PDA

View Full Version : Connors had more powerful groundstrokes than most top modern day players


BeHappy
12-03-2011, 02:54 PM
It's becoming a joke.

1984:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Mnmz_qB2ig&feature=channel_video_title#t=03m42s

2011:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDPXrby6TC4#t=01m17s

Slow courts are allowing pushers to rise to the very top. It's natural selection.

JustBob
12-03-2011, 03:05 PM
Ridiculous. Stop drawing silly conclusions by picking the youtube videos of your choice...

mtr1
12-03-2011, 04:01 PM
It's a shame that Gasquet and Roddick are being used to highlight pushing in the modern game, when with the correct mindset, both have the tools to be two of the most aggressive and attacking players on tour.

The Bawss
12-03-2011, 04:47 PM
Also from the "pusher match": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPnD89sZIiE

Say something.

Sid_Vicious
12-03-2011, 05:00 PM
Nope.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZg2ZsuRlbA

When are you going to start a thread about Blake's GOAT backhand? Roddick's supreme athletic abilities?.....

Monsieur_DeLarge
12-03-2011, 05:19 PM
Slow courts are allowing pushers to rise to the very top. It's natural selection.

The very top of what?


South African Airways ATP Rankings, 28.11.2011 (http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx)
14 Roddick, Andy (USA)
19 Gasquet, Richard (FRA)


Regards,
MDL

BeHappy
12-03-2011, 05:42 PM
The very top of what?


South African Airways ATP Rankings, 28.11.2011 (http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx)
14 Roddick, Andy (USA)
19 Gasquet, Richard (FRA)


Regards,
MDL

Top of the rankings
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-VcYOoo_pY

regards
BH (PS, Roddick has been ranked as high as 3 playing that style)

fundrazer
12-03-2011, 05:49 PM
Gasquet being labeled a pusher? I'm a bit confused at that one. Sure he rolls topspin backhands on clay, but on grass and other fast surfaces he tends to be one of the more aggressive players.

Oh, and then there's that frickin 100+mph backhand he hit off a Murray 2nd serve at the French. That was sweet.

Tennis_Monk
12-03-2011, 06:28 PM
Can you also enlighten this forum on Serves from Connors era to current era?

Mustard
12-03-2011, 06:40 PM
Connors would thrive in today's era with all this pace.

Crazy man
12-03-2011, 06:52 PM
While we're at it let's say Connors hit with more power than these guys!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrCyCbXe1d0

Tennis_Monk
12-03-2011, 06:56 PM
While we're at it let's say Connors hit with more power than these guys!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrCyCbXe1d0

yep. thats how Connors played ...on a bad day.

togood4u
12-03-2011, 07:02 PM
Hes a beast as a tennis player but also a jerk. The matches between him and Mcenroe were always thrilling.

nadalwon2012
12-03-2011, 07:19 PM
Mark Philippoussis without a doubt has more powerful groundstrokes than Connors did.

BeHappy
12-03-2011, 07:24 PM
Mark Philippoussis without a doubt has more powerful groundstrokes than Connors did.

Didn't he all but retire about 8 years ago?

halalula1234
12-03-2011, 08:14 PM
but connors just hits super flat. so it faster than top spin

Cup8489
12-03-2011, 08:24 PM
Didn't he all but retire about 8 years ago?

Didnt connors retire like 15+ years ago?

What's your point?

SirGounder
12-03-2011, 09:52 PM
I am so confused by this thread.

NLBwell
12-03-2011, 10:09 PM
Depends what you mean by powerful. Velocity or velocity+spin.

Can't think of a name
12-03-2011, 10:19 PM
Old people like to think their generation was the best at everything.. thats why you see these "Laver vs Federer in their primes..who wins" threads.

big ted
12-03-2011, 10:47 PM
it depends on what match youre comparing. if you watch a lendl-mecir or lendl-wilander match you will have the opposite conclusion and believe that todays players hit harder

Big_Dangerous
12-04-2011, 12:09 AM
It's becoming a joke.

1984:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Mnmz_qB2ig&feature=channel_video_title#t=03m42s

2011:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDPXrby6TC4#t=01m17s

Slow courts are allowing pushers to rise to the very top. It's natural selection.

The quality in that 1984 match was so bad I couldn't even see the ball.

But it looked like Connors played several baseline strokes before actually coming in. And I have a feeling like he would have been passed so much but today's player that there's no way he could play that type of style and win many matches.

jones101
12-04-2011, 02:22 AM
PUSHING at its finest

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8iunyDh4ms

aphex
12-04-2011, 02:22 AM
BeHappy had more rubbish threads than most top modern day posters.

Fate Archer
12-04-2011, 03:53 AM
It's too bad that I can't find the highlights of Roddick vs Gasquet at the 2007 Wimbledon to make this a more analogue comparison.

Gasquet hit one or two backhand winners above 105mph in that match.

BeHappy
12-04-2011, 04:45 AM
It's too bad that I can't find the highlights of Roddick vs Gasquet at the 2007 Wimbledon to make this a more analogue comparison.

Gasquet hit one or two backhand winners above 105mph in that match.

Murray has hit his forehand 124mph, does this mean he isn't a pusher with one of the worst forehands in the top 20?

BeHappy
12-04-2011, 04:48 AM
Didnt connors retire like 15+ years ago?

What's your point?

This thread's about comparing modern players to Connors. Is English your first language?

DjokovicForTheWin
12-04-2011, 05:36 AM
While we're at it let's say Connors hit with more power than these guys!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrCyCbXe1d0

This match link is posted a lot. The sound from that video really exaggerates the hitting making it seem harder than it is.

Fate Archer
12-04-2011, 09:36 AM
Murray has hit his forehand 124mph, does this mean he isn't a pusher with one of the worst forehands in the top 20?

That was just to give an idea, it's more about how the match played out. If I recall correctly, I think Roddick was doing fine until Gasquet caught lightinh in a jar and started throwing winners out of anywhere.

Just found a korean link to the full match so far, unfortunately...

Devilito
12-04-2011, 10:34 AM
This match link is posted a lot. The sound from that video really exaggerates the hitting making it seem harder than it is.

haha yeah i agree. A lot of modern tennis sounds that way when you have a racquet strung with stiff poly at 60lbs and you're hitting the cover off the ball it's going to sound like a gunshot, but if you compare the actually speed of the ball with some faster tennis in the 70s and 80s like grass or carpet you can see that the speed of the game isn't exactly getting that much faster. Gut just doesn't make that type of sound as it's much softer. I've seen Sampras unload forehand winners you could barely see but the sound isn't that loud. Another factor is obviously that players hit with more spin now so that does slow the ball down. If you watch some indoor matches with McEnroe, Connors, Lendl and even a late 30s Laver the speed of the ball was such that winners were very common and not due to a lack of foot speed. Everyone’s seen muddy clay matches with Borg Vilas with 100 ball rallies but on a faster court I’ve seen Borg unload on shots nobody today would get to either. And that was with a wood racquet. These players are champions and no doubt if they grew up in today’s game they would be equally as successful as their games would adapt to the current gear / surfaces and game style. The older generation of players just don't get enough respect

Sid_Vicious
12-04-2011, 10:55 AM
haha yeah i agree. A lot of modern tennis sounds that way when you have a racquet strung with stiff poly at 60lbs and you're hitting the cover off the ball it's going to sound like a gunshot, but if you compare the actually speed of the ball with some faster tennis in the 70s and 80s like grass or carpet you can see that the speed of the game isn't exactly getting that much faster. Gut just doesn't make that type of sound as it's much softer. I've seen Sampras unload forehand winners you could barely see but the sound isn't that loud. Another factor is obviously that players hit with more spin now so that does slow the ball down. If you watch some indoor matches with McEnroe, Connors, Lendl and even a late 30s Laver the speed of the ball was such that winners were very common and not due to a lack of foot speed. Everyone’s seen muddy clay matches with Borg Vilas with 100 ball rallies but on a faster court I’ve seen Borg unload on shots nobody today would get to either. And that was with a wood racquet. These players are champions and no doubt if they grew up in today’s game they would be equally as successful as their games would adapt to the current gear / surfaces and game style. The older generation of players just don't get enough respect

No, they get a little too much respect from folks like yourself. We have all read your posts talking about how everyone in the older generations was over 9000 times more skilled than modern players.

