Bill Tilden career accomplishments-a comparison with Federer

[Nathaniel_Near]

This is an excellent thread, and it's good that we can talk about players from all eras here and compare them as such. Certainly these are two premier legends of the game and should appear near the top of any list of tennis legends.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Nathaniel_Near

This is an excellent thread, and it's good that we can talk about players from all eras here and compare them as such. Certainly these are two premier legends of the game and should appear near the top of any list of tennis legends.

Thanks Nathaniel. I also wanted to point out to people the interesting player that Tilden was. Everyone today knows every little detail it seems about Federer. Heck he has a thread on his kids on this website.

Both fascinating players.

[Loose Cannon]

Sorry....but the oldies would get get wiped off the court by any current player. They hit like wussies for the most part back then....not all. What this has to do with the thread....not sure....just my 2 cents

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Loose Cannon

Sorry....but the oldies would get get wiped off the court by any current player. They hit like wussies for the most part back then....not all. What this has to do with the thread....not sure....just my 2 cents

Read the first post my friend. That may be true or may not be true but the problem is that the thread degenerate into arguments about past versus present and that's waste of time and seems to happen in many threads. Let's avoid this.

[Loose Cannon]

Originally Posted by pc1

Read the first post my friend. That may be true or may not be true but the problem is that the thread degenerate into arguments about past versus present and that's waste of time and seems to happen in many threads. Let's avoid this.

I did!

I admitted I was rolling off the tracks and fired up an out of bounds remark....


Atleast I warned all!

[Nathaniel_Near]

Tilden had an amazing ability to adapt and change his game to improve, given what I have heard before about the man. He was willing to make huge overhauls to his game to stay ahead of the competition. I don't like to think about if players today would wipe the floor with the players of yesteryear because it's totally irrelevant. Players today have advances and history and thus immediately have a head start over players of the past. For example, shot mechanics have moved on a long way and that is not just to do with the evolution of rackets. I prefer to look at how players have done in their eras, and to imagine given their relative skillset and personal characteristics, how that talent may have thrived if it were born into another era.

Tennis is a global sport and in every era there has been a very large talent pool. In short, it makes sense to suggest that a top player from any era would at least have fair chances of becoming a top player in another era, as just like other top players they would have proved themselves to be of the elite talent group among a player base numbering in the MILLIONS.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Loose Cannon

I did!

I admitted I was rolling off the tracks and fired up an out of bounds remark....


Atleast I warned all!

Fair enough but DON'T YOU DARE DO IT AGAIN! lol.

Seriously I just want decent discussion in this thread. I don't want pointless arguing about past versus present. I'm not writing you would do that but many tend to argue for the past or present in these threads and it's just is a retread of many threads here.

Remember one thing Tilden was one of the people who invented or at worst popularized many of the modern techniques in tennis that we still use today. Federer may not be Federer if he wasn't preceded by Bill Tilden. Tilden today would have been analyzing the game and probably devising his own ideas on modern tennis and perhaps the game would be even better.

So the oldies may be "wussies" but they were wussies who advanced the game.

[Nathaniel_Near]

Originally Posted by pc1

And incidentally I do think Tilden should be a lot higher than the number 16 on the Tennis Channel. Didn't the Tennis Channel also have Roy Emerson higher than Pancho Gonzalez? The Tennis Channel List is an opinion list, not a fact list. Federer should be ranked very high but being ranked number one by the Tennis Channel does not confirm him as the number one player ever anymore than it confirms Rod Laver as the number two player.

Seriously, there were so many things hideously wrong about that whole list. It was still very enjoyable; who doesn't want features on 100 great tennis players! I was very happy to see the mini profiles and some were particularly inspiring and/or informative. But, the actual placements of some players were beyond suspect.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Nathaniel_Near

Seriously, there were so many things hideously wrong about that whole list. It was still very enjoyable; who doesn't want features on 100 great tennis players! I was very happy to see the mini profiles and some were particularly inspiring and/or informative. But, the actual placements of some players were beyond suspect.

I feel the same way. But yes the profiles are always nice to see and hear. I would love to see more interviews with the older players.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by pc1

That's is a great prank you pulled on me. Very hilarious.

It's all in good spirits

Besides trying to prank you, I was also making a sort of a point about youtube highlights being used in an argument so often (whether it's Fed's BH or Pete's running FH highlights or something else).

I mean I could for example take Roddick's matches and make a video of his BH winners and use it as a proof his BH is a great shot even though it's a wide known fact that it isn't (for pro standards obviously) or I could take some of worst Fed's matches and make a highlight reel of his FH misses and present it as a proof that his FH is a weak shot even though in reality it's one of the best ever.

