A PROPOSAL FOR CHANGING THE RULES OF TENNIS
- Thread starter Markus Kaila
- Start date
Markus Kaila
Rookie
Also I am wondering...
My encyclopedia told that in this way (my 1st message): "The amount of left-handed people is normally around five per cent of the population."
Anyhow it is of no use to argue about this detail!
Also I am wondering at your fact! And perhaps such left-handed top-players a few years ago like Ivanisevic, Korda, Rusedski, Rios, Muster are wondering at the same thing (Besides there are in the history of tennis some real famous names: Laver, Fraser, Connors, Vilas, McEnroe, Tanner and so on.): Why are the present lefties much worse tennis-players than they were although there is still that remarkable advantage ? You can read my messages concerning this point in the first half of this thread, too. A symmetric tennis-court for lefties and "righties" would finish these useless speculations.
Finally I would like to tell that probably and fortunately there is something more in tennis than only serving into the ad-court!
rhubarb said:
My encyclopedia told that in this way (my 1st message): "The amount of left-handed people is normally around five per cent of the population."
Anyhow it is of no use to argue about this detail!
Also I am wondering at your fact! And perhaps such left-handed top-players a few years ago like Ivanisevic, Korda, Rusedski, Rios, Muster are wondering at the same thing (Besides there are in the history of tennis some real famous names: Laver, Fraser, Connors, Vilas, McEnroe, Tanner and so on.): Why are the present lefties much worse tennis-players than they were although there is still that remarkable advantage ? You can read my messages concerning this point in the first half of this thread, too. A symmetric tennis-court for lefties and "righties" would finish these useless speculations.
Finally I would like to tell that probably and fortunately there is something more in tennis than only serving into the ad-court!
Lefties have their advantage not because they can serve out wide on the ad side; righties can do that on the deuce side, and more points are played on the deuce side. The bigger points are played on the ad side, but more points are played on the deuce side.
What gives lefties an advantage is that their sidespin is opposite what everyone is used to - it's just completely different, people misjudge the ball and the bounce. People aren't *used* to it.
That'll stay no matter how you monkey with the court.
What gives lefties an advantage is that their sidespin is opposite what everyone is used to - it's just completely different, people misjudge the ball and the bounce. People aren't *used* to it.
That'll stay no matter how you monkey with the court.
Markus Kaila
Rookie
something like ONE point more per set on the deuce side....
How many more? The probable/obvious amount is ONE point more to the deuce side in the WHOLE set. And that means.... simply nothing!
And don't forget that the ad-court is easier for left-handers also in returning than for right-handers! Therefore besides holding their serve also even breaking is easier for lefties.
Max G. said:
How many more? The probable/obvious amount is ONE point more to the deuce side in the WHOLE set. And that means.... simply nothing!
And don't forget that the ad-court is easier for left-handers also in returning than for right-handers! Therefore besides holding their serve also even breaking is easier for lefties.
Re: Also I am wondering...
Perhaps my 20% is quite a high estimate. I've heard figures between 10 and 20%. This UK site http://www.left-handersday.com/tour2.html says 13%. I do think 5% is very low, but as you say, not really worth arguing about
Yes it is strange. As a leftie myself, I was quite pleased in the 1980s to see so many left-handers at the top of the game as McEnroe, Connors and Navratilova (although she's actually right-handed, just plays leftie). I wonder what, if anything, has happened to the game over the last 20 years to reduce the leftie-dominance?
Markus Kaila said:
Perhaps my 20% is quite a high estimate. I've heard figures between 10 and 20%. This UK site http://www.left-handersday.com/tour2.html says 13%. I do think 5% is very low, but as you say, not really worth arguing about
Markus Kaila said:
Yes it is strange. As a leftie myself, I was quite pleased in the 1980s to see so many left-handers at the top of the game as McEnroe, Connors and Navratilova (although she's actually right-handed, just plays leftie). I wonder what, if anything, has happened to the game over the last 20 years to reduce the leftie-dominance?
Markus Kaila
Rookie
Something about injuries
"Worth mentioning is that one might also expect fewer injuries ( ankles, knees, back) as the angle of the first two or three shots will inevitably be narrower."
The above quotation is from my first message in this topic. Perhaps it needs some clarification.
Nobody can deny that there are too many different injuries in tennis nowadays.
To my mind every effort to decrease these injuries is worth serious disussion.
Besides I am afraid that these are increasing all the time... Of course I cannot be sure
but it is really at least possible that the proposed tennis court is also healthier than the present one. (Anyhow my orthopedist who is a better tennis player than I told me: "It is quite possible that you are right in that!" Many greetings to you, Heikki!)
