Is It Me Getting Old Or Was It Really Much More Exciting At Wimbledon 35 Years Ago?!

[JAY1]

As good as it is with Federer, Nadal & Djokovic wasn't it much more interesting and exciting back at Wimbledon 30/40 years ago 1974 to 1984 ?
Borg, Connors & Mcenroe and the supporting cast of Ashe, Nastase, Tanner, Gerulaitis, Lewis, Mayer bros, Amrtraji, Rosewall, Vilas, Pannata etc etc.
They all seemed like Top Trump heroes with their distinctive personality's, game's, style's, attire, hairstyles, racquets and fans.
Was it that much better back in the day or is it just a 44 year old man looking back on fond times?
Your perspective's will be read with interest........

[Clintspin]

I have to agree. I really can't watch much of men's or women's tennis anymore. It's just too boring without different styles of play and even the lack of strategy. Now it's just a lot of athleticism and heavy hitting until somebody misses probably due to exhaustion.

[Swissv2]

Originally Posted by Clintspin

I have to agree. I really can't watch much of men's or women's tennis anymore. It's just too boring without different styles of play and even the lack of strategy. Now it's just a lot of athleticism and heavy hitting until somebody misses probably due to exhaustion.

You cannot be serious!

How many more videos of passing shots do we see nowadays when players come to the net? How many ridiculous shots have commentators been absolutely flabbergasted saying "that's not possible!".

For my experience, I have seen hundreds, if not thousands of videos of past and present games. The game has evolved, yes. People even called the "Sampras" era boring, due to the massive amount of serve+volley that got the point done quickly. With the introduction of new string technology that imparts more spin on the ball, serve+volley has become a rarity, as those individuals get passed easier. If you played the games side by side (actually get the videos and play them side-by-side instead of reminiscing about past games), then you will see a HUGE difference between yesteryear's games and today.

Older individuals tend to talk about the "good old days" and complain about the modern age. I can understand that reasoning, as the "good old days" contained longer rallies and invokes a sense of nostalgia.

Gone are the days when you see the back-forth-back-forth-back-forth of hits that didn't really have the "impossible shot" factor that you get nearly on a daily basis. Maybe, the old tennis made the game more...human...if you will, then modern tennis; a reachable platform that mere mortals believe they can attain or at least understand how a player could pull off such a shot. Now it seems like a lot of the older generation says "I don't get how they can possibly do that shot, so I have lost all interest in watching the game".

[pc1]

Originally Posted by JAY1

As good as it is with Federer, Nadal & Djokovic wasn't it much more interesting and exciting back at Wimbledon 30/40 years ago 1974 to 1984 ?
Borg, Connors & Mcenroe and the supporting cast of Ashe, Nastase, Tanner, Gerulaitis, Lewis, Mayer bros, Amrtraji, Rosewall, Vilas, Pannata etc etc.
They all seemed like Top Trump heroes with their distinctive personality's, game's, style's, attire, hairstyles, racquets and fans.
Was it that much better back in the day or is it just a 44 year old man looking back on fond times?
Your perspective's will be read with interest........

I guess it's just the person's perspective. Wimbledon in 1977 did have a ton of dynamic players (imo) with unique styles of play. Even McEnroe played his first Wimbledon that year and reached the semifinals. I like different styles of play and all of this to me is a plus. However a few negatives are the really fast grass with some bad bounces which often did not allow for the best rallies. Also because the equipment wasn't as great as it is today it's harder to hit the incredible angles that they can do today unless you're Borg or a play near that level. One of the greatest Wimbledon matches I have ever seen was played in the semi that year and that was the great Borg-Gerulaitis five setter.

But the problem with the old fast grass is that it can be considered dull to watch serve and volley with short rallies. From that perspective it may be preferable to many the grass of today that allow greater groundstroking.

I guess the ideal for me is to have players with variety of styles with today's grass. I still think greats like Sampras can still easily serve and volley today.

We all tend to look back and think a past era may be more interesting but was it really? I actually do think that era was fascinating, with diverse styles, interesting personalities (to say the least) with McEnroe, Connors, Borg, Gerulaitis, Nastase, Ashe, Vijay, Tanner etc.

[JAY1]

Originally Posted by Swissv2

You cannot be serious!