Originally Posted by pc1

Anyway as we all know, Federer has a fine backhand. Even when he whiffs he looks better than some who hits a solid shot.

Fed even whiffs with grace LOL.

But yeah Fed's BH is a good shot, I personally feel like his BH is more of a good complement to the rest of his game rather than being a great standalone shot, a tool more so than a weapon.

Originally Posted by pc1

Wonder if Bill Tilden whiffed? Never saw Jimmy Connors whiff. Maybe we should bump the greatest backhands thread. lol.

Sure, I love those best shot threads, especially when the debate about Fed's place in the list heats up

[pc1]

Originally Posted by zagor

It's all in good spirits

Besides trying to prank you, I was also making a sort of a point about youtube highlights being used in an argument so often (whether it's Fed's BH or Pete's running FH highlights or something else).

I mean I could for example take Roddick's matches and make a video of his BH winners and use it as a proof his BH is a great shot even though it's a wide known fact that it isn't (for pro standards obviously) or I could take some of worst Fed's matches and make a highlight reel of his FH misses and present it as a proof that his FH is a weak shot even though in reality it's one of the best ever.



Fed even whiffs with grace LOL.

But yeah Fed's BH is a good shot, I personally feel like his BH is more of a good complement to the rest of his game rather than being a great standalone shot, a tool more so than a weapon.



Sure, I love those best shot threads, especially when the debate about Fed's place in the list heats up

I totally agree with you on those youtube highlight threads. It doesn't prove anything. The backhand as you as nicely wrote works with the game he has. It's solid and he can on occasional hit winners with it, sometimes a lot of winners but he uses it more to set up his awesome forehand.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Nathaniel_Near

Tilden had an amazing ability to adapt and change his game to improve, given what I have heard before about the man. He was willing to make huge overhauls to his game to stay ahead of the competition. I don't like to think about if players today would wipe the floor with the players of yesteryear because it's totally irrelevant. Players today have advances and history and thus immediately have a head start over players of the past. For example, shot mechanics have moved on a long way and that is not just to do with the evolution of rackets. I prefer to look at how players have done in their eras, and to imagine given there relative skillset and personal characteristics, how that talent may have thrived if it were born into another era.

Tennis is a global sport and in every era there has been a very large talent pool. In short, it makes sense to suggest that a top player from any era would at least have fair chances of becoming a top player in another era, as just like other top players they would have proved themselves to be of the elite talent group among a player base numbering in the MILLIONS.

Nathaniel,

I didn't notice this post until now. Brilliant post. How true.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by pc1

Incidentally didn't the 1927 Yankees win the World Series? Doesn't that World Series count as much as the one the Cardinals won last year? It's certainly in the record books as that and I know the New York Yankees count it as one World Series victory and don't consider it diluted by time to .25 World Series victory.

They did win the '27 Series, but you're asking for 1920s tennis players to be accorded the same respect as baseball teams from the same period get from baseball fans. Very reasonable request but some tennis fans just seem to find it outrageous.

Strange, too, because both Ruth and Tilden were swinging wood instruments. Not sure why Ruth should be seen as a greater master of his craft than Tilden and Cochet and Lacoste were in their sport.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by krosero

They did win the '27 Series, but you're asking for 1920s tennis players to be accorded the same respect as baseball teams from the same period get from baseball fans. Very reasonable request but some tennis fans just seem to find it outrageous.

Strange, too, because both Ruth and Tilden were swinging wood instruments. Not sure why Ruth should be seen as a greater master of his craft than Tilden and Cochet and Lacoste were in their sport.

One big difference is that we all hit with larger racquets of different materials and different strings. As a person who started playing with wood racquets I can tell you that it's very easy to adapt to a larger head that's lighter and provides more power and spin. The same with the strings.

I would think Bill Tilden would adapt very easily to the racquets of today and I believe Federer would be able to adapt to the wood racquets of the 1920's.

I mentioned this in some thread but in baseball many High Schools and College play with aluminum bats which are lighter and provide far more power. The major league scouts draft some of these players and judge whether they can adapt to WOODEN BATS. Many of these young players don't succeed because they can only play with aluminum bats and don't have the swing to hit with wood bats.

My point is that it's really in my opinion not hard to adapt to better equipment. I don't see why it would be so hard for many of the players of the past to adapt to today's different techniques of playing as some have implied.

