How would a modern 4.5 player fare against Evert in her prime?

Datacipher · Aug 29, 2009

drakulie said:
OK, so now Bobby Riggs (one of the greatest male payers in this game) is only as good as a 4.5. :roll:
.

If Riggs were alive today and could read this, he would be laughing his butt off at the irony. Riggs made a small fortune hustling 4.5 and 4.0's who thought they could beat Riggs if they could just handicap him enough! And he once candidly admitted, he knew just how to play, just well enough to make it look like it was close, and he was getting a bit lucky! LOL. The ignorant were Bobby's favorite people....

He continued this well into old age, until serious health problems finally made him stop.

Datacipher · Aug 29, 2009

ZPTennis said:
Look at Martina Navratilova. If she played Herself back then with the game and equipment she has now, she would have no trouble beating her younger self even at the age she is now.
.

UNREAL. What's next? Current Mcenroe destroys 84 Mcenroe?? LOL! At least it's so absurd it's funny!

PS. New TW theory, let's go back to 1995 and give Vince Spadea poly strings! Spadea the new dominant great of his generation!!

Xisbum · Aug 29, 2009

Claudius said:
I will overpower her.

Hey, she's publisher of Tennis Magazine and might be convinced to play you in a challenge match "for the good of the game."

I'll write the challenge letter for you and send it to her, if you wish. Let's settle this where it should be settled - on the court.

Claudius · Aug 29, 2009

Xisbum said:
Hey, she's publisher of Tennis Magazine and might be convinced to play you in a challenge match "for the good of the game."

I'll write the challenge letter for you and send it to her, if you wish. Let's settle this where it should be settled - on the court.

Please do so. I know she's highly unlikely to accept the challenge nor will she probably even read the letter. But if for some highly unlikely reason she accepts and proposes a feasible time and location, it will be an a honor to beat her. However, she must use a wooden racquet..

ZPTennis · Aug 29, 2009

Look at Martina Navratilova. If she played Herself back then with the game and equipment she has now, she would have no trouble beating her younger self even at the age she is now.

Datacipher said:
UNREAL. What's next? Current Mcenroe destroys 84 Mcenroe?? LOL! At least it's so absurd it's funny!

PS. New TW theory, let's go back to 1995 and give Vince Spadea poly strings! Spadea the new dominant great of his generation!!

The cluelessness of the vast majority of people on here is where the real humor is.

"At the age of 47, Martina Navratilova won a first-round singles match in 2004 at Wimbledon" :lol:

For the dumber people out there, I'll explain what the significance of this is.
For that tournament, she was competitive with the top 100 players of the world at least. This alone puts her with 64 people left in the draw of the most prestigous tournament in the world. Since you are trying to make comparisons, try telling me that a top current 100 female player could not beat the OLD game of Chris Evert or Martina Navratilova.

Claudius · Aug 29, 2009

ZPTennis said:
Look at Martina Navratilova. If she played Herself back then with the game and equipment she has now, she would have no trouble beating her younger self even at the age she is now.

The cluelessness of the vast majority of people on here is where the real humor is.

"At the age of 47, Martina Navratilova won a first-round singles match in 2004 at Wimbledon" :lol:

For the dumber people out there, I'll explain what the significance of this is.
For that tournament, she was competitive with the top 100 players of the world at least. This alone puts her with 64 people left in the draw of the most prestigous tournament in the world. Since you are trying to make comparisons, try telling me that a top current 100 female player could not beat the OLD game of Chris Evert or Martina Navratilova.

That is some great insight.

Mick · Aug 29, 2009

Claudius said:
Please do so. I know she's highly unlikely to accept the challenge nor will she probably even read the letter. But if for some highly unlikely reason she accepts and proposes a feasible time and location, it will be an a honor to beat her. However, she must use a wooden racquet..

maybe she would send greg norman, her husband who is also her tennis student, to play you. he's not her caliber but he's probably good enough to play against you

Claudius · Aug 29, 2009

Mick said:
maybe she would send greg norman, her husband who is also her tennis student, to play you. he's not her caliber but he's probably good enough to play against you

I'm not gonna play a clown like Norman. I want to play her.

