PDA

View Full Version : Classic French Open matches on the Tennis Channel


scotus
05-13-2009, 02:31 AM
Well, the Tennis Channel will be doing some re-runs of the classics they ran last year, but a couple of new classics that I will definitely watch are:

1983 Noah vs Wilander final on May 20

and

1999 Graf vs Hingis final on May 21.

Enjoy! I know I will.

rod99
05-13-2009, 04:38 AM
i wish they would show some new ones. i'd love to see some of the wilander/lendl matches from '85 or '87 or borg/vilas.

suwanee4712
05-13-2009, 09:21 AM
i wish they would show some new ones. i'd love to see some of the wilander/lendl matches from '85 or '87 or borg/vilas.

Good lord. Tennis Channel can have access to all kinds of matches that the average person will never have access to. There isn't much point in showing the same classics over and over again. Frankly, I don't even regard some of them as classics.

Tennis Channel is a lot like the way Tennis Magazine (the American one) has always been - myopic and repetitive.

CEvertFan
05-13-2009, 09:24 PM
Well I don't have these matches on DVD so it'll be a good opportunity to add them to my collection. I do still have the Hingis Graf match on VHS but the quality is pretty bad now. I do wish TTC would show more classics than they do, and enough with the old Fed Cup matches already!

scotus
05-14-2009, 11:28 AM
Well I don't have these matches on DVD so it'll be a good opportunity to add them to my collection. I do still have the Hingis Graf match on VHS but the quality is pretty bad now. I do wish TTC would show more classics than they do, and enough with the old Fed Cup matches already!

That's true: No one really cares about old Fed Cup matches.

I want to watch Grand Slam events.

35ft6
05-14-2009, 11:15 PM
Good lord. Tennis Channel can have access to all kinds of matches that the average person will never have access to. There isn't much point in showing the same classics over and over again. Frankly, I don't even regard some of them as classics.

Tennis Channel is a lot like the way Tennis Magazine (the American one) has always been - myopic and repetitive.I agree. It's frustrating. They can do, for example, a Sampras Week. Show his first big win. Then on Tuesday, show his 1990 US Open win. You know, show the most defining matches of their career. And it would be fun to see how their games evolved. Edit it down to 90 minutes if they must. I realize there will be licensing issues with the different companies who own the matches but sheesh.

Actually, I really like this idea. Evolution of a Player. Better than one show condensing their development into 40 minutes. Spend a week. Show matches in their entirety. Maybe the first episode, of their junior years, can be a composite of many things, but show a pivotal match each day. Be great to see how their games improve and change, maybe even get worse.

Show the most important matches in a famous rivalry, like all of Borg and Mac matches one week, then Mac and Lendl matches the next month. Man, there is so much content collecting dust someplace.

CyBorg
05-15-2009, 07:28 AM
Good lord. Tennis Channel can have access to all kinds of matches that the average person will never have access to. There isn't much point in showing the same classics over and over again. Frankly, I don't even regard some of them as classics.

Tennis Channel is a lot like the way Tennis Magazine (the American one) has always been - myopic and repetitive.

Bang on. The only good thing to come out of TTC were those Pepsi Grand Slam matches.

Borgforever
05-15-2009, 07:55 AM
I agree. It's frustrating. They can do, for example, a Sampras Week. Show his first big win. Then on Tuesday, show his 1990 US Open win. You know, show the most defining matches of their career. And it would be fun to see how their games evolved. Edit it down to 90 minutes if they must. I realize there will be licensing issues with the different companies who own the matches but sheesh.

Actually, I really like this idea. Evolution of a Player. Better than one show condensing their development into 40 minutes. Spend a week. Show matches in their entirety. Maybe the first episode, of their junior years, can be a composite of many things, but show a pivotal match each day. Be great to see how their games improve and change, maybe even get worse.

Show the most important matches in a famous rivalry, like all of Borg and Mac matches one week, then Mac and Lendl matches the next month. Man, there is so much content collecting dust someplace.

Yes, yes and yes to these ideas. Great idea. That's the way to do it. A super-entertaining, all-encompassing structured story of the development of all the major players of every era where there exists reasonable footage. I would apply for a job working on such a project in one second flat!

suwanee4712
05-15-2009, 02:36 PM
I agree. It's frustrating. They can do, for example, a Sampras Week. Show his first big win. Then on Tuesday, show his 1990 US Open win. You know, show the most defining matches of their career. And it would be fun to see how their games evolved. Edit it down to 90 minutes if they must. I realize there will be licensing issues with the different companies who own the matches but sheesh.

