PDA

View Full Version : Tennis Channel Classic borg vs lendl


downthewall
06-06-2008, 11:55 AM
I was watching a short clip of a match point that lasted a few minutes by borg and lendl in a french open final. not sure what year that was but lendl looked pretty young.

anyways... people are always talkiing about how fast borg is and comparing nadal's speed to his. if you watch the clip, both players are NOT running to the balls! they literally walk and at most cases they jog. so based on this, how can anyone compare atheletes today vs backthen. If i walk or jog to every ball, i'm sure i can rally all day long. No one hits winners and every shot is slllowww as heck. could it be the surface? or the balls? im still amazed now that i watch it.

MasterBruceTennis
06-06-2008, 12:06 PM
It is the racquet.

vsbabolat
06-06-2008, 12:08 PM
I was watching a short clip of a match point that lasted a few minutes by borg and lendl in a french open final. not sure what year that was but lendl looked pretty young.

anyways... people are always talkiing about how fast borg is and comparing nadal's speed to his. if you watch the clip, both players are NOT running to the balls! they literally walk and at most cases they jog. so based on this, how can anyone compare atheletes today vs backthen. If i walk or jog to every ball, i'm sure i can rally all day long. No one hits winners and every shot is slllowww as heck. could it be the surface? or the balls? im still amazed now that i watch it.

What is amazing to me is that you have never watched Borg play in your life until now and you are basing you opinion of him based on one point.:confused:

For your viewing pleasure and education.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=dKQVdZNsyuQ&feature=related

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mSK7KeB4CbY&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=CCyYtZO_R9M&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4jGn0ZIZtaM&feature=related

downthewall
06-06-2008, 12:09 PM
What is amazing to me is that you have never watched Borg play in your life until now and you are basing you opinion of him based on one point.:confused:

For your viewing pleasure and education.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=dKQVdZNsyuQ&feature=related

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mSK7KeB4CbY&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=CCyYtZO_R9M&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4jGn0ZIZtaM&feature=related

that youtube vid is totally distorted so it looks faster than it acutally is. borg is still slow to me but faster than the other slower players

BeHappy
06-06-2008, 12:12 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKQVdZNsyuQ&fmt=18

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_bg2wmUScE&fmt=18


that's why.

CyBorg
06-06-2008, 12:15 PM
Yeah - Borg is slow. You've made an amazing discovery. The first person to do it.

You win a medal.

vsbabolat
06-06-2008, 12:18 PM
that youtube vid is totally distorted so it looks faster than it acutally is. borg is still slow to me but faster than the other slower players

Borg is still considered to be the fastest player of his time even though you can't recognize it or see it for yourself.

If you would like to invest in your education of tennis and not talk out of your ***** here are some DVD's of Borg at Wimbledon.

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageKULTUR-77MATCHDVD.html

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpage-76FINALDVD.html

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageKULTUR-80FINALDVD.html
(This match is considered one of the greatest matches of all time)

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageKULTUR-81FINALDVD.html

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageKULTUR-BORGDVD.html

MasterBruceTennis
06-06-2008, 12:19 PM
Borg is "there" for every ball--that is the first thing to do for tennis playing--30 years ago and today.
If you can be "there" by "walking", you do not need to "rush".
Then, so many players are always "rushing". Why?

Satch
06-06-2008, 12:20 PM
like in all sports the game evaluates in a positive way.
You just can't compare it to today's tennis, to much factors are now changed in the first place now everybody have their managers coaches, trainers and ect, new strings, racquets, better tehniques in strokes...
maybe Borg was fast in that time like Rafa is today, compared to other players...

downthewall
06-06-2008, 12:20 PM
ok, well i was refering to that tennis channel clip. seems like both players were walking to the balls instead of running.

BeHappy
06-06-2008, 12:21 PM
ok, well i was refering to that tennis channel clip. seems like both players were walking to the balls instead of running.

how long was this clip?

downthewall
06-06-2008, 12:22 PM
like in all sports the game evaluates in a positive way.
You just can't compare it to today's tennis, to much factors are now changed in the first place now everybody have their managers coaches, trainers and ect, new strings, racquets, better tehniques in strokes...
maybe Borg was fast in that time like Rafa is today, compared to other players...


i see what ur saying but that tennis channel final clip was different. they were walking and hitting moonballs.

downthewall
06-06-2008, 12:22 PM
how long was this clip?

a few minutes at least. am i the only person that saw it?

CyBorg
06-06-2008, 12:22 PM
Borg is "there" for every ball--that is the first thing to do for tennis playing--30 years ago and today.
If you can be "there" by "walking", you do not need to "rush".
Then, so many players are always "rushing". Why?

Faster clay, different balls and some mighty juiced graphite rackets.