Arafel · Aug 29, 2009

ZPTennis said:
Look at Martina Navratilova. If she played Herself back then with the game and equipment she has now, she would have no trouble beating her younger self even at the age she is now.

The cluelessness of the vast majority of people on here is where the real humor is.

"At the age of 47, Martina Navratilova won a first-round singles match in 2004 at Wimbledon" :lol:

For the dumber people out there, I'll explain what the significance of this is.
For that tournament, she was competitive with the top 100 players of the world at least. This alone puts her with 64 people left in the draw of the most prestigous tournament in the world. Since you are trying to make comparisons, try telling me that a top current 100 female player could not beat the OLD game of Chris Evert or Martina Navratilova.

For a moment, I thought you were about to make a good insight. Then you blew it and showed you are the one who is clueless.

OK, so 47 year old Martina won a first round match at Wimbledon, putting her amongst the 64 best players in the world. Old Martina doesn't play differently then new Martina. She plays the same. Now take prime Martina, say Martina in her mid 20s, when she had the footspeed to more effectively cover the net, and could run in behind her serve and knife a volley into the open court. No, a current top 100 player doesn't beat OLD, PRIME Martina, or OLD, PRIME Chris.

Mick · Aug 29, 2009

Claudius said:
I'm not gonna play a clown like Norman. I want to play her.

see that is the thing. you think of greg norman as a clown, even though he's someone who everybody (who follows sports) has heard of.

why would a 18-time grand slam champion want to play with you

NamRanger · Aug 29, 2009

TonLars said:
Ive never seen a true 4.5 that could come close to matching the consistency of Evert. Could be some good rallies, 4.5 will likely make some winners or unreturnable serves, and possibly win a game or two in a whole match, but Evert wins easily. Im not sure why people think she couldnt handle pace?

Really?

Ok, not everyone. But about 99.9% of the people on this forum (not including you of course).

Clint Thomson, did you see his thread? I think he's a 400 ranked player on the ATP Tour.

Edit : Oh, he was 400. He's in the top 900 right now, I think he was taking time off or something. Dude is good though.

ZPTennis · Aug 29, 2009

Arafel said:
For a moment, I thought you were about to make a good insight. Then you blew it and showed you are the one who is clueless.

OK, so 47 year old Martina won a first round match at Wimbledon, putting her amongst the 64 best players in the world. Old Martina doesn't play differently then new Martina. She plays the same. Now take prime Martina, say Martina in her mid 20s, when she had the footspeed to more effectively cover the net, and could run in behind her serve and knife a volley into the open court. No, a current top 100 player doesn't beat OLD, PRIME Martina, or OLD, PRIME Chris.

You can't fix stupid. I failed to fully explain everything for the not so swift. She is Using NEW Technology racquets and strings and would Demolish her old self using a Wood Racquet and Crappy Strings. DUH

Claudius · Aug 29, 2009

Mick said:
see that is the thing. you think of greg norman as a clown, even though he's someone who everybody (who follows sports) have heard of.

why would a 18-time grand slam champion want to play with you

Norman....? He's a former golfer. Why would I want to play someone like that?

NamRanger · Aug 29, 2009

ZPTennis said:
You can't fix stupid. I failed to fully explain everything for the not so swift. She is Using NEW Technology racquets and strings and would Demolish her old self using a Wood Racquet and Crappy Strings. DUH

I'd hardly call natural gut crappy string. Oh, and Navratilova today still uses a full natural gut setup from what I remember. The only difference is the racquet, but prime Navratilova is faster, stronger, and just physically way more athletic than a 47 year old Navratilova. It would be a close match, and not a blowout in any way shape or fashion.

