gzhpcu
Professional
When I watch this match between Tilden and Lacoste, I tend to think they are over-rated...
http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=15373
http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=15373
I think this match between Tilden and Vines gives a better view of what they were capable of. Vines creates a net point that looks not out of place in modern tennis.
http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=4863
.
competitive with 5.5 today. These guys play with their wooden racquets and the 5.5 plays with modern racquets.
I will personally come over and slap you, if you say a modern 4.5 will beat these guys.
I think this match between Tilden and Vines gives a better view of what they were capable of. Vines creates a net point that looks not out of place in modern tennis.
http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=4863
The last serve of the match seems to be of considerable pace and also a serve by Tilden about 1/2 way through the video seems to be very heavy (Vines returned it out).
Tilden is the one with the rolled up sleeves and Vines is the one with a short sleeve shirt.
Recommend you go to full screen.
don't bother---some people will never understand the intricacies and tactics in tennis...
competitive with 5.5 today. These guys play with their wooden racquets and the 5.5 plays with modern racquets.
I will personally come over and slap you, if you say a modern 4.5 will beat these guys.
It is extremely hard to judge by this snippet.When I watch this match between Tilden and Lacoste, I tend to think they are over-rated...
http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=15373
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9SmGflhMq8
Watch Helen Woods Moody take a big cut with a wrap around finish and in the end a really nice topspin backhand. She was on the female side of this era and it doesn't look too bad to me. Tilden had to be hitting the ball much harder.
The old films always make things look funny. Does Charlie Chaplin look like he is moving the same way people do in movies today?
.....not to mention pressureless balls that came out of a box.
I think this match between Tilden and Vines gives a better view of what they were capable of. Vines creates a net point that looks not out of place in modern tennis.
http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=4863
The last serve of the match seems to be of considerable pace and also a serve by Tilden about 1/2 way through the video seems to be very heavy (Vines returned it out).
Tilden is the one with the rolled up sleeves and Vines is the one with a short sleeve shirt.
Recommend you go to full screen.
competitive with 5.5 today. These guys play with their wooden racquets and the 5.5 plays with modern racquets.
I will personally come over and slap you, if you say a modern 4.5 will beat these guys.
Well, not maybe not exactly the size of a redwood-tree -- but they were nothing like ones today so heavy they were directly clumsy to wield -- disguise was also of extreme importance back then and to appear to be doing something while doing something else was an art-form. Today it's just about -- well, almost -- power -- and if the precision missiles are off by a couple of fractions of an inch -- the tennis know-how ends -- and the player, as we witness way too often, just becomes a sitting duck and yawn-inducing cannon-fodder for the guy with a just a bit more daily form.
See Laver vs. Roche
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHaN...D5BF4518&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=11
1969 Australian Open Semifinal
Even the players of today would have difficulty playing at this level, given the wood racquets. These guys are moving beautifully, with perfect footwork, and excellent preparation always. They are also generating a lot of pace.
Tilden's "The Art of Lawn Tennis"
This is the cornerstone of where my tennis game was built. A lot of he said in this book made sense to me as a learning the game, especially how spin worked.
It is hard to compare any athlete from another era... but it is obvious they were skill tennis players. The thing they could not have taken advantage of is the technology of today, plus the players of today are true professionals... they cross-train and are at the highest levels of fitness. Back then I am sure they went and had a beer after the match.
So were the good... they were very very good. Could they have been better with todays technology and training...absolutely.
Sigh...."crosstraining". LOL. The old party line, started up in the 80's. THESE guys were the original crosstrainers, it was tilden spending the winters running in the snow and chopping wood intensely every day. Ironically, many of the very latest fitness "innovations" are in fact directly stolen from the functional training of earlier eras.
People (especially amateurs and the unfit) so outrageously overrate "training". As if we have modern techniques SO superior (we don't). And I say this with some pain, as a former trainer! The truth is, the best training is functional stuff, (here's a hint, are you doing it in a gym? 2nd rate...). And the fitness levels and feats of the top-of-the-line old timers was simply phenomenal. I haven't seen much evidence of any of these greats being impeded by a lack of fitness. Quite frankly, they all look smooth, quick, strong and very fit to my trained eye. I ams sure they were not obsessed with their body fat percentage or the new core training ball exercise they learned yesteray, or the third physiotherapist on their team who is currently obsessed with the alignment of their vastus medialis. However, I am sure, they took concern to keep themselves fit and strong, with no excuses. Seemed to work pretty darn well.