There's a clip of Laver and Connors on YouTube (it's krosero) where they play in Las Vegas circa in 1975. It's on a hardcourt and it's pretty fast, even for today's standards. The difference is the surface, of course. And the other factor are the players themselves - sometimes you have guys who hit topspin groundies and sometimes you have guys like Connors who hit early and attack-attack-attack.

Connors made every match faster because of this, but it didn't work against Borg who pretty much returned everything Jimmy threw at him.

BeHappy
06-06-2008, 12:25 PM
i see what ur saying but that tennis channel final clip was different. they were walking and hitting moonballs.

yeah, but that was at the end of an incredibly intense 5 set match.

Lendl was walking and hitting moonballs becasue he was so exhausted that all he had left in him, Borg was walking and hitting moonballs becasue that was all he had to do at that point, he was hitting those moonballs back at Lendl because he was such a sadist he wanted to break every oponent down as much as humanly possible, and to make them hit as many balls as he could, he forced Lendl to keep playing.


And Borg wasn't fast compared to 'players of his time', Borg was fast compared to any player, ever, in the history of the game, up to, and including Nadal.

Now I have posted two clips showcasing his ridiculous speed, at this point I think it's only fair that you admit you were wrong.

CyBorg
06-06-2008, 12:34 PM
yeah, but that was at the end of an incredibly intense 5 set match.

Lendl was walking and hitting moonballs becasue he was so exhausted that all he had left in him, Borg was walking and hitting moonballs becasue that was all he had to do at that point, he was hitting those moonballs back at Lendl because he was such a sadist he wanted to break every oponent down as much as humanly possible, and to make them hit as many balls as he could, he forced Lendl to keep playing.


And Borg wasn't fast compared to 'players of his time', Borg was fast compared to any player, ever, in the history of the game, up to, and including Nadal.

Now I have posted two clips showcasing his ridiculous speed, at this point I think it's only fair that you admit you were wrong.

Why are you making sense, BH?

MasterBruceTennis
06-06-2008, 12:49 PM
It was a match point!!

CyBorg
06-06-2008, 12:54 PM
Krosero posted a new clip of Lendl-Borg from that exact match. It's at about 4-0 in the fifth set.

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

On match point Lendl basically gives up and, completely exhausted, barely moves at all. Again, clean winners were hard to hit with woodies.

Moose Malloy
06-06-2008, 12:59 PM
Comments from Chris Lewis, 1983 W RU may help explain some of your questions:

It was noted above that Bjorn's resting PR was either in the 30's or 40's (it was the 30's), and that he beat an Olympic 110m hurdles Gold Medallist in a European Superstars 600m event (I think it was Guy Drut), which said a lot for his athleticism & stamina.

As someone who comes from a tradition of great middle distance running in NZ (Peter Snell, John Walker), I know a GREAT athlete when I see one, let alone play one. I can say with virtual certainty that Bjorn would have been able to run 100m in around the 11.0 second mark (that's 10 flat for 100 yards), and that he would have been somehere in the low 30 minute range for 10k (and better with specific training). He also was very strong, deceptively so.

Combine those physical attributes with a will of steel and a playing style that was very awkward to counter -- high bouncing, heavily topspun shots if you stayed back, and sharply dipping, vicious crosscourt angles if you came in (don't forget his topspin lob & the difficulty of smashing them with a racquet with the head-size of a pea, and a sweet-spot the size of an amoeba) -- and what you've got is someone who achieved what Borg achieved.

With the old wooden racquets, believe me, it was virtually impossible to penetrate his game. On clay, nobody could -- no-one came close -- and on grass, well, nodbody could either...until John came along, with his extraordinary talent.

Although I'm not going to get drawn into any debate as to whether a great player from a former era would beat a great player from a current era, I can't stress enough that it's very easy to drop context; namely, the playing conditions that characterize(d) each era.

For example, I started on the tour in the mid seventies with a wooden Kramer Pro-Staff, switching to a Prince Woodie in '81 (was THAT ever a process), & the Prince Graphite (the Original grommet-less Classic) in '82.

Believe me, today's generation of racquets are *so* effortless to play with, I can't overstate how much a part technology has played in the evolution of the game.



It needs to be said that playing a match on slow clay using heavy wooden racquets (Bjorn's were strung at 80lbs) was no fun if you weren't in shape. And given that consistently hitting winners from the baseline was not an option, if you were to beat Bjorn from the back of the court, the *only* way to do it was to turn the match into the equivalent of a 10,000 meter race.


Do they run all out in 10,000 meter races? often they are just 'jogging.'

And the difference between clay & other surfaces back then was massive. Now there isn't much difference the way players play on all surrfaces.

More on Guy Drut, the guy Borg beat in Superstars, he was a gold medalist in 1976:

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

Also, Mac claims Borg broke 10 secs in 100 yards.