[borg number one]

Thanks for this interesting thread PC1. I like the focus on a great player of the past. Here's a good short article on Big Bill Tilden.

http://sports.jrank.org/pages/4861/T...-s-Legacy.html

Bill Tilden changed the sport of tennis forever. Not only did he revolutionize the game with his emphasis on variety of stroke production, but also with his reliance on a sort of inner tennis, in which psychology was an acknowledged on-court partner. "No man ever bestrode sports as Tilden did during [1920 to 1930]," wrote Deford in Sports Illustrated. "It was not just that he could not be beaten, it was as if he had invented the game." And as Bud Collins noted in Bud Collins' Modern Encyclopedia of Tennis, "If a player's value is measured by the dominance and influence he exercises over a sport, then William Tatem 'Big Bill' Tilden II could be considered the greatest player in the history of tennis."

Read more: Bill Tilden - Tilden's Legacy - Tennis, Game, Sport, and Player - JRank Articles http://sports.jrank.org/pages/4861/T...#ixzz1wt3MVFjw

But his contributions to the game of tennis can not be discounted because of such personal indiscretions. Almost single-handedly he transformed the game of tennis from one that was considered an effete pastime, to a national obsession that filled stadiums and brought to the game an entire new generation not only of spectators, but also of players anxious to best Tilden and his records. Instrumental in transforming the elitist amateur game of tennis into the modern professional, open-era game, Tilden will be long remembered as one of the greats of the sport. As tennis writer Allison Danzig wrote in The Fireside Book of Tennis, Tilden "was the master of his time and for all time."

Read more: Bill Tilden - Tilden's Legacy - Tennis, Game, Sport, and Player - JRank Articles http://sports.jrank.org/pages/4861/T...#ixzz1wt3hO0Rw

[krosero]

Originally Posted by pc1

I mentioned this in some thread but in baseball many High Schools and College play with aluminum bats which are lighter and provide far more power. The major league scouts draft some of these players and judge whether they can adapt to WOODEN BATS. Many of these young players don't succeed because they can only play with aluminum bats and don't have the swing to hit with wood bats.

That's really interesting, PC1. If young baseball players can't make the major leagues because they can't adapt to wood, then why are we always hearing that it's unfair to ask how modern tennis players might adapt to wooden tennis racquets?

In baseball the mere use of a wooden instrument is not disrespected, because the major leagues are using it. It's what the pros are using, so it gets automatic respect.

And that was the situation while the best tennis players -- the pros -- were using wooden sticks.

But nowadays it's common to hear that those tennis players, from the wood era, were merely playing pitty-pat with the ball -- that they were playing a child's game that would be overwhelmed by the much greater game today.

Something's not right here, because those tennis players from the wood era were, in their time, regarded as masters of their craft, no less so than the best baseball players. And yet some modern tennis fans speak as if tennis has really moved light years ahead in skill and is now a real man's game compared to the pitty-pat that they used to play in the old days.

I'll ask again, is there any reason to think that Babe Ruth was a significantly greater master of his craft than Bill Tilden was of his? If not, then roughly speaking Tilden, as a tennis player, should be accorded as much respect as Ruth gets in baseball.

I'm not saying that Ruth and Tilden must be as great as today's players, or that these sports have not progressed. I'm just wondering whether fans of both sports are all willing to give both men, roughly speaking, the same amount of respect for their skills.

Ruth still gets respect for the great distance of his homers (among many other things), yet it's still common to caricature Tilden and any other player of his era as playing pitty-pat with the ball.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by krosero

That's really interesting, PC1. If young baseball players can't make the major leagues because they can't adapt to wood, then why are we always hearing that it's unfair to ask how modern tennis players might adapt to wooden tennis racquets?

In baseball the mere use of a wooden instrument is not disrespected, because the major leagues are using it. It's what the pros are using, so it gets automatic respect.

And that was the situation while the best tennis players -- the pros -- were using wooden sticks.

But nowadays it's common to hear that those tennis players, from the wood era, were merely playing pitty-pat with the ball -- that they were playing a child's game that would be overwhelmed by the much greater game today.

Something's not right here, because those tennis players from the wood era were, in their time, regarded as masters of their craft, no less so than the best baseball players. And yet some modern tennis fans speak as if tennis has really moved light years ahead in skill and is now a real man's game compared to the pitty-pat that they used to play in the old days.

I'll ask again, is there any reason to think that Babe Ruth was a significantly greater master of his craft than Bill Tilden was of his? If not, then roughly speaking Tilden, as a tennis player, should be accorded as much respect as Ruth gets in baseball.

