PDA

View Full Version : Tennis myths that really annoy me


BeHappy
05-06-2008, 03:51 PM
1)Nikolay Davydenkol is just a grinder, like Hewitt, who doesnt have any weapons to hurt you.

-No, his backhand and his forehand are both as good as Federer's.He is one of the most powerful players I have ever seen.

2)Gonzalez's backhand was a huge liability before he started working with Stefanki.

-No, It was nearly as powerful as his forehand and pretty much always went in, I don't know why Stefanki completely changed that shot but he has destroyed it.


3)Nadal is just a grinder.

-see no. 1



I'll add to this later.

gj011
05-06-2008, 03:54 PM
4) Federer can lose a match only if he is not healthy.
- no need to explain.

Moose Malloy
05-06-2008, 03:56 PM
No, his backhand and his forehand are both as good as Federer's.He is one of the most powerful players I have ever seen

if he's so powerful, how come he doesn't hit a lot of winners? far less than Federer.

BeHappy
05-06-2008, 03:58 PM
if he's so powerful, how come he doesn't hit a lot of winners? far less than Federer.

shot selection.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=My8eTFH36Cs&fmt=18

judge for yourself, tell me what you think.

BeHappy
05-06-2008, 04:05 PM
4)Goran Ivanisevic was just a serve, his other strokes were terrible.

-No, this only applied on grass which amplified the effects of his serve, but the low bounce coupled with his strong forehand grip made it very difficult for him to do anything else as he was really a baseliner.He wasn't really a volleyer, he just put away easy returns on grass.

He's, outside of monfils, the fastest tall man I've ever seen, he had outstanding groundstrokes.




http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ULl-YURr028

PROTENNIS63
05-06-2008, 04:09 PM
Fed should retire after his loss to Djoko in the Aussie Open.

That is the best one.

BkK_b0y14
05-06-2008, 04:21 PM
Davydenko is so underrated everywhere. For such a tiny guy he can get some serious pace on every stroke. The only thing that separates him from the likes of Federer and Nadal is his mental game (even though he has beaten Nadal). I really don't see why his record against top 10 players is so low...

Andres
05-06-2008, 05:26 PM
4)Goran Ivanisevic was just a serve, his other strokes were terrible.

-No, this only applied on grass which amplified the effects of his serve, but the low bounce coupled with his strong forehand grip made it very difficult for him to do anything else as he was really a baseliner.He wasn't really a volleyer, he just put away easy returns on grass.

He's, outside of monfils, the fastest tall man I've ever seen, he had outstanding groundstrokes.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ULl-YURr028
He also had a fantastic slice backhand, and one of the best dropshots in the history of the game.

cghipp
05-06-2008, 05:33 PM
[Any pro's name here] sucks.

r2473
05-06-2008, 05:34 PM
Safin is a virgin.

Nadal_Freak
05-06-2008, 05:46 PM
Safin is a virgin.
Now that is the best one. :D Safin has probably been getting some for awhile now. I am jealous.

slice bh compliment
05-06-2008, 05:47 PM
Myth: Having pro spec frames will actually help your game. With the ladies.

MajinX
05-06-2008, 05:58 PM
Andy roddick is just a serve.

- guy has been in top ten for over 5 years straight... if just a good serve gets u there then ur dis respecting all the other players.

CyBorg
05-06-2008, 05:58 PM
Agreed on Ivanisevic. He went for touch a lot, particularly on grass.

Many folks have a misconception about groundies. They see a guy hitting the crap out of the ball and they deem that his groundies are good. Then they see a guy hitting slices or with topspin and make the opposite conclusion, merely because the ball doesn't travel as quickly.

Take Evgeny Korolev. Monster groundies. No variety. No brain.

jmsx521
05-06-2008, 06:12 PM
Myth: That the ball actually touches the strings and/or the racket on impact; according to physics, atoms prevent touching each other because of the positive and negative charges they have, that create energy/electricity among each other. (Physics majors help me out here!) And going by the rules of tennis -- a tennis player loses the point if the ball touches anything but the strings & racket -- nobody won any points and matches, since the ball never touched their strings & racket.... So, with that being said, all tournament winners' trophies should be confiscated and their wins should be annulled!

Vision84
05-06-2008, 06:12 PM
Roddick's backhand sucks.
Roddick wouldn't be in the top 100 with an average pro serve
Sampras is capable of playing on the pro tour and winning matches again.
Those exhibitions between Sampras and Federer means something.
The one-handed backhand is better than the two-hander
Any average player will automatically play much better with a pro's frame.

Vision84
05-06-2008, 06:14 PM
Myth: That the ball actually touches the strings and/or the racket on impact; according to physics, atoms prevent touching each other because of the positive and negative charges they have, that create energy/electricity among each other. (Physics majors help me out here!) And going by the rules of tennis -- a tennis player loses the point if the ball touches anything but the strings & racket -- nobody won any points and matches, since the ball never touched their strings & racket.... So, with that being said, all tournament winners' trophies should be confiscated and their wins should be annulled!
Hahaha..........

