The speed of the game - old vs. new

[35ft6]

Originally Posted by rocket

This:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jwh0GfA_eo

This is the kind of stuff players weren't doing even in the 80's. I've read stories of guys in the 60's drinking after matches, eating steaks and drinking lots of milk to fuel up for matches. Things have progressed. That's no knock on the old timers, they did the best they could with the knowledge of diet, off court training, and technique of their day, and with the equipment they had.

I don't think today's player could even last a tournament wearing Stan Smiths or whatever shoes they wore in the 70's and probably some of the 80's.

[nCode2010]

Hi, I'm new here. Regarding this topic I believe that the current top players are the best athletes this sport has ever seen. Just watch the balls they get to on defense - it's amazing.

[Changmaster]

Originally Posted by 35ft6

Not just by me, but by players, former players, commentators, coaches, and trainers.

And it will continue. We still haven't seen NBA quality athletes on the tour. Imagine a Del Potro who can move faster than Nadal. Basically, a Lebron James or Kobe Bryant who grew up playing tennis.

And it's not just the guys. The women have become a lot more athletic as well.

Having extreme athleticism wouldn't necessarily translate to being the best tennis player. I'd say Monfils is pretty similar to James or Kobe in terms of size (slightly smaller) and strength, and he's probably faster. Monfils can hit harder than Nadal, and he's arguably faster, but Nadal is clearly a better tennis player. So incredible athleticism by itself isn't enough to be the best.

But seeing an athletic beast like Monfils playing tennis today, almost proves that on average, players have become much more athletic than in the old days.

[Toxicmilk]

Originally Posted by Changmaster

Having extreme athleticism wouldn't necessarily translate to being the best tennis player. I'd say Monfils is pretty similar to James or Kobe in terms of size (slightly smaller) and strength, and he's probably faster. Monfils can hit harder than Nadal, and he's arguably faster, but Nadal is clearly a better tennis player. So incredible athleticism by itself isn't enough to be the best.

But seeing an athletic beast like Monfils playing tennis today, almost proves that on average, players have become much more athletic than in the old days.

I'd say that Nadal is pretty athletic as well. though.

[Cantankersore]

Originally Posted by Changmaster

Having extreme athleticism wouldn't necessarily translate to being the best tennis player. I'd say Monfils is pretty similar to James or Kobe in terms of size (slightly smaller) and strength, and he's probably faster. Monfils can hit harder than Nadal, and he's arguably faster, but Nadal is clearly a better tennis player. So incredible athleticism by itself isn't enough to be the best.

But seeing an athletic beast like Monfils playing tennis today, almost proves that on average, players have become much more athletic than in the old days.

Ivo Karlovic: 6'10" 230
LeBron James: 6'8" 250
Kobe Bryant: 6'6" 205
Juan Martin Del Potro: 6'6" 180
Gael Monfils: 6'4" 180

I'd say LeBron would be more comparable to a stronger, much more athletic Karlovic. Tennis does take natural skill though, so it wouldn't be automatic that he would a good player. Still, his size and movement would definitely be dangerous. Similarly, size wise Kobe is closer to a stronger, more athletic Del Potro.

Let's be honest too; as much as I like tennis, they're much better athletes.

[tlm]

Have any of you claiming the game of old was faster watched any of that slow motion era lately? If you had you would not be saying that it was faster back in the day.This is so far from the truth it is hilarious.

[TennisLurker]

I think you are overrating NBA athletes.

Football (I mean what americans call soccer) is by far the most popular sport in the world, all other sports are midgets when compared to football, it is played by the majority of european and latin american males, and the athletes are not NBA size. It is the sport with the most depth, and the best players tend to be around Federer height, with some exceptions like Messi who is Coria Chang size.

NBA athletes are successful because of the particular demands of their sport, perhaps they would also be successful in tennis because a big serve is such a huge advantage, but then, they would struggle with low shots.

Players who are six feet 1 or 2 like Fed are the best, they can have the best of both worlds.

[nCode2010]

I think the Federer/Nadal AO final was proof enough of how the modern tennis players are the best athletes that have ever played. Did you see the amazing defensive gets from both guys?