Mick · Aug 29, 2009

Claudius said:
Norman....? He's a former golfer. Why would I want to play someone like that?

i think golfers also play tennis and chris evert has taught him some lessons. he's not bad in the match that they showed on tv. he's probably a 3.5 - 4.0

Mick · Aug 29, 2009

NamRanger said:
I'd hardly call natural gut crappy string. Oh, and Navratilova today still uses a full natural gut setup from what I remember. The only difference is the racquet, but prime Navratilova is faster, stronger, and just physically way more athletic than a 47 year old Navratilova. It would be a close match, and not a blowout in any way shape or fashion.

recently martina said the body stops doing what you want it do after the age of 29 (she was telling venus to hurry up if she wanted to break her (martina's) wimbledon record)

NamRanger · Aug 29, 2009

Mick said:
recently martina said the body stops doing what you want it do after the age of 29 (she was telling venus to hurry up if she wanted to break her (martina's) wimbledon record)

Very true. Once you hit about 30 the joints and muscles just aren't as strong anymore.

maverick66 · Aug 29, 2009

Claudius said:
Please do so. I know she's highly unlikely to accept the challenge nor will she probably even read the letter. But if for some highly unlikely reason she accepts and proposes a feasible time and location, it will be an a honor to beat her. However, she must use a wooden racquet..

Go to her academy and tell her you can beat her. I saw one of the kids there do it. She played in points at the end and made the kid look bad. She would beat you get over it.

aphex · Aug 29, 2009

maverick66 said:
Go to her academy and tell her you can beat her. I saw one of the kids there do it. She played in points at the end and made the kid look bad. She would beat you get over it.

if by "beat him" you mean
she'd make him look like a drunk monkey...then yes, she'd "beat him"...

Bungalo Bill · Aug 29, 2009

Claudius said:
Please do so. I know she's highly unlikely to accept the challenge nor will she probably even read the letter. But if for some highly unlikely reason she accepts and proposes a feasible time and location, it will be an a honor to beat her. However, she must use a wooden racquet..

Wait, so you want to take on Chris Evert to play you who is not in her prime, make her play with a wooden racquet even though she doesn't play with one anymore, and "challenge" her and claim it as an honor?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

If you are so good why are you handcuffing her? What are you afraid of? Just as she used new technology in rackets throughout her career why cant she use the racquet that she has now that she has grown accustomed too?

And why Evert? Why not Borg, Agassi, Conners, or others??? Come on big mouth, put your money where your mouth is.

If this match goes (which it won't) I vote to not handcuff Evert and take her on as is. She is a few steps slower as she got older, she is focused on different things other than playing tennis, and she obviously is not in her prime.

I say, if you are so good, if she plays with a wood racquet you have to as well.

aphex · Aug 29, 2009

Bungalo Bill said:
Wait, so you want to take on Chris Evert to play you who is not in her prime, make her play with a wooden racquet even though she doesn't play with one anymore, and "challenge" her and claim it as an honor?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

If you are so good why are you handcuffing her? What are you afraid of? Just as she used new technology in rackets throughout her career why cant she use the racquet that she has now that she has grown accustomed too?

And why Evert? Why not Borg, Agassi, Conners, or others??? Come on big mouth, put your money where your mouth is.

If this match goes (which it won't) I vote to not handcuff Evert and take her on as is. She is a few steps slower as she got older, she is focused on different things other than playing tennis, and she obviously is not in her prime.

I say, if you are so good, if she plays with a wood racquet you have to as well.

seriously, what's the difference?

she'd beat him playing with a baseball bat...

Bungalo Bill · Aug 29, 2009

aphex said:
seriously, what's the difference?

she'd beat him playing with a baseball bat...

Yeah, that is true. Maybe we will give her a shovel to play with, and after she is done pounding him, she can bury him.

NamRanger · Aug 29, 2009

Bungalo Bill said:
Yeah, that is true. Maybe we will give her a shovel to play with, and after she is done pounding him, she can bury him.

Pfft. Shovel. We need to handicap Chris abit more then that. I think a Sledgehammer would do nicely. I still think Chris wins 7-5, 6-4.

mental midget · Aug 29, 2009

i hope this thread never ends.