[d]ragon
05-06-2008, 06:24 PM
1)Nikolay Davydenkol is just a grinder, like Hewitt, who doesnt have any weapons to hurt you.

-No, his backhand and his forehand are both as good as Federer's.He is one of the most powerful players I have ever seen.


wow, i just watched that link u posted (davy vs nadal shanghai) and davydanko really is a great player. i;ve never really watched him before but i now notice that not only is he very agile but he also hits the ball on the rise alot, also uses very nice selection

[d]ragon
05-06-2008, 06:26 PM
Myth: Having pro spec frames will actually help your game. With the ladies.

to add on to that, if any pro uses X equipment, it must also work for me

tennisplayer1981
05-06-2008, 07:11 PM
Myth: Yuri Sharapov is one of the nicest people you'll ever meet.

Time to call the Mythbusters.

Vision84
05-06-2008, 07:14 PM
Myth: Yuri Sharapov is one of the nicest people you'll ever meet..
Who says he is?

Nadal_Freak
05-06-2008, 07:16 PM
Who says he is?
I actually think he is nice. It's just he is too competitive and it can **** off fans.

tennisplayer1981
05-06-2008, 07:20 PM
Who says he is?

His daughter, Maria.

BeHappy
05-06-2008, 07:29 PM
5)Edberg's forehand was the absolute worst shot in the history of tennis, he couldn't keep the ball in the court.

-The supposed crappiness of his forehand has reached almost mythical levels, it really wasn't that bad at all, it was about as good as gasquet's, he didn't hit it very hard but he very seldom made unforced errors with it and he could seriously unload on it if you forced him into a corner.

bluetrain4
05-06-2008, 07:50 PM
5)Edberg's forehand was the absolute worst shot in the history of tennis, he couldn't keep the ball in the court.

-The supposed crappiness of his forehand has reached almost mythical levels, it really wasn't that bad at all, it was about as good as gasquet's, he didn't hit it very hard but he very seldom made unforced errors with it and he could seriously unload on it if you forced him into a corner.


Totally agree, though I've never really heard it described as the "worst". More often, it is just described as "ugly." And it was, but he knew exactly what to do with it. He could take the ball low off the bounce and block pack pace. He could throw in a few moon balls to get back in position if he was pulled wide. He had incredible timing and placement, even if he lacked power and excessive spin. I heard several commentators say that his forehand was actually better on the run, when he didn't have to think about it so much.

iamke55
05-06-2008, 08:08 PM
Roddick's backhand sucks.
Roddick wouldn't be in the top 100 with an average pro serve
Sampras is capable of playing on the pro tour and winning matches again.
Those exhibitions between Sampras and Federer means something.
The one-handed backhand is better than the two-hander
Any average player will automatically play much better with a pro's frame.

I like the way you think. But the sad part is, there are probably many people here who seriously think all of that is true, especially in the Racket forum.

Myth: Andy Roddick is a one dimensional power baseliner who just has a forehand and serve.
Reality: He doesn't have much power outside of the serve but plays a smart, varied all-court game that relies on mixing up the pace so that the lack of rhythm will cause his opponents to hit many "unforced" errors. This is why people will always make excuses for why top 3 players lose to him while playing junior-style "go for winners on every shot" tennis.

Myth: Federer at his best is beatable.
Reality: He wasn't at his absolute best against Safin or against Djokovic. Federer at his best doesn't lose games, let alone sets.

Myth: Sampras has a more accurate and spinnier serve than Roddick.
Reality: Roddick has a much higher serving percentage as well as much more velocity, and when considering both of these it's plain that Roddick is far more accurate and hits with way more spin. That and the fact that Roddick wins a higher percentage of second serve points than Sampras despite apparently sucking at tennis.

Myth: Agassi had the best return of serve ever.
Reality: He holds the record for being aced the most times in a match. He also could never beat Sampras as easily as Hewitt did.

Myth: Federer's serve is worse than Sampras's.
Reality: In their only match, 25 aces vs 26 aces is not a big difference. That was the only time you could compare their serve on an equal surface. Federer's current ace counts are lower than Sampras's 10 years ago because the courts are a lot slower.

Myth: Federer doesn't have a big forehand.
Reality: Guys like Gonzalez and Blake wish they had Federer's forehand. You don't hit that many winners without creating huge pace from every position.

Myth: Federer has a top 5 backhand.
Reality: It's an average rallying shot that is very good for defense.

r2473
05-06-2008, 08:16 PM
Myth: Federer at his best is beatable.
Reality: He wasn't at his absolute best against Safin or against Djokovic. Federer at his best doesn't lose games, let alone sets.

I assume you mean the AO 2005 semis. You should watch it again. I thought Federer played pretty damn well (- myth; Federer is a machine, not a man).

