Navratilova criticizes lack of racket regulation

Discussion in 'Pros' Racquets and Gear' started by cabernetjunkie, Sep 4, 2006.

  1. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,721
    With all due respect, but watching is not the same thing as doing. If it were, nobody would ever bother having sex again! :mrgreen: LOL

    Old tennis matches look boring to you because it's hard for you to understand what they were doing and why they were doing it since you were never in their shoes. You're probably thinking -"Why didn't he just blast that for a winner from the baseline?". Because the game wasn't played like that then, it was about constructing the point and hitting slow and with touch was part of the strategy to winning. It was about playing smart and not about who can hit the ball the hardest for the longest, which to me, doesn't take a whole lot of brain cells to do.
     
  2. rfprse

    rfprse Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2005
    Messages:
    870
    Though some of her evidences were not chosen well (for example, it's hard to see that she's the best volleyer ever and it seems that the main reason that she can't play her s & v game as well is not the power based on new racquet and strings but her age) and it's poorly argued, I completely agree with her point.
    They need restricitions of the head size and strings. I am not sure going back to wood is a good idea but definitely there must be some limits at least on head size and strings.
     
  3. slack hack

    slack hack Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    152
    ....and still the two top ranked woman volley quite a lot and play with lots of variety. Maybe the up and comers will be inspired.
     
  4. spaceman_spiff

    spaceman_spiff Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,513
    Location:
    The crappest town in Britain
    Sorry, I forgot to add my main point to the post you quoted. I don't think we should switch back to wood or anything similar precisely because of the fact that you and I agree on: the server will have too much of an advantage.

    Everyone is saying that there is no variety anymore, but look at matchups like Karlovic vs. Rochus. With modern rackets and strings, Rochus has a chance and the match could be interesting. But, if you take that away with restrictions that give a huge advantage to the server, guys like Rochus would have absolutely no chance. Eventually, the game would transition to a game dominated almost entirely by tall serve and volleyers on all but the slowest of courts, and that would be incredibly boring to watch. Just recall what was happening to Wimbledon all the way up until they switched the grass. It was all people like Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Philippousis, and the like (with the occasional spin server like Rafter) lining up to have a shot a getting whooped by Sampras. The whole reason Wimbledon officials changed the grass is because there was no variety, and it was really boring.

    As for the women's game. People need to go back and watch a few French Open matches from the early 80's and before involving anyone but the top 5 players of the time and then tell me if they really prefer watching two women in a moonball contest over a match between Na Li and Jelena Jankovic (I just picked a couple of random players outside of the top 5). Fifteen to twenty years ago, matches outside of the top 5 players almost weren't worth watching, and very few people outside of the top five had any chance whatsoever of beating the top player(s) of the era (how many people could beat Graf in her prime or Evert and Navratilova in their prime?).

    A lot of people are saying that tennis isn't as popular as it used to be, but what are they basing these statements on? There are loads of tennis players all over the world, and there are pros coming from countries that didn't produce them in the past (at least not in significant numbers) like Russia and China. Maybe they are basing it on TV ratings. Well, the sad fact is that the NCAA and NFL's discovery that American football can dominate the market if it is turned into a huge extravaganza has meant that most other sports have lost ratings compared to the past (just look at baseball), and regular football has done that in much of the rest of the world. Nevertheless, most people in the past only tuned in to watch the major tournaments, and guess what, that's what they do today as well. In the end, the stadiums are usually full and there are people watching on TV.

    Anyways, I've run out of steam for my rant. Just don't go making changes without fully contemplating the consequences, because I really don't want to go back to watching matches in which each point lasts about .75 sec and no one can break serve. I think that was something that turned off a lot of viewers in the 90's. I know it turned me off from watching Wimbledon.
     
  5. Chang

    Chang Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2006
    Messages:
    389
    She's kind of right. It's now easier to play at the baseline than at the net because of racket and string technology. A racket can only get so powerful until it sails long. the only thing that stops a fast ball from travelling out is to either hit it really low or topspin. to get topspin it's either a more western grip or better strings and modern rackets help so it really benefits the baseliners.
     
