete today also. If Agassi had his problems with Lendl, doesnt mean lendl would beat Blake, but I'm pretty sure if somebody could handle Agassi, they would be highly ranked individual, probably top ten material, thats all.

It is a fluke that possibly the most talented player of all time is playing right now, so I think any player in tennis history would be hard pressed to beat Fed. But prime Sampras vs. current #2 Nadal on hardcourt? Please.

And I'm saying that even though I like watching Nadal

bribeiro
12-07-2006, 04:59 PM
That cannot be accurate, no way.

JCo872
12-07-2006, 06:01 PM
I do think that today most tennis players are getting themselves as fit as possible because the competition is more fierce, the prize money is way up than ever before.

However that being said, tennis is still mostly a game of skill, and I'm sure the players of the past would have adapted to todays conditions.

Consider the fact that at 35 years old Andre Agassi was top 10 last year, at that age getting to the finals of the US open. He has beaten roddick and blake consistently, and has an equal record against Daydenko and Ljubicic.

That same agassi who has a lifetime record of 2-6 against Lendl, the same Lendl who has a 2-5 lifetime record against the dominating Borg, who has a 7-6 record against Ashe, who has a 2-12 record against Laver, etc etc.

If laver could beat ashe, who could beat Borg, who beat Lendl, who beat Agassi, who beats up on Roddick and blake, I really think the past greats are greatly underestimated against today's champs.

That's a great argument. I never thought of it that way before!

Flexxed
12-07-2006, 06:16 PM
I think the guy that wrote that got the forehand speeds mixed up with the serve speed. On this link it says Gonzalez's serve was 112.88mph and I don't think thats a coincidence. If you watch old matches the ball clearly moves slower. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,819457,00.html?promoid=googlep

superman1
12-07-2006, 08:32 PM
I do think that today most tennis players are getting themselves as fit as possible because the competition is more fierce, the prize money is way up than ever before.

However that being said, tennis is still mostly a game of skill, and I'm sure the players of the past would have adapted to todays conditions.

Consider the fact that at 35 years old Andre Agassi was top 10 last year, at that age getting to the finals of the US open. He has beaten roddick and blake consistently, and has an equal record against Daydenko and Ljubicic.

That same agassi who has a lifetime record of 2-6 against Lendl, the same Lendl who has a 2-5 lifetime record against the dominating Borg, who has a 7-6 record against Ashe, who has a 2-12 record against Laver, etc etc.

If laver could beat ashe, who could beat Borg, who beat Lendl, who beat Agassi, who beats up on Roddick and blake, I really think the past greats are greatly underestimated against today's champs.

The transverse property doesn't work in tennis, but I agree, all the greats would be competitive and at the top if they played in the same era. However, just keep in mind that Lendl's 6 wins over Agassi were in the 80's when Lendl was #1 or #2, and Agassi's 2 wins were in the early 90's after he had won his first Slam. Lendl described Agassi as a "haircut and a forehand." People these days would describe him as a "bald head, a forehand, a backhand, and a return of serve." So obviously Agassi evolved since their clashes.

And as for the subject of this thread, those stats are impossible. There's absolutely no way they could be correct. Even Blake's biggest scorchers which you can barely see fly through the court aren't that fast.

serveitup911
12-07-2006, 09:24 PM
I wouldn't necessarily trust a Wikipedia article....

krprunitennis2
12-07-2006, 09:47 PM
It clearly states 112.88mph.
That's what happens when you use a 16 oz. racquet with loose tensions and hit the ball completely flat, unlike today's 11 oz. racquets hitting massive topspin, which slows the ball way down.

BTW, if you scroll to the middle of this webpage, under the paragraph "Forehand", it mentions the speeds again in mph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis

You can't trust wikipedia that much since everyone in the world can edit some pages.

Rosebud
12-08-2006, 03:40 AM
It is not a bad wikipedia article at all, as it gives specific details about the sources of it's content in it's notes. It correctly cites Kramer and McCauley.

VikingSamurai
12-16-2006, 04:30 AM
I am an Australian, and I see it like this.. I was always a big Becker fan.. I am now 32.. But I respected all of the players of the day.. I stopped watching Tennis when Pete Sampras was becoming dominent.. I guess, as Lendl was the robot of the 80's, Sampras was the Lendl of the 90's.. Simply no competition.. Even Agassi dissapeared for a while..

You look at someone like a Borg, or the great Australians Laver, Court, and Emerson. These guys (gals) played in an era where all players basically ran on the same tires (to give an F1 example).. Same clothes, same shoes, same racquets.. Yet these guys and gal ruled... And won on all surfaces.. Not playing a whole year on clay courts to become No 1!