My argumentation:
In the top level tennis - specially in the service return - the
acceleration in side direction by the receiver using the new court will be smaller due to
the narrower service court, which of course decreases the risk of
injuries. The human being anatomy: ankles, knees as well as hips, (backs?) has
been planned to stand relatively big acceleration forces, but only to
forward, not so much in side direction. To the both (left and
right) direction the one step narrower service court will, by all
means, remarkably decreases this player´s unnatural exertion in side
direction (Or have you heard that for example sprinters would have
much these injuries?). Players can have more time to use even a
healthier closed stance when returning and there is also a very great
indirect consequence: A need to build more those....more and more
artificial tackier hard courts would decrease remarkably. Now there
is an opposite trend in this respect, I havn't played ever on Rebound
Ace (used in AO) but I can imagine....
This court:
COULD decrease those injuries!
And as a link:
http://www.3malli.net/kenttae.htm
"Worth mentioning is that one might also expect fewer injuries ( ankles, knees, back) as the angle of the first two or three shots will inevitably be narrower."
The above quotation is from my first message in this topic. Perhaps it needs some clarification.
Nobody can deny that there are too many different injuries in tennis nowadays.
To my mind every effort to decrease these injuries is worth serious disussion.
Besides I am afraid that these are increasing all the time... Of course I cannot be sure
but it is really at least possible that the proposed tennis court is also healthier than the present one. (Anyhow my orthopedist who is a better tennis player than I told me: "It is quite possible that you are right in that!" Many greetings to you, Heikki!)
My argumentation:
In the top level tennis - specially in the service return - the
acceleration in side direction by the receiver using the new court will be smaller due to
the narrower service court, which of course decreases the risk of
injuries. The human being anatomy: ankles, knees as well as hips, (backs?) has
been planned to stand relatively big acceleration forces, but only to
forward, not so much in side direction. To the both (left and
right) direction the one step narrower service court will, by all
means, remarkably decreases this player´s unnatural exertion in side
direction (Or have you heard that for example sprinters would have
much these injuries?). Players can have more time to use even a
healthier closed stance when returning and there is also a very great
indirect consequence: A need to build more those....more and more
artificial tackier hard courts would decrease remarkably. Now there
is an opposite trend in this respect, I havn't played ever on Rebound
Ace (used in AO) but I can imagine....
This court:
COULD decrease those injuries!
And as a link:
http://www.3malli.net/kenttae.htm
Last edited:
D
DJMK
Guest
Blah, blah, blah...
As has been mentioned...
If negating the speed of the serve is the goal...forget all the other mindless and ill-conceived ideas...
By FAR the SIMPLIEST and least overall disruptive change would be to shorten the service box!!
DID anyone HEAR??
Shorten the service box...
Shorten the service box...
Shorten the service box...
SHORTEN the blinking service box for chrissake!!!!
It's been mentoned here and by The Mac Man several times. It's a marvellously simple and elegant solution.
WHY bother with anything else??
Can ANYONE here tell me WHY?
Shortening the service box would effectively accomplish the goal of slowing down the serve without intruding on ANY other aspect of the game and would require NO rule changes, other than changing the dimension from the net to the service line. Nothing else in the game is changed or disturbed. Players would have to put more spin and less pace on the ball and the amount of speed reduction can be tailored by how much the service box is shortened.
Maybe this just too simple a concept for this complicated techno-generation to grasp.
Before you go mucking with the ball, racquets, and touting multiple service courts, etc...
Repeat after me:
Shorten the service box...
Shorten the service box...
Shorten the service box...
GOT IT??
Any lightbulbs go off in any heads here?
Latah!
DJMK
As has been mentioned...
If negating the speed of the serve is the goal...forget all the other mindless and ill-conceived ideas...
By FAR the SIMPLIEST and least overall disruptive change would be to shorten the service box!!
DID anyone HEAR??
Shorten the service box...
Shorten the service box...
Shorten the service box...
SHORTEN the blinking service box for chrissake!!!!
It's been mentoned here and by The Mac Man several times. It's a marvellously simple and elegant solution.
WHY bother with anything else??
Can ANYONE here tell me WHY?
Shortening the service box would effectively accomplish the goal of slowing down the serve without intruding on ANY other aspect of the game and would require NO rule changes, other than changing the dimension from the net to the service line. Nothing else in the game is changed or disturbed. Players would have to put more spin and less pace on the ball and the amount of speed reduction can be tailored by how much the service box is shortened.
Maybe this just too simple a concept for this complicated techno-generation to grasp.
Before you go mucking with the ball, racquets, and touting multiple service courts, etc...
Repeat after me:
Shorten the service box...
Shorten the service box...
Shorten the service box...
GOT IT??
Any lightbulbs go off in any heads here?
Latah!
DJMK
raftermania
Banned
Thanks for the repetition.
Shortening the service box would improve the pro game but, it would make the even harder than already is for beginners.
Shortening the service box would improve the pro game but, it would make the even harder than already is for beginners.
D
DJMK
Guest
Whyyy???
I have coached MANY beginning tennis players of all ages and I will challenge anyone who would suggest that shortening the service box a few inches would make it significantly harder or even noticably harder for most beginners.
