Modern Tennis Is A Brutal Sport
 

Is everybody enjoying the Australian Open lately ?

This is what happen to Kavcic after his match in the 2nd round. He was completely gone after a brutal match, with exhaustion, injuries, pain, and force to see medical attention. He's only 25 years old, unlike 40 years old Gonzales who had no problem competing in the old days when tennis was easier on the body. That's why players in the pre-open era and even in the 70s were able to win so many titles. I hope you all understand why it's not possible to win a lot titles because the game is way more physical then ever. So please, don't use Laver's 200 titles as has equal weight to today's standard. It holds a standard to his era but no way it's comparable to today.

http://www.news.com.au/sport/tennis/...-1226556127915

I sense a lot of angry old geezers in your near future

Another negative post about the past game and Laver from TMF. What a surprise. You realize that players in the past also have collapsed during long matches also.

Just a few examples of players collapsing: Vines 1933 in Davis Cup vs. Perry, Buchholz cramping and collapsing vs. Fraser on matchpoint for himself, Wim 1960. At the AO the players had to play in the brutal heat on midday, there was no roof and mostly there were no evening matches.

PC1, are you saying players were calling the MTO as often as today? Retire prematurely as often? I don't know about the 60s, but does anyone know that players were getting treatment as often as today? I doubt that. Please be honest, and don't hide the fact.

The match between Nole and Stan was another gruesome encounter, where Stan need all the treatments from the trainer he can get, and yet, that wasn't enough because he could barely jogging due to the cramp and fatigue. ESPN was showing both players ran over 3+ miles throughout the match.

There also was no sitting down between games. Shoes were terrible compared to today causing blisters so the players would have problems walking if they played too much. I believe Laver and Gonzalez played the final of the US Pro in 1964 in conditions that has been described as monsoon like.

I understand every sport there's bound to be an incident when one player is almost helpless. But the point is how often it occured.

The match was the great encounter between two top players but it does amaze me that you complain about some posters here writing negative things where you often initiate it.

Yes players are in great shape today and players were in great shape in the past.

Here's one point from some oldies. They did a little running here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSXETXKi7OI

Perspective
 

There are a few ways to look at this. You can say that the game today is more grueling than in the past because of the long baseline rallies or you can also look at it also as perhaps many do not want to venture to the net to put away easy shots with strong volleys. Pete Sampras was hardly known for his great stamina although he won many five set matches. He was able to serve and volley more in later years because his skills (great serve and excellent volley) allowed him too.

I understand for example that after the Laver-Connors challenge match in 1975 that Connors collapsed with cramps in the locker room. Laver said afterwards he could have played ten sets if need be.

Djokovic was super impressive with his movement and stamina today as was Wawrinka but does Wawrinka look like a Superman to you that would sweep aside all players in the past? After all you are implying that the tennis is so physical today that players of the past could never handle it. Logically Wawrinka should wear down guys like Borg and Gonzalez with his baseline play. Are you saying that?

The game is very physical today but they also have the best equipment to minimize the wear on the body. Is it tougher today? Maybe but maybe not.

Are you telling me that the ancient ballerinas collapsed after dancing around patting the ball back and forth? Maybe they shouldn't have worn pants LMFAO.

ROFL don't even get me started on the heat back then. Every1 knows that the global warming has only recently made tennis in the brutal heat possible. Go 2 school, kid.

--------

Just kidding, everyone. I don't know why everything has to be a competition between modern and past tennis.

The recovery time from such matches is sooner as is the recovery from injuries, because of medical advances in nutrition and hydration therapy, pain and physical therapy. It is easier to replenish the right nutrients, when we better understand what they are and how they interrelate and how they are digested.. It is easier to treat injuries when you can see them better, diagnose them quicker and repair them less invasively. Recuperation times frames are shorter when you have more options for pain relief and muscle, tendon and bone repair and when you can target your response more accurately.

Modern science is more than a convenience for modern athletes. Kavic should be back on the court and effective again sooner than he would if this happened in 1967. It is more than convenient that specialists in sports injuries, and imaging equipment are all over the globe, and not just LA, New York and some capitals. Its nice for athletes than those specialties actually exist and are meaningful.