Actually, I really like this idea. Evolution of a Player. Better than one show condensing their development into 40 minutes. Spend a week. Show matches in their entirety. Maybe the first episode, of their junior years, can be a composite of many things, but show a pivotal match each day. Be great to see how their games improve and change, maybe even get worse.

Show the most important matches in a famous rivalry, like all of Borg and Mac matches one week, then Mac and Lendl matches the next month. Man, there is so much content collecting dust someplace.

Are you ready for a career change? Because we need to push to have you hired on as TC's new programming director. :)

Seriously, for those that have ever tried to do any serious collecting, I remember writing to CBS, ESPN, and NBC back in the late 80's inquiring as to how to get copies of old maches. Bud Collins even gave me the name of the person to contact at NBC. The only network that responded to me was ESPN to which they said they don't sell copyrighted matches to the general public - even if its their own copyright.

TC can make it happen. Didn't they just recently show the BBC's version of Peter Doohan vs. Boris Becker?

Don't get me wrong, thanks TC for showing us that match. But if they can get that match, can't they get others. With apologies to Mr. Doohan and Mr. Becker, I can think of a ton more matches that are at least as good and as important to show a wide tennis audience.

35ft6
05-15-2009, 04:53 PM
Are you ready for a career change? Because we need to push to have you hired on as TC's new programming director. :)Hey, in an earlier thread, they stole my idea and turned it into Bragging Rights. Haha. The proof is here (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=49139&page=4&highlight=Tennis+Channel).

CEvertFan
05-15-2009, 05:13 PM
TTC needs to do something because showing multiple airings of the same few shows every day isn't cool. It's repetetive and boring after a while. I don't even watch any of the "shows" anymore because I've seen them all multiple times.

Even with their coverage of a Masters Series tournament like Madrid, they show the matches live and then spend another 10 hours repeating them because they have nothing else to show, when they could be showing so many classic matches instead. I for one loved it when they showed the Pepsi Grand Slam matches because I had never seen them before and I also made sure to record all of them to add to my collection. Show more classic matches TTC instead of letting them rot to dust somewhere in a vault! There is an almost totally untapped market for classic tennis matches.

pc1
05-16-2009, 09:33 AM
Well, the Tennis Channel will be doing some re-runs of the classics they ran last year, but a couple of new classics that I will definitely watch are:

1983 Noah vs Wilander final on May 20

and

1999 Graf vs Hingis final on May 21.

Enjoy! I know I will.

I had that Noah against Wilander match on tape and I erased it by accident. Ouch. Can't wait to see it again. What a memorable and emotional match!!

!Tym
05-16-2009, 02:18 PM
Imo, they would if they could. Imo, they obviously just don't have the money. Seriously, how profitable do you think something like the Tennis Channel could be? It's an obscure channel, and tennis isn't exaclty as popular as the NFL in this country. The VAST majority of people find tennis VERY boring too watch, among the most boring sports they've ever seen on t.v. to be honest. I can distinctly remember the response whenever I wanted to watch tennis in a room...ugggh, rolls eyes, yawn, I think I'll go play some video games right now.

The thing with me is that I think it would be better for the Tennis Channel to try and cover some challenger events. At those events, they could possibly get interesting camera angles, RIGHT on top of the action that just wouldn't be possible at the big tournaments. And I think these little clubs would be ecstatic to get national t.v. coverage. You know the players would be too.

35ft6
05-16-2009, 02:41 PM
The VAST majority of people find tennis VERY boring too watch, among the most boring sports they've ever seen on t.v. to be honest. I can distinctly remember the response whenever I wanted to watch tennis in a room...ugggh, rolls eyes, yawn, I think I'll go play some video games right now.I think a huge part of this is the scoring. The second biggest problem is that ridiculous high angle wide shot that is the mainstay of most matches.

Tennis' scoring needs to be changed. Screw tradition. Something has to be done. With basketball or football, even if you don't love it, if you happen to stumble across it by accident and see that it's a tied or close game with only a minute left, you will probably stick around to watch. And if you watch, and get caught up in the excitement, perhaps you'll become a fan. But with tennis, the casual viewer doesn't know what the score means at any moment. In America, this is a big problem. Without stakes, sports means very little. If you don't know what the score is, you're just watching two guys with foreign names in pretty clothes hitting a ball around.