  6. match44

    match44 New User

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2006
    Messages:
    19
    I might add that Sampras had his racquets strung fresh every morning with 75 lbs by his personal stringer. You can't go tighter. How can you get more control from a string? In those days, he also was seeking the limits. And I don't think that he was weighting up his racket to 14.0 to go back to the old days: he just wanted to win and was trying to get the best material available. So nothing new.
     
  7. AlpineCadet

    AlpineCadet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    4,628

    are you seriously considering a cap on how well/worse we can play tennis, by means of equipment regulations, will help tennis go back to a more mixed level of competition? since when did equipment make an average player into a professional, and a professional into an unreachable god?

    here's an open question: i ask any of you to name one professional who should decrease their racket headsize just so other tour players can keep up.. next, name a professional who should choose a lesser string quality just so their opponent can return their ball. i doubt any of the equipment a professional uses can help improve their game so much that it changes THE WAY tennis is played.

    the serve and volley strategy isn't used much because of other factors besides equipment, and equipment alone shouldn't be blamed for such a lack of a specific game play. since when did our equipment dictate how we should play tennis?

    power is open for all to use and create, along with better strings and bigger racket headsizes. so i dont understand why navratilova is even using this excuse. serve and volley players can use just the same equipment as baseline players. her point is STILL lost on me.
     
  8. swedechris

    swedechris Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2004
    Messages:
    1,072
    she is right

    the most common tennis match today on tv is one between 2 basline huggers and does not have many truly exciting points .. = no hustles /dashes to the net , lobs , sharp short angles hit within the service boxes stuff like that . that is what are the more interesting / 'selling ' points in tennis.
    so yes overall she definitely has a good point that should be brought up asap for the sake of the games future.
    also i think the long long basline rallies can be saping the players = injuries occur more often if you are not able to take care of the point in being offensive and also using touch and volleys.

    there should be 1 or 2 tournys experimenting with wood only and it would be great to see the tennis that could be produced.. :)
     
  9. chess9

    chess9 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2005
    Messages:
    4,274
    Location:
    1.d4
    We can argue til we're blue in the face about the relative merits of the different eras, but without more extensive standards I think we are going to continue to see a much more powerful game developed. The string and racquet manufacturers are certainly working diligently towards that goal. So, when do we stop the progression? Do we wait until serves are being hit at 200 mph with some new compound string/racquet combo?

    Martina's views have credibilty and merit closer consideration, but I wouldn't expect any response from the tennis federations, and particularly the USTA which is full of nervous nellies worried sick about the present state of American tennis and not sure what to do.

    -Robert
     
  10. Progressive10s

    Progressive10s Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    Messages:
    394
    Over the top

    I loved watching Martina Navratilova play, but her comments about being the world's greatest volleyer were way over the the top. What about McEnroe, Laver, Rosewall. Roche, Bille Jean and others?? The comment lacks humility. Roger Federer has sparked a comeback. Serve and volley may be dead, but the all-court game is very much alive. Players are learning to transition to net to win points.
     
  11. jb193

    jb193 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    243
    How can you argue with this

    I like to see both sides of the issue on about everything. But on this one, I don't see how in the world anyone can dispute the fact that tennis needs some type of regulating to balance out this boring baseline power game with some type of diverse net play/all court game.
     
  12. spaceman_spiff

    spaceman_spiff Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,513
    Location:
    The crappest town in Britain
    Easily done. Not long ago, players were using very similar technologies but on faster courts. The results were that the sport was getting to be dominated by one-dimensional server and volleyers, and the points usually lasted under 2 sec. In response to that, various tournament directors chose to slow down the surfaces of their courts to extend the points and make the game more fun to watch. This was and still remains the choice of tournament directors.

    If the various tournament directors felt their crowds would be more interested in seeing a faster game played by more S&V'ers, then they could speed up their courts. Still, it's their choice. They are entertainers and try to cater to their crowds.