There is a nice documentary called 'A History of Roland Garros' that has been airing on TC lately.

I was surprised to see that they aired footage of Borg competing in a 'Superstars' competition from 1977.

The event wasn't the 600m event that I had heard so much about, but the 1500 steeple event(with water jumps?)

Don't know much about this event, but Borg looked very impressive pulling away from the field on the last jump(also impressed with his jumping)
I've never seen a tennis player move like that before. Of course I've never seen a tennis player run off a tennis court before either, maybe Nadal is money in 600m as well. But I doubt most of the rest of the current top 10 is.

The commentator was freaking out, talking about how this was 'Garret Edwards' event to win & shocked that Borg was blowing him away.

After the clip they cut to a smiling Borg, presumably talking about Garret Edwards, saying that 'he was really serious' during the competition & was pretty annoyed that he lost this event.

Maybe someone will youtube this.

Also, I wonder if anyone on this board would have the balls to play a match(one that counts, maybe in a tournament) with someone of similar ability, using just wood racquets. I guess that is the only way some of you can even begin to understand why the tennis was so different in the wood racquet era.

Tennis isn't about how 'hard' you can hit, but the % of how 'hard'(& accurate) you can hit without making unforced errors, correct? I mean what would a player be ranked if he hits 90mph forehands on 1 out of every 10 fh's, but makes UE's on the other 9? That's the dilemma you face with wood. It is impossible to play the way players play today with wood without making 100's of unforced errors per match. Players would realize this & understandably go for less(last year Djokovic, Robredo, Ginepri practiced with wood racquets & said they could get very little pace, spin, & accuracy out of them. So in essence, they are explaining why they move so much faster to the ball today, athleticism is improved no doubt, but what factor most caused that to improve? racquets & strings are the spark that is behind every change in the game. if the ATP forced players to use wood tomorrow, everything would slow down considerably. I've seen Nalbandian try a woodie out in an exo, it wasn't pretty. I wonder what some here would 'rate' his ability based on clips of him swinging that.)

And you can't get any spin on 2nd serves with wood, so what would be the point of hitting every 1st serve as hard as you can, if you know you are at a disadvantage on 2nds? In the wood era, they hit the ball a lot slower, but yet still made so many more unforced errors today. can anyone explain that? Wouldn't logic say that unforced errors should have been less in that era, since the amount of winners were down, & the pace of shot was slower? was everyone in that era, not only a 'weaker' athlete but a completely talentless moron as well, since they couldn't stop making UE's all day?

There's a clip of Laver and Connors on YouTube (it's krosero) where they play in Las Vegas circa in 1975.

Here's that clip:

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

by the logic by the OP (since clips say all we need to know about players) both Laver & Connors are 10 times, faster, stronger, etc than Borg or Lendl were, since they were hitting harder, moving faster in that clip (on a different surface) & all...

Yet Connors had his troubles vs Borg & Lendl.

Lendl and Federer Fan
06-06-2008, 01:06 PM
I would definitely like to watch this match. :)

MasterBruceTennis
06-06-2008, 01:07 PM
"Power becomes a real asset only in proportion to your ability to control it, and vice versa."

Fyi, Borg's heart beat rate is so low--so as Federer.

downthewall
06-06-2008, 01:09 PM
matchpoint or not...at that level, i would expect them to at least look like they are trying. whatever, they are old now and make no difference.

BeHappy
06-06-2008, 01:11 PM
matchpoint or not...at that level, i would expect them to at least look like they are trying. whatever, they are old now and make no difference.

So, you're wrong and Borg was incredibly fast?

CyBorg
06-06-2008, 01:13 PM
Tennis isn't about how 'hard' you can hit, but the % of how 'hard'(& accurate) you can hit without making unforced errors, correct?

The beauty of all of this is that if you hit hard you have to be prepared for what comes back.

Connors hit pretty hard for his time and whenver he played Borg this was precisely the problem.

But when you hit with a lot of topspin you can hit what they would call a 'heavy ball', which isn't altogether about velocity.

It's a bit like tetris. If it comes fast and straight at you and you get to it you can hammer it back even faster. But if a tennis ball comes with topspin and locks you up are you are often powerless, because you let the ball bounce it goes way up and gives you no momentum when you have to hit it all the way above your ears. Conversely a fast one hit right to your sweet spot around knee-to-waist level is a lot easier to hammer away at, especially if you have a nicely-sized graphite in your hands.

MasterBruceTennis
06-06-2008, 01:17 PM
A good question to start a nice run thread for good tennis!

krosero
06-06-2008, 01:37 PM
Try this for Borg's speed:

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

downthewall
06-06-2008, 07:57 PM
Try this for Borg's speed:

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


wow Laver was good as heck but his strokes are ugly.