Beginners start by "blooping" the ball over the net with virtually no pace. To get it into a shorter box they would compensate by simply learning to bloop it a bit softer. [And less pace on the serve IS the goal, REMEMBER? I hesitate to mention that for fear of being repetitious.] What serves the pro also goes for the tyro.
And sometimes a smaller playing area and target is better. In coaching beginners I often use a MUCH "shorter" court overall, in the form of "mini tennis", as a teaching tool to force them to focus on touch and accuracy rather than power.
It should also be borne in mind that what works against the server works in favor of the returner - which is our goal here, right? So, what you are saying in effect is that, right from the beginner stages, we are making things a bit more comfortable for the returner and harder for the server? Right? Oh, OK!
Using your reasoning, I rest my case - we have achieved our goal right from level 1.0!
DJMK
I have coached MANY beginning tennis players of all ages and I will challenge anyone who would suggest that shortening the service box a few inches would make it significantly harder or even noticably harder for most beginners.
Beginners start by "blooping" the ball over the net with virtually no pace. To get it into a shorter box they would compensate by simply learning to bloop it a bit softer. [And less pace on the serve IS the goal, REMEMBER? I hesitate to mention that for fear of being repetitious.] What serves the pro also goes for the tyro.
And sometimes a smaller playing area and target is better. In coaching beginners I often use a MUCH "shorter" court overall, in the form of "mini tennis", as a teaching tool to force them to focus on touch and accuracy rather than power.
It should also be borne in mind that what works against the server works in favor of the returner - which is our goal here, right? So, what you are saying in effect is that, right from the beginner stages, we are making things a bit more comfortable for the returner and harder for the server? Right? Oh, OK!
Using your reasoning, I rest my case - we have achieved our goal right from level 1.0!
DJMK
D
DJMK
Guest
Re: Injuries....
Oh...
And shortening the service box also addresses the injury references here...
A slower serve will require less explosive movement to get to.
DJMK
Oh...
And shortening the service box also addresses the injury references here...
A slower serve will require less explosive movement to get to.
DJMK
verdasco67
Professional
amarone said:
Feliciano Lopez =P (currently ranked 21)
verdasco67
Professional
amarone said:
Feliciano Lopez =P (currently ranked 21)
Shortening the service box requires repainting the court markings. It is thus a very far-fetched proposition.
It has a few other problems:
1) The game would only be left with one viable serve - the kick serve
2) The serve would be even harder for beginners. There would be less margin of error - floating the serve in means hitting the net more often.
It has a few other problems:
1) The game would only be left with one viable serve - the kick serve
2) The serve would be even harder for beginners. There would be less margin of error - floating the serve in means hitting the net more often.
D
Deleted member 3771
Guest
Babe shorten the service box proportionately to a person's height, since it's only the tall people who have an advantage on serve-they could have an adjustable service box line. Or make the tall people stand further back to serve, mabe 20cm further back for every inch they exceed 6 feet. lol
D
Deleted member 3771
Guest
I meant 'Mabe' not Babe
Ok, as I lefty myself, I heard so many times about the claim that there is an advantage for lefties because of the scoring scheme and the court serving positions but no one provided solid evidence and I am kind of tired of it. So I did some mathematics using probability (a little rusty, having not done it for years) to prove this .... and interestingly if my math is correct (experts feel free to fix any problems), there is indeed a very very slight advantage, the magnitude of 0.002.
The constraining conditions/assumptions are:
a) everything being equal for a leftly and righty player (skills, techniques, groundstrokes, serves, etc)
b) a certain %chance of the point won by ther server (usually >50%)
c) a certain additional % advantage of the point won by server if able to serve wide for lefty on ad/righty on deuce of equal effect.
Results, considering the permutations & probabilities of most common winning situations:
-The chance for a lefty or a righty winning a love game is equally probable
-The chance for a righty winning @ game-15 is slightly more likely than a lefty
-The chance for a lefty winning @ game-30 is slight more likely than a righty
-The chance of winning after a deuce is almost equal, lefty has very slimly more likely
Adding all these common winning situations they almost balance out equal but lefty has a 0.002 advantage...
http://home.comcast.net/~simony9/Tennis-Lefty-vs-Righty.xls
The constraining conditions/assumptions are:
a) everything being equal for a leftly and righty player (skills, techniques, groundstrokes, serves, etc)
b) a certain %chance of the point won by ther server (usually >50%)
c) a certain additional % advantage of the point won by server if able to serve wide for lefty on ad/righty on deuce of equal effect.