    Still, I'd rather watch two baseliners on a hard court than two S&V'ers on the old Wimbledon grass (talk about a snooze fest).
     
  13. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,721
    But that's because players like Sampras, Krajicek, Philippoussis, Ivanisevic, Becker, Stich, Edberg, etc. were using powerful graphite racquets to hit all those aces and service winners which made the points last 2 sec. at Wimbledon. You have to go back to the days of wood racquets, like when Borg, McEnroe, Nastase, Laver, Connors, etc, played in which there were fewer outright aces and service winners and the server actually had to hit at least one or two volleys to win the point. Also the contrast in styles between a serve and volleyer like McEnroe versus a baseliner like Borg or an all-courter like Connors made the game much more compelling and fun to watch than just bang, bang serving between Sampras and Ivanisevic.
     
  14. stormholloway

    stormholloway Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,832
    Location:
    New York City
    This is not that hard to understand. There are equipment restrictions in other sports. It's not that wild of a concept. The new technology benefits the returner more than the server because the server tosses the ball in the same spot every time, while the returner benefits from a larger headsize which allows him/her to take big swings at the ball.

    When's the last time you wiffed a serve? Last time you wiffed a return? Right. It happens more often because you don't know where serves are going.

    If they somehow create a racquet that maintains control in a 120 sq inch head is this good for tennis? It's not impossible. What about a racquet that connects to the brain and knows where you want to to put the ball, and micro fibers on the strings react accordingly and help you put the ball there? Would you draw the line there? You have to draw it somewhere and many of us are saying it should have been drawn about 20-25 years ago.
     
  15. AlpineCadet

    AlpineCadet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    4,628

    What in the world are you talking about?
     
  16. chess9

    chess9 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2005
    Messages:
    4,274
    Location:
    1.d4
    The short answer is when should restrictions be imposed? It is inevitable, in my view, that restrictions must be imposed at some point. If serves hit 300 mph, will you be convinced some changes need to be made? How about your average pro serving at 175 mph? Is that the point? 200? 137?

    No, the issue is clear. Golf did it long ago.....

    -Robert
     
  17. AlpineCadet

    AlpineCadet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    4,628
    Okay let's go back down to earth and be realistic here. First, there's no comparison with wood and graphite, because there's no point in brining back wood to tennis. NO professional is encouraged to do this. Second, if you're so right about larger racket headsizes then why aren't ALL the professionals using bigger headsizes? (Hmm, shouldn't Federer switch from his tiny little 90 square inches to 120 square inches instead?) There's a reason why headsizes stay small during competition, and it has a lot to do with their high levels of play.

    If you're a professional, why would you need more than what you require?

    Please don't beat a dead horse, with your comparisons between wood and graphite rackets.
     
  18. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,721
    How about when pros start hitting 150mph groundstrokes? So that every time the ball touches a player's racquet, it's a winner. Would anybody still want to watch? Not me.
     
  19. AlpineCadet

    AlpineCadet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    4,628

    Those extreme what if this and that can be said about ANY sport. You can compare tennis to golf if you want, but with tennis, i dont see ANY indication of balls reaching 175mph on serves.
     
  20. neo

    neo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    263
    What does it matter if serves reach 175mph and groundstrokes reach 150mph? What matters is how many of them are returned. And rallies today are much longer then they were on peak of S&V era when average point lasted exactly two seconds.
     
  21. Mick

    Mick Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    8,363
  22. LN_Dad

    LN_Dad Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2006
    Messages:
    651
  23. Mick

    Mick Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    8,363
    not even if it adds 10 mph more to your strokes ??? :)
     
  24. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,721
    But that could only happen if people started growing arms that are 8 feet long to return those 175mph serves and started running the 100 meter dash in 3 seconds to get to all those 150mph groundstrokes going side to side. ;)
     
  25. AlpineCadet

    AlpineCadet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    4,628
    Well it matters because that'll be one consequence you guys are suggesting, since player equipment is so dangerously reaching skylimit proportions of ball speed and string resilience.
     