I'm not saying that Ruth and Tilden must be as great as today's players, or that these sports have not progressed. I'm just wondering whether fans of both sports are all willing to give both men, roughly speaking, the same amount of respect for their skills.

Ruth still gets respect for the great distance of his homers (among many other things), yet it's still common to caricature Tilden and any other player of his era as playing pitty-pat with the ball.

Agreed. Here's an article from USA Today that I first saw when Borg Number One set up a link for it.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/tenni...uet-tech_N.htm

Here's a link for wood bats versus aluminum bats in baseball and how it affects performance. It gives the baseball scouts opinions.

http://www.newclassroom.com/batspaper.htm

Another article on how they weakened aluminum bats to make it play like wood bats.

http://www.yankeeanalysts.com/2011/0...rospects-28809

Yes it's too bad that some think that players even not too long ago played pitty pat tennis. I've seen some remarks even about Laver that people thought he was a soft hitter.

[pc1]

1920-Tilden defeats Patterson in the Wimbledon final 2-6 6-3 6-2 6-4. Tilden's first Wimbledon over the defending champion
1921-Tilden defeats Shimizu in Davis Cup 5-7 4-6 7-5 6-2 6-1. Tilden had a boil on his right foot. A doctor came after the third set and lanced the boil and Tilden won the last three sets.
1925-Tilden defeats Lacoste 3-6 10-12 8-6 7-5 6-2 in Davis Cup. Tilden trailed two sets to none and 4-0 in the third before pulling it out.
1927-Lacoste defeats Tilden in US Final 11-9 6-3 11-9. Tilden had set point in the first set, led 3-1 in the second and 5-2 with two set points in the third set before losing to the machine like Lacoste. Despite the straight sets victory by Lacoste it was considered one of the finest matches in the history of the tournament.
1927-Cochet defeats Tilden in the Wimbledon semi 2-6 4-6 7-5 6-4 6-3. Tilden led two sets to none and 5-1 in the third before the amazing Cochet won 17 straight points to pull out the set and won the last two sets for the match. Cochet went on to win Wimbledon against Borotra after also losing the first two sets and surviving several match points.

2003-Federer defeats Mark Philippoussis 7-6 6-2 7-6 for his first Wimbledon title.
2004-Federer defeats Hewitt 6-0 7-6 6-0 for his first US Open. Amazing shotmaking. Hewitt was just overwhelmed by the Federer movement and power.
2007-Federer defeats Nadal 7–6(9–7), 4–6, 7–6(7–3), 2–6, 6–2 in the Wimbledon final. Always a great win when Federer defeats his nemesis Nadal.
2008-Nadal defeats Federer 6-1 6-3 6-0 in the 2008 French Open final. Nadal was just unstoppable.
2008-Nadal defeat Federer 6-4 6-4 7-6(7-5) 7-6(10-eight) 9-7 in the Wimbledon final. Federer rallies from two sets down to tie and finally take the lead in the final set only to lose just before the onset of darkness. Some consider this to be the finest match ever played.

[JorgeLobo]

"But his contributions to the game of tennis can not be discounted because of such personal indiscretions. Almost single-handedly he transformed the game of tennis from one that was considered an effete pastime, to a national obsession that filled stadiums and brought to the game an entire new generation not only of spectators, but also of players anxious to best Tilden and his records. Instrumental in transforming the elitist amateur game of tennis into the modern professional, open-era game, Tilden will be long remembered as one of the greats of the sport. As tennis writer Allison Danzig wrote in The Fireside Book of Tennis, Tilden "was the master of his time and for all time."

Child molesting is alot more than "personal indiscretion." Those praising Tilden should not forget that tennis is entertainment - what is the level of success that excuses child molesting?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by JorgeLobo

"But his contributions to the game of tennis can not be discounted because of such personal indiscretions. Almost single-handedly he transformed the game of tennis from one that was considered an effete pastime, to a national obsession that filled stadiums and brought to the game an entire new generation not only of spectators, but also of players anxious to best Tilden and his records. Instrumental in transforming the elitist amateur game of tennis into the modern professional, open-era game, Tilden will be long remembered as one of the greats of the sport. As tennis writer Allison Danzig wrote in The Fireside Book of Tennis, Tilden "was the master of his time and for all time."

Child molesting is alot more than "personal indiscretion." Those praising Tilden should not forget that tennis is entertainment - what is the level of success that excuses child molesting?

It's a horrible thing of course but we're focusing just on the tennis aspect. There is no excuse for what happened with Tilden.