Modern Tennis Is A Brutal Sport

[pc1]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Of course. Everyone knows that, not only is tennis harder and better and stronger today than at any time in the past, it is also hotter and more humid--thus more brutal.

It's global warming.

Ah, this explains the mystery of how heat and humidity when you have a higher temperature in the past is more brutal today. The global warning causes the sun to break through a tiny fraction of the Ozone layer to just focus on the tennis player today. Therefore the heat is more concentrated just at the baseline.

[kiki]

that is the reason we need another Rocket to crush the earth.

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

And way more stupid.

Maybe Blaz is a wimp.? 3-6, 6-3, 6-4, 6-7, 10-8 in 104 degree weather--sounds like a tough match. Bet he couldn't play a tough match before the tie-breaker was invented, like Gonzales did.

Gonzales won at Wimbledon against Charlie Pasarell: 22-24, 1-6, 16-14, 6-3, 11-9. But it was probably hotter in Sydney. But then Gonzales lived in Las Vegas where it has been known to get hot . . . occasionally.

Pancho would have won this match easily with his S&V style--no hours of brainless, exhausting baseline-bashing.

If only they knew how to volley today.?

But, oh yes, volleying is obsolete and endless baseline-bashing is so "heroically" physical (and so dumb in that heat--but it's all they know how to do).

Duh!?

taking a stroll in the hot sun for 4 hrs is not the same as running for 4 hrs, if you get my drift..

old-timers are truly delusional if they have trouble acknowledging the simple fact that tennis today is more physically brutal today than it was during lavers.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by fed_rulz

taking a stroll in the hot sun for 4 hrs is not the same as running for 4 hrs, if you get my drift..

old-timers are truly delusional if they have trouble acknowledging the simple fact that tennis today is more physically brutal today than it was during lavers.

...and brutal means " better"?

[urban]

I am not so sure, if baseline tennis takes more energy than serve and volley tennis. Before WWII, when baseline tennis dominated the scene, people thought it would be impossible, to serve and volley for 5 sets. The only one in the 20s and 30s, who attacked the net, Jean Borotra, often threw sets to get a rest and come back to the net in the next set. It was the Hopman training regimen that changed this perception. The Aussies, fine athletic specimen like Emerson, who excelled at track and field, certainly could attack the net for full 5 sets. Gonzalez knew how to win, he paced himself well, focussed on his own serve and - for instance in the Pasarell match - did nothing on return games, when he fell behind in such a game.

[borg number one]

Serve and volley tennis takes a lot of energy too, no doubt about it. As some posters have touched on, including Urban above, serve and volley tennis can be very demanding as well. It takes a lot of explosive speed and strength too. You end up covering a lot of distance and it's that fast back and forth type of running (sprinting), with plenty of lateral movement mixed in as well. Don't forget the heavier frames too and what that does to your arm over the course of a match. Players like Rosewall, Laver, Roche, Emerson, Borg, Vilas, etc. (the list goes on..) were all former players that worked their tails off in training out there on the courts for many, many years, starting at a very young age. They were all extremely fit and just plain tough customers. Go out this weekend and run like this for about 30 mins and see how it feels.

Laver vs. Roche in the 1969 Australian Open SF

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHaN2h21ANs

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by fed_rulz

taking a stroll in the hot sun for 4 hrs is not the same as running for 4 hrs, if you get my drift..

old-timers are truly delusional if they have trouble acknowledging the simple fact that tennis today is more physically brutal today than it was during lavers.

Ahhh, simple facts.

Young-timers will grab at any straw to persuade themselves that now is the best of all possible times.

Originally Posted by TMF

This is what happen to Kavcic after his match in the 2nd round. He was completely gone after a brutal match, with exhaustion, injuries, pain, and force to see medical attention. He's only 25 years old, unlike 40 years old Gonzales who had no problem competing in the old days when tennis was easier on the body.

Ohh, for Ockham's Razor.

Here's a simpler, less convoluted, less delusional interpretation: Kavcic was not in good condition and is weak.
The results are the same: he is exhausted, injured, in pain, and needs medical attention.

Poof--the tennis is harder and more brutal conclusion evaporates into the hot air of which it is composed.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by fed_rulz

taking a stroll in the hot sun for 4 hrs is not the same as running for 4 hrs, if you get my drift..

old-timers are truly delusional if they have trouble acknowledging the simple fact that tennis today is more physically brutal today than it was during lavers.

Don't mind him. I doubt that he even saw Nole and Wawrinka match. Even if he did, he probably think it was a stroll in the park.
And the game/condition can reward a player to win 200 titles.