View Single Post
Old 07-10-2012, 04:14 PM   #11
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 9,078

Originally Posted by TomT View Post
I played in the mid 70's with a wood racket and just recently (a few months ago) took up playing again. The improvements in rackets and balls do make a difference. More power of course, but I think that stroking technique has improved also. How much of the improvement in stroking technique is due solely to the equipment changes is hard, maybe impossible, to say.

Anyway, I think that there are some significant differences in the proficiency of the games of the top players of the 2000's (Federer, Nadal, etc.) and the top players of, say, the 60's (Laver, Rosewall, etc.) and the 70's (Connors, Borg, etc.), and that it's not entirely a matter of equipment. That is, if all external factors could be more or less equalized, then my guess is that the players of the 2000's would be favored over the players of the 70's and 60's.

The dominant players (since the 1940's) have been:
1950's -- Gonzalez
1960's -- Laver and Rosewall
1970's -- Connors and Borg
1980's -- McEnroe and Lendl
1990's -- Sampras
2000's -- Federer and Nadal

This is a group of fantastic players by any standard. People who have never seen, up close, world class players competing with wooden tennis rackets would be amazed I think. Would the likes of Federer and Nadal have prevailed had they been in their primes in one of those past eras? I think they would, but that's just my opinion.
Great choices. Wouldn't it be fun if they had several small wood racquets only tournaments on different surfaces?
pc1 is offline   Reply With Quote