[Toxicmilk]

Originally Posted by TennisLurker

I think you are overrating NBA athletes.



NBA athletes are successful because of the particular demands of their sport, perhaps they would also be successful in tennis because a big serve is such a huge advantage, but then, they would struggle with low shots.

Players who are six feet 1 or 2 like Fed are the best, they can have the best of both worlds.

I think he was talking more about the level of athleticism rather than their height or w/e. When people talk about the NBA players being tall AND quick/fast...it's mostly cause tall people aren't usually like that.

[TennisLurker]

I also understood that, I just disagreed with the notion that NBA athletes are all that, or would dominate tennis if they had chosen tennis as a sport when they were kids.

Do you think Ginobili is a more gifted athlete than Del Potro?

[Cantankersore]

Yeah, I would say he Ginobili is a much better athlete. Not that it would necessarily translate to being a better tennis player. One difference between the sports is that being tall and somewhat athletic makes you automatically a pretty good basketball player; having four inches on a guy and being able to palm a ball are pretty big advantages in basketball, whereas in tennis it is more of a double edged sword. This is obviously not the case in Tennis, the advantages are not as obvious. Still, given the same athletic ability, you would probably rather have a couple of extra inches.

[NLBwell]

Players on the grass attacked and took time away from their opponents by shortening the court by moving to the net rather than consistently hitting hard. Players retuning a ball had to move quicker - quicker hands, quicker feet than players have to now in a baseline rally. Taller players these days are probably much quicker than they used to be because of training, but shorter players probably aren't much quicker than the guys then (they did do Harry Hopman's plyometrics). Of course, all players are now on average probably faster running behind the baseline (vs. quick reactions), but without the constant hours of hitting reaction volleys and reacting to them, the current players are not as quick in that sense. It is a different game and height has far less disadvantages than it did then, therefore you will see the trend of tall players continue. It doesn't mean that the players then weren't as good an athelete, it means the optimum size for a tennis player is now larger than it used to be.

[Datacipher]

Originally Posted by TMF

First, just b/c there’s a few bad apples on the tour who takes steroids doesn’t mean the entire playing field are on steroid either.

2nd, drug tests are common today, which is easy to get caught. 30-40 years ago, how much drug test was practice? There could be many drug abusers back then but they don’t get caught since no one care .

3rd, more athletes are competing than 30-40 years ago. Logic would say more athletes would produce more talented/better players given a greater sample of athletes. Not to mention greater diversity that comes from more countries competing.

You're an IDIOT. SERIOUSLY.

[Datacipher]

Originally Posted by kOaMaster

how do you want to prove this fact?
I mean, in almost every sport, especially those where you need to be really fit, had a lot of improvements. not only because of new techniques, but also because they train harder, longer, the competition is bigger and so on.
why shouldn't that be in tennis?

I mean it's not just a "gift" that federer has good footwork. that is hard training.

Nope. And there is no metric to measure these things, so we can argue about it forever. I trained pro athletes for quite a while, did a masters degree in biomechanics...and i feel the evidence overwhelmingly supports the contention that training absolutely cannot push the ceiling up on those things, but again, a very lengthy argument, one which I have addressed earlier. More to the point, it's not something anyone wants to hear...the simple answer and the most palatable is: train hard = faster feet. It's not true, but hey, it sounds great and it appeals for SO many reasons! Of course we then follow it up with the ludicrous idea that say...Laver did not train hard enough maximize his speed. (a lack of rubber tubing and beach balls undoubtedly....nevermind Hopman's drills). But again, I'm preaching common sense (and SCIENCE!) against the public trends....and those who have both personal interest and in many cases, commercial interest in propagating it....I know I'm not going to win against that!

Sorry for the digression, but this is an ENORMOUS topic....which again...is why I hardly want to write volumes on it, only to have numerous, rather ignorant, posters cite the men's health article they read...or their own common sense!

