Why do people say that a player is "too short" to win slams?

[NLBwell]

Originally Posted by dangalak

You don't understand me. I am saying that it is size that is correlated with power, not height. Do you seriously believe that a guy like Mike Tyson (5'10'', 210+ lbs) wouldn't hit harder groundstrokes than Djokovic, given equal skill? Tall people aren't usually powerful. Big people are. If in tennis, somebody was deemed "too small" to develop power, I would understand. But they say "too short" which doesn't make sense to me. A 5'10'' tall, 210 lbs guy should, given good technique, hit harder than a 6'2 tall 180lbs guy.

In serving, I agree that height matters a whole lot. But for power of the ground it really shouldn't.

You don't seem to know how to hit a tennis ball efficiently. Stocky guys generally can not hit tennis balls nearly as hard a long flexible guys. You can't throw a brick as fast as you can crack a whip (cracking the whip is when the tip goes supersonic).

Some day there will be a short guy who becomes #1 again. From the early days of tennis most of the top guys have been 6' to 6' 3". There have always been exceptions to that rule - guys who beat all the taller guys. There will be again. It is a disadvantage to be shorter than 6', but not one that can't be overcome if the shorter player is the better player.

[leecc0]

I'm 5'5 and serve better than most people that are taller than me...including flat serves.

[dangalak]

Is it shameful to admit that I don't really play tennis?

How the hell does Serena get so much power then? And how on earth does Djokovic not overwhelm Nadal and Federer easily? I mean, he did dominate Nadal a while, but that was mostly because he hits flatter, not because he hits with more racquethead speed.

[reversef]

Not easy to win a slam when you are as tall as Olivier Rochus.

[ledwix]

Originally Posted by leecc0

I'm 5'5 and serve better than most people that are taller than me...including flat serves.

But that is not at the pro level. Given professionally trained technique on both sides of the court, a 6'2 person *will* serve harder and with more margin of error than a 5'5 person. The height of the net and distance to the service line highly limit the safeties of serving over 115 as a shorter person; someone tall enough to hit the serve down into the court rather up-and-down will not experience the same limiting factor.

[lendl1986]

Height has at least 3 advantages:

1. Higher serving angles.
2. More powerful groundstrokes (it's physics: if you measure the speed of a straight "lever", the speed is greatest at its tip...and a longer leveler means more speed in the contact zone.
3. More reach on service returns.

Height WAS a liability for decades because it does slow movement. But modern training makes it possible for a Berdych, DelPotro, etc. to have enough speed to be successful.

[RF20Lennon]

If the ball kicks up high way easier to hit it when you are taller

[TMF]

Being taller than the optimum height is still better than being shorter. Del Potro managed to win a slam and Berdych was close. However, there wasn't anyone at 5'8" was ever a threat.

Ferrer and Davy can't do much with just talent alone. Had they played in the 60s when height wasn't an issue, who knows how much they would have accomplished.

[RF20Lennon]

Originally Posted by dangalak

Is it shameful to admit that I don't really play tennis?

How the hell does Serena get so much power then? And how on earth does Djokovic not overwhelm Nadal and Federer easily? I mean, he did dominate Nadal a while, but that was mostly because he hits flatter, not because he hits with more racquethead speed.

Bro tennis is fun!! Go play!

[jokinla]

Michael Chang wasn't.

[wangs78]

Greater height translates to:
1) Greater power/racquet speed (with equal effort)
2) Greater reach/court coverage (both in terms of arm reach and ability to cover the court in, say 5-6 steps versus 8-9 steps)
3) Greater ability to carry muscle mass on one's body without getting too bulky
4) Greater height and therefore angle on serve, giving the player a greater margin for error and hence ability to add more power to the serve

But once you get too tall, greater height translates into:
1) Reduced speed and agility
2) Reduced hand-eye coordination. Think of it this way, having longer arms will mean the ball is that much farther from you when you hit it versus if you have shorter arms.
3) Larger players also *seem* to be more prone to injury, especially to knees, ankles, etc. - this totally makes sense because a taller player's joints are dealing with that much more stress and torque.

I think throughout modern history, our top athletes have gotten taller/bigger because with modern technology and training programs, the increased focus that professional athletes have nowadays (not to mention the amount of money they make to be able to pay for the training, the equipment, the massages) have allowed bigger players to overcome the drawbacks of being too tall. For the moment it appears that the ideal height for tennis at the highest levels is from 6' 1" to 6' 3" and weighting 175-190lb or so. My guess is at the amateur / club level where people don't train anywhere near as hard 5' 10" to 6' 0" and 165-180lb is perfect.

