Is it their age difference that explains how Rios in this clip makes JMac look silly?

[DeShaun]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4tcU...eature=related

I've honestly never seen McEnroe take such a beat down as in this clip.
Granted it's only an exhibition.

[Tshooter]

36 year old Rios losses 2 games in one set to 53 year old JMac.

Either Rios is being a gentleman (out of character) or we disagree on who looks "silly."

[Limpinhitter]

I don't get the title of this thread. If anything I thought Mac proved that his ground game is still as good as Rios', even if his legs are gone. If Marcelo Rios had any self respect he'd still be playing on the regular tour. What really looks silly is that Rios chooses to play against former greats who almost old enough to be his father.

[kiki]

Rios was never man enough to challenge for the big titles...no wonder he needs to assert himself playing guys 15 or 20 years older...

[robow7]

Originally Posted by Tshooter

36 year old Rios losses 2 games in one set to 53 year old JMac.

In case you're lucky enough not to know this yet,

by 30 you may be starting to lose a step but that's all, still able to play prime tennis.

by 40 you've lost more than a step and only the amazing can still compete at the top level, think Gonzales and Rosewall. In fact Pancho once said that the eyes go before the legs.

by 50, it's over for everyone, you're not anywhere near the player you once were, no footspeed, no more quick hands and no eyes. You're losing strength but at least new racquet technology has helped here.

Amazing Mac can still be on the same court with him.

[BeHappy]

Rios was 31 years old in that clip and McEnroe was 48.

It was absolutely ridiculous to have a player basically in his prime go up against a 50 year old. (yeah the grind of the tour made him get injured regularly but when he was fit he was basically in his prime still).

[Benhur]

Originally Posted by BeHappy

Rios was 31 years old in that clip and McEnroe was 48.

I read that in 1941, Budge and Tilden played some kind of tour. Budge was 26 and Tilden was 48, but Tilden still managed to win 7 matches.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by BeHappy

Rios was 31 years old in that clip and McEnroe was 48.

It was absolutely ridiculous to have a player basically in his prime go up against a 50 year old. (yeah the grind of the tour made him get injured regularly but when he was fit he was basically in his prime still).

How does a 31 year old qualify for the senior's tour.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by Benhur

I read that in 1941, Budge and Tilden played some kind of tour. Budge was 26 and Tilden was 48, but Tilden still managed to win 7 matches.

Tilden was a master of discoverying and exploiting opponent's weaknesses. Budge didn't have many weaknesses, if any. But, I'm sure that over the course of a long tour, Tilden would have his days.

[BeHappy]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

How does a 31 year old qualify for the senior's tour.

He was retired, over 30 and had been to a grand slam final and was a former world no.1

Originally Posted by Benhur

I read that in 1941, Budge and Tilden played some kind of tour. Budge was 26 and Tilden was 48, but Tilden still managed to win 7 matches.

Those were exhibitions, if Budge won every match people would have stopped buying tickets.

[Benhur]

Originally Posted by BeHappy

Those were exhibitions, if Budge won every match people would have stopped buying tickets.

I doubt the players took these tours as exhibitions, or that they were even referred to as exhibitions. Here is a newspaper article from the summer of 1939 announcing a "Professional Tour" in Australia involving Tilden, Budge and Vines.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=6998,2263591

If it were true that people would stop buying tickets unless Tilden won, then they would have done so, since Budge won the vast majority of the matches in that tour (about 46-7 according to the Wikipedia article). I don't think players viewed those tours as they view exhibitions today.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by BeHappy

Those were exhibitions, if Budge won every match people would have stopped buying tickets.

The point is, exhibitions in professional tennis in those days were the bread and butter of the game as professional tournaments (and money) were fewer. Professional tennis players were basically seen as pariahs back then as far as the tennis establishment was concerned. The authorities and the media would laud the winners of the amateur majors, despite the fact that everyone with more than a keen interest in tennis, knew that the professionals were the better players and were banned from those tournaments.

This is in stark contrast to today where professional tennis is strongly supported by all the authorities and with the top players in the world worth hundreds of millions of pounds/dollars/euros. There is also a very good "order" to the tour these days with players generally playing the same sort of tournaments throughout the year. Exhibitions today are a sideshow, not the bread and butter of the players. The bread and butter of players today are the ATP World Tour tournaments from month to month.

[BeHappy]

Originally Posted by Benhur

I doubt the players took these tours as exhibitions, or that they were even referred to as exhibitions. Here is a newspaper article from the summer of 1939 announcing a "Professional Tour" in Australia involving Tilden, Budge and Vines.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=6998,2263591

If it were true that people would stop buying tickets unless Tilden won, then they would have done so, since Budge won the vast majority of the matches in that tour (about 46-7 according to the Wikipedia article). I don't think players viewed those tours as they view exhibitions today.

It's the same with today's exhibitions, in a best of 3 match the players will deliberately split the first two sets then fight it out for real in the third.

In the same way, Budge wouldn't have let Tilden win the series, but he was happy to let him win enough to keep the tickets rolling in.