Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   General Pro Player Discussion (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   Why do people say that a player is "too short" to win slams? (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=442301)

dangalak 10-07-2012 08:46 AM

Why do people say that a player is "too short" to win slams?
 
Why does height matter? I mean if it was power it would be different. Power is an attribute that is necessary in tennis. But height isn't the same as power and isn't necessarily even correlated. Size would be more important. I mean I am pretty sure that Serena can squat or bench more than Sharapova and I think we can say the same about Ferrer and Djokovic.

I guess it does make sense in terms of serving, but considering that Federer is the only one in the top game with a great serve, it isn't all that vital.

kishnabe 10-07-2012 09:34 AM

I believe Ferrer can lift more than Djokovic.

Djokovic has other assets other than Power that gives him an edge that Ferrer does not have.

Height can translate to more power and a better serve.

SoBad 10-07-2012 09:36 AM

Djoko can lift much more than Ferrer, that is the only advantage he has over Ferrer. Smaller guys are often stronger and have better serves.

dangalak 10-07-2012 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kishnabe (Post 6940820)
I believe Ferrer can lift more than Djokovic.

Djokovic has other assets other than Power that gives him an edge that Ferrer does not have.

Height can translate to more power and a better serve.


How so?

SIZE would translate to more power. Don't see how HEIGHT would translate to more power though. If you're skinny and there is a short guy who is thick and muscular, I would pick the shorter guy to have more power.

Prisoner of Birth 10-07-2012 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoBad (Post 6940825)
Djoko can lift much more than Ferrer, that is the only advantage he has over Ferrer. Smaller guys are often stronger and have better serves.

:lol: Are you from Small Country?

SoBad 10-07-2012 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth (Post 6940851)
:lol: Are you from Small Country?

I have friends who are...:lol::lol:

nereis 10-07-2012 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dangalak (Post 6940838)
How so?

SIZE would translate to more power. Don't see how HEIGHT would translate to more power though. If you're skinny and there is a short guy who is thick and muscular, I would pick the shorter guy to have more power.

Height (limb length, rather) conveys a higher potential racket speed and angle from which to hit your serve. So of course its an easy advantage to have and requires no effort on anyone's part but having the right genetics for it.

It's also a more common feature than ironman type endurance, explosive power, Agassi-like hand-eye coordination or excellent dynamic balance.

All things equal, a taller man will find it easier to hit big serves consistently.

However, that isn't to say that height is a necessity. Hewitt, Agassi and Chang were around 5'10 from memory. They were simply better tennis players than their opponents.

dangalak 10-07-2012 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nereis (Post 6940860)
Height (limb length, rather) conveys a higher potential racket speed and angle from which to hit your serve. So of course its an easy advantage to have and requires no effort on anyone's part but having the right genetics for it.

It's also a more common feature than ironman type endurance, explosive power, Agassi-like hand-eye coordination or excellent dynamic balance.

All things equal, a taller man will find it easier to hit big serves consistently.

However, that isn't to say that height is a necessity. Hewitt, Agassi and Chang were around 5'10 from memory. They were simply better tennis players than their opponents.

Serves are obvious, but off the ground, height shouldn't really matter that much.

rofl_copter3 10-07-2012 10:07 AM

With the high topspin its harder for a shorter guy to get the ball in his strike zone its harder to find all the angles serving usually your arms are shorter making racquet head speed harder to generate...

There are definitely ways shorter ppl can play effective and win but there are drawbacks to a lack of height...

nereis 10-07-2012 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dangalak (Post 6940866)
Serves are obvious, but off the ground, height shouldn't really matter that much.

Ironically it used to matter more back when everyone and their mother played like Marat Safin. Longer limbs allow for higher potential racket speed, resulting in greater pace off the groundstrokes.

The higher angle from which a taller man hits also allows once more for greater margin for error on flat groundies.

TMF 10-07-2012 10:09 AM

Height is a key factor that determines player's success. The very best player has to be around 6'0 - 6'3.

Let me know when someone who's as tall as Laver or Rosewall dominate the game by winning multiple slams in a year plus rank #1 for quite sometime. I'll be glad to admit that I'm wrong.

Russeljones 10-07-2012 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dangalak (Post 6940766)
Why does height matter? I mean if it was power it would be different. Power is an attribute that is necessary in tennis. But height isn't the same as power and isn't necessarily even correlated. Size would be more important. I mean I am pretty sure that Serena can squat or bench more than Sharapova and I think we can say the same about Ferrer and Djokovic.

I guess it does make sense in terms of serving, but considering that Federer is the only one in the top game with a great serve, it isn't all that vital.

The question is, have You ever played tennis?

TMF 10-07-2012 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dangalak (Post 6940766)
Why does height matter? I mean if it was power it would be different. Power is an attribute that is necessary in tennis. But height isn't the same as power and isn't necessarily even correlated. Size would be more important. I mean I am pretty sure that Serena can squat or bench more than Sharapova and I think we can say the same about Ferrer and Djokovic.

I guess it does make sense in terms of serving, but considering that Federer is the only one in the top game with a great serve, it isn't all that vital.

Tennis has changed. In the past 2+ decades, how many slams a player from 5'6" - 5'11", and 6'5"-6'10" have won slams in compare to players from 6'0"-6'3" ?


That should answer your question.

dangalak 10-07-2012 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TMF (Post 6940880)
Height is a key factor that determines player's success. The very best player has to be around 6'0 - 6'3.

Let me know when someone who's as tall as Laver or Rosewall dominate the game by winning multiple slams in a year plus rank #1 for quite sometime. I'll be glad to admit that I'm wrong.