  26. spaceman_spiff

    spaceman_spiff Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,513
    Location:
    The crappest town in Britain
    Ah, don't make me go dig up the article about the serving experiment involving Phlippousis and a wood racket ;). I'll do it if I have to :)

    In that experiment, he hit a number of serves with a wood racket, his normal racket, and an extended length racket, and the serve speeds were very close between the three of them. The only thing that differed was the extra little bit of consistency he had with the extended length; otherwise, the results were close to the same.

    The point is that Becker, Stich, Sampras, Ivanisevic, etc., would have been able to serve nearly as big with wood as they did with their normal rackets. Apart from McEnroe, the other players you listed wouldn't be able to dominate with the serve no matter what racket they had (just look at Jimmy Connors' serves in his last US Open run; they were so much weaker than most of his competitors that year).

    Also, not long ago I rewatched a classic US Open match between McEnroe and Borg, one of the last when Mac was using wood. He hit loads of service winners and quite a few aces, and the points were very short throughout the match. Because of the difficulty returning, this match wasn't nearly as entertaining as last year's final between Federer and Agassi, and I was dissappointed. There wasn't the plethora of magical shots and entertaining points that everyone talks about; it was just another tennis match: good shots on occasion, bad shots on occasion, same old stuff.

    Anyways, I just played last night on a really fast indoor court with a couple of regular hitting partners. It was a completely different game than out on our slow outdoor courts. Servers had a definite advantage, and S&V was a viable strategy. It's amazing how much the court surface affects the game.
     
  27. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,721
    Yes, please dig it up as I think it's a myth. He may have been able able to generate pace with the wood racquet due to the weight of the racquet, but like you said, he wouldn't have been nearly as consistent in a match situation. Also, the amount of spin on the serve would be greatly reduced which is how a lot of the big servers are able to hit so many aces and service winners.

    Yes, the pros hit aces and service winners with wood racquets due to the difficulty in returning serve with wood racquets, but not nearly as many as Sampras, Ivanisevic, Becker, Krajicek, etc. did with their graphite racquets. I don't recall any pro being able to consistenly serve at over 130mph with a wood racquet, like some of the big servers can today with graphite racquets.

    BTW, if Philippoussis could serve just as well with a wood racquet, why is he still using a graphite racquet? His whole game is based on his serve anyway.
     
  28. spaceman_spiff

    spaceman_spiff Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,513
    Location:
    The crappest town in Britain
    I'll need a few minutes to find that thread. I just wanted to reply to the last bit. He uses the graphite racket because it allows him to hit his returns, groundstrokes, and volleys better due to the bigger head. If you go back to that horrendous match he had against Krajicek at Wimbledon that took forever to finish the last set because neither could return serve, imagine if they had to return with a wood racket.

    Edit: Here is the TT thread on the subject http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=68298&highlight=philippousis+wood

    I'll see if I can go into the Tennis Magazine archives to find the full text of the article.

    Oops, I didn't see the link in the second post of that thread. Thanks to ChicagoJack for that. http://www.100megsfree4.com/scudzone/scud_articles/scudnews6.htm
     
  29. spaceman_spiff

    spaceman_spiff Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,513
    Location:
    The crappest town in Britain
    Here are some interesting quotes from that article:

    "The Philippoussis test supports what we've been saying all along: The long racquets don't produce significant serving power; that comes from the player's technique and physical strength.

    That caused Tennis Australia's Peter Johnston, who was on hand, to reflect. "I've seen a lot of old film footage of great players with wood racquets," he said, "but I swear none served as fast as Mark just did.''

    (Serving with the wood racket) After being disappointed by four more moderate deliveries, he unexpectedly hit a string of serves at 119 m.p.h. or better, averaging 122 over his best five serves.

    (Serving with the superlong racket) His five best serves with the extra-long 2.25 averaged 126 m.p.h.

    (Serving with his regular racket) Although his five best serves averaged 124 m.p.h. and his best was 127, consistency eluded him.