How many more videos of passing shots do we see nowadays when players come to the net? How many ridiculous shots have commentators been absolutely flabbergasted saying "that's not possible!".

For my experience, I have seen hundreds, if not thousands of videos of past and present games. The game has evolved, yes. People even called the "Sampras" era boring, due to the massive amount of serve+volley that got the point done quickly. With the introduction of new string technology that imparts more spin on the ball, serve+volley has become a rarity, as those individuals get passed easier. If you played the games side by side (actually get the videos and play them side-by-side instead of reminiscing about past games), then you will see a HUGE difference between yesteryear's games and today.

Older individuals tend to talk about the "good old days" and complain about the modern age. I can understand that reasoning, as the "good old days" contained longer rallies and invokes a sense of nostalgia.

Gone are the days when you see the back-forth-back-forth-back-forth of hits that didn't really have the "impossible shot" factor that you get nearly on a daily basis. Maybe, the old tennis made the game more...human...if you will, then modern tennis; a reachable platform that mere mortals believe they can attain or at least understand how a player could pull off such a shot. Now it seems like a lot of the older generation says "I don't get how they can possibly do that shot, so I have lost all interest in watching the game".

Very interesting points.
But I can't help feeling if Borg, Connors & Mcenroe were in their prime's now they would be sharing Slam's with Federer, Nadal & Djokovic as long as they had access to today's technology including pressurised tennis balls not like Slazenger non-pressurised one's that would come in boxes.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by JAY1

As good as it is with Federer, Nadal & Djokovic wasn't it much more interesting and exciting back at Wimbledon 30/40 years ago 1974 to 1984 ?
Borg, Connors & Mcenroe and the supporting cast of Ashe, Nastase, Tanner, Gerulaitis, Lewis, Mayer bros, Amrtraji, Rosewall, Vilas, Pannata etc etc.
They all seemed like Top Trump heroes with their distinctive personality's, game's, style's, attire, hairstyles, racquets and fans.
Was it that much better back in the day or is it just a 44 year old man looking back on fond times?
Your perspective's will be read with interest........

Perhaps you don't know that as long ago as the mid-60's, the game was considered relatively boring with the dominance of S&V, short points and little drama. The fans, and the powers that be, had a longing for the days and of the long baseline rallies of the 20's, 30's and 40's. Jimmy Van Allen, inventor of the tie breaker and the 21 point set (among other things), came up with an idea to neutralize the big serve with a separate serving line about 3 feet behind the baseline to prevent serves from being so dominant. There were also some pro events in which only one serve was allowed when Pancho was so completely dominating the pro tour. Problem was that his serve was still so much better that everyone else's, he dominated even more.

All this to say that modern racquets and slower courts have accomplished what Van Allen couldn't. Perhaps the pendulum has swung too far (as it has in politics, but, I digress). IMO, the remedy is more strict limitations on racquet size and design and string material.

[JAY1]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Perhaps you don't know that as long ago as the mid-60's, the game was considered relatively boring with the dominance of S&V, short points and little drama. The fans, and the powers that be, had a longing for the days and of the long baseline rallies of the 20's, 30's and 40's. Jimmy Van Allen, inventor of the tie breaker and the 21 point set (among other things), came up with an idea to neutralize the big serve with a separate serving line about 3 feet behind the baseline to prevent serves from being so dominant. There were also some pro events in which only one serve was allowed when Pancho was so completely dominating the pro tour. Problem was that his serve was still so much better that everyone else's, he dominated even more.

All this to say that modern racquets and slower courts have accomplished what Van Allen couldn't. Perhaps the pendulum has swung too far (as it has in politics, but, I digress). IMO, the remedy is more strict limitations on racquet size and design and string material.

That makes a lot of sense to me.
So how can the tennis world make those bits of fine tuning that the game needs?

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by JAY1

That makes a lot of sense to me.
So how can the tennis world make those bits of fine tuning that the game needs?

