unbelievable!!!!!!!

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by The Gorilla, Dec 6, 2006.

  1. The Gorilla

    The Gorilla Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    2,495
    #1
  2. JW10S

    JW10S Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,896
    It's funny to me how people automatically assume that today's players are far better than players of the past. I believe that if you made modern players players play with wooden rackets, or long pants, or not be able to sit down during change-overs, have no tie-breaks, wear canvas shoes, etc., like the players of the past did they would have a hard time holding their own with the best players of past. Rafael Nadal simply could not play like he does now with an old wooden Dunlop Maxply--no way.
     
    #2
  3. The Gorilla

    The Gorilla Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    2,495
    I can't get over pacho gonzales' 112mph forehand drive,that's amazing!That means federer doesn't have a particularly powerful forehand in contrast to those players playing with wooden racquets in the '50's!
     
    #3
  4. Zets147

    Zets147 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,744
    they meant 112km/h
     
    #4
  5. Mick

    Mick Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    8,362
    I am one of those people :)

    i think today tennis players are better because they are much better athletes. Tennis players from the past have great tennis skills, no doubt, but I don't believe they trained hard to get their bodies in peak shapes like today's tennis players do.
     
    #5
  6. JW10S

    JW10S Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,896
    Where do you get that? American players would be rated in mph, not kmh...
     
    #6
  7. skuludo

    skuludo Professional

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,219
    Pancho Gonzales hit the fastest, 112.88 mph

    Are you blind?!

    It says mph
     
    #7
  8. serveitup911

    serveitup911 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2006
    Messages:
    649
    That is definitely wrong. They couldn't hit forehands as fast as serves. It must mean 112 km/h.
     
    #8
  9. haerdalis

    haerdalis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,597
    Location:
    Lund, Sweden
    I read somewhere that Bill Tildens serve was measured at 170 mph. I just dont trust the measurement they made in those days. Actually I dont think you can even compare the speed measurements made today with those made 15 years ago.
     
    #9
  10. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,466
    It clearly states 112.88mph.
    That's what happens when you use a 16 oz. racquet with loose tensions and hit the ball completely flat, unlike today's 11 oz. racquets hitting massive topspin, which slows the ball way down.

    BTW, if you scroll to the middle of this webpage, under the paragraph "Forehand", it mentions the speeds again in mph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis
     
    #10
  11. arnz

    arnz Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,228
    I do think that today most tennis players are getting themselves as fit as possible because the competition is more fierce, the prize money is way up than ever before.

    However that being said, tennis is still mostly a game of skill, and I'm sure the players of the past would have adapted to todays conditions.

    Consider the fact that at 35 years old Andre Agassi was top 10 last year, at that age getting to the finals of the US open. He has beaten roddick and blake consistently, and has an equal record against Daydenko and Ljubicic.

    That same agassi who has a lifetime record of 2-6 against Lendl, the same Lendl who has a 2-5 lifetime record against the dominating Borg, who has a 7-6 record against Ashe, who has a 2-12 record against Laver, etc etc.

    If laver could beat ashe, who could beat Borg, who beat Lendl, who beat Agassi, who beats up on Roddick and blake, I really think the past greats are greatly underestimated against today's champs.
     
    #11
  12. VGP

    VGP Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    Messages:
    6,311
    Location:
    Location: Location
    I'm not discounting the players of the past, but by your logic, Blake would be the greatest since he's 3-0 over Nadal who's 6-2 over Federer and on and on.....
     
    #12
  13. arnz

    arnz Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,228
    I am saying that they are all competitive. I'm not saying head to head is a sure sign of who is better, but that the fact that generations overlapped and competed well against each other means that they could well compete today also. If Agassi had his problems with Lendl, doesnt mean lendl would beat Blake, but I'm pretty sure if somebody could handle Agassi, they would be highly ranked individual, probably top ten material, thats all.

    It is a fluke that possibly the most talented player of all time is playing right now, so I think any player in tennis history would be hard pressed to beat Fed. But prime Sampras vs. current #2 Nadal on hardcourt? Please.

    And I'm saying that even though I like watching Nadal
     
    #13
  14. bribeiro

    bribeiro Banned

    Joined:
    May 19, 2006
    Messages:
    650
    Location:
    Cape Cod
    That cannot be accurate, no way.
     
    #14
  15. JCo872

    JCo872 Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,390
    That's a great argument. I never thought of it that way before!
     
    #15
  16. Flexxed

    Flexxed Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2005
    Messages:
    131
    #16
  17. superman1

    superman1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    5,243
    The transverse property doesn't work in tennis, but I agree, all the greats would be competitive and at the top if they played in the same era. However, just keep in mind that Lendl's 6 wins over Agassi were in the 80's when Lendl was #1 or #2, and Agassi's 2 wins were in the early 90's after he had won his first Slam. Lendl described Agassi as a "haircut and a forehand." People these days would describe him as a "bald head, a forehand, a backhand, and a return of serve." So obviously Agassi evolved since their clashes.

    And as for the subject of this thread, those stats are impossible. There's absolutely no way they could be correct. Even Blake's biggest scorchers which you can barely see fly through the court aren't that fast.
     
    #17
  18. serveitup911

    serveitup911 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2006
    Messages:
    649
    I wouldn't necessarily trust a Wikipedia article....
     