So, Federer at his best wins 6-0 every set? Meaning, he has never been at his best? (I am surprised you didn't say that Federer at his best doesn't even lose a single point).

Vision84
05-06-2008, 08:43 PM
Agassi is a great returner, he just never had the reach so he was aced more often than some other players.

Federer's backhand is a bit more of an average rallying shot. He has the best slice I have seen and his top-spin while not as good as Gasquet is still pretty good.

bluetrain4
05-06-2008, 08:48 PM
Agassi went for broke on a lot of returns. He was the best at hitting winners off the return. But, he was far from the best at getting the highest percentage of balls back in play.

superman1
05-06-2008, 08:56 PM
Agassi went for broke on a lot of returns. He was the best at hitting winners off the return. But, he was far from the best at getting the highest percentage of balls back in play.

If he got his racquet on it then he usually got it back - he wasn't like Blake who TRULY goes for broke, and as a result often blasts a relatively easy return right into the net. So he'd get aced more than a taller guy who stands further back who, instead of being aced, either frames it or hits a very weak return that gets pummeled.

MEAC_ALLAMERICAN
05-06-2008, 09:00 PM
1)Nikolay Davydenkol is just a grinder, like Hewitt, who doesnt have any weapons to hurt you.

-No, his backhand and his forehand are both as good as Federer's.He is one of the most powerful players I have ever seen.

There are many people that refuted Davydenko's current ranking as the number 4 ranked player in the game to these exacts same reasons. He is one of the best players, that I have I seen in person, and I have seen him play more than a few (4) times. At his best he can beat anyone, Federer is the one for me, but he is the best one on the list. Nobody can take the ball as accurate or early as he can in this current generation. Hate it or not, but this guy is the truth.

Squall Leonheart
05-06-2008, 09:13 PM
Every single person on these boards can volley better than Roddick. In reality, the difference between the worst pro's worst shot and an average Joe's best shot is incomprable.

Fries-N-Gravy
05-06-2008, 09:36 PM
In reality, the difference between the worst pro's worst shot and an average Joe's best shot is incomprable.

the difference is incomparable? wth does that mean? did your death god tell you to say that?

you mean a pro's worst shot is equal to avg joe's best? or pro's worst shot is vastly superior to avg joe?


MYTH: federer is not good on clay... he is human and does lose sometimes in earlier rounds even on hardcourt. Nadal has just been nearly invincible on clay and it overshadows fed's accomplishments. what is it like a semi and two finals at RG now? even with that horrible one hander that breaks down against high topspin shots.

mypod4900
05-06-2008, 10:42 PM
Andy roddick is just a serve.

- guy has been in top ten for over 5 years straight... if just a good serve gets u there then ur dis respecting all the other players.

Ya his ground strokes are like bombs. But his serve is no doubt the high point of his game.

Whatsavolley?
05-07-2008, 04:36 AM
Myth: Federer has a top 5 backhand.
Reality: It's an average rallying shot that is very good for defense.

This is absolutely the funniest thing I've heard all year, rallying shot? I take it you watch tennis every so often?

cknobman
05-07-2008, 05:22 AM
Maria Sharapova is hot.

veroniquem
05-07-2008, 05:58 AM
Every single person on these boards can volley better than Roddick. In reality, the difference between the worst pro's worst shot and an average Joe's best shot is incomprable.
I can't! Should I be mortified?:oops:

gj011
05-07-2008, 06:02 AM
I can't! Should I be mortified?:oops:

No, if your forehand is better than Moya's.

veroniquem
05-07-2008, 06:07 AM
Oh man! Still mortified.....

Squall Leonheart
05-07-2008, 08:49 AM
In reality, the difference between the worst pro's worst shot and an average Joe's best shot is incomprable.
the difference is incomparable? wth does that mean? did your death god tell you to say that?

you mean a pro's worst shot is equal to avg joe's best? or pro's worst shot is vastly superior to avg joe?


MYTH: federer is not good on clay... he is human and does lose sometimes in earlier rounds even on hardcourt. Nadal has just been nearly invincible on clay and it overshadows fed's accomplishments. what is it like a semi and two finals at RG now? even with that horrible one hander that breaks down against high topspin shots.

I apologize for the lack of clarity: I meant that any pro's shot would be vastly superior to that of an average player's.

Vermillion
05-07-2008, 09:10 AM
Maria Sharapova is hot.

MYTH BUSTED!

rosenstar
05-07-2008, 09:56 AM
Myth: That the ball actually touches the strings and/or the racket on impact; according to physics, atoms prevent touching each other because of the positive and negative charges they have, that create energy/electricity among each other. (Physics majors help me out here!) And going by the rules of tennis -- a tennis player loses the point if the ball touches anything but the strings & racket -- nobody won any points and matches, since the ball never touched their strings & racket.... So, with that being said, all tournament winners' trophies should be confiscated and their wins should be annulled!