I wouldn't hold my breath. Modern racquets aren't just easier for pros to tear the cover off the ball with, they're easier for amateurs to play with, too. Consumers want easier, and they want what their idols are playing with. The bell has been rung. The cat is out of the bag. You can't un-ring the bell or put the cat back in the bag.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by JAY1

As good as it is with Federer, Nadal & Djokovic wasn't it much more interesting and exciting back at Wimbledon 30/40 years ago 1974 to 1984 ?
Borg, Connors & Mcenroe and the supporting cast of Ashe, Nastase, Tanner, Gerulaitis, Lewis, Mayer bros, Amrtraji, Rosewall, Vilas, Pannata etc etc.
They all seemed like Top Trump heroes with their distinctive personality's, game's, style's, attire, hairstyles, racquets and fans.
Was it that much better back in the day or is it just a 44 year old man looking back on fond times?
Your perspective's will be read with interest........

Man, I couldn´t agree more.35 yrs ago, the CENTENNIAL WIMBLEDON displayed some of the best ever tennis seen.Borg vs Gerulaitis was a big match, that was rated for a long time as the best ever.Mac, as much unknown as he was, propelled himsmelf as a semifinalist and the next big thing.Connors almost overcomes Borg and wins the title in one of the most exciting W finals one can recall.and Ginny Wade won the last big title for England...and still waiting.

1977 Wimbledon was also the last time Rod Laver, the arguably best ever player, entered a major event.He gave top tenner Dick Stockton all he could, which is a hard 5 setter that Stockton won at the end.Tanner,Vilas,Orantes,Panatta,Nastase,Smith,Kod es,Okker...Rosewall had also played his last circuit series at the very prestigious WCT circuit.

We also had second fiddel greats like all time classic Tony Roche,Fibak,Drysdale,Edmondson,Barazutti,Higueras, Amritraj,Solomon,Dibbs,Ramirez,Gottfried.

We also heard about a young teen called Tracy Austin.Evert,King,Cawley and Wade played some of their best ever tennis...and Martina was just on the edge of becoming the world´s premiere woman.

Oh¡¡¡ great doubles too.Newc and Roche for their last playing days,Hewitt-mc Millan,Gottfried-Ramirez,Alexander-Dent,Lutz-Smith,Riessen-Stewart,Fibak-Okker and Eddo-Marks...

[Larrysümmers]

watched a lot of matches from back then. they were entertaining. but today is all about the survival of the fittest. which has produced the best and most exciting tennis to date

[NLBwell]

Yes, 1974 to 84 was much more interesting than right now. However, there were a lot of years between 1984 and now that were not nearly as interesting as the present. Some time periods are more interesting than others because of styles, personalities, etc. It isn't necessarily about the skill level of the athletes. Remember, the 70's were the tennis boom and it was big with the general populace. The buzz was not just in the small tennis community, but all around.

[TomT]

Originally Posted by JAY1

As good as it is with Federer, Nadal & Djokovic wasn't it much more interesting and exciting back at Wimbledon 30/40 years ago 1974 to 1984 ?
Borg, Connors & Mcenroe and the supporting cast of Ashe, Nastase, Tanner, Gerulaitis, Lewis, Mayer bros, Amrtraji, Rosewall, Vilas, Pannata etc etc.
They all seemed like Top Trump heroes with their distinctive personality's, game's, style's, attire, hairstyles, racquets and fans.
Was it that much better back in the day or is it just a 44 year old man looking back on fond times?
Your perspective's will be read with interest........

The late 60's is when I first became a tennis fan. So, I share your nostalgic recollection of that era. But I find the current group of, say, top 100 players just as diverse and interesting as that era. Tennis has changed, I think, but there's still a diversity of player personalities and playing styles. Though you might be right that it was more marked during the 60's and 70's.

Anyway, I'm just amazed by the modern level of play. The power, that is. It's not just a matter of racket and string technology. Players are, I think, on average, bigger, stronger, more athletic, and more professional. Hence, bottom line, better.

That said, I love watching videos of Rosewall-Laver, Rosewall-Newcombe, Rosewall-Roche. Ok, I like Rosewall. It's just amazing to me that the guy was able to handle the best players in the world for as long as he did. A true testament to the value of accurate stroking. As Gonzalez said, Rosewall just played tennis like it was taught. Classic strokes, amazing footspeed and court sense -- not a bad combination.

[War, Safin!]