    #18
  19. krprunitennis2

    krprunitennis2 Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2006
    Messages:
    803
    Location:
    United States
    You can't trust wikipedia that much since everyone in the world can edit some pages.
     
    #19
  20. Rosebud

    Rosebud New User

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2006
    Messages:
    54
    It is not a bad wikipedia article at all, as it gives specific details about the sources of it's content in it's notes. It correctly cites Kramer and McCauley.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2007
    #20
  21. VikingSamurai

    VikingSamurai Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,498
    Location:
    F ukuoka Japan, via Atlanta GA, originally Brisban
    I am an Australian, and I see it like this.. I was always a big Becker fan.. I am now 32.. But I respected all of the players of the day.. I stopped watching Tennis when Pete Sampras was becoming dominent.. I guess, as Lendl was the robot of the 80's, Sampras was the Lendl of the 90's.. Simply no competition.. Even Agassi dissapeared for a while..

    You look at someone like a Borg, or the great Australians Laver, Court, and Emerson. These guys (gals) played in an era where all players basically ran on the same tires (to give an F1 example).. Same clothes, same shoes, same racquets.. Yet these guys and gal ruled... And won on all surfaces.. Not playing a whole year on clay courts to become No 1!

    Today, there is so much in the way of technology and extra (help) that these guys simply dont know what tennis is anymore.. Play for no money.. Play for a trophie. Play for the love of it. I am sure these guys and gals would soon tire of the business called tennis..

    Never, ever compare the players of today, with the players of yesterday.. The players of today have it way too good, and dont understand tennis as it is meant to be..

    Just my 2 cents..

    Chris
     
    #21
  22. maxply

    maxply Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2006
    Messages:
    183
    I like your style
     
    #22
  23. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,057
    If it was a great argument, Murray is currently the #1.
     
    #23
  24. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,057
    What is tennis meant to be, what don't they understand, and what is it that they don't know about tennis ?

    Oh, BTW, today's scientists don't use slide rules any more, but they do know math.
     
    #24
  25. krprunitennis2

    krprunitennis2 Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2006
    Messages:
    803
    Location:
    United States
    "At a professional event in 1951 the forehand drives of a number of players were electronically measured. Pancho Gonzales hit the fastest, 112.88 mph, followed by Jack Kramer at 107.8 and Welby Van Horn at 104. Since it was generally assumed at the time that Segura had the hardest forehand among his contemporaries, it is possible that he was not present at that event. [4]"

    Did they have accurate radars in 1951? There has been radar disputes all over serves here in the forums, so I'm not sure about the radars in 1951 (or if they had any).
     
    #25
  26. Dashbarr

    Dashbarr Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2006
    Messages:
    274
    its possible to have 112 mph forehand drives. high forehands, downwards motion, flat shot, heavy wooden raquet? possible, and i wouldnt be suprised if it was only 4 or 5 mph off.
     
    #26
  27. Swissv2

    Swissv2 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Messages:
    2,491
    Location:
    Tennis Courts!
    impossible.

    Take the videos of these guys and do a video calculation of their service and forehand speed.
     
    #27
  28. drakulie

    drakulie Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    24,466
    Location:
    FT. Lauderdale, Florida
    I'm with swiss on this one.

    With all the "rage" (especially from older players) about how technology has enabled the players of today to hit faster than when wood racquets were used, today's players can't hit 100+ mph forehands. Occasionally, you will see a player hit a 100+ FH. Occasionally.

    Maybe the old generation are really the ones who had an advantage with their "equipment". LOL
     
    #28
  29. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,466
    You know, I'm actually starting to believe this based upon my two outings with my 25 year-old Maxply McEnroe woodie with 25 year-old strings in it over the past few days. One day of singles and one day of doubles playing many sets and not once was my serve ever broken. :D

    I was also hitting some unreal forehands at greater pace than with my usual nCode 90. My balls were so hard and heavy that my opponents had trouble dealing with them. A few times they didn't even have enough time to get their racquets up to try and volley some of my shots hit at them when they were at net.

    Hmmm....maybe there's something to this and the claims of some of the old pros. :-o
     
    #29
  30. VikingSamurai

    VikingSamurai Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,498
    Location:
    F ukuoka Japan, via Atlanta GA, originally Brisban
    Suresh.. Alot of the players in the day had to work jobs, and play tennis on the side. Share accomodation and training facilities ect ect ect...

    Today they get driven around, fly first class, stay in plush hotels, get massages, doctors, trainers, coaches ect ect ect.. And get paid an obscene amount of money to do so..

    So yeah, I guess my rant was a little biassed? And I am not really that old too.. I just respect the past and what these guys did to make way for the people who play today!

    Chris
     
    #30
  31. alwaysatnet

    alwaysatnet Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    524
    Don't forget that radar measurements calculate the speed of the ball as the striker hits it,not the speed with which it arrives to the returner.Having said that,I can easily believe that a heavy wooden racquet propelled by a guy doing one armed push ups every day could really pound the ball.In my humble opinion the marketing genius' that have pushed the lie that lighter racquets are better(than heavier) have done more to harm the game than any one other factor.What I can't believe is all the presumably grown up adults whining about how heavy their 12 ounce frame feels after three sets.Little girls used to play with wood.Why can't a grown up use a grown up's frame?Perhaps the eighty year olds playing at Palm Springs need to swing a 10 ounce racquet but why should anyone else?
     
    #31

Share This Page