Traditional vs Modern: It's Freakin' Obvious

[TimothyO]

Who would you believe, me or your lying eyes?



In another thread an industry marketing rep asserted that there's no real distinction between "traditional" tennis and "modern" tennis. He said the distinction is artificial.

Here for your consideration are two videos. The first is Laver vs Roche at the 1969 A0.

The second is Djoker vs Nadal at the 2012 AO.

I'm sorry, but there's no way to put this delicately. To assert that there's no distinction between these two styles of play one must be a blind or seriously incapable of even rudimentary critical thought.

I asked my 12 year old to review the two films and he immediately ticked off numerous differences between the two styles of play.

And this ain't even high speed film!

Laver vs Roche: Traditional Tennis 1969
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHaN2h21ANs

Djoker vs Nadal: Modern Tennis 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Urn4a2VgvgI

Strokes, pace, shot selection, patterns of play, movement: they're all very different.

Maybe that marketing rep was confused since both videos involve two men hitting a ball over a net with racquets?

[arche3]

Its obvious its not the same. The only similarity is they all had tennis rackets. Traditional has much more of a forward component in all strokes. Modern has so much rotational across aspect on the fh they are leaving the ground due to the speed of the rotation. Its violent and fast. Its a different stroke between the two. You can see how the game progressed by watching two videos but to say they are the same is not true.

[luvforty]

yes and no.

on surface they look different... but if you put nadal and nole on fast grass and give them 65in woodie and tell them that they can't leave the ground during serve.... then they will play very much like roche and laver.

[arche3]

Originally Posted by luvforty

yes and no.

on surface they look different... but if you put nadal and nole on fast grass and give them 65in woodie and tell them that they can't leave the ground during serve.... then they will play very much like roche and laver.

Its not just the serve. Everything is different. Might be because of the new rackets but the technique is different now.

[luvforty]

Originally Posted by arche3

Its not just the serve. Everything is different. Might be because of the new rackets but the technique is different now.

technique is different because of the conditions... athletes have been using a circular motion to propel linearly since our ancestors had to hunt for food... discus, shot put, hammer throw, you name it.... it doesn't take scientists to figure out you can generate speed by rotation.

give today's players old conditions - fast grass with lots bad bounces, wood rackets with gut string, they will play the same way laver and roche played.. simply a survival of the fittest.

if you pull to the left or even pull backwards, you will never get to the net in time.

if you hit across the ball, it will be shanksville.

like Ash Smith said, modern tennis exists just like modern art exists... there is nothing new under the sun... just what style makes money.

[OHBH]

Their shot selection is dictated by the surface. Their is really only one way to hit a tennis ball. The modern rackets allow todays players to swing bigger and more violently but the are all the same in the impact zone

[10isfreak]

I would take the time to ask what someone EXACTLY means when he says there is no difference between both before criticizing his ideas... and, well, besides this, I would bother analysing high speed videos carefully before saying anything about this subject.

With the naked eye, Nadal and Federer are very different. Using high speed videos, we can determine that their forehand present the EXACT same micromovements: it‘s 40 or more specific moves that they both perform. And, just to make it clear: it‘s not all pros who hit the same forehand. They, however, hit a nearly identical stroke anatomically speaking.

Accuracy is important.

[luvforty]

a rotational stroke would be inferior in laver's days because -

1) little momentum to the net
2) a finish with right shoulder pointing at the opponent, requires an extra move to recover to square, to cover the volley

actually if you look at the golf swings in the similar era... ben hogan and george knudsen would be in the 'swing to the left' category, while moe norman and byran nelson more in the 'swing down the line' class, with sam snead somewhere in between...

back then they already knew the options to generate power.

[ShoeShiner]

Good comparison, really obvious.

[martini1]

Originally Posted by luvforty

yes and no.

on surface they look different... but if you put nadal and nole on fast grass and give them 65in woodie and tell them that they can't leave the ground during serve.... then they will play very much like roche and laver.

Are you saying Nadal would all of sudden be able to hit with a continental grip on his forehand?? He won't be able to a single ground stroke at all.

These guys would still swing the only way they know but with the woodies they won't be able to do much pace or spin.

There is vid of Safin vs Haas (?) hitting with woodie. They did not change so much that they looked like Laver or even Borg.

[luvforty]

no... survival of the fittest doesn't happen overnight.

[luvforty]

if ATP were to announce that starting 2014 we'll play on fescue grass with 65in wood only, then you watch.

[arche3]

Originally Posted by luvforty

technique is different because of the conditions... athletes have been using a circular motion to propel linearly since our ancestors had to hunt for food... discus, shot put, hammer throw, you name it.... it doesn't take scientists to figure out you can generate speed by rotation.

give today's players old conditions - fast grass with lots bad bounces, wood rackets with gut string, they will play the same way laver and roche played.. simply a survival of the fittest.

if you pull to the left or even pull backwards, you will never get to the net in time.

if you hit across the ball, it will be shanksville.

like Ash Smith said, modern tennis exists just like modern art exists... there is nothing new under the sun... just what style makes money.

