Originally Posted by pc1
Playing with a wood racquet is far more demanding than playing with the racquets of today, trust me on this. The wood racquets were smaller but heavier than the racquets of today. Try hitting with that type of racquet for thousands of swings and there is a major difference.
And actually tennis was a battle to make a living in those days. They didn't make the huge sums of money that they make today. It was not leisurely but a battle to survive. Guys like Pancho Gonzalez, when he play the major head to head tours knew he had to win or he would be a has been. How's that for pressure?
Of course it's not the racquet that makes a good player but a great racquet can improve your level of play and what you can do with the ball. Do you think it was easy to hit heavy topspin with the older racquets? They had to hit flatter shots because the racquets wouldn't allowed them to hit the heavy topspin easily.
I am trying to point out to you that the equipment often make you think the present players were FAR superior to the players of the past when it, imo isn't true. It's an illusion caused by the superior equipment. That's why I pointed out how McEnroe, over age 50 almost beat Andy Roddick two years ago in World Team Tennis in another post. John McEnroe in his prime lost to Tony Roche, past his prime. Not saying Roche was better than McEnroe but he would have been competitive if both were in their primes. It would be tough for both.
That's why I also point out how the women today can belt the ball like heck and look FAR better than the male players of the 1960's and 1970'a when you know the men would destroy them if they used the same equipment.
That is true.Wood rackets penalize those images while, at the same time, where much more burden on your arm ( and guts strings).Not many people in the current pro tour would play with a Head Vilas...I know what I am talking about.
"Esther,Evonne,Hana,Martina: was it a fairy stick or a tennis racket?"