"and no doubt if they grew up in today's game they would be equally as successful" :confused:. You love bashing Nadal and Djokovic by saying that they would be annihilated by Petros's "hydrogen bomb serves" and "line clipper 100 mph forehands" (which apparently happened 100% times when Pete hit a forehand). According to you, Petros was Godlike on the faster surfaces and also would be ,"without a doubt", godlike on today's slower surfaces. On the other hand, sh1tty modern players like Nadal and Djokovic thrive due to the slow conditions and athleticism and would be wiped off the face of the earth had they played in faster conditions.

Way to be a hypocrite. It is equally valid to say that modern players don't get the respect they deserve.

Devilito
12-04-2011, 11:14 AM
No, they get a little too much respect from folks like yourself. We have all read your posts talking about how everyone in the older generations was over 9000 times more skilled than modern players.

"and no doubt if they grew up in today's game they would be equally as successful" :confused:. You love bashing Nadal and Djokovic by saying that they would be annihilated by Petros's "hydrogen bomb serves" and "line clipper 100 mph forehands" (which apparently happened 100% times when Pete hit a forehand). According to you, Petros was Godlike on the faster surfaces and also would be ,"without a doubt", godlike on today's slower surfaces. On the other hand, sh1tty modern players like Nadal and Djokovic thrive due to the slow conditions and athleticism and would be wiped off the face of the earth had they played in faster conditions.

Way to be a hypocrite. It is equally valid to say that modern players don't get the respect they deserve.

I don’t start threads bashing modern players. It’s only in defense to idiotic threads about how Petros wouldn’t even be a top 20 players today, heck, not even better than Hanescu. It’s **** like that that gets me going. Modern players would have the same ability to adjust to a different game. Nadal, Djokovic and Federer have obvious talent that goes beyond just their strokes. Nobody is saying they wouldn’t be top players in any other generation but they wouldn’t dominate. The scenario would be more along the lines of… Nadal is now winning Wimbledon, if he was playing in Laver’s era with old school gear chances are Laver would own him on grass in the same way Nadal would own him on clay. You put all the greats together they would all be splitting wins here and there. Nobody would be on top on every surface like in the “modern game”

Sid_Vicious
12-04-2011, 11:47 AM
I don’t start threads bashing modern players. It’s only in defense to idiotic threads about how Petros wouldn’t even be a top 20 players today, heck, not even better than Hanescu. It’s **** like that that gets me going. Modern players would have the same ability to adjust to a different game. Nadal, Djokovic and Federer have obvious talent that goes beyond just their strokes. Nobody is saying they wouldn’t be top players in any other generation but they wouldn’t dominate. The scenario would be more along the lines of… Nadal is now winning Wimbledon, if he was playing in Laver’s era with old school gear chances are Laver would own him on grass in the same way Nadal would own him on clay. You put all the greats together they would all be splitting wins here and there. Nobody would be on top on every surface like in the “modern game”

Awesome post.

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2011/1/2/c36c0ced-839c-417b-9b86-5e5803afeaa5.jpg

Devilito
12-04-2011, 12:42 PM
Awesome post.

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2011/1/2/c36c0ced-839c-417b-9b86-5e5803afeaa5.jpg

http://i33.tinypic.com/rwialx.jpg

DjokovicForTheWin
12-04-2011, 04:19 PM
Yeah but to say all the greats of the game would be splitting wins here and there is just as fraudulent as saying one guy would dominate them all.

bluescreen
12-04-2011, 04:21 PM
This thread's about comparing modern players to Connors. Is English your first language?

You're actually very ambiguous about what this thread is about. You said yourself in the OP that this thread is about the effect slower courts have had on allowing "pushers" to rise to the top, but your thread title seems only concerned with how hard Connors hits. So which is it?

This thread doesn't seem to be about Connors supposedly hitting harder than current pros. What's showcased in the Connors video is not hard hitting, but aggressive hitting.

That being said, it's incredibly naive to reach any conclusion about today's game by using ONE example from each era. One could just as easily post highlights of a Borg clay match vs. a Del Potro match (for example) and say today's players are far more aggressive and harder hitting.

Mainad
12-04-2011, 04:31 PM
Murray has hit his forehand 124mph, does this mean he isn't a pusher with one of the worst forehands in the top 20?

Yep, I guess that's what it means!

RF20Lennon
12-04-2011, 04:42 PM
Connors hits more powerful shots than top players yeah sure sure Connors harderst probably equals djokovic's weakest people these days crack the ball so damn hard, djokovic, delpo, soderling ITS CRAZY! really? connors? really?

CocaCola
12-04-2011, 05:02 PM
How about no?

RF20Lennon
12-04-2011, 05:40 PM
Old people like to think their generation was the best at everything.. thats why you see these "Laver vs Federer in their primes..who wins" threads.

TRUE DAT!!

Devilito
12-04-2011, 06:00 PM
Connors hits more powerful shots than top players yeah sure sure Connors harderst probably equals djokovic's weakest people these days crack the ball so damn hard, djokovic, delpo, soderling ITS CRAZY! really? connors? really?

yeah i wanna see how awesome djokovic plays with
http://80s-tennis.com/images/t2000cov.jpg

Crazy man
12-04-2011, 06:03 PM
This match link is posted a lot. The sound from that video really exaggerates the hitting making it seem harder than it is.

They were hitting 80mph + groundstrokes consistently. You believe Connors hits a harder ball than Safin or Agassi? Grow up!




But hey, Agassi is more talented than Sampras right? :roll:.......

Crazy man
12-04-2011, 06:15 PM
haha yeah i agree. A lot of modern tennis sounds that way when you have a racquet strung with stiff poly at 60lbs and you're hitting the cover off the ball it's going to sound like a gunshot, but if you compare the actually speed of the ball with some faster tennis in the 70s and 80s like grass or carpet you can see that the speed of the game isn't exactly getting that much faster. Gut just doesn't make that type of sound as it's much softer. I've seen Sampras unload forehand winners you could barely see but the sound isn't that loud. Another factor is obviously that players hit with more spin now so that does slow the ball down. If you watch some indoor matches with McEnroe, Connors, Lendl and even a late 30s Laver the speed of the ball was such that winners were very common and not due to a lack of foot speed. Everyone’s seen muddy clay matches with Borg Vilas with 100 ball rallies but on a faster court I’ve seen Borg unload on shots nobody today would get to either. And that was with a wood racquet. These players are champions and no doubt if they grew up in today’s game they would be equally as successful as their games would adapt to the current gear / surfaces and game style. The older generation of players just don't get enough respect


I'm not denying that. The combination of the greatest players from each era makes up of a collection of the greatest players ever (no one greatest player however). That's why era comparisons are only for the ignorant and quite frankly I'm not in that group (lack of S&V is to due with conditions etc).


