who is better, old timers or modern player?

[drakulie]

Moose, in actuality many "old-timers" and "respected tennis writers/coaches/players", state that Tilden hit 163 mph serves. And that he along with Gonzalez and many others FREQUENTLY hit 100+ mph forehands. I will remind you that they played with wood.

These are feats that have NEVER been seen in the modern game, with the "new technology". Players do not "frequently" hit 100+ mph forehands. And even Roddick with his "juiced up" Babolat, and "juiced up radar gun has been unable to come anywhere near 163 mph.

How were players with a "65 square inch" wood racquet able to retunr 163 mphs serves? How were they able to frequently hit 100+ mph forehands, and get returns from their opponents?

So which is it? Did they, or didn't they?

[NoBadMojo]

We've done this before as I have done wood exhibition matches. I can serve pretty much the same with my first serve as far as ball speed, placement, kick etc, but it takes significantly more effort to do so than with my current frames. the HUGE diference is on second serves....they are so much easier to be effective with using a modern frame. This also makes it strategically a better choice to go for a bigger first serve as we could more easily hit a reliable second serve with a modern frame..better players often hit their second serves with every bit the headspeed of their first, it's just that you put more spin on the second serve and that is MUCH harder to do with a 65 inch wooden frame.
The differences are numerous.....it isnt possible for one advanced player to compete with a wooden frame against someone of the same level using their regular frame....we tried that as well and it was a total lopsided mismatch tryng it both ways
Also the service returns have gotten so much better comparatively speaking to how much the serves have advanced
I'm a 5.0 and used to be significantly better and play all court T.
It really is impossible to compare how one player would do against another from another era because if the old timer were playing today, he would be using different gear and different technique, have more training tools, etc
I would say however, that back then, there were far more real athletes playing tennis than there are now as pro tennis players to me mostly seem more trained than athletic..it's more a fitness grind than a true hand/eye fast twich athletic endeavor and the game reminds me more cycling these days than tennis with a few exceptions. of course todays players are stronger and fitter, have better equipment, better chemicals , better trainers, better training tools, etc.

[chaognosis]

Moose, I see your point about tennis being an especially technology-dependent sport. I do think, however, that all of the arguments about coaching, training, fitness, and the physical advancement of humans, that people make about today's tennis players, could be applied just as easily to baseball players. If one were being consistent, anyway, which most people are not. And there have been some technological changes in baseball. Though I do not know so much about the game, I do know that gloves were substantially redesigned at some point, and also balls themselves have been subject to a great deal of evolution. Wasn't there a new ball introduced shortly before the home run explosion in the late 1990s? My main point is that while these developments have occurred in other sports, to some extent, their fans nevertheless appreciate the historical importance and greatness of past heroes. Ruth usually comes out on top of baseball G.O.A.T. polls, even among casual fans. Where are Tilden and Budge on most tennis polls today? It is sometimes hard to find a fan who has even heard of them, much less one who has a firm knowledge of their accomplishments. This is sad, I think, because Tilden was at least as great a figure in tennis as Ruth was in baseball, and what Budge achieved in the late 1930s was, and is, simply unparalleled.

[EricW]

The thing I don't understand about comparing players of today and people back then was, they didn't have good technique... watch their serves are they don't maximize everything like people do now, i'm sure if roddick used wood for the last 20 years he could still serve the fastest in history, as long as everyone else used wood...

[Frank Silbermann]

Originally Posted by EricW

The thing I don't understand about comparing players of today and people back then was, they didn't have good technique... watch their serves are they don't maximize everything like people do now, i'm sure if roddick used wood for the last 20 years he could still serve the fastest in history, as long as everyone else used wood...

The foot-fault rules were different then. Until maybe twenty years ago (I'm not sure when they made the change), until you made contact you were required to have at least one foot touching the ground behind the baseline and the other foot was not allowed to pass over the baseline.

I'm not sure why they changed the rule; perhaps it was difficult to be consistent between linesmen in calling footfaults.

