you shud see wilander's serve. that was a patsy. today's players will have time to tie their shoelaces before returning those day's serves
Just watching a video of Courier vs Mcenroe at the US Open 1992. It seems the majority of his serves are around the 100mph mark.
By todays standards that seems pretty slow - anyone care to clarify why?
Courier's serve was actually VERY underrated...he could routinely hit the 110-120 range (which was high 15 years ago). Between 1991 and 1995 he was 6-0 against Agassi, and would routinely have double-digit ace numbers against him (the best returner of all time); his second serve wasn't extraordinary, but it was very hard to attack (similar to Roddick's 2nd serve today); it was a key to his beating Edberg in slams (91 French, 92 Aus, 93 Aus, 93 Wimbledon), as was his return of serve.
Poor Edberg, he was really Courier's lapdog during Jim's prime. If it wasnt for Courier then Edberg maybe could have ended up with 10 slams. The funny thing is Sampras had a harder time with Edberg than he did Courier so he was probably happy if Courier took Edberg out of events for him.
you shud see wilander's serve. that was a patsy. today's players will have time to tie their shoelaces before returning those day's serves
Courier beefed up his serve before his retired in 2000. I saw him around 1998, and was surprised that he was hitting around 125 mph. But, the younger guys on the tour weren't having many problems with his stuff, so, after losing in early rounds, he later retired.
Courier is vastly overrated on these boards IMO.
A prime Courier would get destroyed by Federer or Nadal on clay. It wouldn't even be competitive against Nadal. If Courier were playing today he'd have exactly 0 slams.
I don't know how you can fault the guy for being born in 1970, he played who there was to play, and won or lost.
Even towards the end of his career around 99/00 he was playing competitively with guys like Nalbandian and Safin.
J
UGh.....sigh....read my post. You really think that after his arm problems, and late in his career, he figured out how to serve 15mph faster? Gee, too bad, he didnt' do that in 1991 eh? lol.
It's also good that Agassi got so much faster as he got old. Courier aced him over 20 times at the USO, with 100-117mph serves. lol!
Ugh, sigh. In the late 90s, Courier said he wanted to make one last big try on the tour, so he started lifting weights to beef up his serve and groundstrokes. Yes, he complained about his 'dead arm' in the 90s, but he recovered from that.
If you're such a Courier fan or foe, tell me how he did against Martin after the rain delay in Charlotte last weekend? Did he play Sampras in the final? Oh, you have to google it? Okay, we'll wait.....
OH no! Listen to the troll! Ignore your eyes. Ignore common sense. Ignore a 2 steps slower Agassi still competing! Courier would get DESTROYED! Couldn't win a game! LOL.
So we should add 15-20 mph to all serve speeds from the 90s to get the equivalent today?
Wow!! Guys like Rusedski, Krajicek and Philippoussis we're serving up to 170!!!
So.........you're saying that Rusedski, Krajicek, and philipopussis served in the 150 - 155 mph range?
Exaggerate much?
Sorry, I forgot to whom I was responding.
I watched the LA open in july..
Sam Querry vs. Haas
followed by:
Courier vs. Chang
Sam Querry - 1st serve: 125-135, 2nd serve: 80-95
Haas - 1st serve: 105-120, 2nd serve: 90-103
Courier - 1st serve: 105-120, 2nd serve: 77-95 (but one at 55 mph!)
Chang - 1st serve: 95-115, 2nd serve: 75-80
Courier's 2nd serve was the most impressive of all 4.. most kick and bite..
But Courier's first serve easily averaged 110+ mph.. I guess the better? radar gun and modern racquets help.
OH no! Listen to the troll! Ignore your eyes. Ignore common sense. Ignore a 2 steps slower Agassi still competing! Courier would get DESTROYED! Couldn't win a game! LOL.
WOW. He started 'lifting weights"???! ROFL. Priceless. Like the girls in the Stanford study I suppose! What can one say to this?
I guess the better? radar gun and modern racquets help.
Why does this guy, and Chopin, hate people so much?
So.........you're saying that Rusedski, Krajicek, and philipopussis served in the 150 - 155 mph range?
Exaggerate much?
Sorry, I forgot to whom I was responding.
I am fairly confidant that it is mostly the radar. I serve about as fast with a wooden racquet as I do with my normal one.
I was as surprised as anyone, but less than 5mph difference.
J
Sorry, I don't often visit this section of the boards.
Thank you for helping me adjust.
How long does it usually take in here before you can batter down that inner voice that we call logic?
J
LOL. I'm still working on it, though reading the posts here will eventually lead to madness for any well-informed, rational poster....
I said "up to 170," not on average.
He's just a troll Rabbit. Not a particularly good one at that.
