TTW SURVEY => Since when are you following Tennis with vivid memories and a proper understanding of Tennis ?

TTW SURVEY => Since when are you following Tennis with vivid memories and understanding of Tennis ?

  • I started following Tennis after 2015

  • I started following Tennis between 2011 and 2015

  • I started following Tennis between 2008 and 2010

  • I started following Tennis between 2004 and 2007

  • I started following Tennis between 2000 and 2003

  • I started following Tennis between 1995 and 1999

  • I started following Tennis between 1990 and 1994

  • I started following Tennis in the 1980s

  • I started following Tennis in the 1970s

  • I started following Tennis since the days of Laver's CYGS (Pre Open Era)

Results are only viewable after voting.
intrepidish

intrepidish

Hall of Fame
Thriller said:
Action from the other tournaments including the slams was rarely shown on terrestrial TV in the 70s in the UK unless a Brit was involved but I did watch Wimbledon obsessively from Day 1 after school.
It was really when cable TV and satellite TV really kicked in that things like Eurosport and Sky Sports appeared and you could get tennis from all around the world. My memory is hazy too but I think it was very late 80s / early 90s when I first got cable TV. I distinctly remember following the USO that Sampras won in 1990, so I must have got cable by then.
Click to expand...

Yeah, by the mid-80s in North America and a few parts of Europe there was some more coverage (though still far from complete) for slams and very spotty coverage of a few other tournaments.

I'm particularly interested in things prior to the advent of cable and the very first cable coverage as well to a lesser extent.
 
BillKid

BillKid

Hall of Fame
I thing I really started watching tennis in 1988. My favorite players were Wilander and Edberg. I remember well Chang winning Roland Garros. Tennis has changed a lot since then.
A few days a good I was watching a Mecir Lendl match, it's crazy how slow it looks now.
Thanks for this thread full of nostalgia :)
 
BillKid

BillKid

Hall of Fame
Thriller said:
Arthur Ashe vs Jimmy Connors at Wimbledon 1975 is where it started.
My fandom lineage is
Ashe -- Borg -- Lendl / Becker / Edberg -- Sampras / Henman --Rios / Moya -- Nadal -- Nadal / Djokovic / Murray -- Nadal / Murray
Click to expand...
Fandom lineage would make for a great topic
Mine is:
Wilander (/Leconte)- Edberg - Agassi, Kuerten (/Rafter) - Federer and since Sunday I would even add Nadal.
After that, I don't see any player in the next generation of whom I could become a big fan. Getting old, probably.
 
Last edited:
GhostOfNKDM

GhostOfNKDM

Hall of Fame
BillKid said:
I thing I really started watching tennis in 1988. My favorite players were Wilander and Edberg. I remember well Chang winning Roland Garros. Tennis has changed a lot since then.
A few days a good I was watching a Mecir Lendl match, it's crazy how slow it looks now.
Thanks for this thread full of nostalgia :)
Click to expand...

This thread reminded me why I usually don't hang out in the former pro player section even though my earliest, most vivid memories were the late 80s and early 90s.

For me, Federer became the perfect combo of all the players I'd grown up watching. He had the touch and feel of JMac, a forehand even better than Lendl and Sampras, a beautiful one-hander reminiscent of Edberg, a slice (dare I say) better than Steffi's, serve and volleys like Sampras, ability to take the ball on the rise and returns like Agassi, yet he was a gentleman, did not show his emotions too much on court and affable off it... I could just go on and on.

And on top he added this preternatural movement and anticipation that was just otherworldly in his prime.

I guess my future is in the retired pros section lol .
 
Last edited:
Q

Quaichang

Semi-Pro
Adam Copeland said:
Please mention since which year you are following Tennis actively.

This means you should have a proper memories of matches and understanding of Tennis as well at some impressionable level from that year.
This is a survey to get a normal understanding of the mindset of the users though I am sure most users in this forum are extremely knowledgeable and following Tennis since ages.
Click to expand...
The 1980 Borg Mac Wimbledon final was the first tennis match I watched from beginning to end. Became a fan for life after this match.
 
JSZ

JSZ

Rookie
Mature is not good! Everything gets worse and worse.
1970s, Pancho Gonzales and Ken Rosewall. I played at school, hit against the backboard pretending it was Neale Fraser. Connors thrashing 40yo Rosewall at Wimbledon. McEnroe, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Pat Cash, Wilander, Sampras, Hewitt, Safin, Federer, Roddick (I wish he had made that volley in the Wimbledon final, I hated seeing Fed put Roddick's serve back with that slice bh and then win the point), Rafter losing to Ivanisovic, Nadal, Djoko, Medvedev ...
 
GhostOfNKDM

GhostOfNKDM

Hall of Fame
Anyone here more of a clay fan from the 90s and earlier? @Sudacafan?

What's your opinion on where Nadal stands in the pantheon of clay greats?

To me, before poly strings, tennis was a completely different sport compared to today. Even at the French, serve and volley was a big part of the game. When Rafa came on tour, he reminded me a bit of Berasategui with his extreme grip to try and generate topspin. Movement and intensity wise perhaps he was more like Guillermo Vilas or Wilander

Asking because the majority of my viewing experience was non-clay except during the French.
 
Sudacafan

Sudacafan

Bionic Poster
GhostOfNKDM said:
Anyone here more of a clay fan from the 90s and earlier? @Sudacafan?

What's your opinion on where Nadal stands in the pantheon of clay greats?

To me, before poly strings, tennis was a completely different sport compared to today. Even at the French, serve and volley was a big part of the game. When Rafa came on tour, he reminded me a bit of Berasategui with his extreme grip to try and generate topspin. Movement and intensity wise perhaps he was more like Guillermo Vilas.

Asking because the majority of my viewing experience was non-clay except during the French.
Click to expand...
I almost always played on clay. Started like many of my countrymen with Vilas great year in 1977.
Nadal is the best clay courter of all time, no doubt, for me. And I think not many people can deny that.
Yes, poly changed everything.
There’s some similarity between him and Vilas (another all time top clay courter), with the difference that Vilas in his time was owned by another player on clay, who was Borg.
 
Last edited:
Tsongerer

Tsongerer

Rookie
I saw glimpses of RG06, WB06, AO07, RG07 and WB07, but just the finals or a few matches and not for more than a few minutes so I have no memories of any plays from those tournaments. AO08 is when I started following closely. I had just turned 12 by then.
 
GhostOfNKDM

GhostOfNKDM

Hall of Fame
Sudacafan said:
I almost always played on clay. Started like many of my countrymen with Vilas great year in 1977.
Nadal is the best clay courter of all time, no doubt, for me. And I think not many people can deny that.
Yes, poly changed everything.
There’s sme similarity between him and Vilas (another all time top clay courter), with the difference that Vilas in his time was owned by another player on clay, who was Borg.
Click to expand...

Achievements wise of course Rafs comes out tops...

Do you think if Borg, Vilas, Wilander had modern racquet/strings, Rafa's peak is still higher?

Sorry I know its a hypothetical but trying to understand his place in clay history. To me, he's obviously the best I've watched.
 
gjm127

gjm127

Hall of Fame
I started watching as early as RG 2001 when Kuerten beat Corretja and Capriati beat Clijsters in the finals. I remember being so sad for Clijsters at the time even though she had most of her career in font of her. I was also very young.

My favorite childhood memory was when Federer beat Agassi at USO 05. That's when I jumped on the Fed bandwagon as I was rooting for Agassi up to that point. I had just turned 14.
 
intrepidish

intrepidish

Hall of Fame
GhostOfNKDM said:
Anyone here more of a clay fan from the 90s and earlier? @Sudacafan?

What's your opinion on where Nadal stands in the pantheon of clay greats?

To me, before poly strings, tennis was a completely different sport compared to today. Even at the French, serve and volley was a big part of the game. When Rafa came on tour, he reminded me a bit of Berasategui with his extreme grip to try and generate topspin. Movement and intensity wise perhaps he was more like Guillermo Vilas or Wilander

Asking because the majority of my viewing experience was non-clay except during the French.
Click to expand...


I saw the clay players from the 70s as a kid; Panatta, Vilas, Borg and all the rest from then on out. I'm also a fan of Nadal and saw him coming up as a youngster and heard about him before he hit big. I also lived in Mediterranean Europe and Latin America for part of that time period as well to the extent that matters.

I think it's pretty obvious where Rafa stands in the pantheon but I'm not a huge fan of comparing eras. If pressed, I'd say he stands alone I suppose and that's certainly true in terms of having a clay game so dominant that it has lasted 18 years at the highest levels. I think his clay game was so strong that even losing some percentage of it, the margins were so huge that he kept on winning most of the time.

People forget that clay was largely considered resistant to long term champs due to the taxing physical and mental nature of the surface which is why the French Open only has 2 players with more than 3 titles.

When I saw (and heard about) Nadal manhandling the best of the clay guys before him at age 16 it was also very clear to me that he was something pretty incomparable. Moya, Corretja, Coria and the others were talking about Nadal already at 16-17 as if he were an alien.

I loved Borg and relative to his peers, he's the only somewhat similar phenomenon.
 
GhostOfNKDM

GhostOfNKDM

Hall of Fame
Nole_King said:
My family was only 4 years late. Got a color TV just before the Seoul olympics. What times when such decisions were dictated by important upcoming milestone :)
Click to expand...

What made you a fan of Novak?

Curious because I don't know any Novak fans among my generation.
 
Sudacafan

Sudacafan

Bionic Poster
GhostOfNKDM said:
Achievements wise of course Rafs comes out tops...

Do you think if Borg, Vilas, Wilander had modern racquet/strings, Rafa's peak is still higher?

Sorry I know its a hypothetical but trying to understand his place in clay history. To me, he's obviously the best I've watched.
Click to expand...
Hard to answer to that will full certainty, but I believe it’s easier to accept Nadal’s superiority to all the others, as the numbers speak, than not.
 
GhostOfNKDM

GhostOfNKDM

Hall of Fame
intrepidish said:
I saw the clay players from the 70s as a kid; Panatta, Vilas, Borg and all the rest from then on out. I'm also a fan of Nadal and saw him coming up as a youngster and heard about him before he hit big. I also lived in Mediterranean Europe and Latin America for part of that time period as well to the extent that matters.

I think it's pretty obvious where Rafa stands in the pantheon but I'm not a huge fan of comparing eras. If pressed, I'd say he stands alone I suppose and that's certainly true in terms of having a clay game so dominant that it has lasted 18 years at the highest levels. I think his clay game was so strong that even losing some percentage of it, the margins were so huge that he kept on winning most of the time.

People forget that clay was largely considered resistant to long term champs due to the taxing physical and mental nature of the surface which is why the French Open only has 2 players with more than 3 titles.

When I saw (and heard about) Nadal manhandling the best of the clay guys before him at age 16 it was also very clear to me that he was something pretty incomparable.

I loved Borg and relative to his peers, he's the only somewhat similar phenomenon.
Click to expand...

Yeah I remember the 90s when Courier won a couple RGs in a row, Bruguera and Kuerten then came along and were seen as clay champs, but nothing quite like Nadal's domination of the surface.

Without poly though I don't see him having as much success as he does, but he'd still probably have a lot more clay titles than the next guy.
 
intrepidish

intrepidish

Hall of Fame
GhostOfNKDM said:
Yeah I remember the 90s when Courier won a couple RGs in a row, Bruguera and Kuerten then came along and were seen as clay champs, but nothing quite like Nadal's domination of the surface.

Without poly though I don't see him having as much success as he does, but he'd still probably have a lot more clay titles than the next guy.
Click to expand...

It's hard to say what would happen putting a guy from today way back when or taking a guy from then and putting him today. I'm not sure if we can even compare Sampras to Federer entirely in some ways which is why I don't like cross era comparisons much.

What we can say though is that Nadal's physicality is a bit like a hybrid of Vilas and Borg; Borg didn't have Nadal's upper body strength and Vilas didn't have the same blinding speed. We didn't really have athletes like that in tennis prior to him.

Also, Nadal's clay court tennis acumen is very high; he rarely plays the wrong shot or is unclear on what he wants to be doing.

That coupled with his later development into a successful all surface player suggests that he'd have been an exceptional specimen on clay whenever that might have been keeping all else constant (which of course we can't). The mentality is a huge part of that and of course the body as well.

No question that specifics would vary with string and racquet differences of course.
 
B

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
First match I (partly) watched with vivid memory was Agassi defeating my countryman Mronz in Wimbledon 95 R16. Immediately became a fan because as a kid I liked his pirate outfit. I was heartbroken when he lost the semi against my other countryman Becker and even more so later on when he lost the USO final against Sampras (after their respective retirements, I became a much bigger Sampras than Agassi fan, but as a kid I could not appreciate his greatness and beautiful to watch playing style).

In retrospect I have to say that 95 was a great year to start watching tennis. Different surface specialists, the very competitive Sampras - Agassi rivalry, Muster dominating on clay, and Becker playing through the last very strong phase of his career, with his great indoor matches against Pete one year later.
 
GhostOfNKDM

GhostOfNKDM

Hall of Fame
intrepidish said:
It's hard to say what would happen putting a guy from today way back when or taking a guy from then and putting him today. I'm not sure if we can even compare Sampras to Federer entirely in some ways which is why I don't like cross era comparisons much.

What we can say though is that Nadal's physicality is a bit like a hybrid of Vilas and Borg; Borg didn't have Nadal's upper body strength and Vilas didn't have the same blinding speed. We didn't really have athletes like that in tennis prior to him.

Also, Nadal's clay court tennis acumen is very high; he rarely plays the wrong shot or is unclear on what he wants to be doing.

That coupled with his later development into a successful all surface player suggests that he'd have been an exceptional specimen on clay whenever that might have been keeping all else constant (which of course we can't). The mentality is a huge part of that and of course the body as well.

No question that specifics would vary with string and racquet differences of course.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I usually don't delve in cross era comparisons and hypotheticals myself but seeing as clay isn't my forte (I've played on Har-Tru American clay courts, only a couple times on red clay) I wanted to get a sense of Rafa's dominance from someone that's knows more about the history of the surface.
 
GhostOfNKDM

GhostOfNKDM

Hall of Fame
BorgTheGOAT said:
First match I (partly) watched with vivid memory was Agassi defeating my countryman Mronz in Wimbledon 95 R16. Immediately became a fan because as a kid I liked his pirate outfit. I was heartbroken when he lost the semi against my other countryman Becker and even more so later on when he lost the USO final against Sampras (after their respective retirements, I became a much bigger Sampras than Agassi fan, but as a kid I could not appreciate his greatness and beautiful to watch playing style).

In retrospect I have to say that 95 was a great year to start watching tennis. Different surface specialists, the very competitive Sampras - Agassi rivalry, Muster dominating on clay, and Becker playing through the last very strong phase of his career, with his great indoor matches against Pete one year later.
Click to expand...

Indoor was bigger in the 90s.

These days its an afterthought on the calendar for the top guys.
 
T

TheNachoMan

Guest
GhostOfNKDM said:
Its funny you should post something about this forum forgetting Roger's 'prime' when you only started watching him 2007 onwards... LOL

Roger Federer is at risk of becoming underrated here

I’m seeing a lot of anti-Federer posts, mostly from jubilant RAFA fans who are psyched to see their fav surpass Fed. Which is fine. Just don’t forget how incredibly dominant this man was in his prime. We must respect our elders. An example of a geriatric Fed demolishing a young and soon to be...
tt.tennis-warehouse.com tt.tennis-warehouse.com

(sorry if this comes across as snobby, but if someone did not watch Roger live 2003-2007, they have no clue what his prime was like)
Click to expand...
I don’t think I need to see him live to know how good he was. There’s YouTube and numerous stats for that
 
intrepidish

intrepidish

Hall of Fame
GhostOfNKDM said:
Agreed. I usually don't delve in cross era comparisons and hypotheticals myself but seeing as clay isn't my forte (I've played on Har-Tru American clay courts, only a couple times on red clay) I wanted to get a sense of Rafa's dominance from someone that's knows more about the history of the surface.
Click to expand...


I think it's safest to keep to era discussions of maybe about 20 years (and even then...).

In Nadal's case he was so good on clay so early that the guys from the late 90s and early 2000s got a taste of him and have spoken about it quite a bit; in Argentina when they do longer interviews with Coria for example, he has spoken about baby Nadal in depth and the same is true in Spain of Ferrero, Moya, Corretja, Costa etc. so in addition to the matches where he beat those guys as a 16 or 17-year-old, they've discussed what he seemed like to them and it's pretty revealing. It's definitely another universe from themselves or Muster and Guga etc.

Comparisons to Borg, Vilas and Panatta are total speculation, even for those like myself who saw them play at the time. I lean in the direction that Nadal is just an even more extreme specimen but no one really knows of course.
 
Mustard

Mustard

Bionic Poster
catskillthunder said:
Started following around 87-88, can't remember which year. Some of my earliest memories are of Stratton Mountain Volvo International tournament. I used to also frequent the OTB Open in Albany, NY when the tournament was held there.
Click to expand...

That was a lovely venue that, Stratton Mountain.
 
GhostOfNKDM

GhostOfNKDM

Hall of Fame
TheNachoMan said:
I don’t think I need to see him live to know how good he was. There’s YouTube and numerous stats for that
Click to expand...

Hey look, not trying to gatekeep or anything... I'm sure you must know your Fed stuff better than me from wikipedia and youtube.

As an old fart, I just found the juxtaposition of your thread about Fed's prime and your post about starting to watch tennis in 2007 amusing.
 
Adam Copeland

Adam Copeland

Hall of Fame
TheNachoMan said:
I don’t think I need to see him live to know how good he was. There’s YouTube and numerous stats for that
Click to expand...

I feel that's not true, if we start watching/following Tennis in 2008 or 2010 then it not surprising that our first memories of Fed is that of a guy who is approaching 30 losing to Nadal, so chances are we would be a Nadal fan or a Novak fan but never a Fedfan, also the players of early 00s might look like weak mugs to us, but if someone follows the game from 2000 then they definitely would not find anyone of that period to be a mug when compared to guys who came 10 years later, this matters too. Also people who never saw the 90s would never be able to truly appreciate Sampras or Pat Rafter or Stitch or even Boris Becker who were stars of those times. Also if someone started Tennis in 1996 then their image of Boris Becker might not be as high as it would be of someone who is watching since 1985, this happens ..... to truly understand an era or appreciate its players maybe we need to be in that era .... this is not to take anything away from new fans of the game :D but then facts are what it is.

Good that the poll shows .... 51%+ crowd votes is from 20th Century, 38% is from the 2000s decade and 11% votes from 2010s decade, this is why we can apreciate previous era players too, if we were like Facebook tennis groups where most crowd started in 2010s then they would consider everyone before Djokodal to be mugs....... thats why I made the poll and good to know that the results were as I expected, people have witnessed previous era players too....
 
Last edited:
Mustard

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Thriller said:
Action from the other tournaments including the slams was rarely shown on terrestrial TV in the 70s in the UK unless a Brit was involved but I did watch Wimbledon obsessively from Day 1 after school.
It was really when cable TV and satellite TV really kicked in that things like Eurosport and Sky Sports appeared and you could get tennis from all around the world. My memory is hazy too but I think it was very late 80s / early 90s when I first got cable TV. I distinctly remember following the USO that Sampras won in 1990, so I must have got cable by then.
Click to expand...

I started watching tennis in 1990, got Sky Sports around May 1993.

Wimbledon has always been live on the BBC, with proper coverage.

The US Open highlights used to be on ITV in the early 1990s (last one 1993, before moving to Sky Sports with proper coverage that same year with Sue Barker and Andrew Castle presenting), and on the BBC in the 1970s and 1980s apparently. Only the big matches would be shown in full on ITV and BBC. Eurosport started to show the event around 1999 time in addition to Sky. Last US Open on Sky Sports was in 2015, before moving to Eurosport alone in 2016, and then Amazon Prime in 2017.

The French Open has been on ITV or ITV4 since 2012 with proper coverage. Before that, it used to be on the BBC, who would show the big matches in full or extended highlights, but hardly anything else. It was also on Eurosport from 1994, and still is. I clearly remember the 1992 French Open final between Seles and Graf on BBC Grandstand in particular. I was in awe of Seles at the time, her relentless desire and drive to win, and that giggle when she talked where she seemed so friendly.

The Australian Open has been on Eurosport since 1994 at least. I don't know about before that. The BBC used to show highlights from about 2000-2012 time, and many full matches on the red button 2005-2012 time
 
Last edited:
Martin J

Martin J

Hall of Fame
Poisoned Slice said:
I've learned that platonic love can exist between two grown men. Andre Agassi played a huge role in this.
kurt.jpg


And I've learned something, too. I've learned that a flawless profile, a perfect body, the right clothes, and a great car can get you far in America - almost to the top - but it can't get you everything.
greg.jpg
Click to expand...
Hahahaha...I laughed hard for the Dimi reference....hilarious. :D And still have to watch the movie, never watched it once! Embarrassing...
 
GhostOfNKDM

GhostOfNKDM

Hall of Fame
Adam Copeland said:
I feel that's not true, if we start watching/following Tennis in 2008 or 2010 then it not surprising that our first memories of Fed is that of a guy who is approaching 30 losing to Nadal, so chances are we would be a Nadal fan or a Novak fan but never a Fedfan, also the players of early 00s might look like weak mugs to us, but if someone follows the game from 2000 then they definitely would not find anyone of that period to be a mug when compared to guys who came 10 years later, this matters too. Also people who never saw the 90s would never be able to truly appreciate Sampras or Pat Rafter or Stitch or even Boris Becker who were stars of those times. Also if someone started Tennis in 1996 then their image of Boris Becker might not be as high as it would be of someone who is watching since 1985, this happens ..... to truly understand an era or appreciate its players maybe we need to be in that era .... this is not to take anything away from new fans of the game :D but then facts are what it is.

Good that the poll shows .... 53%+ crowd votes is from 20th Century, 37% is from the 2000s decade and 10% votes from 2010s decade, this is why we can apreciate previous era players too, if we were like Facebook tennis groups where most crowd started in 2010s then they would consider everyone before Federer to be mugs....... thats why I made the poll and good to know that the results were as I expected, people have witnessed previous era players too....
Click to expand...

There is a lot more that is captured in the collective memories of people who lived through a certain time period than some highlights and opinions can convey. Otherwise, there'd be no value to watching tennis at all.

So for example, knowing there are folks here on this board who actually watched Borg, I'd defer to their knowledge of that era even if Borg stats are on wikipedia and highlights of some of his matches available on youtube.

And I don't say this in a disrespectful way to the younger fans here... there is no age barrier to knowledge, enthusiasm and fanhood; on the flip side they should also prepare themselves for some kid who's 10 yr old today, that watched Rafa for the first time in AO 2022, telling them tomorrow how great a moment it was in Rafa's career because they read about it on the internet. ;)
 
ultimathule

ultimathule

Hall of Fame
I tuned in to see my favorite Saturday morning cartoons when they were preempted by a tennis tournament. Out of curiosity, I stuck with the coverage although I could've changed the channel to watch other cartoons. The first match featured Evonne Goolagong Cawley and Chris Evert Lloyd, which turned out to be a dud to my untrained eye. (Evert Lloyd made a match of it, taking it to a tiebreak in the second set.) The second match featured Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe. It was an overcast July day in 1980, at the All England Lawn Tennis Club. After 3 hours and 53 minutes, I became a lifelong tennis fan.
 
Poisoned Slice

Poisoned Slice

Bionic Poster
Martin J said:
Hahahaha...I laughed hard for the Dimi reference....hilarious. :D And still have to watch the movie, never watched it once! Embarrassing...
Click to expand...
I was only planning to use the sheriff again. I had forgotten the exact quote so looked it up, then I saw the other quote and started laughing. Thought I have to use this. Dimitrov was first to come to mind.

Been years since I've watched but I have watched both loads of times. You would enjoy them.

A trophy rack? What the hell am I going to do with a trophy rack?
bern.jpg
 
GhostOfNKDM

GhostOfNKDM

Hall of Fame
ultimathule said:
I tuned in to see my favorite Saturday morning cartoons when they were preempted by a tennis tournament. Out of curiosity, I stuck with the coverage although I could've changed the channel to watch other cartoons. The first match featured Evonne Goolagong Cawley and Chris Evert Lloyd, which turned out to be a dud to my untrained eye. (Evert Lloyd made a match of it, taking it to a tiebreak in the second set.) The second match featured Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe. It was an overcast July day in 1980, at the All England Lawn Tennis Club. After 3 hours and 53 minutes, I became a lifelong tennis fan.
Click to expand...

Stories like this give me the shivers, in a good way.

It reminds me of my childhood, the wild eyed awe and wonder at every new discovery.

I was introduced to tennis by my parents, but the end result was the same as with you.
 
Mustard

Mustard

Bionic Poster
GhostOfNKDM said:
There is a lot more that is captured in the collective memories of people who lived through a certain time period than some highlights and opinions can convey. Otherwise, there'd be no value to watching tennis at all.

So for example, knowing there are folks here on this board who actually watched Borg, I'd defer to their knowledge of that era even if Borg stats are on wikipedia and highlights of some of his matches available on youtube.

And I don't say this in a disrespectful way to the younger fans here... there is no age barrier to knowledge, enthusiasm and fanhood; on the flip side they should also prepare themselves for some kid who's 10 yr old today, that watched Rafa for the first time in AO 2022, telling them tomorrow how great a moment it was in Rafa's career because they read about it on the internet. ;)
Click to expand...

I think it's important when watching old matches to imagine it as viewers were seeing it at the time rather than viewing it from more cynical modern eyes.

So the 1980 Wimbledon final between Borg and McEnroe. This is Borg trying to win his 5th Wimbledon in a row against the reigning US Open champion McEnroe who is trying to win his first Wimbledon title. Borg's success is unbelievable and unprecedented in the open era and professionalism is seriously taking off in tennis. Connors looked like it might have been him for a while, but he's now been third best for a little while behind Borg and McEnroe.
 
GhostOfNKDM

GhostOfNKDM

Hall of Fame
Mustard said:
I think it's important when watching old matches to imagine it as viewers were seeing it at the time rather than viewing it from more cynical modern eyes.

So the 1980 Wimbledon final between Borg and McEnroe. This is Borg trying to win his 5th Wimbledon in a row against the reigning US Open champion McEnroe who is trying to win his first Wimbledon title. Borg's success is unbelievable and unprecedented in the open era and professionalism is seriously taking off in tennis. Connors looked like it might have been him for a while, but he's now been third best for a little while behind Borg and McEnroe.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and sometimes that may not even be possible. A viewer watching today will have an inherent bias in how they see the proceedings, because of the known outcome, years of commentary and popular opinion and the subconscious comparison to today's game, not how it used to be before that match.
 
Mustard

Mustard

Bionic Poster
GhostOfNKDM said:
Exactly, and sometimes that may not even be possible. A viewer watching today will have an inherent bias in how they see the proceedings, because of the known outcome, years of commentary and popular opinion and the subconscious comparison to today's game, not how it used to be before that match.
Click to expand...

Just try it as much as possible. That should be enough. Have a little bit of hindsight while you try to imagine it from the time, but it's important to stop any cynicism regarding the style of the time. Many modern tennis fans could watch matches from the 1970s and 1980s and be utterly cynical about the pace from the old days, dismissing any such players from then as being anywhere near the level of today's players etc.
 
GhostOfNKDM

GhostOfNKDM

Hall of Fame
Mustard said:
Just try it as much as possible. That should be enough. Have a little bit of hindsight while you try to imagine it from the time, but it's important to stop any cynicism regarding the style of the time. Many modern tennis fans could watch matches from the 1970s and 1980s and be utterly cynical about the pace from the old days, dismissing any such players from then as being anywhere near the level of today's players etc.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Educating oneself on context is important when trying to judge something we weren't around to witness live.
 
T

TheNachoMan

Guest
GhostOfNKDM said:
Hey look, not trying to gatekeep or anything... I'm sure you must know your Fed stuff better than me from wikipedia and youtube.

As an old fart, I just found the juxtaposition of your thread about Fed's prime and your post about starting to watch tennis in 2007 amusing.
Click to expand...
I could bash him like most people my age probably do :p
 
Martin J

Martin J

Hall of Fame
Nole_King said:
First memory of tennis - Boris Becker diving on grass. Didn't even knew how the game was played, but he became an instant favorite :D Such a heartbreak when he lost those two finals to Edberg, especially the 1990 - and then the same night Argentina also lost :cry:
Click to expand...
Heh...still remember the penalty shootout in the QF - Argentina vs Yugoslavia. Probably the first sport event that caused trauma to me. Best players of both teams (Maradona and D.S. Piksi) missed the penalties, Yugo had the lead at some point and squandered it. It is still hard to forget the last penalty saved by Goycochea and him running to celebrate with his teammates in his colorful jersey. Was quite a painful moment for a kid like me, lol.
 
Martin J

Martin J

Hall of Fame
Poisoned Slice said:
I was only planning to use the sheriff again. I had forgotten the exact quote so looked it up, then I saw the other quote and started laughing. Thought I have to use this. Dimitrov was first to come to mind.

Been years since I've watched but I have watched both loads of times. You would enjoy them.

A trophy rack? What the hell am I going to do with a trophy rack?
bern.jpg
Click to expand...
HAHA, this one is even better! :-D:-D:-D:-D
 
Zara

Zara

G.O.A.T.
My first vague memory (not vivid) was watching Courier somewhere (maybe FO sometime in 1995 - did he play?) and I remember they talked about how he was the former No. 1 and I thought, 'who's the No 1 now then?'. So I got very curious. I definitely think it was in the stars because as soon I saw Pete, I fell in love with him (all platonic of course!). I didn't understand much of tennis back then so it was a really good learning curve for me. And so the journey began.

And my most emotional match was Pete vs Agassi 2000 AO semi-final where he lost. I cried non-stop that night. That was the first time when I realized what it takes to be a fan.
 
dapchai

dapchai

Legend
AO 2004 when Federer started his sheer dominance. But my most vivid memory was his 2004 USO final; poor Hewitt for eating a double bagel.
 
Mustard

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Martin J said:
Heh...still remember the penalty shootout in the QF - Argentina vs Yugoslavia. Probably the first sport event that caused trauma to me. Best players of both teams (Maradona and D.S. Piksi) missed the penalties, Yugo had the lead at some point and squandered it. It is still hard to forget the last penalty saved by Goycochea and him running to celebrate with his teammates in his colorful jersey. Was quite a painful moment for a kid like me, lol.
Click to expand...

Argentina then played Italy in Naples. Diego Maradona, a legend of Napoli, urged Napoli fans to cheer for Argentina over Italy. Some actually did, some didn't but laughed in admiration at Maradona's gall, while others were extremely hostile, especially in Italy overall. Argentina beat Italy on penalties (this time with Maradona scoring his) after a 1-1 draw. The fallout was bad. The Camorra (the Neapolitan mafia) had a lot of unwelcome attention drawn to them from the Italian state authorities and businesses because of Maradona's comments, and the mafia like to work in shadows not with attention drawn to them. They stopped protecting Maradona, and I can't help thinking his positive test for cocaine in 1991, and subsequent banishment from Italy, had something to do with it.
 
GhostOfNKDM

GhostOfNKDM

Hall of Fame
dapchai said:
AO 2004 when Federer started his sheer dominance. But my most vivid memory was his 2004 USO final; poor Hewitt for eating a double bagel.
Click to expand...

We know the scoreline today and how the rest of Hewitt's career unfolded. So the narrative today of Hewitt being a chump/pigeon etc makes it an easier fit as a storyline, looking back.

What only someone who watched that match live will know how jaw-dropping that performance really was. Hewitt wasn't some chump then. He was a proven slam champion. He came into that final riding high on confidence, not dropping a set all tournament and winning the US open series before that. Roger had a spotty record against Hewitt and was starting to turn things around, but it wasn't a given that he'd be as successful as we know today. For all intents, Roddick and Hewitt were Fed's competition for HC and grass slams... until he smothered that possibility brutally.

And stuff like that just did NOT happen in tennis, at least not on the men's side - one slam finalist bageling the other, not once but twice. It was a watershed moment for what was about to come.

We had no clue if Roger would beat Sampras' record (a million things can happen), but we knew we were in for a ride as Fed fans... it was just exciting, exhilarating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sunny014
Since when are you watching/following Tennis and who was your first hero in Tennis ? (Mention name in comments)
2 3
Replies
109
Views
3K
Fiero425
Fiero425
Raining hopes
When tennis gives you memories to cherish.
Replies
48
Views
3K
Deleted member 688153
D
K
Are you a tennis extremist?
Replies
16
Views
3K
vkartikv
vkartikv
La Grande
  • Poll
Are you enjoying Tennis right now?
2 3 4
Replies
157
Views
6K
Tennis_Hands
T
Rafa4LifeEver
What is wrong with TTW!!?? Please stop!!!! All of you, I request with both hands folded.
2 3
Replies
112
Views
4K
Deleted member 744633
D
Top