I believe that's only in inelastic colisions. An Elastic collision (meaning energy is lost in the process) is what happens when you hit the ball.

I apologize for the lack of clarity: I meant that any pro's shot would be vastly superior to that of an average player's.

Depends on what you define as an average player and what level of pro tennis. I've kept rally's going with former top 300 players, and to best explain my level, I had the oppertunity to play d1 tennis at schools in the bottom of the patriot league (lafayette and lehigh). Had I decided on one of these schools, I would have been on the bottom of the ladder. Although I can rally and maybe play a baseline game with these guys (former pros and some low current pros), I'd get slaughtered easily in a match.

What makes any professional or high level collegiant player so good IMO is the intent behind each shot. Each shot has a specific purpose. Each point is already designed. I'm not sure how to explain it, but a 5.0/5.5 can rally with a (low level) pro but cannot compete in a match

Some myths/unknown facts and views of mine:

-anyone can play professional tennis, providing you can finance it. Someone with professional status is anyone who accepts a reward for winning a match.

-EVERYONE in the top 1000 in the world is truly amazing. anyone in the top 500 is incedibly talented. everyone in the top 100 is gifted. anyone ever to get in the top ten (even if just for a week) was born to play tennis.

-Marat Safin is not the greatest talent ever, but he is up there.

-giving federer a 2 handed backhand, bigger frame, etc. will not win him a french open. For him to win it, he will have to out play 7 other people.

-Federer is not having a bad year right now. It might not be as good as last year, but he's still #1 in the world and is still making semifinals. Hewitt would kill to have a year like Fed's having now

-Davydinko is extremely talented (as others have previously said) and he rips the ball

-Roddick is more than just a serve. saying otherwise is stupid.

-Finally, a player's future is not decided when he's a child. See Gasquet (who again, is incedibly talented but was expected to be in feds current position) or williams sisters (no expectations). However a junior career is generally helpful.

scineram
05-07-2008, 10:46 AM
Maria Sharapova is hot.

LOL! Well said!!!

beedlejuice22
05-07-2008, 11:46 AM
Myth: That the ball actually touches the strings and/or the racket on impact; according to physics, atoms prevent touching each other because of the positive and negative charges they have, that create energy/electricity among each other. (Physics majors help me out here!) And going by the rules of tennis -- a tennis player loses the point if the ball touches anything but the strings & racket -- nobody won any points and matches, since the ball never touched their strings & racket.... So, with that being said, all tournament winners' trophies should be confiscated and their wins should be annulled!

so then how do you explain for the fraying of the strings? or the stencil rubbing off? something has got to be touching the strings when you play and my guess is that its a tennis ball...

DarkSephiroth
05-07-2008, 11:57 AM
Daydenko is like a poor-man's Agassi, with that timing and ability to take the ball on the rise. He's vastly underrated.

scineram
05-07-2008, 12:07 PM
so then how do you explain for the fraying of the strings? or the stencil rubbing off? something has got to be touching the strings when you play and my guess is that its a tennis ball...

No, they do not touch.

Gundam
05-07-2008, 12:16 PM
Myth: That the ball actually touches the strings and/or the racket on impact; according to physics, atoms prevent touching each other because of the positive and negative charges they have, that create energy/electricity among each other. (Physics majors help me out here!) And going by the rules of tennis -- a tennis player loses the point if the ball touches anything but the strings & racket -- nobody won any points and matches, since the ball never touched their strings & racket.... So, with that being said, all tournament winners' trophies should be confiscated and their wins should be annulled!

Hahaha- this is great.:shock: Yeah, you are right. They (particles) don't make a direct contact. But isn't the manetic field/space surrounding the positrons, neutrons and electrons a part of 'matter'? If only the particles count, we, balls, tennis racquets etc wouldn't exist at all.

I attended my last physics class LONG time ago (last century)...I might be wrong.

Myth : Anna K is hot. I don't get it. She is not attractive at all. Never was.

beedlejuice22
05-07-2008, 03:10 PM
No, they do not touch.

the TENNIS BALL touches the STRINGS when you play TENNIS. otherwise there is no explanation for vibrations, fraying strings, or stencil rubbing off. if they didnt touch at all, how would it move? they have to make contact to work.

beedlejuice22
05-07-2008, 03:15 PM
if the ball and strings do not touch when playing, explain this http://www.operationdoubles.com/contact-federer- forehand.jpg (http://www.operationdoubles.com/contact-federer-forehand.jpg)

take out the space between federer- and forehand^^

Vision84
05-07-2008, 03:18 PM
the TENNIS BALL touches the STRINGS when you play TENNIS. otherwise there is no explanation for vibrations, fraying strings, or stencil rubbing off. if they didnt touch at all, how would it move? they have to make contact to work.

You don't know much about physics do you?

Vision84
05-07-2008, 03:18 PM
Maria Sharapova is hot.