    Philippoussis acquired the elements of a strong serve: a sound ball toss and consistent rhythm in the successful transference of body power...

    He continues to work on his serve, devoting about 30 minutes of a daily two-hour practice session to serving thunderbolts. He adds to his strength and flexibility through gym work, and recently took a course in kickboxing to smarten up footwork and timing.

    He rebuts criticism that today's racquets give big men with big serves an overwhelming advantage and that watching them bombard opponents with aces eventually becomes boring. "Big servers have been involved in plenty of great matches," he said. "People have to understand that even for a big guy, it's not easy to go ace, ace, ace. They don't appreciate the skill required. It takes a lot of work, and if you can do it, good luck to you."
    Added Rick Perry of Dunlop Australia: "This guy could serve aces with a baseball bat."
     
  30. spaceman_spiff

    spaceman_spiff Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,513
    Location:
    The crappest town in Britain
    So, like I was saying, would you rather watch someone trying to return serves averaging 122 mph with a tiny wood racket, or would you rather watch them using a bigger racket to return serves averaging 124 or 126? I myself can imagine how boring the prospect of pros using wood would be.

    Ooh, there's another unreturned serve. Oops, he didn't quite get his strings on that serve. Uh oh, another framed return sends the ball 40 feet into the air, and we still haven't seen any breaks of serve this entire match.

    BTW, I warned you I would find that article ;)
     
  31. bluegrasser

    bluegrasser Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    Messages:
    2,342
    That's why ' Golf ' is so popular..
     
  32. phat

    phat Rookie

    Joined:
    May 16, 2004
    Messages:
    296
    I think the ATP has address some of the problems by using "slower" balls. Even Wimbledon has changed their grass type to make the court slower.... So the game is being monitored. I have watched tennis from 80s till now. I have to say the game is not the same, but it's the most entertaining (.. thanx Federer)!!
     
  33. spaceman_spiff

    spaceman_spiff Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,513
    Location:
    The crappest town in Britain
    Finally, someone in this thread I agree with.
     
  34. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    ya but without the Fed, you basically have a whole flock of baseline clones who are essentially interchangeable save for a small handful of serve/volleyers who rarely get deep into the draw (some of whom are staying back anyway these days). Tennis lacks variety now..i dont know how people can dispute that.
     
  35. heartman

    heartman Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    214
    Try wood, then speak...

    I'd like to see today's players play a tournament with a wooden racquet - a series of matches and practice, not just a hitting session. We did in the past with wood technology, with what people are doing today with graphite technology - granted the ball goes harder and faster, but it was proper technique that allowed us to accomplish so much with so little technological help.

    I agree with Martina - and for those who had issue with her "best volleyer" statement, it was rhetorical, and should not be taken out of context. She's the most accomplished professional tennis player alive, and she won based on the S & V game. She had/has it all, and her accomplishments allow her to say what she says...
     
  36. prostaff18

    prostaff18 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 13, 2006
    Messages:
    568
    Location:
    USA
    To see serve and volly play we need to first teach it to the young learning the game. When I go to lessons we will dead ball for hours from the baseline and spend almost no time at the net. We will do two on two drills where you have two at the baseline and two at the net and play points up to ten and there are times where the net will only get one or two points, and we only play the singles court. The kids just miss there vollies. I play 18's and I will play matches against kids that will run up to a short ball and hit it really good then just run back to the baseline. Or they will get you on the run and you will throw up a short lob and they will wait for it to bounce and hit a forehand insted of the over head. We just need to teach kids how to volly because I think that a good all courter can beat anyone, just look at Federer.
     
  37. PETE1990

    PETE1990 New User

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    8
    I totally agree with her. There should be some type of regulations to the racquets on the tour. Hand a wooden racquet to Nadal or Rodick and you'll see a whole different game. I also agree with BreakPoint that 90 sq. in. should be the maximum head size!
     