[Wuppy]

Tennis is a "game of angles," and greater height allows more angles. This, coming from a guy who's 5'8"

If Ferrer were Federer's height, he'd probably be #1 or 2. If Isner were Federer's height he wouldn't be Top 500.

[dangalak]

Originally Posted by Wuppy

Tennis is a "game of angles," and greater height allows more angles. This, coming from a guy who's 5'8"

If Ferrer were Federer's height, he'd probably be #1 or 2. If Isner were Federer's height he wouldn't be Top 500.

If Isner was Federer's height, he would probably be better than he is now.

[Wuppy]

Originally Posted by dangalak

If Isner was Federer's height, he would probably be better than he is now.

I don't understand the joke I guess. His serve is literally the only thing Isner has. And his serve is only good because of his height. He can't break Top-40 pros' serves, but they can't break his serve, so a huge percentage of Isner sets go to tiebreakers, which he often manages to eke out by 2 points.

Look at his match with Anderson yesterday. EVERY set went to a tiebreaker. It's ridiculous.

What happened at Wimbledon a couple of years ago.. a set going to 60 points or whatever it was.. will never happen again because nobody has such a disparity between his serve and playing ability.

Isner is a Futures player with a (nearly) GOAT serve. That's about it. If anybody can't see how height plays a role in that, I don't know what to tell them.

[LeeD]

It appears the OP really doesn't play tennis afterall.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by SoBad

Smaller guys are often stronger and have better serves.

No....................

[SoBad]

Originally Posted by sureshs

No....................

I wonder who will close the calendar slam first - Karlovic or Isner.

[dangalak]

Originally Posted by Wuppy

Tennis is a "game of angles," and greater height allows more angles. This, coming from a guy who's 5'8"

If Ferrer were Federer's height, he'd probably be #1 or 2. If Isner were Federer's height he wouldn't be Top 500.

Originally Posted by Wuppy

I don't understand the joke I guess. His serve is literally the only thing Isner has. And his serve is only good because of his height. He can't break Top-40 pros' serves, but they can't break his serve, so a huge percentage of Isner sets go to tiebreakers, which he often manages to eke out by 2 points.

Look at his match with Anderson yesterday. EVERY set went to a tiebreaker. It's ridiculous.

What happened at Wimbledon a couple of years ago.. a set going to 60 points or whatever it was.. will never happen again because nobody has such a disparity between his serve and playing ability.

Isner is a Futures player with a (nearly) GOAT serve. That's about it. If anybody can't see how height plays a role in that, I don't know what to tell them.

If Isner was Federer's height, he probably wouldn't have his godawful movement and his terrible baseline game.

Saying "If he was Federer's height, he wouldn't even be top 500" is silly, becaus even though his serve would decline, he wouldn't have the weaknesses he has now either. You basically think that a shorter Isner would suffer from losing his advantages, but ignore that he would also lose his disadvantages.

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by Wuppy

I don't understand the joke I guess. His serve is literally the only thing Isner has. And his serve is only good because of his height. He can't break Top-40 pros' serves, but they can't break his serve, so a huge percentage of Isner sets go to tiebreakers, which he often manages to eke out by 2 points.

Look at his match with Anderson yesterday. EVERY set went to a tiebreaker. It's ridiculous.

What happened at Wimbledon a couple of years ago.. a set going to 60 points or whatever it was.. will never happen again because nobody has such a disparity between his serve and playing ability.

Isner is a Futures player with a (nearly) GOAT serve. That's about it. If anybody can't see how height plays a role in that, I don't know what to tell them.

Well, you could argue his movement would be much, MUCH better, and possibly his groundstrokes too, if he was shorter. His net game too. I think it all ties back to movement though, it would make the rest of his game better. In reality Isner's groundstrokes aren't THAT bad -- but he lumbers around the court horribly, which is why he has little success on his return games. When he gets a hold of one, he can rip it, and his 1-2 punch (big serve followed by forehand) is effective, because he doesn't have to move as much and has time to hit the forehand. His putaway forehand is actually pretty darn good. He can still break you if you don't move him around. Unfortunately for him, tennis isn't a stationary sport.

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by nereis

Height (limb length, rather) conveys a higher potential racket speed and angle from which to hit your serve. So of course its an easy advantage to have and requires no effort on anyone's part but having the right genetics for it.

It's also a more common feature than ironman type endurance, explosive power, Agassi-like hand-eye coordination or excellent dynamic balance.

All things equal, a taller man will find it easier to hit big serves consistently.

However, that isn't to say that height is a necessity. Hewitt, Agassi and Chang were around 5'10 from memory. They were simply better tennis players than their opponents.

This..........