Hahaha you can add Hantuchova to that as well. :twisted:

soyizgood
05-07-2008, 04:26 PM
MYTH: Ana Ivanovic (i.e. Squeeka) is a goddess with the perfect face and body
The girl is 6'1" 160+ lbs. She's more likely to develop into a Davenport-clone than that of eye-candy her fans make her out to be....

superman1
05-07-2008, 04:52 PM
Yay, another one star thread.

My guess is that about 95% of threads get rated one star, and it's because some angry poster doesn't like what's in it. We should have a rep system on this board and only people with enough reps should be able to rate threads.

beedlejuice22
05-07-2008, 06:01 PM
You don't know much about physics do you?

so youre saying that a ball and strings make zero contact when playing?

jmsx521
05-07-2008, 06:11 PM
Myth: That a blister (on the hand or foot) doesn't diminish the player's chances of winning the match. This is not recreational tennis! In pro tennis, a minor weakness in one of the players will be just sufficient enough for the other player to exploit it.

TheTruth
05-07-2008, 06:12 PM
Myth-Agassi was charasmatic.

Reality-The media loved him and attributed such qualities to him.

Mtyh-Sharapova, Ivanovic, Hantuchova, and Kournikova are/were hot.

Reality-Maybe for tennis, but in the real world they're just average looking amazons, except for Kournikova who isn't that tall, but neither is she/ was she that pretty either.

Salsa_Lover
05-08-2008, 05:12 AM
Maria Sharapova is hot.

Hahaha you can add Hantuchova to that as well. :twisted:

MYTH: Ana Ivanovic (i.e. Squeeka) is a goddess with the perfect face and body
The girl is 6'1" 160+ lbs. She's more likely to develop into a Davenport-clone than that of eye-candy her fans make her out to be....

Those girls are cute tennis players. But they are not hot.

Many girls I know and go dance with are way hotter than those 3

But alas, they are not top 10 tennis players ;)

Ocean Drive
05-08-2008, 07:18 AM
I like the way you think. But the sad part is, there are probably many people here who seriously think all of that is true, especially in the Racket forum.

Myth: Andy Roddick is a one dimensional power baseliner who just has a forehand and serve.
Reality: He doesn't have much power outside of the serve but plays a smart, varied all-court game that relies on mixing up the pace so that the lack of rhythm will cause his opponents to hit many "unforced" errors. This is why people will always make excuses for why top 3 players lose to him while playing junior-style "go for winners on every shot" tennis.

Myth: Federer at his best is beatable.
Reality: He wasn't at his absolute best against Safin or against Djokovic. Federer at his best doesn't lose games, let alone sets.

Myth: Sampras has a more accurate and spinnier serve than Roddick.
Reality: Roddick has a much higher serving percentage as well as much more velocity, and when considering both of these it's plain that Roddick is far more accurate and hits with way more spin. That and the fact that Roddick wins a higher percentage of second serve points than Sampras despite apparently sucking at tennis.

Myth: Agassi had the best return of serve ever.
Reality: He holds the record for being aced the most times in a match. He also could never beat Sampras as easily as Hewitt did.

Myth: Federer's serve is worse than Sampras's.
Reality: In their only match, 25 aces vs 26 aces is not a big difference. That was the only time you could compare their serve on an equal surface. Federer's current ace counts are lower than Sampras's 10 years ago because the courts are a lot slower.

Myth: Federer doesn't have a big forehand.
Reality: Guys like Gonzalez and Blake wish they had Federer's forehand. You don't hit that many winners without creating huge pace from every position.

Myth: Federer has a top 5 backhand.
Reality: It's an average rallying shot that is very good for defense.

Federer at his best is beatable, if he came across another player on red hot form.

Agassi does have the best return, so what if he got aced a lot, ever thought about the fact the player he faced was serving brilliantly, and Hewitt beat a declining Sampras whereas Agassi played him every year from outcome to finish.

Sampras serve is easily better than Federers, probably the only man in history with anything better is Ivanisevic.

nikdom
05-08-2008, 08:56 AM
Myth - Djokovic is the next number 1
Saying so doesn't make it so. We'll acknowledge it when when it actually happens. Right now he's just a great young player who deserves his no. 3 spot. Corollaries to this myth- "The King is Dead", "Nadal Will Never be Number 1"

Myth - Andy Murray Will Win Many Grand Slams
Again, show me the pudding. He may have the tennis 'smarts' and the moonball and all that skill commentators keep harping about. I'm not buying stock in Murray until I see consistent results like Djoker's above. Spare me the drivel they put forth in British newspapers before every major. For once, the coronation should await the battle.

Myth - Player X Lost Because He/She Didn't Play His/Her Best
That's why tennis is played on a court, not on paper. If you're not better than your opponent on a given day, doesn't matter who you are - reigning champion or lucky-loser, you've lost! No ifs, buts, maybes, could-haves, should-haves. Can fair competition be any more simpler?