And that wide angled shot, it does nothing to convey the speed of shot, the spin, the placement, how much the player has to move. With a different angle, tennis becomes almost like boxing or MMA in how ferocious the physicality is when two guys are pounding the ball at each other. But with that high angle wide shot, you don't get to see just how insanely fast the modern game is. People watch pro tennis and believe they can do it. Ugh.

CyBorg
05-16-2009, 04:30 PM
Something needs to be done about the stifling copyright of old matches. It has to be revoked, so we can finally see these matches appear on the internet.

Tennis channel be damned. Or it can cover challengers as someone has mentioned.

krosero
05-16-2009, 04:58 PM
But with tennis, the casual viewer doesn't know what the score means at any moment. I don't know, I mean, what you're saying is completely logical. But I became mesmerized with the sport, and soon obsessed with it, by catching the Wimbledon finals one weekend. And I didn't know what the numbers meant. I saw "Advantage" flash on the screen every once in a while, but it didn't help much. And I didn't really care. I found the game itself fascinating.

I know others who follow matches without knowing the score; they're interested in the personalities, the physical efforts, etc.

Still I think you've got a point.

And that wide angled shot, it does nothing to convey the speed of shot, the spin, the placement, how much the player has to move.This is true, more can be done to convey the oncourt action.

krosero
05-16-2009, 05:00 PM
Something needs to be done about the stifling copyright of old matches. It has to be revoked, so we can finally see these matches appear on the internet.It would be one thing if the owners of these copyrights wished to make money off their properties. But very few ever show up on TV. Most are rotting away in storage, doing nothing for anybody.

CyBorg
05-16-2009, 05:08 PM
It would be one thing if the owners of these copyrights wished to make money off their properties. But very few ever show up on TV. Most are rotting away in storage, doing nothing for anybody.

They don't bother, because they know that they won't make much money on older matches. I mean, how many folks would buy the 1972 Dallas WCT final? Not many.

I think our only hope is that there will be some push amongst archivists to digitize these old tapes and put them up on a special site of some kind. I'm guessing that no one wants to dole out money, because little profit is to me made from it.

At the same time, they will still fight anyone who makes use of these matches. For example, the US Open organizers threaten to sue folks for selling US Open matches - I'm thinking of most of these popular sellers of tennis DVDs on the internet.

I think that the biggest problem is the false principle of copyright. Because something is copyrighted it is illegal to break copyright and therefore immoral and therefore must be fought. The laws have to be challenged, and once they change so will the attitudes about the sharing of this kind of material. What some of these companies do borders on terrorism in my opinion.

krosero
05-16-2009, 07:13 PM
At the same time, they will still fight anyone who makes use of these matches. For example, the US Open organizers threaten to sue folks for selling US Open matches - I'm thinking of most of these popular sellers of tennis DVDs on the internet.And they also take down USO clips on YouTube (in fact all Slam footage is at risk there; and I've seen more obscure stuff disappear, too, like highlights of Mecir's win over Lendl at the Lipton).

It just doesn't make any sense. If the copyright owners are not using the footage because there's no money in it, the only hope that there will ever be a greater demand for it is for people to see and enjoy the footage in any way they can. Without even that, these old matches would go down in oblivion and the footage will merely rot.

I think that the biggest problem is the false principle of copyright. Because something is copyrighted it is illegal to break copyright and therefore immoral and therefore must be fought. This does happen, whenever something is technically illegal, there's a moral taint on it. Just makes it harder to argue the merits of any case one way or another.

Ronaldo
05-16-2009, 07:32 PM
Would like to see the Coria-Gaudio 2004 Final. Or the Hand one more time.

scotus
05-16-2009, 10:00 PM
I had that Noah against Wilander match on tape and I erased it by accident. Ouch. Can't wait to see it again. What a memorable and emotional match!!

I have the French broadcast on DVD, but now I get to get the American broadcast.

CyBorg
05-16-2009, 10:59 PM
I had that Noah against Wilander match on tape and I erased it by accident. Ouch. Can't wait to see it again. What a memorable and emotional match!!

It's on the internet, you know.

!Tym
05-17-2009, 05:07 AM
I think a huge part of this is the scoring. The second biggest problem is that ridiculous high angle wide shot that is the mainstay of most matches.

Tennis' scoring needs to be changed. Screw tradition. Something has to be done. With basketball or football, even if you don't love it, if you happen to stumble across it by accident and see that it's a tied or close game with only a minute left, you will probably stick around to watch. And if you watch, and get caught up in the excitement, perhaps you'll become a fan. But with tennis, the casual viewer doesn't know what the score means at any moment. In America, this is a big problem. Without stakes, sports means very little. If you don't know what the score is, you're just watching two guys with foreign names in pretty clothes hitting a ball around.