However, Agassi is known for hitting huge strokes and he was an innovator of his baseline game. Many players like Nadal and Roddick have both stated Safin hits arguably the hardest strokes. Not to mention the fact he puts little effort to hit these speeds, especially on his backhand. Going by 'sound' to try and ridicule a match is laughable.



In terms of respect, I'd say fans of both era show a complete lack of understanding/respect to qualities players from both era's posses. Swings and roundabouts. Here, try this link, keeping in mind this is Seppi versus a past prime Safin at W08. Both guys going at it - you don't see much of this right now. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvDAEsIdQhA

Dilettante
12-04-2011, 06:20 PM
I am so confused by this thread.

Lately I'm confused every time I read these boards.

Crazy man
12-04-2011, 06:26 PM
Lately I'm confused every time I read these boards.

You're an idiot, don't worry about it.

Dilettante
12-04-2011, 07:45 PM
I'm not really worried, I guess that's a true signal of being an idiot. So you must be right.

BTW, did we met before?

DjokovicForTheWin
12-04-2011, 08:40 PM
They were hitting 80mph + groundstrokes consistently. You believe Connors hits a harder ball than Safin or Agassi? Grow up!




But hey, Agassi is more talented than Sampras right? :roll:.......

You think Connors wouldn't be able to hit as hard as Safin playing in today's game? You grow up.

And yes Agassi was more talented, they guy was a playboy and not even serious about tennis and still managed to win an amazing number of slams. Pete was all about tennis, it was his life. Reverse their attitudes, Agassi gets 14+ slams, Sampras gets 3.

Crazy man
12-05-2011, 07:40 AM
You think Connors wouldn't be able to hit as hard as Safin playing in today's game? You grow up.


Honestly, I don't think I've seen anyone hit as hard as Marat with such little ease. So no, I don't think Connors could hit as hard as Safin, especially off the BH. That thing was a monster. But to be honest, you can say Connors could hit a bigger serve that Roddick/Karlovic and argue your point, because no one knows.


And yes Agassi was more talented, they guy was a playboy and not even serious about tennis and still managed to win an amazing number of slams. Pete was all about tennis, it was his life. Reverse their attitudes, Agassi gets 14+ slams, Sampras gets 3.

Amazing what you can do with joke draws, playing favourable matchups a long the way isn't it?

Crazy man
12-05-2011, 07:42 AM
I'm not really worried, I guess that's a true signal of being an idiot. So you must be right.

BTW, did we met before?



We've met before.

CDestroyer
12-05-2011, 07:58 AM
You think Connors wouldn't be able to hit as hard as Safin playing in today's game? You grow up.

And yes Agassi was more talented, they guy was a playboy and not even serious about tennis and still managed to win an amazing number of slams. Pete was all about tennis, it was his life. Reverse their attitudes, Agassi gets 14+ slams, Sampras gets 3.

I don't know where you get your information but most of it is wrong. Didn't you hear of Agassi hitting thousands of balls from a ball machine that his dad made since he was like 8. He went to the Bollitiere Academy for years.

Sampras won 14 slams because he was a much better player than Agassi and his results prove this.

I don't know why you are trying to make Agassi sound like Gulbis but its totally innaccurate.

CourtlyLove
12-05-2011, 08:27 AM
You think Connors wouldn't be able to hit as hard as Safin playing in today's game? You grow up.

And yes Agassi was more talented, they guy was a playboy and not even serious about tennis and still managed to win an amazing number of slams. Pete was all about tennis, it was his life. Reverse their attitudes, Agassi gets 14+ slams, Sampras gets 3.

Uh...

Agassi was incredibly serious about tennis. Just because he didn't like it doesn't mean he wasn't serious about honing his craft.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-05-2011, 08:29 AM
I don't know where you get your information but most of it is wrong. Didn't you hear of Agassi hitting thousands of balls from a ball machine that his dad made since he was like 8. He went to the Bollitiere Academy for years.

Sampras won 14 slams because he was a much better player than Agassi and his results prove this.

I don't know why you are trying to make Agassi sound like Gulbis but its totally innaccurate.

I get my information from reading Open. The point is he hated tennis. His father forced him. When you are forced to do something, you will never perform as well as you would as if you loved doing it. Pete was not the better player. He never won FO. Agassi won all 4 and missed out on winning many more because of drugs, women, baldness, etc. Pete was all about tennis all the time and he loved it. Even with those huge differences his resume is sorely lacking.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-05-2011, 08:30 AM
Uh...

Agassi was incredibly serious about tennis. Just because he didn't like it doesn't mean he wasn't serious about honing his craft.

Yeah so serious about it that he wore a wig to a slam final???? LOL. Read between the lines kiddo.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-05-2011, 08:32 AM
Amazing what you can do with joke draws, playing favourable matchups a long the way isn't it?

Your meaningless interpretations.

fed_rulz
12-05-2011, 10:33 AM
Honestly, I don't think I've seen anyone hit as hard as Marat with such little ease. So no, I don't think Connors could hit as hard as Safin, especially off the BH. That thing was a monster. But to be honest, you can say Connors could hit a bigger serve that Roddick/Karlovic and argue your point, because no one knows.



Amazing what you can do with joke draws, playing favourable matchups a long the way isn't it?

Correct.
Case in point for joke draws: Wimby 2000, where the avg. of all seeds that sampras faced was something like 140
Case in point for favorable matchups: you need to look at no further than Pete vs Agassi for a favorable match up. Remind me as to how many slams Pete won defeating Agassi along the way?

BeHappy
12-05-2011, 02:16 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mi0CrFtFRyg

Connors playing an 18 year old Agassi here, pretty obvious he's hitting just as big off the backhand.

Correct.
Case in point for joke draws: Wimby 2000, where the avg. of all seeds that sampras faced was something like 140
Case in point for favorable matchups: you need to look at no further than Pete vs Agassi for a favorable match up. Remind me as to how many slams Pete won defeating Agassi along the way?

Agassi was a terrible match up for sampras, Agassi had winning records against all the big servers like Becker, Stich, Ivanisevic. Sampras was just so good he was able to rise above the match up disadvantage. He was an even better serve and volleyer than Agassi was a returner.

Devilito
12-05-2011, 03:24 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mi0CrFtFRyg

Connors playing an 18 year old Agassi here, pretty obvious he's hitting just as big off the backhand.

Agassi was a terrible match up for sampras, Agassi had winning records against all the big servers like Becker, Stich, Ivanisevic. Sampras was just so good he was able to rise above the match up disadvantage. He was an even better serve and volleyer than Agassi was a returner.

I think the real big reason is that Petros was more than just a S&V. He was actually a good returner himself and unloaded on shots and was able to put Andre on the defensive a lot on his own service game which made Andre uncomfortable and added a lot of pressure to his serve. Andre liked to dictate play against others but against Petros it was 50/50 and he was forced to pull the trigger a lot sooner putting him outside of his comfort zone or risk getting put on the defensive himself.

CourtlyLove
12-05-2011, 04:47 PM
Yeah so serious about it that he wore a wig to a slam final???? LOL. Read between the lines kiddo.

...what does his insecurities about aging and his appearance have to do with his seriousness about tennis?

That's quite a leap.

LeeD
12-05-2011, 04:50 PM
Connors hit deep, Connors hit with weirdo sidespin quite often, Connors was a lefty, and Connors was very competitive.
Now, what constitutes a "more powerful" groundstroke? Is it ball speed, ball spin, depth and placement?
Most agree during an average point rally, the WOMEN hit a faster moving ball than most of the men, in the pros.
Is it "more powerful"?

DjokovicForTheWin
12-05-2011, 05:03 PM
...what does his insecurities about aging and his appearance have to do with his seriousness about tennis?

That's quite a leap.