Myth - It Was Better In The Past
Pffft. This one is the worst. Popular incarnations of this myth include 'Sampras had tougher competition', 'Serve & Volley was better' and 'Borg/Laver/X would win today'. This is just our nostalgia for a known entity - the past. We know what happened so it doesn't threaten our sensibilities or fanhood, or we have worked around our reservations now that we know the past won't change. Every known objective metric like the speed of the game, athleticism of the players, racquet head speed, errors to winners, the depth of the global game have improved and will *keep* improving. Today's champs will be overshadowed tomorrow. Moreover, there is no way some of these theories can be verified unless you have a time-machine. That's just life. So deal with it and move on!

fastdunn
05-08-2008, 10:12 AM
Agassi went for broke on a lot of returns. He was the best at hitting winners off the return. But, he was far from the best at getting the highest percentage of balls back in play.

well, he went for a broke in 90's. he had to. he was returning to lots of S&Ver's and surfaces were fast, and tennis ball was light.

i think he went more conservative toward the end of his career. tennis has changed. there is no S&ver any more and priority is on the placement of your return rather than the pace...

but even in 90's, if agassi gets his hand on your serve, chances are that he makes it.

fastdunn
05-08-2008, 10:17 AM
4)Goran Ivanisevic was just a serve, his other strokes were terrible.

-No, this only applied on grass which amplified the effects of his serve, but the low bounce coupled with his strong forehand grip made it very difficult for him to do anything else as he was really a baseliner.He wasn't really a volleyer, he just put away easy returns on grass.

He's, outside of monfils, the fastest tall man I've ever seen, he had outstanding groundstrokes.


yes he was a great baseliner with one of the most dangerous serves in history.

FH2FH
05-08-2008, 10:40 AM
Laver was the best?

I'm not claiming it's a myth, but didn't he lose to many pros when he switched from amatuer status ...after winning the Slams, possibly against lesser able players? Weren't Rosewall, Gonzalez, etc playing professionally while Laver was racking up trophies? Guess I could Wiki it, but I'm too lazy. ;)

ohlori
05-08-2008, 10:58 AM
Myth - It Was Better In The Past
Pffft. This one is the worst. Popular incarnations of this myth include 'Sampras had tougher competition', 'Serve & Volley was better' and 'Borg/Laver/X would win today'. This is just our nostalgia for a known entity - the past. We know what happened so it doesn't threaten our sensibilities or fanhood, or we have worked around our reservations now that we know the past won't change. Every known objective metric like the speed of the game, athleticism of the players, racquet head speed, errors to winners, the depth of the global game have improved and will *keep* improving. Today's champs will be overshadowed tomorrow. Moreover, there is no way some of these theories can be verified unless you have a time-machine. That's just life. So deal with it and move on!

I always watch my Federer videos at triple speed - a real improvement.
Most people don't think serve-volley was better. It's just that no player plays it anymore at the heighest level.

Gundam
05-08-2008, 12:53 PM
if the ball and strings do not touch when playing, explain this http://www.operationdoubles.com/contact-federer- forehand.jpg (http://www.operationdoubles.com/contact-federer-forehand.jpg)

take out the space between federer- and forehand^^

I cannot see the image.
Well, I guess the 'contact' is really a repulsion between the outer electron layers of molecules (all negatively charged). So, there is no particle-particle contact...NO contact...unless we count that layer of forces as a part of molecules...

I am sitting on a chair right now but actually there is no contact between my behind and the chair. I am just a collection of chemicals, molecules (particles) which is held by various forces which is hovering as a whole on another collection of things. But there should be someone who can explain this better. The original poster made an interesting point, haha:)

PS) AK is ugly

tangerine
05-08-2008, 01:19 PM
- Americans can't play or win on clay

FH2FH
05-08-2008, 01:24 PM
- Rios was better than _____.

Ever noticed in the posts which highlight his wicked skills he's usually losing? lol

zagor
05-08-2008, 01:25 PM
Myth:Roddick is just a serve,that's BS and I don't even like the guy.

M J
05-08-2008, 09:20 PM
Myth: Roddick is just a serve.
Myth: Roddick is an aggressive player. (Once he gets into a rally, he's really a counterpuncher)
Myth: Nadal's weakness is his backhand.

RestockingTues
05-08-2008, 09:54 PM
Myth: Roddick is just a serve.
Myth: Roddick is an aggressive player. (Once he gets into a rally, he's really a counterpuncher)
Myth: Nadal's weakness is his backhand.

Are you kidding?:shock: I've always believed it to be his best shot, he passes/rips winners so often on that. And it gets pushed around a lot less too, how many points did Ferrero win hitting insane pace against Nadal's forehand?

Rob_C
05-08-2008, 10:15 PM
1)
2)Gonzalez's backhand was a huge liability before he started working with Stefanki.

-No, It was nearly as powerful as his forehand and pretty much always went in, I don't know why Stefanki completely changed that shot but he has destroyed it.