Today, there is so much in the way of technology and extra (help) that these guys simply dont know what tennis is anymore.. Play for no money.. Play for a trophie. Play for the love of it. I am sure these guys and gals would soon tire of the business called tennis..

Never, ever compare the players of today, with the players of yesterday.. The players of today have it way too good, and dont understand tennis as it is meant to be..

Just my 2 cents..

Chris

maxply
12-17-2006, 12:20 PM
I like your style

sureshs
12-17-2006, 12:36 PM
That's a great argument. I never thought of it that way before!

If it was a great argument, Murray is currently the #1.

sureshs
12-17-2006, 12:38 PM
Today, there is so much in the way of technology and extra (help) that these guys simply dont know what tennis is anymore.. Play for no money.. Play for a trophie. Play for the love of it. I am sure these guys and gals would soon tire of the business called tennis..

Never, ever compare the players of today, with the players of yesterday.. The players of today have it way too good, and dont understand tennis as it is meant to be..



What is tennis meant to be, what don't they understand, and what is it that they don't know about tennis ?

Oh, BTW, today's scientists don't use slide rules any more, but they do know math.

krprunitennis2
12-17-2006, 12:51 PM
"At a professional event in 1951 the forehand drives of a number of players were electronically measured. Pancho Gonzales hit the fastest, 112.88 mph, followed by Jack Kramer at 107.8 and Welby Van Horn at 104. Since it was generally assumed at the time that Segura had the hardest forehand among his contemporaries, it is possible that he was not present at that event. [4]"

Did they have accurate radars in 1951? There has been radar disputes all over serves here in the forums, so I'm not sure about the radars in 1951 (or if they had any).

Dashbarr
12-17-2006, 01:05 PM
its possible to have 112 mph forehand drives. high forehands, downwards motion, flat shot, heavy wooden raquet? possible, and i wouldnt be suprised if it was only 4 or 5 mph off.

Swissv2
12-17-2006, 02:40 PM
impossible.

Take the videos of these guys and do a video calculation of their service and forehand speed.

drakulie
12-17-2006, 05:22 PM
I'm with swiss on this one.

With all the "rage" (especially from older players) about how technology has enabled the players of today to hit faster than when wood racquets were used, today's players can't hit 100+ mph forehands. Occasionally, you will see a player hit a 100+ FH. Occasionally.

Maybe the old generation are really the ones who had an advantage with their "equipment". LOL

BreakPoint
12-17-2006, 08:54 PM
Maybe the old generation are really the ones who had an advantage with their "equipment". LOL
You know, I'm actually starting to believe this based upon my two outings with my 25 year-old Maxply McEnroe woodie with 25 year-old strings in it over the past few days. One day of singles and one day of doubles playing many sets and not once was my serve ever broken. :D

I was also hitting some unreal forehands at greater pace than with my usual nCode 90. My balls were so hard and heavy that my opponents had trouble dealing with them. A few times they didn't even have enough time to get their racquets up to try and volley some of my shots hit at them when they were at net.

Hmmm....maybe there's something to this and the claims of some of the old pros. :-o

VikingSamurai
12-18-2006, 04:15 AM
What is tennis meant to be, what don't they understand, and what is it that they don't know about tennis ?

Oh, BTW, today's scientists don't use slide rules any more, but they do know math.

Suresh.. Alot of the players in the day had to work jobs, and play tennis on the side. Share accomodation and training facilities ect ect ect...

Today they get driven around, fly first class, stay in plush hotels, get massages, doctors, trainers, coaches ect ect ect.. And get paid an obscene amount of money to do so..

So yeah, I guess my rant was a little biassed? And I am not really that old too.. I just respect the past and what these guys did to make way for the people who play today!

Chris

alwaysatnet
01-09-2007, 08:10 AM
Don't forget that radar measurements calculate the speed of the ball as the striker hits it,not the speed with which it arrives to the returner.Having said that,I can easily believe that a heavy wooden racquet propelled by a guy doing one armed push ups every day could really pound the ball.In my humble opinion the marketing genius' that have pushed the lie that lighter racquets are better(than heavier) have done more to harm the game than any one other factor.What I can't believe is all the presumably grown up adults whining about how heavy their 12 ounce frame feels after three sets.Little girls used to play with wood.Why can't a grown up use a grown up's frame?Perhaps the eighty year olds playing at Palm Springs need to swing a 10 ounce racquet but why should anyone else?