And that wide angled shot, it does nothing to convey the speed of shot, the spin, the placement, how much the player has to move. With a different angle, tennis becomes almost like boxing or MMA in how ferocious the physicality is when two guys are pounding the ball at each other. But with that high angle wide shot, you don't get to see just how insanely fast the modern game is. People watch pro tennis and believe they can do it. Ugh.

The scoring won't change, and I'm actually for that. Tennis imo is the most mentally tough sport in the world in the sense that no other sport puts so much pressure on you for such a sustained period of time to not make any key mistakes. A figure skater or gymnast, they know the slightest slip or mistep could mean the difference between gold and finishing out of medeal contention. That's incredible pressure, but they're concentrated moments of pressure. It's fleeting.

It's a lot easier imo to concentrate with all your might for one spurt, or dramatic monologue, or song, or whatever than it is to play five plus hours in a grand slam knowing full well that all it takes is ONE loose game at ANY time during a set to turn the percentages decidely against you of winning that set. In tennis, EVERY game is a big game. What other sport can you win more points than you lose and still lose? I remember Kevin Kim supposedly losing a typical "routine score" first set against Dent at Wimbledon, and Brad Gilbert looks at the stat sheet, takes a look at the numbers, and goes what the hell? How do you lose a set when you won something or other (I forget which stat he was looking at).

But really it's true. I remember losing a set once 6-1, and yet it was the longest 6-1 score in history lol. Every single game went to deuce that I can remember basically until eternity, ad, deuce, back and forth, back and forth...the only differnce? After about a millions ads and deuces back and forth a million times, eventually I lost each game except once. It's funny to me, because it was such an extreme example, but that's how tennis is.

Yeah, if you're fighting and you get knocked out, ok, game over. That's what you call a WILD CARD sport though.

In tennis, things drag out, you have to play it out till the end no matter what. If you lose a set at love, and comeback to win, you wouldn't get that chance if you boxing someone and got floored for exactly 10 seconds...it's over. No regrouping, no chance to get a second wind.

In all the team sports, you score more points than your opponent, you win. It's simple. There isn't quite the same linear, cumulative, effect in tennis. In team sports, who cares if you win the first three quarters and a half, if you lose the last five minutes; or if you blowout a team the first 8 innings, but in the 9th, they score a record 15 runs in an inning and beat you.

Basically, tennis is like several mini matches built into one like a pro wrestling special event match where they do best of three pinfalls or whatever.

In team sports, your guaranteed that the TRULY big points are saved for last. It's the last minute of frenzy that counts, and nothing before it.

In tennis, if you're playing Pete Sampras, your first service game of each set could be the most meaningful game you'll ever play if it's in a Wimbledon final or something. You blink early, you lapse early, you make a careless error early, that's really probably it for you in all likelihood.

In men's tennis especially, if you're rooting for a player and you see him go down an early break, you're already thinking ah man, it's over, I'm not even going to bother watching this just to see him lose. In men's tennis, the percentages back up that it's pretty much one break and you're out. Most matches are ultimately decided by just a few key points and breaks, but those don't happen at the end.

Safe to say, in men's pro tennis, pretty much EVERY single game has the potential to be a set point. EVERY single game requires you to either close it out or possibly choke it away.

If you take away tennis' scoring system and made it like basketball, it'd lose imo what makes the sport so chellenging. Tennis is to my mind the ultimate MENTAL sport. I've seen more people mentally discombobulating (i.e. go MENTAL) at the seams in tennis than in any other sport bar none. This can been seen at EVERY level too, from beginners to pros. The potential to mentally disintegrate in this sport is oh so high indeed.

It's rather cruel if you ask me to watch this happen when sports should be FUN, but at the same time, the sick twistness of tennis' high-pressure scoring system is also what makes you go WOW when you someone like Nadal able to hang in there for long rally match point down in front of a feverish hometown crowd who desperately wants to see him win WITHOUT losing his nerve despite having AMPLE times to do so, AMPLE times to think about it for a split second and steer a ball long. In basketball, all you gotta do is gear up for a three if your down three at the buzzer if you know what I mean. It's a different kind of pressure, but because it happens so quickly, I don't think the potential to choke runs anywhere near as high as it does for tennis. People like Seles and Courier in their prime, the bigger the point, the more fearless they became in going for the lines, going for the corners. That's a truly amazing feat to me, not in terms of skill so much, but in terms of MENTALLY giving yourself the freedom to do that, the freedom to fail or succeed.