If it was that good and almost always went in, how come he's had his best results with Stefanki??

He was hitting some pretty big backhands against Tipsarevic couple of days ago.

127mph
05-08-2008, 11:34 PM
-No, his backhand and his forehand are both as good as Federer's.He is one of the most powerful players I have ever seen.

No, no, and no.

slice bh compliment
05-09-2008, 01:52 AM
Laver was the best?

I'm not claiming it's a myth, but didn't he lose to many pros when he switched from amatuer status ...after winning the Slams, possibly against lesser able players? Weren't Rosewall, Gonzalez, etc playing professionally while Laver was racking up trophies? Guess I could Wiki it, but I'm too lazy. ;)

You might be confusing him with Emmo. Laver played pro while others, including Roy Emerson racked up Slams. Before turning pro, Laver won all 4 in 62 against amateurs. He did it again in 69 as a pro against all comers.

If he was that dominant in his era, and his record will never be broken, can we really sit here and doubt his greatness, at least of his time?

Also, anyone who has ever seen the man handle a racquet and move on a court is sufficiently inspired to call him one of the all-time greats.

Kaptain Karl
05-09-2008, 10:06 AM
Myth: Prior to the 1980s everybody played with 14-16oz frames.

Fact: I was there and you could find 11.5 - 12.5oz frames easily. (Okay, maybe 11.5 wasn't "easy" but you could find them ... and it was easy to find 12oz frames.)

[This was sparked by a post in another thread. I thought, "Somebody should start a thread about these myths."

Viola! You did it already.]

- KK

Andres
05-09-2008, 10:12 AM
Myth: Prior to the 1980s everybody played with 14-16oz frames.

Fact: I was there and you could find 11.5 - 12.5oz frames easily. (Okay, maybe 11.5 wasn't "easy" but you could find them ... and it was easy to find 12oz frames.)

[This was sparked by a post in another thread. I thought, "Somebody should start a thread about these myths."

Viola! You did it already.]

- KK
You meant Voilą :p

BeHappy
05-09-2008, 10:14 AM
You meant Voilą :p

haha, if I was a mod and you corrected me like that I would totally ban you lol ;)

Challenger
05-09-2008, 10:53 AM
I guess the myth that Roddick can't play at the net just got debunked.

bluetrain4
05-09-2008, 11:03 AM
That once you string your racquet with poly, you can "hit the ball as hard as you want and it won't go out."

Kaptain Karl
05-09-2008, 11:30 AM
You meant Voilą :pOh, fine!!! The Music Teacher on the boards caught my typo before I did.

Actually, I meant, "Bassoon!" ... or "Timpani". So there!!!

- KK

msc886
05-09-2008, 10:22 PM
I don't know. i just don't like the Fed/Nadal is done and should retire threads. Their results may not be as good as it was in the past but they are still no.1 and 2 and I don't know who in their right minds would retire when they're world no.1 or 2

toby1526
05-10-2008, 02:23 AM
1)Nikolay Davydenkol is just a grinder, like Hewitt, who doesnt have any weapons to hurt you.

-No, his backhand and his forehand are both as good as Federer's.He is one of the most powerful players I have ever seen.

2)Gonzalez's backhand was a huge liability before he started working with Stefanki.

-No, It was nearly as powerful as his forehand and pretty much always went in, I don't know why Stefanki completely changed that shot but he has destroyed it.


3)Nadal is just a grinder.

-see no. 1



I'll add to this later.

Some commentater quotes I hate: "He over-cooked that one" "He took his foot off the gas for a second and let him right back in" & the best one "I like to think Nadal is 2 days ahead on horse back than the other players on clay".

string70
05-10-2008, 08:13 AM
That todays tennis (at any level) has depth of talent.

James
05-10-2008, 08:30 AM
Myth - Henin is only a claycourter. (I don't hear this one as much as I used to though, certainly not after the 2006 and 2007 seasons.)

jmsx521
05-10-2008, 11:29 AM
That todays tennis (at any level) has depth of talent.All the pros have talent; they are already light-years better than just the average Joe tennis player! But since you mention "at any level," then I suppose you mean the five year olds as well; the kids that are taking their first lesson and can't hit the ball yet... and yes, most of them will not make it to the pro tour.

Leublu tennis
05-10-2008, 11:56 AM
Myth-Agassi was charasmatic.

Reality-The media loved him and attributed such qualities to him.

Mtyh-Sharapova, Ivanovic, Hantuchova, and Kournikova are/were hot.

Reality-Maybe for tennis, but in the real world they're just average looking amazons, except for Kournikova who isn't that tall, but neither is she/ was she that pretty either.
Kournikova looked superb on and off the court. Pictures only; never met her. Sigh...

Leublu tennis
05-10-2008, 11:59 AM
That todays tennis (at any level) has depth of talent.

Player ranked #98 beats player ranked #1? Hm.

beedlejuice22
05-10-2008, 12:16 PM
MYTH: that baseline players are called serve and baseline players. I've heard people refer to themselves as serve and baseline players before and it really annoys me.