Results, considering the permutations & probabilities of most common winning situations:
-The chance for a lefty or a righty winning a love game is equally probable
-The chance for a righty winning @ game-15 is slightly more likely than a lefty
-The chance for a lefty winning @ game-30 is slight more likely than a righty
-The chance of winning after a deuce is almost equal, lefty has very slimly more likely
Adding all these common winning situations they almost balance out equal but lefty has a 0.002 advantage...
http://home.comcast.net/~simony9/Tennis-Lefty-vs-Righty.xls
omg, changing the rules to rule out the "lefty advantage", buddy r u on crack? First of all look at the % of ppl in the world that is lefty and plays tennis. We are a rare breed and that is the problem, mostly because ppl are not use to seeing us play so is like one big change up for them. As far as the lefty spin are deadlier cause of the earth's rotation (search the forum, someone else posted this), dude do you know how hard it is for us to get there. Most manuals and teachers comes in righty, and most of the instruction we got was "just do every thing opposite". I had one friend who was trying to teach me badminton that just gave up in frustration and told me figure it out on my own. Might was well go to the MLB and ask them to reduce the strike zone for lefty pitchers.
Interesting
I don't think the lefties are a problem (they add nice variety to the game), but I do think the proposal is interesting. I'd like to see some pro matches tried with this format. There would have to be a lot of trials before anyone could seriously consider altering the game this way. At the club level play, there is absolutely no problem about how the game is played now. But at the pro level, this proposal may be worth an experiment. But I'm not sure the problem is big enough to mess much with the game as it is. If this ever came to be, think how much harder it would be to compare "todays" greats with the greats of yesteryear. No, I doubt that it is worth tampering with the game. But as an interesting experiment, might be nice to see.
I don't think the lefties are a problem (they add nice variety to the game), but I do think the proposal is interesting. I'd like to see some pro matches tried with this format. There would have to be a lot of trials before anyone could seriously consider altering the game this way. At the club level play, there is absolutely no problem about how the game is played now. But at the pro level, this proposal may be worth an experiment. But I'm not sure the problem is big enough to mess much with the game as it is. If this ever came to be, think how much harder it would be to compare "todays" greats with the greats of yesteryear. No, I doubt that it is worth tampering with the game. But as an interesting experiment, might be nice to see.
chad shaver
Semi-Pro
Damned thread won't die.....
Brettolius
Professional
do we all love tennis? are we here talking about tennis? as it is? what's the problem then? we all apparently dig tennis just fine. AS IS.
D
Deleted member 3771
Guest
Yes we like it as it is. But this thread is just about throwing up a few alternatives.
Since this thread is about trying to 'diminish the dominating role of the serve in tennis'
I have an idea.
What about if the reciever could choose which side of the service box they wanted to recieve serve for each service game. That would make things interesting and take a bit of the advantage away from the server. Although it would be mostly mental.
Since this thread is about trying to 'diminish the dominating role of the serve in tennis'
I have an idea.
What about if the reciever could choose which side of the service box they wanted to recieve serve for each service game. That would make things interesting and take a bit of the advantage away from the server. Although it would be mostly mental.
tricky nicky
Banned
oh please man give it a rest will ya
something like this was posted on steve g forum.
it got hammered there too
regards
tricky
something like this was posted on steve g forum.
it got hammered there too
regards
tricky
raftermania
Banned
If you compare a beginner/intermediate game to the pro game you will notice that there is far more breaks of service in the beginner/intermediate game.
If you make serving even harder, then holding serve will be almost impossible for entry level player and thus the game be unable to attract as many players!
You're pretty hardcore about this, what is the impetus behind all this fervor?
If you make serving even harder, then holding serve will be almost impossible for entry level player and thus the game be unable to attract as many players!
You're pretty hardcore about this, what is the impetus behind all this fervor?
Markus Kaila
Rookie
comparability
Joehight,
Your thoughts are rather close to my ones, but I don't understand at all this:
Are you all the time comparing (or even sometimes!) R. Laver to I. Lendl or Lendl to G. Kuerten or Kuerten to P. Sampras or Sampras to... R. Emerson...McEnroe,...N. Fraser... Edberg...Hoad...Tilden... Bueno?
Besides you can read my opinion from another thread:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=257854&postcount=41
Joehight,
Your thoughts are rather close to my ones, but I don't understand at all this:
joehight said:
Are you all the time comparing (or even sometimes!) R. Laver to I. Lendl or Lendl to G. Kuerten or Kuerten to P. Sampras or Sampras to... R. Emerson...McEnroe,...N. Fraser... Edberg...Hoad...Tilden... Bueno?
Besides you can read my opinion from another thread:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=257854&postcount=41
Yes, I like think of how Gonzalez or Laver
Yes, it's nice to try to think about how the past greats would play vs today's stars. But I read your previous thread and you make a very good point. The game has evolved and changed in so many ways. Probably the biggest change has been the racquets. Wouldn't it be nice to see some of today's players using wood racquets? Problem is it wouldn't be fair to them to have them play just a few matches with wood racquets, because you would need a lot of time to adapt your game to a totally different kind of racquet - different grip, less open stance, etc.
The next biggest change is probably the surfaces - less grass and clay and more hard and rubberized courts.