[Frank Silbermann]

Originally Posted by chaognosis

Modern players are unquestionably better athletes -- more is known now about training, diet, etc., to maximize athletic ability.

Also, there is much better treatment of injuries (including arthroscopic surgery) to repair the damage when players overtrain. In the old days, anyone who tried to train or play like today's players would have had his career ended by the first stress injury.

[Trinity TC]

Originally Posted by Frank Silbermann

The foot-fault rules were different then. Until maybe twenty years ago (I'm not sure when they made the change), until you made contact you were required to have at least one foot touching the ground behind the baseline and the other foot was not allowed to pass over the baseline.

I'm not sure why they changed the rule; perhaps it was difficult to be consistent between linesmen in calling footfaults.

Off the top of my head, I believe it was 1961. It was partially because the application of the foot-fault rule varied from tournament to tournament which hindered the serve and volleyers. I believe some early TV broadcasts in the US used to talk less about the game itself and more about who was cheating by foot-faulting so that was cleared up with the rule change.

There was also a lot of tinkering with the rules in the pro game back in the early 60s in an effort to make it more fan friendly back then. A few I remember were the VASSS (Van Alen Simplified Scoring System), the One serve rule and a rule change where the server had to serve from behind a small line about a foot behind the baseline.

[The Gorilla]

Originally Posted by chaognosis

Moose, I see your point about tennis being an especially technology-dependent sport. I do think, however, that all of the arguments about coaching, training, fitness, and the physical advancement of humans, that people make about today's tennis players, could be applied just as easily to baseball players. If one were being consistent, anyway, which most people are not. And there have been some technological changes in baseball. Though I do not know so much about the game, I do know that gloves were substantially redesigned at some point, and also balls themselves have been subject to a great deal of evolution. Wasn't there a new ball introduced shortly before the home run explosion in the late 1990s? My main point is that while these developments have occurred in other sports, to some extent, their fans nevertheless appreciate the historical importance and greatness of past heroes. Ruth usually comes out on top of baseball G.O.A.T. polls, even among casual fans. Where are Tilden and Budge on most tennis polls today? It is sometimes hard to find a fan who has even heard of them, much less one who has a firm knowledge of their accomplishments. This is sad, I think, because Tilden was at least as great a figure in tennis as Ruth was in baseball, and what Budge achieved in the late 1930s was, and is, simply unparalleled.

tilden was a paedophile, so understandably he has been airbrushed out of tennis history.

[chaognosis]

Originally Posted by The Gorilla

tilden was a paedophile, so understandably he has been airbrushed out of tennis history.

And Budge was an impeccable human being, but he is even less known today than Tilden. If anything, Tilden is better known now because of his dubious late-life, off-court behavior. Most biographers, BTW, paint a not-too-condemning portrait of Big Bill, and seem to make the case that his crimes are more harshly remembered than perhaps they should be. There is no excusing the offense, no question, but it also does not erase what he did for the sport, either on the court or off it. Tennis would almost certainly not exist today, the way we know it, without Tilden's influence.

[VGP]

When are you guys gonna get it?

Sampras and Federer ARE old-timers. Old-timers reincarnate.

They idolize players of the past and employ their styles of strokes, and more importantly, tried and true classic tennis tactics. They take consultation of past greats and kept the traditions alive.

The classics never die.

[Yours!05]

This has to be the best of the many threads on this subject. Be great if someone with a comprehensive collection of old clips could upload them to a "sharing" *cough* site.
Equipment technology has thrown up a veritable dross of boring second class players who have little appeal except to fankids and hinder true appreciation of the game.

@VGP
Hope they aren't the last.

[alwaysatnet]

I think the modern players would have to be considered superior to the old timers strictly on physical differences alone. Today's players are bigger,fitter,better trained and better coached. It takes nothing away from the players who competed before tennis became such a big business,relatively speaking, but you can't ignore all the resources and training that today's players have access to that the old timers didn't. It's pretty useless comparing eras but without doubt today's players have all the technical advantages.

