How would a modern 4.5 player fare against Evert in her prime? - Page 23

5263 · 09-30-2009, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 35ft6

She would smoke a 4.5 player. A 5.5 guy with a huge serve and can volley might have a shot at making it competitive.

I don't think she could get a game from tonlars.

ZPTennis · 09-30-2009, 03:57 PM

The difference between wood racquets and old string technology versus new racquets and modern string technology is HUGE. Old racquets and strings cannot even come remotely close to producing the shots that are created today. Its an entirely different sport.

Athleticism (speed, agility) would only go so far with younger MacEnroe versus older MacEnroe.

The closest comparison I can come up with is if I play a pusher who was much faster and more agile than me and very consistent. Well guess what.... I destroy these types of players. The pusher has nothing to hurt me with because the shots simply don't have enough on them to bother me. When I am not bothered, then I am in control of the point because I am the one running him all over the place. It doesn't matter how consistent he is when the point leads to him being off the court in 5 shots or less and the next shot is an easy winner.

The same would happen with young MacEnroe(wood racquet) vs old MacEnroe(modern tech). The spin and pace of old MacEnroe would bother young MacEnroe using his wood racquet. You simply do not have the control to overcome the faster shots and heavier spin from the modern day racquets with the wood racquet.

This doesn't necessarily mean you miss the shot right away, but your not going to be able to do what you want with the ball. And that in turn leads you to losing control of the point and being put on the defensive. Point lost.
Young MacEnroe(wood racquet) with his speed and agility still loses, because control of the point is lost.

Someone might point out that serves with wood racquets can be almost as fast as modern day racquets. Poncho Gonzalez comes to mind, but with that we are talking about strictly velocity of a serve. When you add topspin to the mix, that is where everything changes. None of the old time big servers were able to create big kick serves with wood racquets. When you watch the old videos they were lucky to have any kick at all. And this is why groundstrokes are not comparable either. The topspin and pace just isn't there.

35ft6 · 09-30-2009, 05:13 PM

^ The wood rackets are being mentioned to emphasize a point, but when I'm talking about young Mac, he could use his old Dunlop 300g or a Babolat for all I care.

But since we're talking about it, yeah, I give the edge to young Mac even if he's using his wood racket. I didn't see him shanking much with those things. Ask Borg who would win: 20 year old Borg with wooden Donnay or today's Borg with whatever racket he wants.

He's probably nuts but Jimmy Arias insists he played better with wood. Then why didn't he stay with wood? No idea. And today's male players still go out of their way to play with rackets that would be considered too heavy and underpowered by recreational standards. Mac's Dunlop was designed to play, and look, like wood. Babolats are a very different kind of racket, but a lot of today's rackets aren't really that different from the original Pro Staff or Prestige, although Wilson and Head would have you believe they've reinvented the wheel every 12 months. I hit with a guy from these boards, and he bought some K Factor rackets and eventually abandoned them to go back to the old Pro Staffs.

People are conflating a lot of different things here, though. The people who grew up playing with wood aren't going to lose as much going back to wood as would some of today's players who never touched a wooden racket in their lives. Think about Connors still beating guys playing with mid sized graphite rackets with his T-2000. Their mechanics are different, formed by wood, and even today, translates well to wood. They have more level swing paths, they don't pronate as much, and their strokes are more compact. So yes, it's a different game, but mostly due to younger guys who never played with wood implementing technique that never would have developed if they grew up playing with a 14-1/2 ounce wooden racket. This change doesn't really apply to Johnny Mac, or Evert Lloyd or Jose Higueros for that matter. Sure, some of their shots may have changed slightly due to newer rackets, but their strokes still betray their wood pedigree. They're not a completely different player today -- a completely modern player today -- because of their newer rackets.

Yes, Mac has said he he hits harder now, but he was a way better player back in his early 20's. Tennis isn't just about hitting harder.

35ft6 · 09-30-2009, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZPTennis

Athleticism (speed, agility) would only go so far with younger MacEnroe versus older MacEnroe.

I so disagree with this. Sorry, sort of skimmed your post, didn't really notice this first time around.

