Backwards According To Kramer

tennisbumlv · 09-01-2008, 11:57 PM

When Jack Kramer wrote his book about how to play tennis, it was under the assumption that to win a point you got to the net and put a volley away. Or, if you got lobbed, you stuffed an overhead down someone's throat. When he diagrammed his tennis court he had it divided into three zones: the RED ZONE (THE AREA WITHIN 6 OR 7 FEET OF THE BASELINE) THE AMBER ZONE (the middle of the court including the first 2 or 3 feet of the service box, and the GREEN ZONE (EVERYTHING IN FRONT OF THAT).

The whole premise behind the color-coded court was to help you decide when to attack. RED ZONE - never attack, GREEN ZONE - always attack, AMBER ZONE - use your disgression, but you were always looking to attack. The good players were good because they could get to the net and end the point. If you possessed the skill to be able to follow your serve in or approach the net behind anything short, why would you want to dogfight it out from the baseline? Make no mistake about it: volleys, half-volleys and overheads are the skill shots in tennis! (As evidenced by everyone on the tours inability to hit them).

The skill level in tennis has deteriorated to the point that watching almost any match on TV is like watching two beginners who haven't progressed past hitting forehands and backhands. Then I have to listen to some announcer insightfully informing me this player has a baseline game. "Baseline Game"??? Isn't that what the people in the park play who can't keep score? Nobody's good enough to attack! We have no one who can serve or volley and no one who can chip and charge. Which means we have no one who can change their game, no one who can execute a plan "B".

Tilden said: "Never change a winning game, always change a losing game." This isn't even an option on today's tour because no one has a complete enough game to be able to make any changes. If any of the top men or women players are losing, there is nothing they can do about it: not Rafa, not Federer, not Sharapova, not Ivanovic- they just stay back on the baseline and lose.

Now I have to listen to Gilbert and Cahill expounding the virtues of growing up on red clay. Let's go back to the 50's and 60's when 3 of the 4 grand slams were on grass and attacking tennis was in its heyday. This is before the tennis gods at the USTA decided that tennis was a product to be marketed and decided that the viewing public wanted to see rallys and changed the surface at the US Open from grass to Har-Tru. In the process, they undercut a whole ( and the last) generation of players who had developed offensive attacking games and made a bunch of open stance dirtballers look like they knew how to play when they didn't.

You would think that the dirtballers had their best chance of winning the French Open when the other three Grand Slams were on grass and the red clay would be a harder adjustment. But, look at the record books: grass courters with their big offensive weaponry dominated the French, ie, Rosewall (twice), Trabert (twice), Hoad, Laver (twice), Emerson (twice), Roche and Stolle. Do I have to go on?

The fact that we've regressed backwards for 35 years is evidenced by Kramer's color-coded court. Kramer's GREEN ZONE where everyone used to want to end up is now the RED ZONE where nobody wants to end up. And, Kramer's RED ZONE that you were always looking to move out of is today's players GREEN ZONE - a place they never want to move out of. In today's game everyone is so afraid to lose that no one wants to take any chances. Federer said that he didn't like coming to the net because he didn't want to give someone a chance to beat him with one shot. You can see where that lack of courage has gotten him. Only someone with no understanding of the game of tennis would ever think a clay court game superior to a grass court game. How lost are you people?

ClarkC · 09-02-2008, 07:48 AM

I love serve and volley tennis. However, it is ridiculous to talk about the changes in style for as many sentences as you spewed at us and not mention the changes in equipment and grips and topspin and the effect these all have on the serve and volley game. To claim that the changes are just because (1) some surfaces changed away from grass, and (2) no one has any skill any more, is absurd.

Gob_ · 09-02-2008, 11:21 AM

Wow dude, I mean I love serve & volley, but that was ridiculous. Way to use a quote from Tilden to emphasize how much you hate baseline play when Tilden primarily played pretty much exclusively from the baseline. He said a perfect baseliner can beat a perfect serve & volleyer every time. Check your facts next time before acting like you're an expert, man, you just come off as ignorant.

09-02-2008, 12:02 PM

Onion belt.

that is all

Il Mostro · 09-03-2008, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gob_

Wow dude, I mean I love serve & volley, but that was ridiculous. Way to use a quote from Tilden to emphasize how much you hate baseline play when Tilden primarily played pretty much exclusively from the baseline. He said a perfect baseliner can beat a perfect serve & volleyer every time. Check your facts next time before acting like you're an expert, man, you just come off as ignorant.

Speaking of Tilden, does anyone want to model their games after a man whose nickname was "Stump Finger" (unbelievable, but true) and had an unabashed fetish for young boys?