All in all though, it's a great game. Was great then and is great now. Still, experimental matches with your scheme might be nice to see.
Markus Kaila said:
Yes, it's nice to try to think about how the past greats would play vs today's stars. But I read your previous thread and you make a very good point. The game has evolved and changed in so many ways. Probably the biggest change has been the racquets. Wouldn't it be nice to see some of today's players using wood racquets? Problem is it wouldn't be fair to them to have them play just a few matches with wood racquets, because you would need a lot of time to adapt your game to a totally different kind of racquet - different grip, less open stance, etc.
The next biggest change is probably the surfaces - less grass and clay and more hard and rubberized courts.
All in all though, it's a great game. Was great then and is great now. Still, experimental matches with your scheme might be nice to see.
West Coast Ace
G.O.A.T.
No
After being a Read-Only user of this board, this thread prompted me to get an id.
First off: there is NOTHING wrong with tennis. Some people seem to think declining rating means there is something that requires corrective action. The game of tennis is just like everything else - some people enjoy it and some people don't. The early 80's excitement was a fluke, not a norm to be measured against - a number of players, from different parts of the world and with varied personalities mixed together to form a very compelling product. Any artificial attempt to change the game to get more fans is going to fail. It may bring some new fans - but it will alienate many long time fans. More on how to make the game more popular later.
Changing the rackets by rolling back technology, limiting the head size, etc... - dead lssue - not going to happen. Don't any of you read the news? The PGA (golf) tried to ban square grooves in irons a few years ago. They got mauled in court. As someone else (mojo) said - they market their product based on the fact that Joe Hacker can play the same racket his favorite pro does. The tennis racket manufacturers would hire the same lawyers and make the same case. I doubt the tennis ruling bodies would even bother - they'd back down.
We just saw the answer to short rallies - it's the TEXTURE of the surface! Even though 'Rusty' didn't like the surface, the Rebound Ace provided some great tennis. Sure JJ aced AA 50 times, but that was an anomoly. Andre was conserving energy - he was willing to give up aces to save energy to win the match - and have enough energy in case he had to play 7 matches (Roger took care of that for him). A medium surface is the answer. I guarantee that once Timmy Henman retires the Wimbledon committee will let the grass grow a little higher to induce more rallies. The US Open will keep their courts fast as long as Roddick and Serena are our top players. But they could easily add some grit to those surfaces to slow them down if they wish after Roddick and Serena retire. The French actually sped up their courts - anyone old enough to remember the finals from the late 70's and early 80's knows this. And with Monfils power game they may scrape those courts even more in the future. And Markus, mentioning the Kuerten - Flip match isn't relevant. Two guys with long strokes who refuse to shorten them to get serves back - not an event to change the sport over.
Now, here's how to improve ratings. Take all the top 50 players to a NASCAR event. No, not to learn how to drive their Porsches and Ferraris better. To see firsthand how to treat your customers! The NASCAR management 'got it' and convinced their drivers that treating your customers with respect will keep them coming back and lead to positive word of mouth that will attract more fans. NASCAR drivers sign autographs, then hop in their cars, risking their lives. So I don't want to hear that the players need their quiet time and can't spend a little free time with their fans. Obviously security would be an issue for the ladies - but that's doable - Playboy Playmates appear at public functions and don't get assaulted. One other thing the tours should do is either sell some of the tickets in the best seats to the 'real' tennis fans - not just give them to corporate fat cats. Or have a certain % of matches with the big names on the 3rd and 4th largest courts.
And Markus, your lefty advantage premise is not well thought out. If valid, John McEnroe would have won the majority of the majors and Pete Sampras would be a distant 2nd. Truth is Mac really didn't win that many - and if the officials had stood up to his poor behavior, he might only have 2 or 3. The only real advantage they have is that because there not as many of them it's harder to adapt to their games. The game itself is symmetrical. Period.
Sorry for the long post...
After being a Read-Only user of this board, this thread prompted me to get an id.
First off: there is NOTHING wrong with tennis. Some people seem to think declining rating means there is something that requires corrective action. The game of tennis is just like everything else - some people enjoy it and some people don't. The early 80's excitement was a fluke, not a norm to be measured against - a number of players, from different parts of the world and with varied personalities mixed together to form a very compelling product. Any artificial attempt to change the game to get more fans is going to fail. It may bring some new fans - but it will alienate many long time fans. More on how to make the game more popular later.
Changing the rackets by rolling back technology, limiting the head size, etc... - dead lssue - not going to happen. Don't any of you read the news? The PGA (golf) tried to ban square grooves in irons a few years ago. They got mauled in court. As someone else (mojo) said - they market their product based on the fact that Joe Hacker can play the same racket his favorite pro does. The tennis racket manufacturers would hire the same lawyers and make the same case. I doubt the tennis ruling bodies would even bother - they'd back down.