For Andre, vanity > winning a slam. Hence slam clearly was not his top priority. Not that big a leap if you think about it and read (and understand) his bio.

CourtlyLove
12-05-2011, 05:11 PM
For Andre, vanity > winning a slam. Hence slam clearly was not his top priority. Not that big a leap if you think about it and read (and understand) his bio.

These things aren't mutually exclusive. I don't even understand where your logic is coming from anymore. It isn't as if he decided to go wig shopping rather than playing in the final.

I've read Open, and it's one of the best autobiographies I've come across.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-05-2011, 06:50 PM
These things aren't mutually exclusive. I don't even understand where your logic is coming from anymore. It isn't as if he decided to go wig shopping rather than playing in the final.

I've read Open, and it's one of the best autobiographies I've come across.

You may have read it but clearly don't understand it. The guy is playing in a slam final and he's more worried about how he will look. Do you have any clue about the type of focus these guys have at this level? What don't you understand about that? The guy had his priorities all screwed up and tennis was obviously not at the top.

rommil
12-05-2011, 07:00 PM
Connie would just about be even with Wozniaki.

ImAGrinch
12-05-2011, 07:43 PM
I get my information from reading Open. The point is he hated tennis. His father forced him. When you are forced to do something, you will never perform as well as you would as if you loved doing it. Pete was not the better player. He never won FO. Agassi won all 4 and missed out on winning many more because of drugs, women, baldness, etc. Pete was all about tennis all the time and he loved it. Even with those huge differences his resume is sorely lacking.

A player is only as good as his accomplishments. Otherwise I could proclaim myself as the greatest player who ever lived, had I actually taken tennis seriously.

I think having the record for slams won, including 7 Wimbledon titles, plus most weeks at #1 is far from lacking. The only major blemish on Sampras' record is his performance on clay.

Sampras > Agassi

DjokovicForTheWin
12-05-2011, 07:58 PM
A player is only as good as his accomplishments. Otherwise I could proclaim myself as the greatest player who ever lived, had I actually taken tennis seriously.

I think having the record for slams won, including 7 Wimbledon titles, plus most weeks at #1 is far from lacking. The only major blemish on Sampras' record is his performance on clay.

Sampras > Agassi

I agree Sampras accomplished a lot more than Agassi. But if you had a player X who wins the CYGS and goes 120-0 for the season, and then quits with only 4 slams to his name would be greater than Mats Wilander despite Mats being ahead in most of the stats.

MLB_MOB
12-05-2011, 08:10 PM
Connors would surely blow all three of these feather weights off the court:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXt2wDMWyZk

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

BeHappy
12-05-2011, 08:56 PM
Connors would surely blow all three of these feather weights off the court:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXt2wDMWyZk

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

Yeah he would, you realize that was Lendl that Connors was blowing off the court from the baseline? You know - this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huC_6UCmDGY

Connors is in a completely different league to those guys. He's a 5 time USO, 2 times Wimbledon and AO champion. They're journeymen compared to him.

MLB_MOB
12-05-2011, 09:27 PM
Yeah he would, you realize that was Lendl that Connors was blowing off the court from the baseline? You know - this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huC_6UCmDGY

Connors is in a completely different league to those guys. He's a 5 time USO, 2 times Wimbledon and AO champion. They're journeymen compared to him.

I am about to shine some knowledge on you right now. Those balls they are hitting are like fluff compared to what Soderling, Berdych and Del Potro are hitting. The spin that those three put on their balls make them a lot heavier as opposed to the flatter strokes of Llendl and Becker. Furthermore if Connors had seen a forehand like what Delpo was hitting in the 09 US open final, he would flat out ***** his pants

My coach was top 500 in the world in the 90s, and he said to me that he would never be able to crack the top 1000 in the world with how he played even in his prime. The level of competition has risen tremendously as well as the new style in game. People are bigger stronger and faster. You can argue whatever you want but this is a fact.

NLBwell
12-05-2011, 09:52 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mi0CrFtFRyg

Connors playing an 18 year old Agassi here, pretty obvious he's hitting just as big off the backhand.


Yeah, but that Agassi guy would never be able to compete in the modern game. The old guys like him hit so soft and weak back in those days compared to now.

BeHappy
12-05-2011, 09:58 PM
I am about to shine some knowledge on you right now. Those balls they are hitting are like fluff compared to what Soderling, Berdych and Del Potro are hitting. The spin that those three put on their balls make them a lot heavier as opposed to the flatter strokes of Llendl and Becker. Furthermore if Connors had seen a forehand like what Delpo was hitting in the 09 US open final, he would flat out ***** his pants

My coach was top 500 in the world in the 90s, and he said to me that he would never be able to crack the top 1000 in the world with how he played even in his prime. The level of competition has risen tremendously as well as the new style in game. People are bigger stronger and faster. You can argue whatever you want but this is a fact.

Here's a reality check kid:

Agassi reached the USO final in 1990 and 2006. He took Federer to 5 in 2004 USO and 2005 AO. He did all those with sciatica and a destroyed ankle, at 33-35. The standard hasn't risen at all.

The level has never been lower, Americans don't play this sport anymore. That's 300 million gone, Russia has risen but it only has a population of 100 million. Eastern Europe has always been strong (Lendl, Navratilova etc).

ThoughtCrime
12-05-2011, 11:21 PM
No statistical evidence, no proof.

Devilito
12-06-2011, 09:35 AM
I am about to shine some knowledge on you right now. Those balls they are hitting are like fluff compared to what Soderling, Berdych and Del Potro are hitting. The spin that those three put on their balls make them a lot heavier as opposed to the flatter strokes of Llendl and Becker. Furthermore if Connors had seen a forehand like what Delpo was hitting in the 09 US open final, he would flat out ***** his pants

My coach was top 500 in the world in the 90s, and he said to me that he would never be able to crack the top 1000 in the world with how he played even in his prime. The level of competition has risen tremendously as well as the new style in game. People are bigger stronger and faster. You can argue whatever you want but this is a fact.

Lets see how heavy a ball Soderling and Berdych hit if they had to play an entire tennis season with:
http://www.whatsalltheracquet.com/archives/images/lendl-thumb.JPG
And strings from 1988

Bigger stronger faster. Too bad we're not talking about a bench press competition, basketball or the 100m dash. We're talking about tennis where this guy is the most dominant player of this generation and the greatest player of all time. You're telling Lendl playing today with modern nutrition, training methods and racquet / string technology would have one once of trouble dealing with complete scrubs like Berdych and Soderling? Not only are you delusional, so is your coach.
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2008/04/06/tennis_federer_narrowweb__300x466,0.jpg

MLB_MOB
12-06-2011, 09:58 AM
Lets see how heavy a ball Soderling and Berdych hit if they had to play an entire tennis season with:
http://www.whatsalltheracquet.com/archives/images/lendl-thumb.JPG
And strings from 1988

Bigger stronger faster. Too bad we're not talking about a bench press competition, basketball or the 100m dash. We're talking about tennis where this guy is the most dominant player of this generation and the greatest player of all time. You're telling Lendl playing today with modern nutrition, training methods and racquet / string technology would have one once of trouble dealing with complete scrubs like Berdych and Soderling? Not only are you delusional, so is your coach.
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2008/04/06/tennis_federer_narrowweb__300x466,0.jpg

You realized that Federer is actually pretty big right? And you can say whatever you want, however I will trust someone who was top 500 in the world who knows people who play on tour before I trust someone a random poster internet.

Devilito
12-06-2011, 10:09 AM
You realized that Federer is actually pretty big right? And you can say whatever you want, however I will trust someone who was top 500 in the world who knows people who play on tour before I trust someone a random poster internet.

