Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   Former Pro Player Talk (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=37)
-   -   unbelievable!!!!!!! (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=108379)

The Gorilla 12-06-2006 07:24 PM

unbelievable!!!!!!!
 
scroll down to the bottem of this page where it mentions how top '50's pro's forehand drives were electronically measured for speed,surprising results!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancho_Segura

JW10S 12-06-2006 07:43 PM

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.

The Gorilla 12-06-2006 07:47 PM

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!

Zets147 12-06-2006 07:51 PM

they meant 112km/h

Mick 12-06-2006 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JW10S (Post 1104903)
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.

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.

JW10S 12-06-2006 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zets147 (Post 1104913)
they meant 112km/h

Where do you get that? American players would be rated in mph, not kmh...

skuludo 12-06-2006 09:58 PM

Pancho Gonzales hit the fastest, 112.88 mph

Are you blind?!

It says mph

serveitup911 12-06-2006 10:07 PM

That is definitely wrong. They couldn't hit forehands as fast as serves. It must mean 112 km/h.

haerdalis 12-06-2006 10:34 PM

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.

BreakPoint 12-06-2006 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zets147 (Post 1104913)
they meant 112km/h

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

arnz 12-07-2006 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 1104915)
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.

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.

VGP 12-07-2006 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnz (Post 1105219)
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.

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.....

arnz 12-07-2006 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VGP (Post 1105961)
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.....

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

bribeiro 12-07-2006 04:59 PM

That cannot be accurate, no way.

JCo872 12-07-2006 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnz (Post 1105219)
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.

That's a great argument. I never thought of it that way before!

Flexxed 12-07-2006 06:16 PM

I think the guy that wrote that got the forehand speeds mixed up with the serve speed. On this link it says Gonzalez's serve was 112.88mph and I don't think thats a coincidence. If you watch old matches the ball clearly moves slower. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...romoid=googlep

superman1 12-07-2006 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnz (Post 1105219)
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.

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.

serveitup911 12-07-2006 09:24 PM

I wouldn't necessarily trust a Wikipedia article....

krprunitennis2 12-07-2006 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BreakPoint (Post 1105116)
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

You can't trust wikipedia that much since everyone in the world can edit some pages.

Rosebud 12-08-2006 03:40 AM

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.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:40 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2006 - Tennis Warehouse