Wouldn't that be a power problem? Laver wouldn't succeed because he lacks the power, not necessarily the height. While you could argue power and height are correlated, that isn't true. Power and SIZE are correlated. A big, but stocky guy would probaby have more power than a tall, but skinny guy.

It is obvious that height is vital in serving, but considering how Nadal, Murray and Djokovic don't exactly have great serves...

TMF 10-07-2012 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dangalak (Post 6940915)
Wouldn't that be a power problem? Laver wouldn't succeed because he lacks the power, not necessarily the height. While you could argue power and height are correlated, that isn't true. Power and SIZE are correlated. A big, but stocky guy would probaby have more power than a tall, but skinny guy.

Being small will be at a disavantage in two areas: limited power and big serve. That's crucial!

Who said a tennis player should be stocky? Because that isn't suit for a tennis player, and would fit to be a linebacker playing football. Muscular doesn't equate to power...Ivanisevic is skinny but has power/great serve. Karlovic/Isner isn't muscular either but they has a huge serve. Of course they are too tall which hurts other part of their game(i.e movements, speed, defense...).

Fed/Nole/Sampras are in the right size for a tennis player.


Quote:

Originally Posted by dangalak (Post 6940915)
It is obvious that height is vital in serving, but considering how Nadal, Murray and Djokovic don't exactly have great serves...

They are hell better than player who's undersize like Ferrer, Chang, Coria, etc...

rofl_copter3 10-07-2012 11:07 AM

Height allows for a greater margin for them to still employ their weapons while still being mobile, there is a happy median between tall enough and too tall... Isner is too tall so he lacks the necessary agility. Ferrer can't develop the power to turn his amazing defense into offense... Ferrer could start taking the ball earlier to help negate the power and Isner can go for more on his shots to end points but there are obviously downsides to both strategies.

I would argue that a shorter person who develops a game that minimizes their disadvantages will be overall more successful than a taller guy 6-5+ because its always a greater margin of error to be able to keep the point alive than it is to have to hit a winner

dangalak 10-07-2012 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TMF (Post 6940936)
Being small will be at a disavantage in two areas: limited power and big serve. That's crucial!

Who said a tennis player should be stocky? Because that isn't suit for a tennis player, and would fit to be a linebacker playing football. Muscular doesn't equate to power...Ivanisevic is skinny but has power/great serve. Karlovic/Isner isn't muscular either but they has a huge serve. Of course they are too tall which hurts other part of their game(i.e movements, speed, defense...).

Fed/Nole/Sampras are in the right size for a tennis player.

You don't understand me. I am saying that it is size that is correlated with power, not height. Do you seriously believe that a guy like Mike Tyson (5'10'', 210+ lbs) wouldn't hit harder groundstrokes than Djokovic, given equal skill? Tall people aren't usually powerful. Big people are. If in tennis, somebody was deemed "too small" to develop power, I would understand. But they say "too short" which doesn't make sense to me. A 5'10'' tall, 210 lbs guy should, given good technique, hit harder than a 6'2 tall 180lbs guy.

In serving, I agree that height matters a whole lot. But for power of the ground it really shouldn't.

rofl_copter3 10-07-2012 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dangalak (Post 6940966)
You don't understand me. I am saying that it is size that is correlated with power, not height. Do you seriously believe that a guy like Mike Tyson (5'10'', 210+ lbs) wouldn't hit harder groundstrokes than Djokovic, given equal skill? Tall people aren't usually powerful. Big people are. If in tennis, somebody was deemed "too small" to develop power, I would understand. But they say "too short" which doesn't make sense to me. A 5'10'' tall, 210 lbs guy should, given good technique, hit harder than a 6'2 tall 180lbs guy.

In serving, I agree that height matters a whole lot. But for power of the ground it really shouldn't.

You don't understand in tennis power is created by racquet head speed, longer FLEXIBLE arms can accelerate faster and create more speed than short muscle bound arms. It's all physics...

Height correlates largely to limb length therefore height=power

Now shorter players can generate a lot of power with their feet set but its much harder for them when they can't get their whole body behind the shot

ledwix 10-07-2012 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dangalak (Post 6940966)
You don't understand me. I am saying that it is size that is correlated with power, not height. Do you seriously believe that a guy like Mike Tyson (5'10'', 210+ lbs) wouldn't hit harder groundstrokes than Djokovic, given equal skill? Tall people aren't usually powerful. Big people are. If in tennis, somebody was deemed "too small" to develop power, I would understand. But they say "too short" which doesn't make sense to me. A 5'10'' tall, 210 lbs guy should, given good technique, hit harder than a 6'2 tall 180lbs guy.

Well, length of one's limbs, i.e. height, determines the range of motion on strokes. Longer limbs means the racquet can 'orbit' the torso at a farther distance, translating to more natural torque and more efficient pace. If you're too built, flexibility and range of motion suffer, so you'll have to muscle the ball more to hit hard, making you more injury-prone. So I'd say the 6'2 skinny guy still has a tennis advantage over a built 5'10 guy. That's why you don't see 5'10 built guys anywhere in tennis.

The difference in raw, non-radial racquet-head speed will not be very different between a strong or weak guy when both use good technique. After all, they're not doing reps of 240 lbs out there, just swinging a very light aerodynamic instrument. But take into account the radial component and the speed increases linearly with height. That's a drastic difference because it means a guy who grew much taller but stayed the same weight would be naturally swinging 10-15% faster than before.

LeeD 10-07-2012 11:41 AM

post 12 nails it.....
Height allows your serve, your reach, your netplay, your overheads, to be stronger, AND, it allows you to pummell what would be high bouncing balls for a short guy.
Nobody slices anymore, so they don't need to reach their shoetops.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:20 PM.

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