Laver quote from The Sunday Times....

[slice bh compliment]

I use wood too.
But when I do, against someone at the same level as me, yeah, I want to go to the net, but if my approach is not a well-placed slice, the oppenent rocks a pass by me. Less so if he's got a wooden frame in his hand.

Of course, it's tough to find fellow woodsmen these days. Everyone wants to try two minutes with it, sure, but people are afraid to actually commit to it. Maybe they fear injury or something, even though a freshly strung wooden frame is as safe as can be, IMHO.

And yeah, like Laver is saying, they definitely bring out the skill. And fitness, I might add. Points tend to be longer, even indoors with wood. I have to play a more calculating, patient, selective, attacking style with them. Can't just bang.

[javier sergio]

Originally Posted by johncauthen

Laver’s racquets had weight centered around the shoulders. That type of balance meant that he had to swing the racquet back, wait for it to gather itself, then swing it forward without letting it get out of sync with his body. You can see the 50’s and 60’s players doing that. They played tennis in slow motion. That was the insider secret to world class tennis: don’t do anything too fast: don’t just rip.

When racquets got better, the Prince Pro was the first, its balance was still centered around the stringbridge, but the stringbridge was low and the racquet was faster. It almost had an immediate response, which caused traditional players to say the game was losing its class because you could just go out there and rip.

Every other racquet was engineered to feel like the Prince Pro. Traditionalists have hated the Prince Pro. Everybody else loved it and tennis boomed. Becker’s racquet happened to be the best Prince Pro clone.

But lately, traditionalists have fought back. They are making racquets with the weight centered higher in the frame, more like the racquets Laver played with. Those racquets slow you down. We could go back to playing tennis in slow motion, never letting our bodies exceed the speed of the racquet, which was the secret to classy and successful tennis in Laver’s time. That tennis required a certain discipline but was less athletic.

It was classy, but Federer and Gonzalez have just showed us what the highest version of modern racquets can produce. How did Gonzalez get this racquet balance? Because Gonzalez’s game was in serious trouble. He was almost ready to quit tennis in the early rounds of the Australian. He was down on himself, and he has an influential coach, so his coach apparently got him some of the best state of the art racquets Babolat could produce.

The state of the art was no longer exclusive. Six-out-of-eight doubles semifinalist used the same racquet at the Masters. The doubles was spectacular. Federer came to the Australian with that racquet in perfect tune and played amazing tennis. Somehow, Gonzalez through his influential coach got this racquet balance technology. In two matches after he wanted to quit tennis altogether, Gonzalez had 65 winners and 5 errors.

In the Final neither Federer nor Gonzalez played well. That was probably because the traditionalists want to go back to 1950’s balance and they were actually offended by the tennis Federer and Gonzalez were playing. Traditional tennis is where you conform to the speed of the racquet. Gonzalez and Federer were both playing intuitive tennis, where you move the racquet as fast as your body could move. The tennis was inspirational. Tennis had achieved the pure athleticism of other sports.

It only lasted until the Semifinals of the Australian. That tennis was not seen in Chile yesterday as Gonzalez lost early. Nor at Delray Beach where Blake had the same racquet he used at the Australian, but it wasn’t at the level of Gonzalez’s racquet when Gonzalez beat him.

There is now another side to the “racquets are ruining tennis argument”. We’ve seen what perfect racquets can produce. They make tennis inspiring, which makes us think perfect racquets might be just what tennis needs.

Meanwhile, there is a war between racquet philosophies. Prince is slowly turning Sharapova’s racquet into Laver’s racquet balance. But Wilson decided on that occasion to give Serena the best racquet they could make. Sharapova got 3 games.

John, this video proves ?????????? something that you stated about Gonzalez (unfortunately in spanish).
He is warming up for the first round of the Australian Open and the guy that interviews him says somethig like this while introduces Gonzalez;
....... first round for Gonzalez......... when are you playing......? and before He finishes with the question Gonzalez says "I'm playing my first and last round"
He is laughing about that but somehow does not show much confidence to reach the final of the AO.
What happened from then on, Did he change his racquet? Is it the racquet what makes the difference ? Not the players????

[javier sergio]

Originally Posted by Rabbit

While I didn't see it, I did hear about it. Yes, Nalbandian & Gaudio lost if I remember correctly. And it wasn't that close.

On another note, it is good to hear the Clerc and Vilas are on good enough terms to play together.

Vilas - Clerc I believe are not friends but they shared many events in the past couple of years.
I saw that match last year, I think the young guys won, but they could not play at all with the old racquets.
With the new technology racquets they beat the old ones pretty easy.

> Javier

[schwuller]

yesterday i watched j blake and d tursinov play in toronto. serve-forehand- error. serve-forehand winner. serve forehand error. that was all i saw. last night i watched laver play a match on youtube. there's no shot this guy couldn't hit, and hard, with a wood racket. some rallies contained EVERY TENNIS SHOT you can name, and hit damned hard. which would you rather watch? i can't even find a video of pancho gonzalez unfortunately. wood requires more talent to use just as a manual tranny requires more ability than a higher tech automatic. less fun to drive, less fun to watch.