Didn't know the Joffrey had tennis players?:)

Peple want it both ways: they claim the game is more physical now so it's harder to win more titles, but at the same time say that nutrition and training are so much more advanced than they were decades ago. Which is it? The players of the 1960s were poorly conditioned, trained on beer, but were able to play enough to win 200 titles????

Thing is that it's tough in any era. Laver used to play every day when he was in the pros. They played in horrible conditions and horrible places. It only started getting much better in 1968 when the Open Era started. No there were not ballet stars dancing around. Incidentally aside from singles most of them played doubles. Less effort than singles of course but still some extra work.

Here's Laver when he was 36 against Connors in 1975. Do they look like they're just dancing? Like I wrote earlier, I understand Connors collapsed of cramps after the match and Laver walked around easily saying he could have played ten sets.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SptdffCeVmM

A few points here, it's not easy swinging a heavier wooden racquet for thousands of swings over the years. The vibrations also hurt your arm. The equipment like the tennis shoes were not nearly as great as what we have now. When I used to play when I was younger I used to get blisters all the time on my feet. I never get them now due to the better shoes.

Guys like Vines and Budge could barely walk after a few matches on their tours due to the horrible bloody blisters on their feet. I don't think they got that from dancing around. A few quotes from Budge's excellent book "Don Budge, a Tennis Memoir"--When we could, then, we would leave right after a match and drive as far as possible that night, stopping only when we were all just too tired to continue. Often we would pull in at random into some tourist cabins or a small-town hotel. More than once we startled some wizened old room clerk, who would be slumped down, half asleep, when we would barge in at two or three in the morning.

Another quote--"I pulled off my shoes as gingerly as I could. The bottoms of my feet were covered with blood that was gushing from several big broken blisters. "Ellie," I said, "how in the world am I going to keep playing this tour?" We've hardly started and look at my feet already."

Ellie only chuckled, "Well kid," he said, "take a look at these." He carefully pulled off a shoe and the sock off one of his feet, and , if possible, the sight reveal was even uglier and bloodier than the one my feet had prevented.

It's all subject to debate whether it was tougher in the past or now but no doubt we do have better health care on the court now. Medical people are there to take care of the pros. Clothing is better so the sweat evaporates quickly now. Player have teams of trainers and professional caring for them.

I would say Tennis at the Top Levels has always been brutal. Ask Jimmy Connors if every match he played wasn't a battle.

Makes you wonder how many players in eras past had a cig before a big match.

What the OP fails to realise is that yes, tennis is a much more brutal sport today than it was 50 years ago. But it's more brutal today because of the advancements in technology. Better racquets, better training methods, better recovery methods, better diets, better footwear, better IP in just about every facet of the game. Plus, tennis did not always have sit downs at the change of ends. Tennis did not always have tiebreaks at 6-6 of a set to bring it to a premature close. Give Laver that sort of technology and groom him for today's era and then you would see a more brutal version of himself. He would still probably have that Popeye forearm and he would still have that tennis ability, but he would have all the other stuff that goes with being a top player today.

Each generation learns from the previous generation. Next the OP will talk about how office secretaries are so much better today because they have Microsft computers yet the secretary from yesteryear only had typewriters.

OP, I'm afraid you're comparing apples with oranges.

This is such a great post whether a person agrees with it or not. Love next to the last paragraph.

that's how he would look after a match with laver too. :)

tennis does seem more grueling now and the players are in better shape, but players decades ago got exhaustion and iv's after their matches too, they just didnt instagram or write about it back then. for example during connors 91 run at the usopen he got iv's after his matches.. its the only way to quickly hydrate yourself so you can recover fast enough.

I don't think this was TMF's point. Rather, he meant to argue that past players could never accrue those insane title counts if they were playing a game as physical as the modern one. If one were to endorse this point they could nevertheless maintain that past greats would do very well in the modern game.

Yes, you really don't know about the 60s.