ZPTennis · Aug 29, 2009

If Chris Evert(currently) is as good as Martina(currently) haven't seen Chris Evert play recently which is why I say that :

Than Chris Evert(now) would beat her athletic self from years ago if the young Chris Evert was forced to still use her wood racquet.

Sure the young Chris Evert was faster, but speed isn't everything. If it was Michael Chang would be the best of all time since he was SIGNIFICANTLY quicker than his opponents.

I don't know how many times I can emphasize this. Wood racquets are 10x harder to play with than modern day racquets.

Federer stated this himself in an interview. Words are not exact word for word but this is what I remember from his interview. "Back during wood racquets players just could not create the shots they can today. The most you could really do with the ball was steer it into the location you wanted it to go on the groundstrokes. Now there is just so much more spin and power you can create with modern day technology which allows players to hit shots that you couldn't dream of doing with a wood racquet "

If someone finds this interview please post it.

Arafel · Aug 29, 2009

ZPTennis said:
If Chris Evert(currently) is as good as Martina(currently) haven't seen Chris Evert play recently which is why I say that :

Than Chris Evert(now) would beat her athletic self from years ago if the young Chris Evert was forced to still use her wood racquet.

Sure the young Chris Evert was faster, but speed isn't everything. If it was Michael Chang would be the best of all time since he was SIGNIFICANTLY quicker than his opponents.

I don't know how many times I can emphasize this. Wood racquets are 10x harder to play with than modern day racquets.

Federer stated this himself in an interview. Words are not exact word for word but this is what I remember from his interview. "Back during wood racquets players just could not create the shots they can today. The most you could really do with the ball was steer it into the location you wanted it to go on the groundstrokes. Now there is just so much more spin and power you can create with modern day technology which allows players to hit shots that you couldn't dream of doing with a wood racquet "

If someone finds this interview please post it.

Every post you make reveals that you haven't actually played with wood racquets. As someone who has, and has even used them in leagues relatively recently, let me just point out that you can do almost anything with a wood racquet that you can with a modern one. The groundstrokes may not have quite the same amount of pop, but you can still hit them pretty hard, hard enough from a former pro that a 4.5 player would have a lot of trouble with them. Serves are virtually unchanged; the speed difference is maybe 5 mph.

And of course, as others have pointed out, power is not the be all end all.

GuyClinch · Aug 29, 2009

^^^I don't believe the posters here have played against ANY former pros OR ever used a wood racquet. Pros are a ton stronger then these guys imagine - AND wood racquets aren't such a huge deficit for a pro - especially ones that used eastern grips..

Pete

ZPTennis · Aug 29, 2009

Arafel said:
Every post you make reveals that you haven't actually played with wood racquets. As someone who has, and has even used them in leagues relatively recently, let me just point out that you can do almost anything with a wood racquet that you can with a modern one. The groundstrokes may not have quite the same amount of pop, but you can still hit them pretty hard, hard enough from a former pro that a 4.5 player would have a lot of trouble with them. Serves are virtually unchanged; the speed difference is maybe 5 mph.

And of course, as others have pointed out, power is not the be all end all.

Played with one a few times. At your level of play, I have no doubt you probably do play near the same with a wood racquet as you do with modern racquets. Your probably a 3.5 or less. No offense to 3.5's, but you are not going to understand what it means to create the types of shots I'm talking about when you cannot do it yourself.

Your also stating that Federer doesn't know what he's talking about either. The quote I posted before is very close to what he said in the interview.

It's like you read a post and don't even know what it says. Please stop posting replies that have already been proven wrong in my previous posts. It's reading comprehension man....:roll:

Mick · Aug 29, 2009

Arafel said:
Serves are virtually unchanged; the speed difference is maybe 5 mph.

last wednesday, espn classic re-broadcasted the 1981 us open borg-mcenroe match and in the broadcast, pat summeral said in the prior match against connors, borg's fastest serve was 117 mph :shock:

ZPTennis · Aug 29, 2009

Mick said:
last wednesday, espn classic re-broadcasted the 1981 us open borg-mcenroe match and in the broadcast, pat summeral said in the prior match against connors, borg's fastest serve was 117 mph :shock:

makes sense.