DownTheLine · 09-30-2009, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claudius

Now I know the video says otherwise, but I think this is a very strong 4.5 player. Now does Evert have any chance against this guy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wtovf6qcLf8

or these guys

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QngtA-6m3zQ

The second link are very strong 4.5 if not a 5.0.

35ft6 · 10-01-2009, 01:55 AM

^ In the first two seconds of that video they have his NTRP as 6.0. You couldn't even pay attention for 3 seconds?

li0scc0 · 10-01-2009, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raiden031

D1 doesn't mean that much. There is a big difference between a ranked and unranked D1 player. Some D1 players are actually equivalent to 4.5 players, so yeah a 4.0-4.5 male could easily beat some unranked D1 females.

Wow, not sure about that. Maybe at some REALLY BAD D1 schools.

The D1 players around here would absolutely throttle the 4.0-4.5 men. I've hit with some of the D1 women, and their consistency and depth are ridiculous.

35ft6 · 10-02-2009, 12:49 AM

^ It's true. Some D-1 schools have some very weak players at the bottom. But the ones I saw, they usually always had a very good number 1 guy. There must be 500 or so D-1 schools in the country. Some of those tennis teams are bound to have some weak players.

siata94 · 10-02-2009, 02:26 PM

late to this thread but...

4.5 playa, would you like cream cheese with that?

Steady Eddy · 10-03-2009, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 35ft6

He's probably nuts but Jimmy Arias insists he played better with wood. Then why didn't he stay with wood? No idea.

Good question. I think Arias might mean that he was a relatively better player, (by that I mean compared to other players using wood). If he was an absolutely better player using wood, then why wouldn't he still use wooden racquets?

Slazenger07 · 10-03-2009, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick

i think at 55 she would still beat a 4.5.

4.5 is not that good compared to her, that is.
according to tw, a 4.5 player is not even good enough to use a k90 effectively (look at the k90 page, tw recommends it for 5.0+ players)

those recommendations are ******** tho. if youre 4.5 youre good enough for any stick.

View Poll Results: Who wins?
Evert	170	82.93%
4.5 player.	35	17.07%
Voters: 205. You may not vote on this poll

09-30-2009, 05:13 PM	#443
35ft6 Legend Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 6,553	^ The wood rackets are being mentioned to emphasize a point, but when I'm talking about young Mac, he could use his old Dunlop 300g or a Babolat for all I care. But since we're talking about it, yeah, I give the edge to young Mac even if he's using his wood racket. I didn't see him shanking much with those things. Ask Borg who would win: 20 year old Borg with wooden Donnay or today's Borg with whatever racket he wants. He's probably nuts but Jimmy Arias insists he played better with wood. Then why didn't he stay with wood? No idea. And today's male players still go out of their way to play with rackets that would be considered too heavy and underpowered by recreational standards. Mac's Dunlop was designed to play, and look, like wood. Babolats are a very different kind of racket, but a lot of today's rackets aren't really that different from the original Pro Staff or Prestige, although Wilson and Head would have you believe they've reinvented the wheel every 12 months. I hit with a guy from these boards, and he bought some K Factor rackets and eventually abandoned them to go back to the old Pro Staffs. People are conflating a lot of different things here, though. The people who grew up playing with wood aren't going to lose as much going back to wood as would some of today's players who never touched a wooden racket in their lives. Think about Connors still beating guys playing with mid sized graphite rackets with his T-2000. Their mechanics are different, formed by wood, and even today, translates well to wood. They have more level swing paths, they don't pronate as much, and their strokes are more compact. So yes, it's a different game, but mostly due to younger guys who never played with wood implementing technique that never would have developed if they grew up playing with a 14-1/2 ounce wooden racket. This change doesn't really apply to Johnny Mac, or Evert Lloyd or Jose Higueros for that matter. Sure, some of their shots may have changed slightly due to newer rackets, but their strokes still betray their wood pedigree. They're not a completely different player today -- a completely modern player today -- because of their newer rackets. Yes, Mac has said he he hits harder now, but he was a way better player back in his early 20's. Tennis isn't just about hitting harder. Last edited by 35ft6 : 09-30-2009 at 05:26 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode