Courier

Surecatch · 02-03-2013, 11:15 AM

I just watched the '93 Aussie final and was pretty impressed with Courier's game and power. I knew Jim was a #1 ranked player and multiple slam winner but I wasn't watching much tennis in the 90's and sort considered him to mostly be in the shadow of Pete and Andre ect. What is the opinion of Jim Courier's career here and how does it stack up? What is the opinion of his game in terms of strengths and weaknesses, etc.?

TIA for responses.

Mustard · 02-03-2013, 12:21 PM

The 1993 Australian Open final, especially the first 2 sets, is Courier at his very best, completely outplaying Edberg. Late in the match, Courier digs deep when under pressure and grinds out the victory.

His game? His strengths were his supreme fitness and his strong, powerful forehand. His backhand could be a weakness at times, but I think his biggest weakness over time was that he didn't mix his game up enough, and he became a little bit too predictable as a result.

Courier blew hot and cold, even during his prime years, but during his prime years he had brief periods where he was simply untouchable, such as the spring of 1992 and early 1993. Once past the 1991-1993 prime period, he remained a threat at majors up to 1996, but no longer put together awesome periods of form like in the past. Around the middle of 1997, he started getting dead arm trouble and then he really started to struggle from tournament to tournament. He had some good moments in 1999, with the USA's Davis Cup win over Britain where Courier beat both Henman and Rusedski in 5 sets, and a run to the fourth round of Wimbledon (his best performance there since making the final in 1993).

As for how Courier compares to Sampras and Agassi, Courier was the first player of those American players to really get the right mentality and the game to dominate. Chang and Sampras had won majors before Courier, and Agassi had reached major finals before Courier, but Courier was the first to have a period of dominance in tennis. He showed the others the way. Sampras soon cottoned on, and took over. Agassi didn't overtake Courier's career achievements until 1999.

Nadal_Power · 02-03-2013, 12:35 PM

Jim played out of this world tennis in first two sets, it was all over in hour time... he lost only 5 points on his serve and in one moment he 20 consecutive points on serve. First S&V point Edberg won after half hour, he just couldn't do anything wright. In 3rd set Jim won only 2 from 12 on second serve and Stefan was little better in both shorter and longer points, if we can call 8 stroke rallyes long. First half of fourth set was very good, with equal players, and back to back breaks in 7th and 8th game. In 11th game Stefan made 2 double faults (just like game before) and Jim broke hime. He got chance to break back, it was deuce in 12th game and he had 2 very slow Jim's second services, but could't bring them in play

galain · 02-03-2013, 11:35 PM

Courier at his peak is the one player I would have been interested to see matched up with Nadal. He had a very dominant couple of years when he was at the top.

ttwarrior1 · 02-07-2013, 11:19 PM

he overtrained simply, was no need for that crap workout for hours crap.

Frankc · 02-08-2013, 06:47 AM

As to Courier - which US Open did he lose to Edberg? If I remember, he reached the final without losing a set. He was just dominant.
Edberg later called that perhaps his best played match ever. It is interesting watching the dominant Courier at his peak looking at Edberg with "ya gotta be kidding..."

mental midget · 02-08-2013, 07:34 AM

courier looked like an extremely powerful, athletic kid who picked up a tennis racket one day and said 'lemme see how this works.' at his best he radiated a strength and relentlessness that was pretty intense. also a pretty thoughtful guy and a good commentator in my opinion. i remember him reading during changeovers, which caught people's attention.

Mustard · 02-08-2013, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frankc

As to Courier - which US Open did he lose to Edberg? If I remember, he reached the final without losing a set. He was just dominant.

It was the 1991 US Open.

rkelley · 02-08-2013, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mustard

It was the 1991 US Open.

Remember that match. Edberg was just transcendental. It was like he was reading Courier's mind. Whereever Courier put his passing shot Edberg was there to volley it away for a winner. Courier didn't play badly - I remember him taking big cuts and hitting good spots - but it didn't seem to matter how hard he hit the ball or where he put it Edberg was there.

I Heart Thomas Muster · 02-08-2013, 12:12 PM

Rightly or wrongly I remember a period in Courier's career he was just a buzz saw. My two favorite players were Muster and Agassi and if they were playing Courier I didn't bother watching. Game over man.

rkelley · 02-08-2013, 12:23 PM

One thing to consider about Courier is that for that time, the early 90's, he hit the ball crazy hard. He was a big, strong guy and his strokes were honed for spin and power. He hit harder than Agassi - and at the time Agassi was hitting harder than anyone. Watch the 89 FO match between Agassi and Courier. It turned into a total slug-fest and Courier won it. He also had a big serve for the time.

I think it was one of the steps to game we see now. A lot of the young players were hitting hard and raising the overall power level, but Courier got good at it first. The older players and players with a more traditional approach to the game had a hard time keeping up with the continual onslaught of high pace balls. Courier dominated for a few years.

But eventually the younger players, who had also been practicing hitting the crud out of the ball, starting coming into their own. Courier couldn't just count on pace to win, he had to come up with the magical stuff to win the big matches. He certainly had some of that in him, but I think players like Agassi and Sampras were just fundamentally more talented than him (I say this as a Courier fan).

Also, as the number 1 guy, people studied his game and found the weaknesses. Just going to his bh when he was in a neutral position in the court wasn't going to get it done. I think this is what players tried to do early in Courier's career. I believe the book on Courier was you had to take the chance and hit wide to his fh once to open up the bh side. If you could put the next shot wide to the bh (not necessarily the easiest thing to do) and force him to hit a more stretched out bh you stood a decent chance of getting a weak ball.

It has to be hard to go from being in almost every GS final in a two year period to working your way down the ladder over the next few years. Sampras was a big problem for Courier. Courier might have picked up another slam, maybe two, if not for Sampras. By 96 he hadn't been in a GS final for three years, his ranking was going the wrong way, and I can't imagine that it wasn't bugging him.

I'm really glad he had a small resurgence in 99 before he hung it up. He was a hard working guy and he certainly earned it from what I saw.

hoodjem · 02-08-2013, 12:41 PM

Did Courier use the same Pro Staff original as Sampras, or was it a different iteration?

rkelley · 02-08-2013, 02:41 PM

Same basic racquet AFAIK, but almost certainly set-up differently.

There was a point in the early 90's where Sampras, Edberg, and Courier were 1, 2, and 3 in the world (don't remember the order) and they all used the same racquet, the Wilson ProStaff Graphite.

jaggy · 02-08-2013, 03:17 PM

He was redheaded and never dyed it a decent color, very selfish.

robow7 · 02-08-2013, 03:27 PM

Maybe the best inside out forehand the game has seen.

hoodjem · 02-09-2013, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robow7

Maybe the best inside out forehand the game has seen.

It was a helluva of shot--much emulated in recent times.

02-03-2013, 12:21 PM	#2
Mustard G.O.A.T. Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Bristol, England Posts: 18,447	The 1993 Australian Open final, especially the first 2 sets, is Courier at his very best, completely outplaying Edberg. Late in the match, Courier digs deep when under pressure and grinds out the victory. His game? His strengths were his supreme fitness and his strong, powerful forehand. His backhand could be a weakness at times, but I think his biggest weakness over time was that he didn't mix his game up enough, and he became a little bit too predictable as a result. Courier blew hot and cold, even during his prime years, but during his prime years he had brief periods where he was simply untouchable, such as the spring of 1992 and early 1993. Once past the 1991-1993 prime period, he remained a threat at majors up to 1996, but no longer put together awesome periods of form like in the past. Around the middle of 1997, he started getting dead arm trouble and then he really started to struggle from tournament to tournament. He had some good moments in 1999, with the USA's Davis Cup win over Britain where Courier beat both Henman and Rusedski in 5 sets, and a run to the fourth round of Wimbledon (his best performance there since making the final in 1993). As for how Courier compares to Sampras and Agassi, Courier was the first player of those American players to really get the right mentality and the game to dominate. Chang and Sampras had won majors before Courier, and Agassi had reached major finals before Courier, but Courier was the first to have a period of dominance in tennis. He showed the others the way. Sampras soon cottoned on, and took over. Agassi didn't overtake Courier's career achievements until 1999. Last edited by Mustard : 02-03-2013 at 12:24 PM.

02-03-2013, 11:35 PM	#4
galain Hall Of Fame Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 1,823	Courier at his peak is the one player I would have been interested to see matched up with Nadal. He had a very dominant couple of years when he was at the top. __________________ "A closed mouth gathers no feet"

02-08-2013, 12:12 PM	#10
I Heart Thomas Muster Rookie Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 364	Rightly or wrongly I remember a period in Courier's career he was just a buzz saw. My two favorite players were Muster and Agassi and if they were playing Courier I didn't bother watching. Game over man. __________________ (4) Volkl PB 10 Mids Babolat Tonic+ 16 @ 54 lbs/Babolat RPM Team 17 @ 52 lbs

02-08-2013, 12:23 PM	#11
rkelley Professional Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,376	One thing to consider about Courier is that for that time, the early 90's, he hit the ball crazy hard. He was a big, strong guy and his strokes were honed for spin and power. He hit harder than Agassi - and at the time Agassi was hitting harder than anyone. Watch the 89 FO match between Agassi and Courier. It turned into a total slug-fest and Courier won it. He also had a big serve for the time. I think it was one of the steps to game we see now. A lot of the young players were hitting hard and raising the overall power level, but Courier got good at it first. The older players and players with a more traditional approach to the game had a hard time keeping up with the continual onslaught of high pace balls. Courier dominated for a few years. But eventually the younger players, who had also been practicing hitting the crud out of the ball, starting coming into their own. Courier couldn't just count on pace to win, he had to come up with the magical stuff to win the big matches. He certainly had some of that in him, but I think players like Agassi and Sampras were just fundamentally more talented than him (I say this as a Courier fan). Also, as the number 1 guy, people studied his game and found the weaknesses. Just going to his bh when he was in a neutral position in the court wasn't going to get it done. I think this is what players tried to do early in Courier's career. I believe the book on Courier was you had to take the chance and hit wide to his fh once to open up the bh side. If you could put the next shot wide to the bh (not necessarily the easiest thing to do) and force him to hit a more stretched out bh you stood a decent chance of getting a weak ball. It has to be hard to go from being in almost every GS final in a two year period to working your way down the ladder over the next few years. Sampras was a big problem for Courier. Courier might have picked up another slam, maybe two, if not for Sampras. By 96 he hadn't been in a GS final for three years, his ranking was going the wrong way, and I can't imagine that it wasn't bugging him. I'm really glad he had a small resurgence in 99 before he hung it up. He was a hard working guy and he certainly earned it from what I saw. Last edited by rkelley : 02-08-2013 at 12:25 PM.

02-08-2013, 12:41 PM	#12
hoodjem Legend Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Bierlandt Posts: 9,964	Did Courier use the same Pro Staff original as Sampras, or was it a different iteration? __________________ The smart man thinks he knows a lot; the wise man is aware that he knows little.