I think most of the players of the past would beat most of the players of today. What if the players of the past had the equipment of today, no contest. I would like to believe this anyway because I think the players of the past had respect and dignity for the way the game should be played.Wearing clean all white clothes, trying to respect the opponent and the referee, shaking hands at the end, even the crowd being quiet during the match. All of these things make me long for the old days. I do not like the fans yelling between points and the players screaming during points. One more thing the only player who would beat anyone of any time in tennis past to present with any equipment is Rodger Federer The best tennis player ever!!!

[slice bh compliment]

Excellent idea for a thread. Some excellent points made already. I'm looking forward to it developing....and reading more. I just wish I had some video to share.

There is a TW Forum member whose screen name is OldGuysRule. Anyone know him/remember his name?
I wonder what his thoughts are on this topic.

[spadesss]

is it safe to say that wooden rackets are tougher to learn, play and master???
i never touched one so i am assuming and asking those who have to give their perspective.

i figured todays' rackets have some many specs for players to choose from or tailor made to some of them even.
did any of the old timer's ever "tailor" made their rackets the way modern players currently do?

[Sagittar]

today players are better , especially fitness related ...

[Frank Silbermann]

Originally Posted by spadesss

is it safe to say that wooden rackets are tougher to learn, play and master???
i never touched one so i am assuming and asking those who have to give their perspective.

i figured todays' rackets have some many specs for players to choose from or tailor made to some of them even.
did any of the old timer's ever "tailor" made their rackets the way modern players currently do?

You could vary the weight from, say, 12 ounces to 16. You could have a racquet that was head-light or evenly balanced.

Because wood is much more flexible than graphite, to get any sort of power in the racquet (i.e., stiffness comparable to the Prince POG) you needed _lots_ of wood, i.e., a very heavy racquet. Baseliners were advised to use the heaviest racquet they could swing, though serve-and-volleyers often used lighter racquets at the expense of their groundstrokes.

Heavy topspin with a heavy racquet was too tiring to rely on in a five set match with no tie-breakers, and the tiny sweetspot would result in lots of mis-hits. That's why players were forced to use good form and correct grips. Today coaches, in contrast, must learn to teach bad form and incorrect grips (i.e., hitting off the back foot with a semi-western grip) because that's what wins.

Note that before WWI there _were_ lots of heavy-topspin western grip players from the concrete-court world of California, but with heavy wooden racquets they could not lift the balls well enough on grass or endure the long points on clay.

[vudal]

Todays 5.0 rating would be equal to the mens level back then.

[VGP]

Originally Posted by vudal

Todays 5.0 rating would be equal to the mens level back then.

That may be true in a basic level, but to say it so gruffly sounds disrespectful to me.

Some people try and convince themselves of this, like NTRP level 5.0 is a magic number or something. Like thinking, "Wow, I'm a 5.0. I've arrived. I coulda, shoulda, woulda gone pro. I'd sure kick some serious ***."

That doesn't mean that "today's 5.0" would be a tennis great back in the day.

What I (and others) conclude is that you really can't compare eras. You can't transport a current 5.0 level player back in time to play Don Budge, Bill Tilden, or Suzanne Lenglen. You can't ressurect Henri Cochet, Maurice McLoughlin or Maureen Connoly, or make younger a Rod Laver, Jack Kramer, or Margaret Court to see how a current 5.0 would really stack up against a player from the past brought here and now.

The issues of equipment, training, surfaces, environment, AND rules all come into play. We've all benefited by learning from the past. I just don't want to see people disrespect the past.

To entertain the idea, if we could transport people.....I think the initial shock would be there. The "old-timer" would probably be initially surprised or overwhelmed. Whether they'd be able to adjust within a set, match, month or year (if they could change equipment and adjust to the surfaces) would be interesting to see. Given time and adjustment, I think we'd see that the great players would still be great and a 5.0 would still be a nameless hack.

[drakulie]

Well I saw a solid 5.0-5.5 player who is ranked in the top 10 here in Florida for 5.0's get his *** whooped by a guy who was a profiessional in the early 70's.

He got beat up very-very badly.