Ocean Drive
05-10-2008, 12:38 PM
Player ranked #98 beats player ranked #1? Hm.

Hm. A one off does not show depth, tennis these days does not have the depth of 2000 lets say, nowhere near.

fps
05-10-2008, 12:43 PM
Hm. A one off does not show depth, tennis these days does not have the depth of 2000 lets say, nowhere near.

tsonga at the aussie open? or is that another one off?

Gorecki
05-10-2008, 02:12 PM
The one myth i absolutelly dispise:
Serve&Volley players are more talented than baseliners.

why having a nice volley is better (talent wise) than having a Agassi\Nalbandian\Rios Super mega clean ball strike....

BTW: those claiming about Agassi return not being the best of all times, i sugest some prozac...

ps: Serve & Volleyers can't swing...
how about that for a retaliation myth?

TheTruth
05-10-2008, 06:55 PM
Kournikova looked superb on and off the court. Pictures only; never met her. Sigh...

She wasn't ugly or anything, but to me she looks like a dead ringer for Alicia Molik and Alona Bondarenko. Maybe if they glamourized those two they would look very similar to her. What do you think?

Tempest344
05-10-2008, 10:33 PM
that "Yuri Sharapov is great fun"
"Nalbandian is fat"

BeHappy
05-11-2008, 08:53 AM
6)Ivan Lendl had no talent.

Just lies, pure lies.Propogated by the American Media because he annually raped the entire field in the USO.

Vision84
05-11-2008, 09:05 AM
ps: Serve & Volleyers can't swing...
how about that for a retaliation myth?
I'd post an epic fail pic but I don't want to waste them.

Gorecki
05-12-2008, 02:31 AM
I'd post an epic fail pic but I don't want to waste them.

i'd bother explaining why i like both types of game and believe that there are way to many misconceptions regarding both (including the ones i refered) but dont want to waste my time...

Arafel
05-12-2008, 07:31 AM
The one myth i absolutelly dispise:
Serve&Volley players are more talented than baseliners.

why having a nice volley is better (talent wise) than having a Agassi\Nalbandian\Rios Super mega clean ball strike....

BTW: those claiming about Agassi return not being the best of all times, i sugest some prozac...

ps: Serve & Volleyers can't swing...
how about that for a retaliation myth?

Well, to answer number 1, it's because true serve/volley players are generally more athletic. It takes a high level of skill and athleticism, not to mention self belief, to keep coming in knowing you are going to get passed sometimes. There's also the anticipation that's needed to be a good volleyer. The best serve volley players, like McEnroe, Edberg, Rafter and Sampras, seemed inhuman in their ability to know where the pass was going to go and just effortlessly move and put away a volley.

For your second, Agassi has ONE of the best returns, but I think I would go with Connors over Agassi.

For your third point, if you are being sarcastic fine, but there's vid of McEnroe breaking Becker at love on You Tube with four straight beautiful groundstrokes.

Gorecki
05-13-2008, 09:05 AM
it's because true serve/volley players are generally more athletic.
For your second, Agassi has ONE of the best returns, but I think I would go with Connors over Agassi.
For your third point, if you are being sarcastic fine, but there's vid of McEnroe breaking Becker at love on You Tube with four straight beautiful groundstrokes.

OK Arafel;
Since you got me there with the sarcasm and you seem to be intelligent, wich is a hard to find good these days, i will give you the advantage on you first and second. as far as the third, i guess we will agree to disagree as civilized we are.

of course S&V's are more athletic and instinctive, but i dont see that as talent, but as fitness. and i enjoy both games.
and of course you can show me Jmac breaking Becker (boris is one of my favourites wich i regards as a allcourt player) with a few groundies. but a could also show you lovely drops from Agassi and wonderfull net rallies by Borg. i just think that there is wonderfull talent in all kinds of game and players, and i do think you agree with me here.
am i right or am i right?:)

BeHappy
05-21-2008, 09:05 PM
7)
One handed backhand has more variety


I don't know how this got started, there isn't any shot that you can't hit with a two hander, Jimmy Connors had one of the best sliced backhands I've ever seen and it was 2 handed,(ditto Evert, Austin, Borg Jaeger...), it wasn't until Wilander that guys with 2 handers started hitting one handed backhand slices, not because they were lacking 'variety', but because they were lacking reach.

Jimmy Connors undescribably awesome 2 hander, (topspin, flat and slice)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SptdffCeVmM

soyizgood
05-22-2008, 06:41 AM
MYTH: The 2HBHers and OHBHers peacefully co-exist and respect each other.

REALITY: I posted up a video on youtube last night called Rise of the Two-Handed Backhand (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdlep5PkJ9Q). Despite really nice remarks from 2HBH and OHBH members here, it's been 1-starred 3 times while 5-starred twice. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the type of folks that 1-starred it.