I dont think its a question if laver can play and compete now. I happen to agree laver and past pros can and would play like the current pros play. The question is if the pros actually play differently now, I think they do. The technique is geared towards the current conditions.

[martini1]

Just watch any sports over the past 50 years. Technique changes, equipment changes, mentality changes, game plan changes.
You simply cannot ask an athlete from a certain era to play like what's a generation before or after. You cannot reprogram one's body once they have matured. They can adjust a little bit but no way they can transform, unless they are only 10.

[tlm]

Originally Posted by TimothyO

Who would you believe, me or your lying eyes?



In another thread an industry marketing rep asserted that there's no real distinction between "traditional" tennis and "modern" tennis. He said the distinction is artificial.

Here for your consideration are two videos. The first is Laver vs Roche at the 1969 A0.

The second is Djoker vs Nadal at the 2012 AO.

I'm sorry, but there's no way to put this delicately. To assert that there's no distinction between these two styles of play one must be a blind or seriously incapable of even rudimentary critical thought.

I asked my 12 year old to review the two films and he immediately ticked off numerous differences between the two styles of play.

And this ain't even high speed film!

Laver vs Roche: Traditional Tennis 1969
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHaN2h21ANs

Djoker vs Nadal: Modern Tennis 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Urn4a2VgvgI

Strokes, pace, shot selection, patterns of play, movement: they're all very different.

Maybe that marketing rep was confused since both videos involve two men hitting a ball over a net with racquets?

Couldn't agree more, it is amazing that people will debate that there is no difference.

[NLBwell]

Of course there is a difference in the way the matches look.
You can not point to a day that tennis changed from traditional to modern.
Also, traditional players did hit with open stances, "reverse forehands," two-handed backhands (a few guys), big topspin, etc.
However, they did not normally play this way or hit these shots because they were not optimal to the equipment and conditions. (Oscar Wegner's teaching was based on watching how guys like Laver actually hit the ball.) The game was serve-and-volley in 1969. Low bad bounces were the norm and were difficult to contact cleanly with a wood (or metal) racket.
These people weren't stupid - they played the optimal game for the situation.

Nobody in the modern game can move into the net and volley nearly as well as these guys. There isn't much advantage to it anymore, so why should they do it a lot?


The swinging volley is a good example. Of course, in 1969 guys hit swinging volleys, but it was not a good play. Picking a moving ball out of the air and hitting the sweetspot of a wood racket so that you would get enough power and placement, was a difficult thing to do. Andre Agassi and his ilk popularized the swinging volley. Of course he used a Prince Oversize racket. The technology changed the way the game was played.


.
Tennis has morphed from badmitton to ping-pong.

[JW10S]

Originally Posted by arche3

Its not just the serve. Everything is different. Might be because of the new rackets but the technique is different now.

Which is why someone claiming they were teaching 'modern' tennis back in 1968 is blowing smoke...

[Larrysümmers]

it is pretty much the same. these days the players have lighter, bigger rackets and poly strings allowing them to take huge cuts, and put massive power on the ball compared to then.
the laws of the game haven't changed, though. It's was and still is get under the ball, and swing follow through.
There's a book from the late 20s and it is filled with "modern tennis" ideas, but they are wielding around 15?+ OZ of wood around, so their swings look different than ours nowadays.
The author was all about hitting topspin CC and using angles.

[arche3]

Originally Posted by JW10S

Which is why someone claiming they were teaching 'modern' tennis back in 1968 is blowing smoke...

I dont really care what oscars claims are. I am a pretty decent tennis player although I didn't play on the tour. Just college. When I see these two videos I just don't understand how some people can say there is no such thing as modern tennis.

I don't make a living from tennis. I am simply a player. I don't have a reason to doubt peoples claims about their coaching resume.

And I hope more pro coaches would actually post useful info on here as I am coaching my young son now. I will go as far to say if any person who calls themselves a tennis coach sees no difference between these two videos they should just pack it up right now. There are so many difference in everything.

[dominikk1985]

traditional vs. modern doesn't exist.

but to say the technique stayed the same is also wrong. technique evolved over the years. there is no cut off for modern tennis.

there always have been rotational WW FHs but with the modern rackets that style became less diverse since those strokes are the most effective way to hit balls.

I also think that style is natural consequence of the modern rackets. a lot of kids are never taught thus and still do it because they imitate the pros in TV and other kids. the use of rotation to generate speed has been used for 100 years in baseball (babe ruth swings exactly like modern players). it is just that you can use it better with modern rackets and also tennis was a polite sport were you weren't supposed to jump and twist around.

that has changed and now players are jumping, screaming and wearing their cap with the shield back.