[lefty10spro]

What rocket doesn't understand (none of the old timers do) is that if they had the current technology they would still have yesterdays technique. The modern forehand is the revolution not the racket.

[crazylevity]

Originally Posted by chess9

Kids might benefit from a smaller headed, head light racquet in the 11-13 oz range. I'm not sure it has to be wood. But, I'd like to hear from the top coaches on this issue. Guys like Yandell, Bolletieri (he'd probably oppose it), Van der meer, etc.

Have the lighter, bigger, more powerful racquets brought more kids into tennis? Actually, I don't think that's the case. The 70's were huge for tennis, but now you have to watch the AO at 2 a.m. in the States. American tennis is not on the ropes, but we aren't experiencing a Renaissance. Neither is Australia or England, two of the historically strong tennis powers. Of course, you can't be 300 lbs and play tennis, and all three countries are facing varying degrees of fitness erosion.
My personal view is that kids enjoy a challenge just as much as adults do, so they might benefit from both the old technology and the new, integrated into a comprehensive training program. You want them disciplined enough to be able to hit with a small racquet head, but they need to compete with the best modern equipment, especially strings.

-Robert

Indeed. Australia and the US are number 1 and 2 in the world in obesity rates, I believe. Are we expecting tennis champions to be bursting at the seams in these places, then?

[crazylevity]

Originally Posted by johncauthen

Laver’s racquets had weight centered around the shoulders. That type of balance meant that he had to swing the racquet back, wait for it to gather itself, then swing it forward without letting it get out of sync with his body. You can see the 50’s and 60’s players doing that. They played tennis in slow motion. That was the insider secret to world class tennis: don’t do anything too fast: don’t just rip.

When racquets got better, the Prince Pro was the first, its balance was still centered around the stringbridge, but the stringbridge was low and the racquet was faster. It almost had an immediate response, which caused traditional players to say the game was losing its class because you could just go out there and rip.

Every other racquet was engineered to feel like the Prince Pro. Traditionalists have hated the Prince Pro. Everybody else loved it and tennis boomed. Becker’s racquet happened to be the best Prince Pro clone.

But lately, traditionalists have fought back. They are making racquets with the weight centered higher in the frame, more like the racquets Laver played with. Those racquets slow you down. We could go back to playing tennis in slow motion, never letting our bodies exceed the speed of the racquet, which was the secret to classy and successful tennis in Laver’s time. That tennis required a certain discipline but was less athletic.

It was classy, but Federer and Gonzalez have just showed us what the highest version of modern racquets can produce. How did Gonzalez get this racquet balance? Because Gonzalez’s game was in serious trouble. He was almost ready to quit tennis in the early rounds of the Australian. He was down on himself, and he has an influential coach, so his coach apparently got him some of the best state of the art racquets Babolat could produce.

The state of the art was no longer exclusive. Six-out-of-eight doubles semifinalist used the same racquet at the Masters. The doubles was spectacular. Federer came to the Australian with that racquet in perfect tune and played amazing tennis. Somehow, Gonzalez through his influential coach got this racquet balance technology. In two matches after he wanted to quit tennis altogether, Gonzalez had 65 winners and 5 errors.

In the Final neither Federer nor Gonzalez played well. That was probably because the traditionalists want to go back to 1950’s balance and they were actually offended by the tennis Federer and Gonzalez were playing. Traditional tennis is where you conform to the speed of the racquet. Gonzalez and Federer were both playing intuitive tennis, where you move the racquet as fast as your body could move. The tennis was inspirational. Tennis had achieved the pure athleticism of other sports.

It only lasted until the Semifinals of the Australian. That tennis was not seen in Chile yesterday as Gonzalez lost early. Nor at Delray Beach where Blake had the same racquet he used at the Australian, but it wasn’t at the level of Gonzalez’s racquet when Gonzalez beat him.

There is now another side to the “racquets are ruining tennis argument”. We’ve seen what perfect racquets can produce. They make tennis inspiring, which makes us think perfect racquets might be just what tennis needs.

Meanwhile, there is a war between racquet philosophies. Prince is slowly turning Sharapova’s racquet into Laver’s racquet balance. But Wilson decided on that occasion to give Serena the best racquet they could make. Sharapova got 3 games.

I don't mean to sound negative or offensive, but I find it hard to believe that the powers that be (whosoever they may be) are tinkering with pros' racquets at their whim and fancy. Do you mean to say that Gonzalez had perfect racquets that got him to the AO final, only to have them replaced by crap the next tournament? How is that so? Players get racquets at regular intervals, about 4 times a year. Racquet companies are independent, are they not? How would Prince and Sharapova's racquet, and Wilson and Serena's racquet be related?

I'm sorry, but there are too many dots in between that I just can't see connected. You'll have to paint a much clearer picture to convince.

[Ronaldo]

Originally Posted by crazylevity

Indeed. Australia and the US are number 1 and 2 in the world in obesity rates, I believe. Are we expecting tennis champions to be bursting at the seams in these places, then?

Their shorts certainly are bursting at the seams.