Xisbum · Aug 29, 2009

Mick said:
last wednesday, espn classic re-broadcasted the 1981 us open borg-mcenroe match and in the broadcast, pat summeral said in the prior match against connors, borg's fastest serve was 117 mph :shock:

Didn't Pancho Gonzales regularly serve in the 120s with his wooden racquet? Seems like I remember reading that somewhere.

Mick · Aug 29, 2009

Xisbum said:
Didn't Pancho Gonzales regularly serve in the 120s with his wooden racquet? Seems like I remember reading that somewhere.

i think if borg could serve a 117 mph serve (with his donnay), it is probably true that pancho gonzales could serve in the 120s. although borg's had a good serve, he wasn't known for having a big serve.

NamRanger · Aug 29, 2009

Mick said:
i think if borg could serve a 117 mph serve (with his donnay), it is probably true that pancho gonzales could serve in the 120s. although borg's had a good serve, he wasn't known for having a big serve.

Roscoe Tanner could hit it up towards 130 with a wooden racquet.

In fact, I'm pretty sure Scud, Pete, and Rusedski did some serves with a wood racquet and were only about 5 mph off from where there serve originally was.

NamRanger · Aug 29, 2009

ZPTennis said:
Played with one a few times. At your level of play, I have no doubt you probably do play near the same with a wood racquet as you do with modern racquets. Your probably a 3.5 or less. No offense to 3.5's, but you are not going to understand what it means to create the types of shots I'm talking about when you cannot do it yourself.

Your also stating that Federer doesn't know what he's talking about either. The quote I posted before is very close to what he said in the interview.

It's like you read a post and don't even know what it says. Please stop posting replies that have already been proven wrong in my previous posts. It's reading comprehension man....:roll:

A 4.5 has technical deficiencies in their game that will never allow them to beat any former pro who is playing with a wood racquet.

As stated, the 4.5 would only MAYBE have a slight power advantage over Chris Evert today (and we're talking about an old lady dude). Prime Chris Evert would...

1. Be infinitely more consistent
2. Place her shots better
3. Move better and more efficiently to the ball
4. Has years worth of experience and strategy
5. Is just plain out a far superior tennis player
6. Hit the ball with better spin, better placement, more disguise, consistently hit the ball harder

In fact, I bet you anything today John McEnroe and Bjorn Borg today would wipe the floor with nearly everyone while using a wood racquet. Only a 6.0 would even have a remote shot of taking a few games. Now let's not even imagine if they were using graphite.

Somehow you think a 4.5 male player who has...

1. Less strategy and experience
2. Less consistency and worse placement
3. Worse movement and worse fitness (I guarantee you they are less fit)

Is going to beat Chris Evert? I DOUBT IT.

Cindysphinx · Aug 29, 2009

Xisbum said:
Didn't Pancho Gonzales regularly serve in the 120s with his wooden racquet? Seems like I remember reading that somewhere.

If the serves today are only slightly faster than the serves of the Borg era, then what accounts for the endless aces that made men's tennis so darn boring in the Sampras era? Remember Sampras v. Ivanisovic? Gawd, that was boring.

DNShade · Aug 29, 2009

Cindysphinx said:
If the serves today are only slightly faster than the serves of the Borg era, then what accounts for the endless aces that made men's tennis so darn boring in the Sampras era? Remember Sampras v. Ivanisovic? Gawd, that was boring.

Placement, spin, disguise and the surfaces at the time (fast low bouncing grass, hard courts, and fast indoor) and the fact that guys then hadn't focused as much on the return as a weapon as they do now. Also - they were just big servers who went for aces more than some of the earlier guys - Mac, Borg, Lendl, etc who would use the serve to set up the next shot as opposed to just going for the ace every time.

Oh yeah...and Chirs would kill a 4.5 then and now unless she got an injury I'm not aware of. I keep seeing all these 4.0 beat a WTA player etc threads. There are some seriously delusional people posting out here.

Okay you male 4.0 or 5.0s...just come out with me and hit with some of the UCLA girls - freshman girls - and see just how well you do. I'll be waiting...

fruitytennis1 · Aug 29, 2009

Again a 4.5 player would get bageled easily. YOUR absolutly stupid if your 4.5 and think you can beat a former pro. EVEN IF SHE HAS A WOOD RACQUET YOUR STILL 0-0.

some6uy008 · Aug 29, 2009

Only thing left is for Claudius to post a video of himself playing.

ZPTennis · Aug 29, 2009

NamRanger said:
In fact, I bet you anything today John McEnroe and Bjorn Borg today would wipe the floor with nearly everyone while using a wood racquet. Only a 6.0 would even have a remote shot of taking a few games.

How can I take the anti 4.5'ers seriously with comments like this.

gunbuster · Aug 29, 2009

If you believe that tennis is 95% the player and 5% the equipment, then there is no way that the 4.5 should be able to overcome the enormous gap in talent when compared against one of the greatest of all time.

The pro-4.5ers believe the difference in wood vs. modern technology is quite a bit more significant and that would enable a mere mortal to challenge on of the tennis greats.

A 4.5 is a dime a dozen. Consider the enormous gaps of talent between:

- a 4.5 and a 5.5
- a 5.5 and a touring pro
- a touring pro and a world number 1
- a world number one and one of the GOATs?

Sure anything can happen, which is why we even bother playing these matches. But this is improbable, and mostly ludicrous conjecture at best. Even if equipment were 50% of the equation the gap in talent is so significant, there is no way that the 4.5 can overcome the difference.

mtommer · Aug 29, 2009

ZPTennis said:
How can I take the anti 4.5'ers seriously with comments like this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUa2ltLC0hw

edit: Here's another McEnroe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02m3KwIRa4g&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4tcUwM_8Bw

In comparison, a 4.5 would look slow and clumsy out there. They wouldn't belong on that court playing either one of those guys. They would just embarrass themselves and John would probably laugh them off the court. 4.5 good? Seriously?

mtommer · Aug 29, 2009

gunbuster said:
A 4.5 is a dime a dozen.

Bingo. Around here the 4.5 guys are middle aged somewhat overweight guys who took up tennis late in life. Most pros in the wood era still put more revolutions on a ball than 4.5 guys put on the ball with "impressive" :roll: technologically superior racquets. Heck, before poly strings, pros still weren't getting the action they are now. Put poly in a wood racquet and I bet we would have seen today's tennis years ago.

ZPTennis · Aug 29, 2009

mtommer said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUa2ltLC0hw

edit: Here's another McEnroe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02m3KwIRa4g&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4tcUwM_8Bw

In comparison, a 4.5 would look slow and clumsy out there. They wouldn't belong on that court playing either one of those guys. They would just embarrass themselves and John would probably laugh them off the court. 4.5 good? Seriously?

Another classic example of someone who doesn't read the full posts. I'm not even sure what you thought you read. Every single video you posted is of them using graphite racquets. Of course 4.5's are not going to beat them. If you bothered to really read what I was talking about, you would know that I was referring to a previous posters quote of McEnroe using a WOOD RACQUET and being able to beat 6.0's using modern day racquets. Which is an absolutely absurd comment.

FD3S · Aug 29, 2009

ZPTennis said:
How can I take the anti 4.5'ers seriously with comments like this.

Because they're accurate comments. McEnroe and Borg with wood racquets might have problems against truly high caliber players, but anyone below 6.0? Forget it. Don't get me wrong, they're still awesome players, but compared to ex-pros they're not even blips on the radar.

Yes, even old ex-pros.

Toxicmilk · Aug 30, 2009

I just started to read this just now...so some of these from a bit back.

Claudius said:
These are some of the best kick serves I've ever seen.

good serves, no doubt. But have you ever been to a live match? Most pros serves...even those that are not known for their serve, have wicked ass serves. Just saying.