Both Lendl and Becker were bigger than Federer. What’s your point? David Ferrer is 5’9” and is rick rolling players right now. This is tennis, not Wolds Strongest Man.

This “everything new is better” crap needs to stop because it’s a logical fallacy that moves towards infinite. And humans being infinitely bigger, stronger and faster than other humans no matter how far back in the past is not only ridiculous but impossible.

BeHappy
12-06-2011, 10:35 AM
I guess your coach doesn't know what he's talking about.

1992:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39MR-RgCzm8

2004:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cIOX352oNU

MLB_MOB
12-06-2011, 12:21 PM
I guess your coach doesn't know what he's talking about.

1992:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39MR-RgCzm8

2004:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cIOX352oNU

you realize you have no clue what you are talking about....they are hitting flatter in 92, the balls in 2004 are much heavier and have a lot more weight behind them also making them harder to control. The difference in the ball they are hitting is HUGE, Federer hits the 2nd heaviest ball on tour behind Nadal and even Agassi started to adjust his strokes by adding spin and even using Luxilon Big Banger Original to allow for more control.

I'm signing off because you probably have no experience at that level or even at a higher level than recreation and have no clue what you are talking about

MLB_MOB
12-06-2011, 12:29 PM
Both Lendl and Becker were bigger than Federer. What’s your point? David Ferrer is 5’9” and is rick rolling players right now. This is tennis, not Wolds Strongest Man.

This “everything new is better” crap needs to stop because it’s a logical fallacy that moves towards infinite. And humans being infinitely bigger, stronger and faster than other humans no matter how far back in the past is not only ridiculous but impossible.

1st everyone needs to stop with the logical fallacy crap...I was the one who introduced this on one of my older accounts and since then it has taken off and people do not even use it correctly. First off "everything new is better" does not violate any fallacy mainly due to the fact that there is no continuation of the argument. If you wanted to make an illicit fallacy a correct phrase would be "everything new is better because it is newer."

Secondly I never claimed everything, I simply stated that players from the 80s would have a much harder time facing the bigger hitters. I did not claim that Llendl would be a scrub, but he would not be the Llendl we saw because whether or not you accept it there is a rise in competition. At my racquet club several of my coaches played at high levels. All of them stated they would not reach the level they did in today's game. My one coach stated he would not be top 1000, another pro who was the #1 player in division 2 tennis stated he would not even be ranked in singles. And lastly another pro who played division 1 tennis for rutgers before the program was trashed stated that he would not have been able to play division 1. The competition is increasing and the top even more dominant. That is why so few win slams, Federer is playing at a lower level than 07 for sure but not by far. However Novak and Nadal have now made incredible runs because they accepted the challenges and rose to it.

Devilito
12-06-2011, 12:52 PM
1st everyone needs to stop with the logical fallacy crap...I was the one who introduced this on one of my older accounts and since then it has taken off and people do not even use it correctly. First off "everything new is better" does not violate any fallacy mainly due to the fact that there is no continuation of the argument. If you wanted to make an illicit fallacy a correct phrase would be "everything new is better because it is newer."

Secondly I never claimed everything, I simply stated that players from the 80s would have a much harder time facing the bigger hitters. I did not claim that Llendl would be a scrub, but he would not be the Llendl we saw because whether or not you accept it there is a rise in competition. At my racquet club several of my coaches played at high levels. All of them stated they would not reach the level they did in today's game. My one coach stated he would not be top 1000, another pro who was the #1 player in division 2 tennis stated he would not even be ranked in singles. And lastly another pro who played division 1 tennis for rutgers before the program was trashed stated that he would not have been able to play division 1. The competition is increasing and the top even more dominant. That is why so few win slams, Federer is playing at a lower level than 07 for sure but not by far. However Novak and Nadal have now made incredible runs because they accepted the challenges and rose to it.

You didn’t introduce anything and nobody cares what you posted on your other account. We’re in this thread now on a specific topic. You’re implying that newer generations are better that older generations. So in 10 years players will be better than Federer and in 30 years those players will be better than the previous etc. When does it end? And your 500 ranked coach’s opinion on the level of an 8 time grand slam champion is completely irrelevant. The difference between a top open player and a 500 ranked player is that the 500 ranked player decided it was worth blowing a bunch of cash to play tour events and grind out a few points to show up on the ranking sheet. If I sponsor Tony Larson for 6 months of intensive training and a full 1 year tour schedule he’ll get to 500 in the world too. Your coach is a nobody and your number 1 div 2 player is also a nobody.

BeHappy
12-06-2011, 12:58 PM
you realize you have no clue what you are talking about....they are hitting flatter in 92, the balls in 2004 are much heavier and have a lot more weight behind them also making them harder to control. The difference in the ball they are hitting is HUGE, Federer hits the 2nd heaviest ball on tour behind Nadal and even Agassi started to adjust his strokes by adding spin and even using Luxilon Big Banger Original to allow for more control.

I'm signing off because you probably have no experience at that level or even at a higher level than recreation and have no clue what you are talking about

How was Agassi even able to compete with Federer at 34 years of age with sciatica if the game has improved so much? He was nowhere near as good as he was in say 1995, but he pushed Federer very very hard, how?

The balls used at the USO and RG today are very light and fast actually. At the grand slams only the Wimbledon Slazengers are ridiculously heavy. Although I don't know what they use at the AO.

Rozroz
12-06-2011, 02:26 PM
I guess your coach doesn't know what he's talking about.

1992:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39MR-RgCzm8

2004:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cIOX352oNU

forgive me for derailing a bit and maybe not understanding something..
i'm just watching those games pretty objectively and i'm puzzled:

besides the flat game, lighter balls or whatever reason..
why are many of those 1995-2005 past games SO FAST PACED as opposed to today's games??
i mean, take the 2004 USOPEN or federer safin at AO, they were CRAZY fast.
do i imagine or recent years game turned slow "again"?
even the RG agassi game speed looks as fast as today's fast courts games..
wtf?

thanks :)

Nathaniel_Near
12-06-2011, 02:35 PM
forgive me for derailing a bit and maybe not understanding something..
i'm just watching those games pretty objectively and i'm puzzled:

besides the flat game, lighter balls or whatever reason..
why are many of those 1995-2005 past games SO FAST PACED as opposed to today's games??
i mean, take the 2004 USOPEN or federer safin at AO, they were CRAZY fast.
do i imagine or recent years game turned slow "again"?
even the RG agassi game speed looks as fast as today's fast courts games..
wtf?

thanks :)

The game has evolved but this doesn't mean it has improved as such but rather, the overarching ethos governing tennis strategy and play has changed. This works from the ground up and is also impacted by technology and changes in playing conditions. Conditions today do not reward attack and low margins for error so handsomely and certainly to use volleys as a consistently winning tactic has become a much harder proposition, given how much more life the ball has off the bounce from the surfaces in general. It's all a little bit complicated, but if the pendulum were to swing the other way and surfaces were to be gradually increased in speed, the balls made lighter etc etc, then once again you would see a paradigm shift in tennis over time.

The onus currently is on attackers to solve the riddle which is being presented to them by the brilliant defenders and counter-punchers of this generation for sustained enough periods to win the majors.

Rozroz
12-06-2011, 02:46 PM
The game has evolved but this doesn't mean it has improved as such but rather, the overarching ethos governing tennis strategy and play has changed. This works from the ground up and is also impacted by technology and changes in playing conditions. Conditions today do not reward attack and low margins for error so handsomely and certainly to use volleys as a consistently winning tactic has become a much harder proposition, given how much more life the ball has off the bounce from the surfaces in general. It's all a little bit complicated, but if the pendulum were to swing the other way and surfaces were to be gradually increased in speed, the balls made lighter etc etc, then once again you would see a paradigm shift in tennis over time.