Datacipher said:I had said 10-20mph from the early ATP radar to the fastest guns today. I think that anyone knowing the data will find that a reasonable proposition, and it's right in line with what we see from the servers who actually lived through that era to now. eg. Courier, Mcenroe, Agassi, Sampras etc. Really the entire generation. Unless they ALL gained the speed after retirement because they started lifting weights ;-)
Datacipher said:Of course, to get to 170mph, you'd have to take the high end of the range I gave, and add it to a 150mph serve from 1990, hard to do, since nobody hit anywhere close to that. And of course, if Chopin knew tennis, he'd know that the players he mentioned weren't even getting their serves recorded at that time. By 1992, Krajicek was making a run up the rankings, and hitting one of the biggest flat serves around, generally getting about 118-124mph on his fastest serves. Though he would occasionally hit one in the high 120's. One year (93?, I'd have to check), he hit the fastest serve of the year at about 131mph.
Todays faster serve speeds are a product of the radar being more accurate, and picking up the speeds earlier.
Andy Murray wouldn't be hitting 137mph on 1991 radar.
J
Jolly is a sick beastI am fairly confidant that it is mostly the radar. I serve about as fast with a wooden racquet as I do with my normal one.
I was as surprised as anyone, but less than 5mph difference.
J
I saw Courier play WTT a while back and he got trounced and look horrible. The level of play on the senior tour, quite frankly, is a joke.
I laugh hysterically when I hear people argue that these old pros could go deep in a draw at Wimbledon today--they'd be lucky to win a few challenger matches. It's nothing against them, but they're way, way past the age where they could compete professionally.
Come on--Todd Martin takes most of these guys to school.
Senior Tour=Nostalgic $$ Trap
I am fairly confidant that it is mostly the radar. I serve about as fast with a wooden racquet as I do with my normal one.
I was as surprised as anyone, but less than 5mph difference.
J
No, they are serving harder. I serve 10+ mph harder now than I did 20 years ago.
It is a matter of racquet technology and fitness training/weightlifting.
Radar has been accurate for years. Perhaps if we were comparing, say, 1940 to 2009 then there would be a significant difference. But comparing 1990-2009...very little advancement in accuracy.
(as an aside, if you can prove to me that radar was 10-25 mph innacurate back in the 80's/90's, some of us might have some speeding tickets we could challenge!!!)
this is your OPINION. It is a FACT, today's radar guns measure speed much more accuretley than gunds from the 90s. It has been discussed and PROVEN in studies. I would link you to them, but since you know it all you can find them yourself.
Yes, I agree....how then could...
An old and past prime Agassi continued to compete and win against so much better servers?
An ancient John McEnroe won a doubles event serving in the 120s? His serve never hit the MPH when he was #1 in the world, at least according to the guns of the day...
Just watching a video of Courier vs Mcenroe at the US Open 1992. It seems the majority of his serves are around the 100mph mark.
By todays standards that seems pretty slow - anyone care to clarify why?
this is your OPINION. It is a FACT, today's radar guns measure speed much more accuretley than gunds from the 90s. It has been discussed and PROVEN in studies. I would link you to them, but since you know it all you can find them yourself.
The difference with a speeding car is that it is not slowing down. A tennis ball starts to slow down from the time it's struck, so any technology that can capture the ball's movement closer to the point of impact will show a higher mph.(as an aside, if you can prove to me that radar was 10-25 mph innacurate back in the 80's/90's, some of us might have some speeding tickets we could challenge!!!)
Allow me to assume, for a moment, that the old guns were far less accurate than they are today.
If the old guns were innacurate, then they would be innaccurate on both ends of the scale. So an actual 115 mph serve might read 108 OR it might read 122. Thus we would expect to see readings 'back in the day' that are higher than they are today. And some that were lower.
If racquet technology and weightlifting have not improved the serve, then we would expect to have seen the big servers of yesteryear with some 160-170 mph serves on those guns.
Radar error would err on both ends of the scale. Not just on the low end.
It seems that the goal of the claim that radar guns are less accurate than today is one of the following:
1) To claim that weightlifting does not improve performance
2) To claim that racquet technology has not improved performance
3) To claim that the pros of yesteryear hit just as hard as pros today
4) Some of all of #1-#3 above
The difference with a speeding car is that it is not slowing down. A tennis ball starts to slow down from the time it's struck, so any technology that can capture the ball's movement closer to the point of impact will show a higher mph.
Good point about the handheld guns, and I think Datacipher mentioned that current technology is able to capture the ball closer to impact.Yes, the Tennis Channel's replay of the McEnroe/Borg U.S. Open match showed that speed guns then were hand held by a person at one end of the court. This, combined with the technical deficiencies of the equipment available then was enough to warrant inaccurate readings.
That is a good and logical reason.
Here is my contention, however. In baseball, an older speed gun is just as likely to OVERESTIMATE the pitchers speed as they were to UNDERESTIMATE.
The same issue would hold in baseball as in tennis..in baseball, as the ball leaves the hand, it will slow down.
Either way, thanks for a good and intelligent reason and not the 4th grade ad hominem attacks that Azzurri has resorted to.