[dropshot winner]

Originally Posted by Cantankersore

Ivo Karlovic: 6'10" 230
LeBron James: 6'8" 250
Kobe Bryant: 6'6" 205
Juan Martin Del Potro: 6'6" 180
Gael Monfils: 6'4" 180

I'd say LeBron would be more comparable to a stronger, much more athletic Karlovic. Tennis does take natural skill though, so it wouldn't be automatic that he would a good player. Still, his size and movement would definitely be dangerous. Similarly, size wise Kobe is closer to a stronger, more athletic Del Potro.

Let's be honest too; as much as I like tennis, they're much better athletes.

If Del Potro had Bryant's weight he would have destroyed his knees already.

[Cantankersore]

Originally Posted by Datacipher

You're an IDIOT. SERIOUSLY.

The first point, I'll agree, wasn't really a point. The second point doesn't really seem to have much of a point, although it was something that baseball had trouble with. I must say though, thanks for masterfully addressing the third point. Drawing a larger sample from a larger population (having skill levels presumably following the same sorts of distributions as in previous generations, at least according to you) and filtering for skill obviously wouldn't tend to increase general professional skill level, I mean that is just common sense.

[Cantankersore]

Originally Posted by dropshot winner

If Del Potro had Bryant's weight he would have destroyed his knees already.

What about Karlovic? Joints don't get stronger the taller you are.

[dropshot winner]

Originally Posted by Cantankersore

What about Karlovic? Joints don't get stronger the taller you are.

Karlovic isn't exactly know for moving. He's probably hitting 1.5 shots on average when serving and not much more on return.

Del Potro is different, he has to move a lot as a baseliner and has surprisingly good defense for a guy of his size. If he had to carry an additional 25 pounds he'd be injured all the time.

[borg number one]

Datacipher, I for one appreciate your obvious knowledge on this topic and it is quite interesting. I think what you are alluding to is that there are just certain "limits" of physical/athletic improvement, and since many players actually trained very hard with many "old school" training techniques and in essence had great inherent talents, there has not been the degree of improved athleticism that people may somewhat imagine. We may be somewhat fooled by the changes in the game that are primarily caused by racquet and string technology vs. athletic/physical improvements.

After all, just how superior are tennis athletes (especially among the top players) vs. other greats of say the 90's, 80's, and 70's? Though there are some "modern" training techniques, the players from decades ago also trained in somewhat "tougher" conditions often and learned to play/train in circumstances that are not really present now. Anyway, thanks for your input.

An example of how in some ways, tennis was more "physical" in days past is this: imagine playing 5 setters at Wimbledon on much faster grass, where you have to react to low, skidding balls, or at Roland Garros, when the red clay was much slower than it is today. Now, also imagine playing those five setters with say a 16 or 17 ounce wood frame in your hand with no tourna grip on it, and just a leather grip, and also an approximately 70 square inch face. Your hands/forearm would have to be very strong to pull that off, relative to what the guys are experiencing these days. No gatorade and long breaks between points and "injury timeouts", etc. either.

I don't doubt that there are many great athletes around today though. There's no question about that, but there were also plenty of superb athletes in decades past and I think that is what Datacipher is talking about, with a lot more expertise than most other posters on this board. I'm sure these things have been researched in peer-reviewed articles/studies, that Datacipher has read.

[asafi2]

Originally Posted by Cantankersore

Ivo Karlovic: 6'10" 230
LeBron James: 6'8" 250
Kobe Bryant: 6'6" 205
Juan Martin Del Potro: 6'6" 180
Gael Monfils: 6'4" 180

I'd say LeBron would be more comparable to a stronger, much more athletic Karlovic. Tennis does take natural skill though, so it wouldn't be automatic that he would a good player. Still, his size and movement would definitely be dangerous. Similarly, size wise Kobe is closer to a stronger, more athletic Del Potro.

Let's be honest too; as much as I like tennis, they're much better athletes.

NBA players heights are measured with shoes on and tennis players are not...sorry to be nitpicking.

Kobe, without shoes, was measured at a little bit less than 6'4 3/4" by the combine, and his wife measured him out to be the same thing.

So I think Kobe and Monfils are very comparable in height. So just subtract a little more than an inch from those NBA players and you'll get their real heights.