Gob_ · 09-04-2008, 08:54 PM

I don't really think that has anything to do with Tilden's achievements in his career in tennis, but I was just pointing out how ridiculous tennisbum's argument was.

bigmatt · 09-07-2008, 08:48 AM

Tilden as much as admitted in his book that the "perfect" volleyer vs "perfect" groundstroker argument was specious because there was no such thing, but that the "perfect" volleyer would never get to use his skills because he'd get passed by every return or first groundstroke. In effect, he called the argument irrelevant.
It is sad, though, how all-round play has disappeared from the tours: even the best hands (like Federer) are relegated to the backcourt by the (lack of) speed of the courts. It does appear to me, though, that the USTA has made a fair surface this year due to the larger number of net approaches I've seen, and by the ability of attacking players like Muller to advance deep into the draw.

nickynu · 09-09-2008, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tennisbumlv

t In today's game everyone is so afraid to lose that no one wants to take any chances. Federer said that he didn't like coming to the net because he didn't want to give someone a chance to beat him with one shot. You can see where that lack of courage has gotten him. Only someone with no understanding of the game of tennis would ever think a clay court game superior to a grass court game. How lost are you people?

yeah look where Fed got ,correct me if I am wrong but he did seem to win a grand slam the other night. sorry if your whole premise just got blown away but you seem a little lost. re programme your sat nav man

09-01-2008, 11:57 PM	#1
tennisbumlv New User Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 1	Backwards According To Kramer When Jack Kramer wrote his book about how to play tennis, it was under the assumption that to win a point you got to the net and put a volley away. Or, if you got lobbed, you stuffed an overhead down someone's throat. When he diagrammed his tennis court he had it divided into three zones: the RED ZONE (THE AREA WITHIN 6 OR 7 FEET OF THE BASELINE) THE AMBER ZONE (the middle of the court including the first 2 or 3 feet of the service box, and the GREEN ZONE (EVERYTHING IN FRONT OF THAT). The whole premise behind the color-coded court was to help you decide when to attack. RED ZONE - never attack, GREEN ZONE - always attack, AMBER ZONE - use your disgression, but you were always looking to attack. The good players were good because they could get to the net and end the point. If you possessed the skill to be able to follow your serve in or approach the net behind anything short, why would you want to dogfight it out from the baseline? Make no mistake about it: volleys, half-volleys and overheads are the skill shots in tennis! (As evidenced by everyone on the tours inability to hit them). The skill level in tennis has deteriorated to the point that watching almost any match on TV is like watching two beginners who haven't progressed past hitting forehands and backhands. Then I have to listen to some announcer insightfully informing me this player has a baseline game. "Baseline Game"??? Isn't that what the people in the park play who can't keep score? Nobody's good enough to attack! We have no one who can serve or volley and no one who can chip and charge. Which means we have no one who can change their game, no one who can execute a plan "B". Tilden said: "Never change a winning game, always change a losing game." This isn't even an option on today's tour because no one has a complete enough game to be able to make any changes. If any of the top men or women players are losing, there is nothing they can do about it: not Rafa, not Federer, not Sharapova, not Ivanovic- they just stay back on the baseline and lose. Now I have to listen to Gilbert and Cahill expounding the virtues of growing up on red clay. Let's go back to the 50's and 60's when 3 of the 4 grand slams were on grass and attacking tennis was in its heyday. This is before the tennis gods at the USTA decided that tennis was a product to be marketed and decided that the viewing public wanted to see rallys and changed the surface at the US Open from grass to Har-Tru. In the process, they undercut a whole ( and the last) generation of players who had developed offensive attacking games and made a bunch of open stance dirtballers look like they knew how to play when they didn't. You would think that the dirtballers had their best chance of winning the French Open when the other three Grand Slams were on grass and the red clay would be a harder adjustment. But, look at the record books: grass courters with their big offensive weaponry dominated the French, ie, Rosewall (twice), Trabert (twice), Hoad, Laver (twice), Emerson (twice), Roche and Stolle. Do I have to go on? The fact that we've regressed backwards for 35 years is evidenced by Kramer's color-coded court. Kramer's GREEN ZONE where everyone used to want to end up is now the RED ZONE where nobody wants to end up. And, Kramer's RED ZONE that you were always looking to move out of is today's players GREEN ZONE - a place they never want to move out of. In today's game everyone is so afraid to lose that no one wants to take any chances. Federer said that he didn't like coming to the net because he didn't want to give someone a chance to beat him with one shot. You can see where that lack of courage has gotten him. Only someone with no understanding of the game of tennis would ever think a clay court game superior to a grass court game. How lost are you people?

09-07-2008, 08:48 AM	#7
bigmatt Rookie Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 318	Tilden as much as admitted in his book that the "perfect" volleyer vs "perfect" groundstroker argument was specious because there was no such thing, but that the "perfect" volleyer would never get to use his skills because he'd get passed by every return or first groundstroke. In effect, he called the argument irrelevant. It is sad, though, how all-round play has disappeared from the tours: even the best hands (like Federer) are relegated to the backcourt by the (lack of) speed of the courts. It does appear to me, though, that the USTA has made a fair surface this year due to the larger number of net approaches I've seen, and by the ability of attacking players like Muller to advance deep into the draw. __________________ USRSA MRT Star 5

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

09-02-2008, 12:02 PM	#4
Gugafan_Redux Guest Posts: n/a	Onion belt. that is all