Originally Posted by JAY1

As good as it is with Federer, Nadal & Djokovic wasn't it much more interesting and exciting back at Wimbledon 30/40 years ago 1974 to 1984 ?
Borg, Connors & Mcenroe and the supporting cast of Ashe, Nastase, Tanner, Gerulaitis, Lewis, Mayer bros, Amrtraji, Rosewall, Vilas, Pannata etc etc.
They all seemed like Top Trump heroes with their distinctive personality's, game's, style's, attire, hairstyles, racquets and fans.
Was it that much better back in the day or is it just a 44 year old man looking back on fond times?
Your perspective's will be read with interest........

Agreed.
Furthermore...what happened to all the Robinson's Barley-water and Coke Cola dispenser they had at the back of the umpire's chair???

Seriously though, every generation has it favorites - I have to admit, Wimbledon in the 1970s and 1980s was probably looked on as a 'Golden Era' because of the names that dominated tennis back then.
However, I've become so used to seeing graphite-racquet-based-power-tennis since the 1990s that whenever I now watch a match from 1976 or 1980, I think 'How quaint!

[Clintspin]

Swissv2, I have to respectfully disagree. The clip below is very interesting tennis to me. It's only one of many great matches from the era.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDFd4q3CycU

Is the one below good? In a way but to me not as interesting as the one above. I can barely stand to watch Nadal's forehand. The points are either too long or too short. Very little variety and of course almost no net play.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3Dv3RxlT3c

[Clintspin]

I would also ask, who wants to watch a 6 hour match? That's like a whole work day. I am not going to sit on my butt and watch any match for that long. I would rather be on the court playing.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Clintspin

Swissv2, I have to respectfully disagree. The clip below is very interesting tennis to me. It's only one of many great matches from the era.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDFd4q3CycU

Is the one below good? In a way but to me not as interesting as the one above. I can barely stand to watch Nadal's forehand. The points are either too long or too short. Very little variety and of course almost no net play.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3Dv3RxlT3c

I was at the first match and I would agree that match was exciting. The atmosphere was electric with two of the most talented young players in the game playing in the second round. Yet at the same time that type of match is a rarity. Is it a superior match to the Djokovic-Nadal 2012 Australian Open match? The first one had a greater variety of shotmaking I believe. The second one had longer rallies and excellent rallies at that. You couldn't have long rallies at the US Open in Forest Hills in those days. The grass was so bad and the bounces, if you had any were terrible.

Incidentally what the highlights don't show, if memory serves was how Vijay was in the zone in the first set, hitting a lot of winners that raised chalk dust. Amritraj was gifted and able to hit streaks in which he was almost unstoppable. Borg raised the level of his game and tied the match. Even at such a young age Borg had the reputation for clutch play. The last set that Vijay won at 6-2 was actually closely contested. At 4-2 for Vijay, Borg had a number of break points that Vijay saved. It was a wonderful match. Amritraj eventually lost in the tournament to the old man Ken Rosewall in four sets. In retrospect I wish Borg won because it would have been great to see a young Borg play Rosewall at the US Open on the awful grass.

[zcarzach]

I was born in the early 80s, but didn't start watching / playing tennis until late Sampras / Agassi, then Hewitt / Safin / Federer. As I learned more about the game, I sought out the old matches (youtube makes this a lot easier). If I compare the 6 hour grunt fests of today with the classic all-court play of the past, it isn't even a choice. I'll watch a Borg match over a Nadal match any day, Jimmy Connors was Nole before Nole was Nole, all court / s & v is far more interesting that the grunt-grinding we have today, and having different surfaces is fascinating. Nothing compares to the late 70s / early 80s for tennis, except maybe a good Fed match.

[helloworld]

Originally Posted by Clintspin

I would also ask, who wants to watch a 6 hour match? That's like a whole work day. I am not going to sit on my butt and watch any match for that long. I would rather be on the court playing.

Yep. Nadal VS Djokovic Australian Open 2012 was the worst thing that ever happened to Tennis...

[Sentinel]

I still love watching reruns of the old WO singles and doubles matches of the 70's and 80's including Womens.

[Dreamcastin]

I like it all, I feel they could bring some more life back to the sport if we had a greater variety of court speeds. I would really love to see some more grass court tournaments. Seems to me like adding some good grass tournaments and pushing back wimbledon would be awesome.