The onus currently is on attackers to solve the riddle which is being presented to them by the brilliant defenders and counter-punchers of this generation for sustained enough periods to win the majors.

thanks. very interesting.
so you're saying that the players that adopt to these conditions better,
tend to be those who defend better.. (also, i might say, some of "them" took the clay game and use it on today's conditions...).
i must say it's somewhat less attractive ;)

Nathaniel_Near
12-06-2011, 02:59 PM
thanks. very interesting.
so you're saying that the players that adopt to these conditions better,
tend to be those who defend better.. (also, i might say, some of "them" took the clay game and use it on today's conditions...).
i must say it's somewhat less attractive ;)

I think conditions simply can't be ignored. A prevailing tennis ethos is dependent on its success and its success is altered significantly by the playing conditions. I certainly think today's conditions suit those who can defend brilliantly and have deadly reliable strokes but it isn't as simple as this. It doesn't mean that those players who prevail can *only* do that, because of course they can attack well too and have a great skill-set, but the difference between winning and losing in tennis is often a small one, as you know.

In a sense, the players who adapt to the conditions better will do better but some players will adapt through a forceful journey i.e. Nadal on grass (though slightly helped also by the changing conditions at Wimbledon and it becoming a little slower) and some players will adapt because changes in conditions happen to fit their already existing styles very nicely indeed -- or both. I do think that the homogeneity of the surfaces currently does make the sport a bit blander than it could be, as a singular prevailing ethos is allowed to survive across all surfaces with tweaks here and there.

MLB_MOB
12-06-2011, 03:06 PM
You didn’t introduce anything and nobody cares what you posted on your other account. We’re in this thread now on a specific topic. You’re implying that newer generations are better that older generations. So in 10 years players will be better than Federer and in 30 years those players will be better than the previous etc. When does it end? And your 500 ranked coach’s opinion on the level of an 8 time grand slam champion is completely irrelevant. The difference between a top open player and a 500 ranked player is that the 500 ranked player decided it was worth blowing a bunch of cash to play tour events and grind out a few points to show up on the ranking sheet. If I sponsor Tony Larson for 6 months of intensive training and a full 1 year tour schedule he’ll get to 500 in the world too. Your coach is a nobody and your number 1 div 2 player is also a nobody.

Umm the pro who was #1 in Division 2 took Thomas Blake to 3 sets in a challenger so he is a somebody. And for your information Tony Larson wasn't even top 20 in Division 2 he was top 40 which is still impressive but you overrate the hell out of him and underestimate the hell out of the pros I know. Tony is a great player but to say he is better than a player who clearly ranked #1 when he ranked #30+ in the same division and to call him a nobody is ignorant. The pro played a few futures and challengers and knew he would not be top 200 so called it quits because being a pro below that level is pretty useless

BeHappy
12-06-2011, 04:22 PM
forgive me for derailing a bit and maybe not understanding something..
i'm just watching those games pretty objectively and i'm puzzled:

besides the flat game, lighter balls or whatever reason..
why are many of those 1995-2005 past games SO FAST PACED as opposed to today's games??
i mean, take the 2004 USOPEN or federer safin at AO, they were CRAZY fast.
do i imagine or recent years game turned slow "again"?
even the RG agassi game speed looks as fast as today's fast courts games..
wtf?

thanks :)

The top players right now are all defensive baseliners. Murray, Djokovic, Nadal, Ferrer etc. You're not derailing anything, That's the whole point of this thread. The surfaces are so slow that pushers are rising to the top.

Safin's retired, Soderling's sick with mono,Blake isn't any good anymore, Del Potro is really a counter attacker rather than an aggressive baseliner.

mattennis
12-06-2011, 04:30 PM
Yes, when you watch some matches from 10 years ago (for instance, some of the Agassi-Sampras in 99 as Los Angeles, Cincinnatti or WTF, as well as their encounters in the USOPEN'01 and '02), the ball seem to travel much much faster in their baseline exchanges than what you see today.

They hit flater than today, so obviously the ball would travel faster, but adding to that is the fact that today's balls are (in general) a bit bigger and get more air resistance. Coupled with slower courts and strings that allow you to impart much more spin on the ball, you see that almost all todays players hit a much more heavy ball than say 10 year ago.

It travels not as fast as some players regular shots of 10 or even 20 years ago, but with much more spin on it, and it is becoming quite a different game altogether.

Devilito
12-06-2011, 04:38 PM
Umm the pro who was #1 in Division 2 took Thomas Blake to 3 sets in a challenger so he is a somebody. And for your information Tony Larson wasn't even top 20 in Division 2 he was top 40 which is still impressive but you overrate the hell out of him and underestimate the hell out of the pros I know. Tony is a great player but to say he is better than a player who clearly ranked #1 when he ranked #30+ in the same division and to call him a nobody is ignorant. The pro played a few futures and challengers and knew he would not be top 200 so called it quits because being a pro below that level is pretty useless

i don't over or underestimate anybody. I never said Tony was better etc. You’re just pulling straw men out of your ***. The point is your appeal to authority is no authority at all. Especially at the top echelon of tennis and multiple grand slam champions. A 500 ranked player is someone that does average in futures and is burning money to play with the hope of racking up a handful for ATP points for nothing more than “rep”. My comparison with Tony is that his opinion on Lendl is as valid as mine and as valid as your friend's. I know plenty of people playing futures ranked anywhere from 500-1500. They’re great guys and awesome players with potential to take out guys ranked around 100 in the world on a good day. I have yet to hear any revelations from them that I don’t already know in regards to Federer, Lendl or the such. We sit down, have a beer and shoot the **** and I have yet to hear them say, “hey, i’m ranked 800 in the world so don’t tell me what you think about the Nadal / Federer match from yesterday because I know more than you about that”

TonLars
12-06-2011, 09:29 PM
Umm the pro who was #1 in Division 2 took Thomas Blake to 3 sets in a challenger so he is a somebody. And for your information Tony Larson wasn't even top 20 in Division 2 he was top 40 which is still impressive but you overrate the hell out of him and underestimate the hell out of the pros I know. Tony is a great player but to say he is better than a player who clearly ranked #1 when he ranked #30+ in the same division and to call him a nobody is ignorant. The pro played a few futures and challengers and knew he would not be top 200 so called it quits because being a pro below that level is pretty useless

Im not in this discussion so I apologize, but I just want to point out that the rankings were irrelevant really to me and others in our region because we never played against the very top Division 2 teams, not once. Our team was not nearly as good as that level and in different parts of the country. The people making the rankings nationally went off of the fall ita tournaments, and gave the higher rankings to the traditionally best teams (usually because they were coaching those teams, and because it made the most sense). They cant be disputed and changed however because those players never played us.

Rozroz
12-07-2011, 01:42 AM
Yes, when you watch some matches from 10 years ago (for instance, some of the Agassi-Sampras in 99 as Los Angeles, Cincinnatti or WTF, as well as their encounters in the USOPEN'01 and '02), the ball seem to travel much much faster in their baseline exchanges than what you see today.

They hit flater than today, so obviously the ball would travel faster, but adding to that is the fact that today's balls are (in general) a bit bigger and get more air resistance. Coupled with slower courts and strings that allow you to impart much more spin on the ball, you see that almost all todays players hit a much more heavy ball than say 10 year ago.

