Dear Tennis Warehouse Historians & Hackers,
I know that many of you have been awaiting the triumphant return of my threads, and I'm happy to say that, at long last, they're back. Forgive my absence, but I've been on a series of a trips (I'm off island now) and it was one of these very trips, as I stood in the Bronx Zoo, watching some California Sea Lions swim in all of their glory that I came up with the idea for this gem.
Let me start by assuring you all that I love the game. My love for the game is deep--like the feelings of a mother sea lion for her baby. I love playing the game, teaching the game, watching the game, and learning about/from the game. I only tell you this so my words aren't misconstrued as an attack on the game itself. No, no. In fact, my words are a defense of the game--of the game's true essence..
Now to provide a defense for something implies that there is an assailant working against that thing. Here the assailants, as I see it, are the Tennis Warehouse Historians. Yes. The TW Historians are undermining respect for the modern game. Their weapons are misguided uses of statistical analyzes meant to "prove" the "strength" of an era.*1 The old days of tennis must always be greater in their minds. But why is this the case? Do the TW Historians actually believe that the old days of tennis are better (or that Rod Laver could really compete, using his classic strokes with no modifications, in the modern game?)
The answer is hero-worship and the personal connection to past greats these posters have (however false and misguided).
Many of you continue to put players on pedestals (Laver being the prime example, though worse still, egotistical players like Mac and Connors) and argue, essentially, that these players are inherently greater than today's players. Now I fully understand that there is a difference between admiring a person's accomplishment and admiring the person, but again and again, many posters come across as grown-up, adult fanboys, who defend these players not for tennis reasons, but out of a sense of personal connection to these players (despite not knowing them). For example, the love for Borg from many of you defies logic (many of you seem to ignore Mac getting the best of him). Borg is neither a role-model or hero for me, nor is he GOAT. I ask some of you: do you know Borg personally?
I'll leave you all with the following question. How can tennis strive in the United States if some of it's biggest and most passionate fans refuse to acknowledge the amazing depth and high level of play of today's players? Is this about tennis or your own personal memories of growing up and watching Borg?
Furthermore, Is this about tennis greatness--or your own egos?
Kind Regards,
Chopin
*1 Footnote: There is no legitimate way to statistically prove the strength of an era. Looking at slam distribution tells us nothing of value in regards to this specific question
I know that many of you have been awaiting the triumphant return of my threads, and I'm happy to say that, at long last, they're back. Forgive my absence, but I've been on a series of a trips (I'm off island now) and it was one of these very trips, as I stood in the Bronx Zoo, watching some California Sea Lions swim in all of their glory that I came up with the idea for this gem.
Let me start by assuring you all that I love the game. My love for the game is deep--like the feelings of a mother sea lion for her baby. I love playing the game, teaching the game, watching the game, and learning about/from the game. I only tell you this so my words aren't misconstrued as an attack on the game itself. No, no. In fact, my words are a defense of the game--of the game's true essence..
Now to provide a defense for something implies that there is an assailant working against that thing. Here the assailants, as I see it, are the Tennis Warehouse Historians. Yes. The TW Historians are undermining respect for the modern game. Their weapons are misguided uses of statistical analyzes meant to "prove" the "strength" of an era.*1 The old days of tennis must always be greater in their minds. But why is this the case? Do the TW Historians actually believe that the old days of tennis are better (or that Rod Laver could really compete, using his classic strokes with no modifications, in the modern game?)
The answer is hero-worship and the personal connection to past greats these posters have (however false and misguided).
Many of you continue to put players on pedestals (Laver being the prime example, though worse still, egotistical players like Mac and Connors) and argue, essentially, that these players are inherently greater than today's players. Now I fully understand that there is a difference between admiring a person's accomplishment and admiring the person, but again and again, many posters come across as grown-up, adult fanboys, who defend these players not for tennis reasons, but out of a sense of personal connection to these players (despite not knowing them). For example, the love for Borg from many of you defies logic (many of you seem to ignore Mac getting the best of him). Borg is neither a role-model or hero for me, nor is he GOAT. I ask some of you: do you know Borg personally?
I'll leave you all with the following question. How can tennis strive in the United States if some of it's biggest and most passionate fans refuse to acknowledge the amazing depth and high level of play of today's players? Is this about tennis or your own personal memories of growing up and watching Borg?
Furthermore, Is this about tennis greatness--or your own egos?
Kind Regards,
Chopin
*1 Footnote: There is no legitimate way to statistically prove the strength of an era. Looking at slam distribution tells us nothing of value in regards to this specific question
Last edited: