unbelievable!!!!!!!

[VikingSamurai]

I am an Australian, and I see it like this.. I was always a big Becker fan.. I am now 32.. But I respected all of the players of the day.. I stopped watching Tennis when Pete Sampras was becoming dominent.. I guess, as Lendl was the robot of the 80's, Sampras was the Lendl of the 90's.. Simply no competition.. Even Agassi dissapeared for a while..

You look at someone like a Borg, or the great Australians Laver, Court, and Emerson. These guys (gals) played in an era where all players basically ran on the same tires (to give an F1 example).. Same clothes, same shoes, same racquets.. Yet these guys and gal ruled... And won on all surfaces.. Not playing a whole year on clay courts to become No 1!

Today, there is so much in the way of technology and extra (help) that these guys simply dont know what tennis is anymore.. Play for no money.. Play for a trophie. Play for the love of it. I am sure these guys and gals would soon tire of the business called tennis..

Never, ever compare the players of today, with the players of yesterday.. The players of today have it way too good, and dont understand tennis as it is meant to be..

Just my 2 cents..

Chris

[maxply]

I like your style

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by JCo872

That's a great argument. I never thought of it that way before!

If it was a great argument, Murray is currently the #1.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by chris_in_japan

Today, there is so much in the way of technology and extra (help) that these guys simply dont know what tennis is anymore.. Play for no money.. Play for a trophie. Play for the love of it. I am sure these guys and gals would soon tire of the business called tennis..

Never, ever compare the players of today, with the players of yesterday.. The players of today have it way too good, and dont understand tennis as it is meant to be..

What is tennis meant to be, what don't they understand, and what is it that they don't know about tennis ?

Oh, BTW, today's scientists don't use slide rules any more, but they do know math.

[krprunitennis2]

"At a professional event in 1951 the forehand drives of a number of players were electronically measured. Pancho Gonzales hit the fastest, 112.88 mph, followed by Jack Kramer at 107.8 and Welby Van Horn at 104. Since it was generally assumed at the time that Segura had the hardest forehand among his contemporaries, it is possible that he was not present at that event. [4]"

Did they have accurate radars in 1951? There has been radar disputes all over serves here in the forums, so I'm not sure about the radars in 1951 (or if they had any).

[Dashbarr]

its possible to have 112 mph forehand drives. high forehands, downwards motion, flat shot, heavy wooden raquet? possible, and i wouldnt be suprised if it was only 4 or 5 mph off.

[Swissv2]

impossible.

Take the videos of these guys and do a video calculation of their service and forehand speed.

[drakulie]

I'm with swiss on this one.

With all the "rage" (especially from older players) about how technology has enabled the players of today to hit faster than when wood racquets were used, today's players can't hit 100+ mph forehands. Occasionally, you will see a player hit a 100+ FH. Occasionally.

Maybe the old generation are really the ones who had an advantage with their "equipment". LOL

[BreakPoint]

Originally Posted by drakulie

Maybe the old generation are really the ones who had an advantage with their "equipment". LOL

You know, I'm actually starting to believe this based upon my two outings with my 25 year-old Maxply McEnroe woodie with 25 year-old strings in it over the past few days. One day of singles and one day of doubles playing many sets and not once was my serve ever broken.

I was also hitting some unreal forehands at greater pace than with my usual nCode 90. My balls were so hard and heavy that my opponents had trouble dealing with them. A few times they didn't even have enough time to get their racquets up to try and volley some of my shots hit at them when they were at net.

Hmmm....maybe there's something to this and the claims of some of the old pros.

[VikingSamurai]

Originally Posted by sureshs

What is tennis meant to be, what don't they understand, and what is it that they don't know about tennis ?

Oh, BTW, today's scientists don't use slide rules any more, but they do know math.

Suresh.. Alot of the players in the day had to work jobs, and play tennis on the side. Share accomodation and training facilities ect ect ect...

Today they get driven around, fly first class, stay in plush hotels, get massages, doctors, trainers, coaches ect ect ect.. And get paid an obscene amount of money to do so..

So yeah, I guess my rant was a little biassed? And I am not really that old too.. I just respect the past and what these guys did to make way for the people who play today!

Chris

[alwaysatnet]

Don't forget that radar measurements calculate the speed of the ball as the striker hits it,not the speed with which it arrives to the returner.Having said that,I can easily believe that a heavy wooden racquet propelled by a guy doing one armed push ups every day could really pound the ball.In my humble opinion the marketing genius' that have pushed the lie that lighter racquets are better(than heavier) have done more to harm the game than any one other factor.What I can't believe is all the presumably grown up adults whining about how heavy their 12 ounce frame feels after three sets.Little girls used to play with wood.Why can't a grown up use a grown up's frame?Perhaps the eighty year olds playing at Palm Springs need to swing a 10 ounce racquet but why should anyone else?