It travels not as fast as some players regular shots of 10 or even 20 years ago, but with much more spin on it, and it is becoming quite a different game altogether.

fascinating stuff!
the game changes THAT much with the technology..
i don't think there are other sports that have this big effect.
so it means that Connors of example, playing today, just won't be able to generate the same shots with enough efficiency and control, therefor will have to change his game to look like, let's say, Del Potro ?

* i didn't know the balls got BIGGER.. on the contrary, they always look bigger in the classic games.

mattennis
12-07-2011, 05:44 AM
fascinating stuff!
the game changes THAT much with the technology..
i don't think there are other sports that have this big effect.
so it means that Connors of example, playing today, just won't be able to generate the same shots with enough efficiency and control, therefor will have to change his game to look like, let's say, Del Potro ?

Nobody knows, but yes, that is what I believe. He would have a different technique, with much more top-spin to be able to control such a heavy (spinny) coming ball all the time.

* i didn't know the balls got BIGGER.. on the contrary, they always look bigger in the classic games.

They look bigger (in the classic games) because of the poor (fluzzy) image.

The first official tournament (that I am aware) they used a bigger ball was the World Tennis Finals of 2000.

It was indoor hardcourt, but you could see that the speed of the ball was not the same that in WTF'99 (that was indoor hardcourt as well).

That ball has more air resistance and, even though it may start at a really high speed (when a very powerful shot is hit), it has way less speed when it reaches the other player at the other side of the court.

They did the same in Table-Tennis, changing a 38 mm ball to a 40 mm ball in 2000 and on.

In tennis, starting in 2000, they changed (more and more tournaments along the following years) to a type-3 ball that was and 8% bigger than before. Not all tournaments. On clay the use even smaller (and faster) balls than before.

They spoke about all of this in the WTF'2000 in a TV channell I was watching back then. It was in portuguese (I believe) that I can not speak, but a friend of mine was translating to me what they were saying.

Some additional information here: http://tennis.about.com/od/racquetsballsstringing/a/newballstandard.htm

In my opinion, that coupled with new and better models of poly strings, changed the game completely.

Now, even on hardcourts and even on indoor, players have enough time to be able to impart a huge amount of top-spin on the ball.

That was not the case 20 years ago. Playing on indoor carpet, and with faster balls, players like Muster or Bruguera had a very hard time trying to hit their spinny shots because they had no time to setup their shots.

Sampras, Stich, Ivanisevic, Korda, Becker, Forget, Edberg,....dominated those indoor carpet tournaments, not only because of their serve or their volleys, but because their baseline shots (and return shot) were "simpler" (easy to set and hit without enough time).

Today they have a bit more time and that allow them to impart a huge amount of top-spin on the ball, thus hitting a safer and heavier kind of shots.

Players of 15 or 20 years ago were not dumb. They would have done the same had they had these new conditions. But back then, with those fast balls and playing on fast harcourts and specially on fast indoor carpet, they had no time to set up their shots (and their returns), and a very simple set up kind of shot (and flat hitting) was better suited back then.

It is different, nor better nor worse, just different conditions giving rise to different games.

At least back then you had it all. You had powerful baseliners like Agassi, Courier, Kafelnikov, Ferreira, Moyá ....very heavy spinnier hitters like Bruguera, Muster, Corretja, Costa, Mantilla......very dangerous baseline flat hitters like Korda, Enqvist, Krickstein, Martin,.....pure serve and volley like Edberg, Rafter, Forget,.....all court players like Stich, Sampras, Becker, Pioline.....

You had it all, because there were huge different playing conditions back then.

BeHappy
12-07-2011, 06:09 AM
The first official tournament (that I am aware) they used a bigger ball was the World Tennis Finals of 2000.

It was indoor hardcourt, but you could see that the speed of the ball was not the same that in WTF'99 (that was indoor hardcourt as well).

That ball has more air resistance and, even though it may start at a really high speed (when a very powerful shot is hit), it has way less speed when it reaches the other player at the other side of the court.

(Very long post)


The US Open and French Open balls are still very fast. It's only Wimbledon, masters and ATP events that use slow balls.

Yes the balls are bigger, but the courts are MUCH slower too.

Rozroz
12-07-2011, 06:11 AM
Nobody knows, but yes, that is what I believe. He would have a different technique, with much more top-spin to be able to control such a heavy (spinny) coming ball all the time.



They look bigger (in the classic games) because of the poor (fluzzy) image.

The first official tournament (that I am aware) they used a bigger ball was the World Tennis Finals of 2000.

It was indoor hardcourt, but you could see that the speed of the ball was not the same that in WTF'99 (that was indoor hardcourt as well).

That ball has more air resistance and, even though it may start at a really high speed (when a very powerful shot is hit), it has way less speed when it reaches the other player at the other side of the court.

They did the same in Table-Tennis, changing a 38 mm ball to a 40 mm ball in 2000 and on.

In tennis, starting in 2000, they changed (more and more tournaments along the following years) to a type-3 ball that was and 8% bigger than before. Not all tournaments. On clay the use even smaller (and faster) balls than before.

They spoke about all of this in the WTF'2000 in a TV channell I was watching back then. It was in portuguese (I believe) that I can not speak, but a friend of mine was translating to me what they were saying.

Some additional information here: http://tennis.about.com/od/racquetsballsstringing/a/newballstandard.htm

In my opinion, that coupled with new and better models of poly strings, changed the game completely.

Now, even on hardcourts and even on indoor, players have enough time to be able to impart a huge amount of top-spin on the ball.

That was not the case 20 years ago. Playing on indoor carpet, and with faster balls, players like Muster or Bruguera had a very hard time trying to hit their spinny shots because they had no time to setup their shots.

Sampras, Stich, Ivanisevic, Korda, Becker, Forget, Edberg,....dominated those indoor carpet tournaments, not only because of their serve or their volleys, but because their baseline shots (and return shot) were "simpler" (easy to set and hit without enough time).

Today they have a bit more time and that allow them to impart a huge amount of top-spin on the ball, thus hitting a safer and heavier kind of shots.

Players of 15 or 20 years ago were not dumb. They would have done the same had they had these new conditions. But back then, with those fast balls and playing on fast harcourts and specially on fast indoor carpet, they had no time to set up their shots (and their returns), and a very simple set up kind of shot (and flat hitting) was better suited back then.

It is different, nor better nor worse, just different conditions giving rise to different games.

At least back then you had it all. You had powerful baseliners like Agassi, Courier, Kafelnikov, Ferreira, Moyá ....very heavy spinnier hitters like Bruguera, Muster, Corretja, Costa, Mantilla......very dangerous baseline flat hitters like Korda, Enqvist, Krickstein, Martin,.....pure serve and volley like Edberg, Rafter, Forget,.....all court players like Stich, Sampras, Becker, Pioline.....

You had it all, because there were huge different playing conditions back then.

I feel like going to a lecture about this :)
it would be so fun watching video examples accordingly.
thanks a lot for your patience and info.
i would be glad to read anything else on this topic.

BeHappy
12-07-2011, 06:12 AM
I feel like going to a lecture about this :)
it would be so fun watching video examples accordingly.
thanks a lot for your patience and info.
i would be glad to read anything else on this topic.

He's actually wrong though.

Rozroz
12-07-2011, 06:16 AM
He's actually wrong though.

interesting enough to hear anyway.
exact or not, the game is definitely slower these last years.
whether it's the balls, the courts, technique, players or whatever.

Wilander Fan
12-07-2011, 06:59 AM
The Connors Agassi matchups are really intriguing. It strongly implies that there is not such a dramatic difference in level from Laver to Federer. I would have thought otherwise but you have a continuous line of Laver-Connors-Agassi-Federer and no one is really blowing anyone away. You would think at one point in the link one guy would be completely dominating the other. Also, you have to throw out equipment as a significant factor as well. I cant speak for Laver but the other 3 competed late into their careers with the same set ups they had been using in their prime against major technology changes. Connors using his t2000 against the graphites, Agassi and his gut strings against the poly, Fed and his 90inch Wilson against the 100 inch wide bodies.