Claudius said:
Can Alexander the Great with an army of 1,000 counter an airstrike conducted by dumb, inexperienced pilots?

Evert is not playing with a chopstick

aphex said:
playing seriously? against a 4.5?
no. there won't be any errors. either forced or unforced.

I agree.
I know one of the top juniors in my state...i've seen him make error after error against others juniors. Against his older brother, who is not as good or dedicated to tennis, but still a Div 2 player...my friend makes NO errors. unless he's laughing at his brother's attempts to hit past him.

Yeah there'll be 1-2 here and there...if evert isnt trying. She'd probably realize that she'd kill the OP or whatever 4.5 and not take the match 100 percent seriously.

raiden031 said:
He loses 3 games to a 5.0?

odesnik eh? well I once saw a match between Radek Stepanek against a journeyman. The journeyman won the first set 7-6...so they are pretty damn close right? Wrong, Radek won the next to sets 6-0 6-0.

quest01 said:
I think a 4.5 level player could beat Evert in her prime. All Evert did during her playing days was try to outlast her opponents; she really didn't have much of a weapon.

every weapon you THINK you have will immediately VANISH when you're up against a pro, even an ex-pro, even Evert

Arafel · Aug 30, 2009

ZPTennis said:
Played with one a few times. At your level of play, I have no doubt you probably do play near the same with a wood racquet as you do with modern racquets. Your probably a 3.5 or less. No offense to 3.5's, but you are not going to understand what it means to create the types of shots I'm talking about when you cannot do it yourself.

Your also stating that Federer doesn't know what he's talking about either. The quote I posted before is very close to what he said in the interview.

It's like you read a post and don't even know what it says. Please stop posting replies that have already been proven wrong in my previous posts. It's reading comprehension man....:roll:

Actually, I'm a 5.0 and played competitively in juniors. You are the one who proove you don't know what you are talking about when you posted something about crappy strings. Natural gut are hardly crappy.

As for your Federer post, you haven't proved that he actually said that; you said someone should go find the quote.

Arafel · Aug 30, 2009

ZPTennis said:
How can I take the anti 4.5'ers seriously with comments like this.

McEnroe won a doubles tournament a couple of years ago. He's still fully capable of beating anyone in a single set match.

r2473 · Aug 30, 2009

I played Evert this morning. Beat her 2-0 (ret.).

She coudn't even get a racquet on my 130 MPH bombs. On her serve, I just crushed every ball. She said she had never seen such awesome spin, power, placement, and consistency in her entire career. Didn't think it was even possible. Then I told her I was a mighty 4.5 rated player.

She said she hadn't realized she was facing a real 4.5 and was sorry that she had wasted my time.

GuyClinch · Aug 30, 2009

I think a 4.5 will have a hard time beating a 5.5 with a wood racquet - never mind a pro.

onehandbh · Aug 30, 2009

As a reference point, one of the frequent posters here on TW,
a 4.0/4.5 recently played a female ex-d1 player and lost
like 5-7or something like that. It was a competitive match but
I never felt like the 4.0/4.5 could pull it out. the ex d1 player
had slower footspeed and her hardest shots were not as
hard as the male 4.0/4.5 but she:

- hit deeper.
- was more consistent
- returned better.
- volleyed better
- better footwork.
- better conditioning
- better mental toughness.

4.0/4.5 advantages:
- heavier shots
- bigger FW
- bigger serve (but weaker 2nd serve)
- faster footspeed

How would a modern 4.5 player fare against Evert in her prime?

Who wins?

Evert

4.5 player.

Banned

Banned

Semi-Pro

Professional

Semi-Pro

Professional

Legend

Professional

Professional

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Semi-Pro

Professional

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Banned

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Semi-Pro

Professional

Legend

Semi-Pro

Legend

Semi-Pro

Semi-Pro

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Professional

Semi-Pro

Semi-Pro

New User

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Professional

Professional

Professional

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Similar threads