We just saw the answer to short rallies - it's the TEXTURE of the surface! Even though 'Rusty' didn't like the surface, the Rebound Ace provided some great tennis. Sure JJ aced AA 50 times, but that was an anomoly. Andre was conserving energy - he was willing to give up aces to save energy to win the match - and have enough energy in case he had to play 7 matches (Roger took care of that for him). A medium surface is the answer. I guarantee that once Timmy Henman retires the Wimbledon committee will let the grass grow a little higher to induce more rallies. The US Open will keep their courts fast as long as Roddick and Serena are our top players. But they could easily add some grit to those surfaces to slow them down if they wish after Roddick and Serena retire. The French actually sped up their courts - anyone old enough to remember the finals from the late 70's and early 80's knows this. And with Monfils power game they may scrape those courts even more in the future. And Markus, mentioning the Kuerten - Flip match isn't relevant. Two guys with long strokes who refuse to shorten them to get serves back - not an event to change the sport over.
Now, here's how to improve ratings. Take all the top 50 players to a NASCAR event. No, not to learn how to drive their Porsches and Ferraris better. To see firsthand how to treat your customers! The NASCAR management 'got it' and convinced their drivers that treating your customers with respect will keep them coming back and lead to positive word of mouth that will attract more fans. NASCAR drivers sign autographs, then hop in their cars, risking their lives. So I don't want to hear that the players need their quiet time and can't spend a little free time with their fans. Obviously security would be an issue for the ladies - but that's doable - Playboy Playmates appear at public functions and don't get assaulted. One other thing the tours should do is either sell some of the tickets in the best seats to the 'real' tennis fans - not just give them to corporate fat cats. Or have a certain % of matches with the big names on the 3rd and 4th largest courts.
And Markus, your lefty advantage premise is not well thought out. If valid, John McEnroe would have won the majority of the majors and Pete Sampras would be a distant 2nd. Truth is Mac really didn't win that many - and if the officials had stood up to his poor behavior, he might only have 2 or 3. The only real advantage they have is that because there not as many of them it's harder to adapt to their games. The game itself is symmetrical. Period.
Sorry for the long post...
tricky nicky
Banned
A most enjoyable post by west coast ace, very well structured argument.
in particular the bit about players signing autographs and changing surface textures.
Now can we close this thread now
regards
tricky
in particular the bit about players signing autographs and changing surface textures.
Now can we close this thread now
regards
tricky
Markus Kaila
Rookie
Are you sure that this is nonsense?
Is it nonsense that by means of the narrower service court(s) you could see more baseline tennis in Wimbledon; more volley tennis in French Open (clay); less injuries in AO (and US Open); new surprising tactics (return & volley); new dominating super stars, because by decreasing the game of chance the best would be "more easily" best (Now tennis is the only sport in the world where the best ones can lose easily to the 100-200th (in a single match) ones.); new eager tennis enthusiasts (as players and/or spectators) and so on...?
I know that there are people who are laughing (That is really true!) at tennis because of its lazy pacing up and down between service courts. But if you think that it is the most essential and finest part of tennis I cannot do anything. It is a matter of taste. Besides of course calmly walking tennis players are nicer to see than severely struggling sweaty players...
Ariel said:
Is it nonsense that by means of the narrower service court(s) you could see more baseline tennis in Wimbledon; more volley tennis in French Open (clay); less injuries in AO (and US Open); new surprising tactics (return & volley); new dominating super stars, because by decreasing the game of chance the best would be "more easily" best (Now tennis is the only sport in the world where the best ones can lose easily to the 100-200th (in a single match) ones.); new eager tennis enthusiasts (as players and/or spectators) and so on...?
I know that there are people who are laughing (That is really true!) at tennis because of its lazy pacing up and down between service courts. But if you think that it is the most essential and finest part of tennis I cannot do anything. It is a matter of taste. Besides of course calmly walking tennis players are nicer to see than severely struggling sweaty players...
raftermania
Banned
Markus, have you build such a court and tested it yet? I think it is very hard to say who is right in theory - have you tested it rigorously at all with tennis players??? I think that is the only way to solve this dispute.
West Coast Ace
G.O.A.T.
In context
Bottom line: there is nothing so wrong with the game that requires a major change to the layout of the court, racket material, or rules. A little tweaking here and there (see my previous post) - mostly in the marketing of the game.
Joe, that comment was relative to Markus' premise is that left-handers dominate the game. Therefore for someone of McEnroe's skill level, 7 isn't that many - according to Markus, the advantage Mac had being a lefty and playing on grass, he should have NEVER lost at Wimbledon.joehight said:
Bottom line: there is nothing so wrong with the game that requires a major change to the layout of the court, racket material, or rules. A little tweaking here and there (see my previous post) - mostly in the marketing of the game.
Markus Kaila
Rookie
testing the court
If I remember right there is also in this thread something about my experiencies, but I copy here a text (as such it is) which is even today in a quite silent tennis forum. Sorry for my varying level of English! By the way to my mind this is not any dispute but conversation!