  38. AlpineCadet

    AlpineCadet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    4,628
    the day there's a regulation on how large a headsize can be among the ATP tour--since they're so extremely useful and must be limited, before it gets out of hand--is the day I agree with how unrealistic these ideas have become. it'll be an eventful day, wouldn't you say?
     
  39. neo

    neo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    263
    That's only one possibility. And believe me, I can think of other. :D The bottom line is, when not enough groundstrokes are returned, that will be a problem, not when groundstrokes reach an arbitrary speed limit. And like I said, the way things are going, rallies are getting longer then they were in the S&V era.
     
  40. AlpineCadet

    AlpineCadet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    4,628
    i guess a serve @ 150mph is also an arbitrary speed, along with 90mph forehands. :rolleyes:
     
  41. neo

    neo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    263
    Good guess...
     
  42. Zverev

    Zverev Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    853
    Lots of people would agree with you.
    Modern tennis is most entertaining.
    I have borrowed tapes from my friend with some tennis from 80s, including 1981 Wimby final Borg-Mac. I don't know what people are missing about that.
    Bloody booooring! The game lacked speed and dynamic of today's game.
    Also, your famous Borg looked like a guy of the street to me in terms of athletisism. Not even close to today's Safins, Nadals, Federers, etc.
    Who's missing service based tennis?! RG is very slow but it's immensly entertaining. Players really have to work on each point, lots of tactics, lots of thinking, not just ball bashing. And S/V as one of the game techniques still is very valid, but only as one of many tactics, not as an only one.
    Come on, the game is great as it is, but rather as NBM said peopel got fat and lazy. 18 yo kids playing golf? Disgusting!
     
  43. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,721
    I'd bet you'd never played tennis with a wood racquet back in the '70's either, right? Watching old tapes is nothing like having been there and actually playing the game the way it was played.
     
  44. neo

    neo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    263
    You can still play it any way you want. Regulating pro's game is about making it more entertaining to watch.
     
  45. NamRanger

    NamRanger G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Messages:
    13,916

    You do realize that Borg was hitting with a Western grip on a slick and extremely fast grass court with a wooden racquet with about 55 ins of room to hit with. If you think Borg wasn't a big guy, you are an absolute ignorant fool.


    Today's modern game is extremely predictable. Baseline grinding for abit, wait for a ball that drops 4 inches shorter than normal, and then BOOM. I guess you've never touched a racquet less then 95 square inches, because if you did, you would realize how difficult it is to hit some of those shots that those guys in 70s did with such heavy and small racquets.


    Change is not always good, history is a testament to that.
     
  46. neo

    neo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    263
    No one said it was easy. We are just saying today's game is more entertaining to watch.

    Again, no one said change is always good. We are just saying this change is good.
     
  47. BigServer1

    BigServer1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,037
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
    Things in sports change. The example of restrictions in golf has been brought up a lot, but no one has pointed out that pro golfers used to use all wooden clubs, and then they used steel shaft clubs, and now, everyone on tour is using graphite shafted clubs. Do these give greater distance, ball speed and control? Yes. Is golf worse off for it? No. There is an evolution in every sport that changes the dynamic of that sport. Do I support MINOR restrictions on Tennis Gear? Yes, especially on huge 120"+ racquets. But please someone tell me, who on tour uses these? I think that the Williams' use 113" or something, but that's about it. The myth that big racquets give huge power is crazy in the context of the players on the pro tour. Yeah, maybe roddick could serve 160 with a Head Metallix, but he couldn't keep it in the stadium, let alone the service box. I think that limiting head size to 90" is a dumb idea. Just because some are purists, that doen't mean that it's the best for the sport. Sure, outlaw poly strings. Outlaw new racquet technology. Everyone will switch to the next best thing that comes out that's "legal" and then we can all complain about that, too.
     
  48. Zverev

    Zverev Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    853
    It just shows that your fool. Not all big guys are athletic, as not all people with big heads are smart.
     
  49. AlpineCadet

    AlpineCadet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    4,628
    please speak for yourself.
     
  50. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,721

Share This Page