I am also on the record that the balls are bigger, fluffier and heavier today and therefore much slower. Today you see balls fluffed up like baby chicks now and felt misting off a well hit shot and I dont ever remember this happening back in the 80s. OTOH, you could knock a reasonably new ball through a fence back then but I have not seen a ball go through a fence since I started playing again a couple of years ago.

Wilander Fan
12-07-2011, 07:08 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SptdffCeVmM

This is a pretty angle to see the actual pace of the ball. Connors is firing laser beam passing shots off pretty good approaches from Laver.

Edit: You can judge the relative pace of those shots from Laver's slice backhands which average about 100mph.

mattennis
12-07-2011, 07:32 AM
Mucho more info: http://www.itftennis.com/technical/rules/history/index.asp

mattennis
12-07-2011, 07:33 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SptdffCeVmM

This is a pretty angle to see the actual pace of the ball. Connors is firing laser beam passing shots off pretty good approaches from Laver.

Edit: You can judge the relative pace of those shots from Laver's slice backhands which average about 100mph.

I don't know what you mean, but nobody averages 100 mph in slice backhands.

Rozroz
12-07-2011, 07:55 AM
if i had 10% of Laver's net confidence i would be very happy :)

LuckyR
12-07-2011, 08:09 AM
The Connors Agassi matchups are really intriguing. It strongly implies that there is not such a dramatic difference in level from Laver to Federer. I would have thought otherwise but you have a continuous line of Laver-Connors-Agassi-Federer and no one is really blowing anyone away. You would think at one point in the link one guy would be completely dominating the other. Also, you have to throw out equipment as a significant factor as well. I cant speak for Laver but the other 3 competed late into their careers with the same set ups they had been using in their prime against major technology changes. Connors using his t2000 against the graphites, Agassi and his gut strings against the poly, Fed and his 90inch Wilson against the 100 inch wide bodies.

I am also on the record that the balls are bigger, fluffier and heavier today and therefore much slower. Today you see balls fluffed up like baby chicks now and felt misting off a well hit shot and I dont ever remember this happening back in the 80s. OTOH, you could knock a reasonably new ball through a fence back then but I have not seen a ball go through a fence since I started playing again a couple of years ago.


Tennis isn't like that. Total domination isn't about bagels, it is about Ws vs Ls, even if the matches are very, very close. Looking at individual rallies is not the way to compare eras. If a technological advance equals a 2% improvement, all else being equal, you won't see it in a rally, but at the top levels you would see it in the W/L.

As to not seeing the felt blow off well struck balls in the 80's there wasn't super slomo HD in the 80s... If the ball manufacturers say they have changed the felt to slow the balls, which is very probably true, I would believe it, but you don't need to invoke that theory to explain the extra fluffiness in this era of poly strings and 5000 rpm spin groundies.

spazz
12-07-2011, 08:14 AM
back in the day I hated playing guys with the T2000. those racquets would trampoline the ball way faster than the woods most of us were using. the saving grace was that the 2000 was hard to control, and you could force more mishits out of them.

i don't know how you can really compare players from different eras when the equipment and surface has been altered so much. winning attributes of 35 years ago may not hold for the modern game and vice versa. (i'm so glad that mlb never went to aluminum bats.)

Wilander Fan
12-07-2011, 08:18 AM
Tennis isn't like that. Total domination isn't about bagels, it is about Ws vs Ls, even if the matches are very, very close. Looking at individual rallies is not the way to compare eras. If a technological advance equals a 2% improvement, all else being equal, you won't see it in a rally, but at the top levels you would see it in the W/L.

As to not seeing the felt blow off well struck balls in the 80's there wasn't super slomo HD in the 80s... If the ball manufacturers say they have changed the felt to slow the balls, which is very probably true, I would believe it, but you don't need to invoke that theory to explain the extra fluffiness in this era of poly strings and 5000 rpm spin groundies.

I am talking about personal experience with the felt. I never saw this before. When I picked up tennis again recently, it was kind of shocking to see this green mist lingering after a clean forehand and I remember thinking I had a can of defective balls.

Devilito
12-07-2011, 09:50 AM
winning attributes of 35 years ago may not hold for the modern game and vice versa.

The biggest attributes at the echelon of tennis are footwork, fitness, hand-eye coordination and mental toughness. The strokes are way down on the list of what’s critical to become a champion. It doesn’t mean the strokes aren’t important, it’s just that top players all have good enough strokes to win. That’s not what’s holding them back. For example, Murray has more than enough tennis strokes to win a slam. That’s not what’s stopping him. Guys like Connors and Laver growing up today would still have that champions mentality that’s so rare and it wouldn’t take long to hone more modern strokes that would suit today’s game. Remember a “modern stroke” doesn’t have to be like Nadal or Djokovic. Soderling, Murray, Ferrer, and even guys like Stepnek have nothing “modern” about their shots. They’re about as basic as they get. To think Laver would have an issue growing up and being able to hit a “forehand” today is so ridiculous it’s comical.

Andreas1965
12-07-2011, 09:54 AM
The biggest attributes at the echelon of tennis are footwork, fitness, hand-eye coordination and mental toughness. The strokes are way down on the list of what’s critical to become a champion. It doesn’t mean the strokes aren’t important, it’s just that top players all have good enough strokes to win. That’s not what’s holding them back. For example, Murray has more than enough tennis strokes to win a slam. That’s not what’s stopping him. Guys like Connors and Laver growing up today would still have that champions mentality that’s so rare and it wouldn’t take long to hone more modern strokes that would suit today’s game. Remember a “modern stroke” doesn’t have to be like Nadal or Djokovic. Soderling, Murray, Ferrer, and even guys like Stepnek have nothing “modern” about their shots. They’re about as basic as they get. To think Laver would have an issue growing up and being able to hit a “forehand” today is so ridiculous it’s comical.Great post, thank you!!

Boricua
12-07-2011, 09:58 AM
Connors was very aggresive. Attacked, attacked and attacked. His flat, power shots were hard to deal with even when he was 38 and played Agassi in the US Open.

Rozroz
12-07-2011, 10:21 AM
Guys like Connors and Laver growing up today would still have that champions mentality that’s so rare

i think that's the reason people find the last decades boring,
that's why many fell in love with Nadal, cause he brought back some of the aggressive winning mentality into the game.
and that's the big contradiction.
he's style of play is the opposite of Connors, that's why i don't really like it.
but his spirit is in the right place (or was, at the moment).

aphex
12-07-2011, 10:53 AM
The biggest attributes at the echelon of tennis are footwork, fitness, hand-eye coordination and mental toughness. The strokes are way down on the list of what’s critical to become a champion. It doesn’t mean the strokes aren’t important, it’s just that top players all have good enough strokes to win. That’s not what’s holding them back. For example, Murray has more than enough tennis strokes to win a slam. That’s not what’s stopping him. Guys like Connors and Laver growing up today would still have that champions mentality that’s so rare and it wouldn’t take long to hone more modern strokes that would suit today’s game. Remember a “modern stroke” doesn’t have to be like Nadal or Djokovic. Soderling, Murray, Ferrer, and even guys like Stepnek have nothing “modern” about their shots. They’re about as basic as they get. To think Laver would have an issue growing up and being able to hit a “forehand” today is so ridiculous it’s comical.

Awesome post, agree 100%.