**********************
Because I want to prove that the model of 3 is not mere theory I would like to tell about my experimentations with the model of 3. It is really simply and you don't need any ropes or tapes and so on to that. I experimented lastly the model of 3 three months ago. By the way the first experimentation happened in the summer of 1998. And the model of 3 has been all the time getting better since then. Although it has been exactly the same all this time.
Experimentation is also very easy therefore that you probably have a suitable measure with you when you are going to the tennis court. The ordinary tennis racket is 27 in. and the breadth of the service court of the model of 3 is 3 yd. It is the same as 4 times 27 (=108 in.=3 yd.). Thus you only have to measure 2 lengths of the racket from the present centre line along the service line to the both directions and mark these points. I have used small pieces of old tennis balls as marks. (Tennisballs are very durable!) Small pieces don't disturb playing and two halves of a ball I have put under the net. By means of these together 6 marks you can perceive accurately enough the service courts for experimentation use. Perhaps the service courts look at first narrow, but the present service court is exactly only 2 "rackets" broader. There is also a picture at:
http://www.3malli.net/index.html
I played in this way with my semiregular tennispartner one hour session two months ago. I am in general clearly better mainly because of my better and more many-sided serve. That's why I don't have in general difficulties to keep my service. 6-2 is perhaps the most common result. Now the match was very even. OK. perhaps I was not at my best. But it really is obvious that the significance of the serve diminish on all the levels of tennis. Getting into the second service means also more difficulties for me as for everybody in the new system. Therefore I had to serve with care the first serve and not to try to get aces (on my level of course "almost aces"). Maybe for the same reason I served perhaps only one double fault. A couple of times we have a little quarrel about the score and of course the model of 3 causes them at least in the beginning.
About the fastening rhythm of the game it is difficult to tell anything exact. It was the first indoor tennis hour session of the season (carpet) and the tempo was considerable compared to the clay season. Of course we didn't have ball boys and perhaps it was even so that I really want to lengthen the periods between the points at least in my service turn. But maybe it is allowed at my age.... All in all, also on club level you can obtain more with your tennis. Perhaps it is too easy nowadays to get the better of the opponent by means of the serve. Serving is so easy when you have no preassures. The model of 3 requires a much higher degree of concentration as to the service and of course to increasing all round playing. I noticed that I have absolutely improve my backhand if or when they take into use the model of 3. But I don't want to blame the model of 3 for that.
We both were right-handers, but the present scoring system system gives an enormous advantage for left-handers only on pro level, but not necessarily on our level. And we couldn't test that point at all.
The partner's opinion: "Why not?"
http://www.3malli.net/index.html
I of course agree: "Why not the model of 3?"
Until this day I have not heard a single "reasonable" answer!
PS. Perhaps it is not clear for everybody that serving system of the model 3:
The dividing line between service courts will be completely abolished. The area will be divided into THREE equally large service courts as opposed to the two of the present-day rules. Respective one-third marks will be made on the baseline. A SINGLE service will in practice be executed quite similarly as today, but the server will be standing BETWEEN the one-third marks and the respective service court will be the one-third court exactly OPPOSITE. Accordingly, there will be no deuce or advantage courts in a singles match, the service court will remain the same throughout the match, only one third narrower than previously. The server will naturally be free to choose his serving position between the ONE-THIRD marks.
The doubles application would analogically be that the server will always serve from between the sideline and the one-third mark, only not diagonally but straight to the opposing service court. It is a matter of taste whether the first service will be executed from the left or right side. Western thinking would prefer the logic of the first service being served from the left - as seen from the server s point of view.
raftermania said:
If I remember right there is also in this thread something about my experiencies, but I copy here a text (as such it is) which is even today in a quite silent tennis forum. Sorry for my varying level of English! By the way to my mind this is not any dispute but conversation!
**********************
Because I want to prove that the model of 3 is not mere theory I would like to tell about my experimentations with the model of 3. It is really simply and you don't need any ropes or tapes and so on to that. I experimented lastly the model of 3 three months ago. By the way the first experimentation happened in the summer of 1998. And the model of 3 has been all the time getting better since then. Although it has been exactly the same all this time.