Ultimately, for me, the biggest thing is not changing the scoring system, but rather getting people to actually play more. Tennis isn't that fun in the beginning to be honest. The better you get, the more you can do with a ball, the more you become intrigued.

If you can't hit two balls back and forth, recreational players lose interest quickly. The exhilration comes when you are ABLE to get entrenched in a long rally, to feel the excitement of an EXTENDED dance between two people. I guess by the same token, doing the tango is probably more exciting if you two ACTUALLY know how to tango.

For me, while the behind the players foot-side type angle is cool every once in a while, it's more of a novelty. While it's cool and definitely gives you a better sense of the action on the ball, it also gives you a headache after awhile too. It's like staring at an HD tv on the first day....wowwww, from two feet away. By the end of the day, you have headache. By the end of the week, you're like, ok, I get it, it's an HD tv and it's in HD. Then, you move back to a more relaxed, normal viewing angle. MMA doesn't suffer from the same risk of overexposure, because ain't no sanctioned MMA bout going the distance...I mean REALLLY going the distance, like past the 6-hour mark and another day and another moon like men's grand slam matches sometimes do.

Turbulence is good, it's rock 'em sock 'em exciting, but ultimately tennis is a marathon more than it is a sprint. Comparing tennis and MMA is like comparing baseball and basketball to me. You have to step back to watch most of it, and then you step forward when it's the bottom of the ninth and it's three men on and your team's down four and did I mention it's two outs and two strikes against your star hitter who just happnes to have steroid-pumped biceps.

What I'd like to see is more effort to mix in the court height angles. At least once a game, but beyond that I think it starts to become nauesous. And in tennis, you can only stay "hyped up" for so long imo. Like I said, it really is much more of a marathon than it is a sprint in terms of pacing and length of match. Team sports, because there are so many different players and perosonalities out there, it keeps the feeling of things moving and flowing more. There's more "chatter" in the airwaves in other words. With just the same two guys going at it for THAT long, however, it becomes VERY easy to nod off.

35ft6
05-18-2009, 12:50 PM
^ I'm not necessarily saying the way it's scored should be changed so much as the "15," "30," ad in and ad out and deuce, the descriptors, might be changed. Sure, real tennis fans are familiar with it, cool with it, even prefer it, maybe will even fight to the death to retain it, but if the sport is to survive, we might want to make it simpler. Then again, it was plenty popular in the past with the same scoring, but I would argue that people today have SOOOOOOO many more choices today, you're really up against a lot of programming. Basically, when I'm channel surfing, soon as I realize I don't know what's going on or become confused, I move on. That goes not only for sports but crime dramas, talk shows, whatever. Anyway, I'll continue to watch tennis regardless.

So we all get a chance to watch some older clay court matches in almost their entirety this coming week. Some great ones, too. Give you a chance to compare the old game to the new. Lendl versus Mac is the one I'm excited about.

CyBorg
05-18-2009, 12:58 PM
The one thing I would change is the scoreboard. At least some scoreboards. The ones in the corner of your tv. Some are sensible and clear; some are not. Some have the set score vertically, some horizontally.

It's confusing as hell if you don't know your tennis very well. Actually even I sometimes get confused. Is that guy leading 2 sets to 0 or 2 games to 0? Takes a while to make sense of it.

Baseball, while a complicated game, makes it rather clear cut most of the time. One team leads the other 1-0, to make sense of the rest one has to do a bit of work. But the most important fact is clear and obvious.

I remember that I used to watch Olympic sports that way. I often wouldn't know the real mechanics of scoring, but would follow along nonetheless because I could still see who was leading who.

It's one of those things where you are flipping through channels and happen to come across a tennis match. You've never watched it before. Will you change the channel or keep flipping? I agree that it comes down to clarifying the essential "who leads who" factor.

Moose Malloy
06-15-2009, 09:51 AM
Good lord. Tennis Channel can have access to all kinds of matches that the average person will never have access to. There isn't much point in showing the same classics over and over again.

The '73 Wimbledon Final(King-Evert) is on today.

pc1
06-15-2009, 09:55 AM
It's on the internet, you know.

That I didn't know. I saw it for the first time in years. It was great to watch the emotional outpouring. Noah was something else.