Experimentation is also very easy therefore that you probably have a suitable measure with you when you are going to the tennis court. The ordinary tennis racket is 27 in. and the breadth of the service court of the model of 3 is 3 yd. It is the same as 4 times 27 (=108 in.=3 yd.). Thus you only have to measure 2 lengths of the racket from the present centre line along the service line to the both directions and mark these points. I have used small pieces of old tennis balls as marks. (Tennisballs are very durable!) Small pieces don't disturb playing and two halves of a ball I have put under the net. By means of these together 6 marks you can perceive accurately enough the service courts for experimentation use. Perhaps the service courts look at first narrow, but the present service court is exactly only 2 "rackets" broader. There is also a picture at:
http://www.3malli.net/index.html
I played in this way with my semiregular tennispartner one hour session two months ago. I am in general clearly better mainly because of my better and more many-sided serve. That's why I don't have in general difficulties to keep my service. 6-2 is perhaps the most common result. Now the match was very even. OK. perhaps I was not at my best. But it really is obvious that the significance of the serve diminish on all the levels of tennis. Getting into the second service means also more difficulties for me as for everybody in the new system. Therefore I had to serve with care the first serve and not to try to get aces (on my level of course "almost aces"). Maybe for the same reason I served perhaps only one double fault. A couple of times we have a little quarrel about the score and of course the model of 3 causes them at least in the beginning.
About the fastening rhythm of the game it is difficult to tell anything exact. It was the first indoor tennis hour session of the season (carpet) and the tempo was considerable compared to the clay season. Of course we didn't have ball boys and perhaps it was even so that I really want to lengthen the periods between the points at least in my service turn. But maybe it is allowed at my age.... All in all, also on club level you can obtain more with your tennis. Perhaps it is too easy nowadays to get the better of the opponent by means of the serve. Serving is so easy when you have no preassures. The model of 3 requires a much higher degree of concentration as to the service and of course to increasing all round playing. I noticed that I have absolutely improve my backhand if or when they take into use the model of 3. But I don't want to blame the model of 3 for that.
We both were right-handers, but the present scoring system system gives an enormous advantage for left-handers only on pro level, but not necessarily on our level. And we couldn't test that point at all.
The partner's opinion: "Why not?"
http://www.3malli.net/index.html
I of course agree: "Why not the model of 3?"
Until this day I have not heard a single "reasonable" answer!
PS. Perhaps it is not clear for everybody that serving system of the model 3:
The dividing line between service courts will be completely abolished. The area will be divided into THREE equally large service courts as opposed to the two of the present-day rules. Respective one-third marks will be made on the baseline. A SINGLE service will in practice be executed quite similarly as today, but the server will be standing BETWEEN the one-third marks and the respective service court will be the one-third court exactly OPPOSITE. Accordingly, there will be no deuce or advantage courts in a singles match, the service court will remain the same throughout the match, only one third narrower than previously. The server will naturally be free to choose his serving position between the ONE-THIRD marks.
The doubles application would analogically be that the server will always serve from between the sideline and the one-third mark, only not diagonally but straight to the opposing service court. It is a matter of taste whether the first service will be executed from the left or right side. Western thinking would prefer the logic of the first service being served from the left - as seen from the server s point of view.
Last edited:
"...but the present scoring system system gives an enormous advantage for left-handers only on pro level..."
C'mon get your facts right!
I disagree.... see my previous post on this thread. I *proved* it the advantage is that oh so very slight 0.002. (since no math experts disputed as of yet, I am assume my calculation is correct
C'mon get your facts right!
I disagree.... see my previous post on this thread. I *proved* it the advantage is that oh so very slight 0.002. (since no math experts disputed as of yet, I am assume my calculation is correct
Markus Kaila
Rookie
JSummers said:"...but the present scoring system system gives an enormous advantage for left-handers only on pro level..."
C'mon get your facts right!
I disagree.... see my previous post on this thread. I *proved* it the advantage is that oh so very slight 0.002. (since no math experts disputed as of yet, I am assume my calculation is correct
I don't know about your facts, but go and ask B. Borg! Besides also J. McEnroe has confessed that he had an..... (at least remarkable) advantage in serving against B. Borg partlly because of Borg's two-handed backhand. The same problem with the ad-court B. Borg had with R. Tanner, but not so much with J. Connors. I have in my home library Borg's (rather early) memoirs. The book is in Finnish, and I cannot copy these parts for you.
West Coast Ace
G.O.A.T.
Don't Bother
JSummers, this guy's mind is made up - he's right and we're all wrong - you're just wasting your time and provoking him to keep up this silliness and waste space on Tennis Warehouse's web server.JSummers said:"...but the present scoring system system gives an enormous advantage for left-handers only on pro level..."
C'mon get your facts right!
I disagree.... see my previous post on this thread. I *proved* it the advantage is that oh so very slight 0.002. (since no math experts disputed as of yet, I am assume my calculation is correct
Markus Kaila
Rookie
All points are not equal!
Nice that you have succeeded in proving by calculating what I have only thought of. But your calculation is based on assumption that every point is equal in importance. Still I am sure that the advantage is greater in reality because all points are not equal. Perhaps you can examine this:
http://members.aol.com/Tennis999/situations.html
JSummers said:
Nice that you have succeeded in proving by calculating what I have only thought of. But your calculation is based on assumption that every point is equal in importance. Still I am sure that the advantage is greater in reality because all points are not equal. Perhaps you can examine this:
http://members.aol.com/Tennis999/situations.html
Similar threads