More importantly, "training" really cannot put in "talent". It can help maximize it, but that's it. Quite frankly, if you work hard, you will already maximize your talent. A great trainer might help get you 95 percent vs only 90. But a great athlete, is a great athlete. And old-timers DEFINITELY knew how to get very fit and very strong. In some cases, moreso than the coddled athletes of today, who have been sold increasing loads of fluff (by people "like" me). PERIOD.
Cannot disagree with anything you have said... but my point is that the current players have the benefit of the science of the sport. They now not only train better, but eat better. They are trained to understand the most effective way to play the current game... they have now become technical players, position of your body your racket etc...
What I love about the past is that these players were naturally gifted... thoughtful players and not so much the atomatons of today (I know I am going to get kicked for that statement, and I am making it as a general statement not a blanket one). I also fully agree with your statement about functional training, but I am not sure chopping wood helps my game. And running in snow would help my endurance but not my explosive starts and stops required in tennis. I am not interested debating the issue... just stating my thoughts.
I do believe that as far as training is concerned you cannot beat the science of what is being provided currently. But that does not mean it will not get better as the science of it improves. We learn from the past and the current players have the full advantage of learning from the greats of yesteryear.
The players of today may have as much or more game... but are they as skilled and masterful as those of the past... I would say very few.
I am skeptical about this 'science' stuff. It sounds like there are certain standards that have been developed for ways to treat the body, which are now being applied generally.
Conversely, a player like Tilden developed his own particular standards geared for his own body and I would bet that they were ideal for his time.
The word 'science' gets thrown around too superficially. Tennis is not run by scientists. It's run by businessmen.
When I use the word science I am not talking about scientists in white lab coats... but referring to those that study the game... ie. Vic Braden etc...
Coaches... and trainers... who are designing specific methods of preparing tennis players to preform at their best... mentally and physically.
What Tilden did was create something that did not exist... I would not say it was ideal at the time, but it was a stepping stone which was built upon a process that does not ever end.
Tennis may be run my businessmen but tennis players are not.
How is Vic Braden specifically qualified on the matters of nutrition and training? You just kind of throw his name in there.
As for coaches and trainers - I am not saying that these guys know nothing about getting their players ready. Rather, I very much doubt that their approach is as scientific as it is made out to be by some around here.
I bet that Tilden was as fit as a fiddle in his peak days. But I acknowledge that the average tennis pro was probably nowhere near his level in terms of fitness and preparation. I suspect that across the board there were more discrepancies among players, but when it came to the most dedicated athletes I don't doubt that they were extremely fit, even for today's standards. Does anyone really doubt that Jesse Owens was fit?
See Laver vs. Roche
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHaN...D5BF4518&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=11
1969 Australian Open Semifinal
Even the players of today would have difficulty playing at this level, given the wood racquets. These guys are moving beautifully, with perfect footwork, and excellent preparation always. They are also generating a lot of pace.
Hoad versus Trabert was excellent as well.
http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=81817
Just not so convinced about the Tilden era.
Hoad versus Trabert was excellent as well.
http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=81817
Just not so convinced about the Tilden era.
Obviously I am not getting my point across... how about I use the word "study" as opposed to "science" if it makes it better for you.
Linkage across the generations should be enough. You concede Hoad and Trabert. Link it back from them. Note how the greats play overlaps the greats of the next gen. Also note the due paid to them by those who faced and succeeded them.
Rosewall?
Sedgman?
Gonzales?
Kramer?
Riggs?
Budge?
Perry?
Vines?
The Four Musketeers?
Tilden?
Check the records and how late each of these guys faired against the next greats of the generation. For example:
In 1941 when Tilden was 48 he could still take matches off of the then prime undisputed number 1 in the world Don Budge.
In '46 and '47 Don Budge after a suffering a severely career limiting shoulder injury played the then #1 Bobby Riggs nearly to a stalemate h2h facing each other nearly 50 times each of those two years when Budge was 31 and 32. And Riggs barely eked Budge out at that time.
Kramer shelled Gonzales early on in Pancho's pro career.
Pancho barely beat Segura and an aging Kramer by 1953, had a back and forth with Hoad but dominated Rosewall early.
The point is there is tremendous linkage Great to Great through the generations. These guys, the greats of the past, going all the way back proved their metal against the next greats, and they against the greats that then followed them.
They're legit. Their pedigrees and results against the next measuring sticks prove it.
5
Do you see McEnroe taking matches off Federer or Sampras? Certainly not. All the above proves is the lack of athletisism of the early players, allowing aging players to still have a chance. Just like Golf. Golfers in their 50's can still be a threat.Linkage across the generations should be enough. You concede Hoad and Trabert. Link it back from them. Note how the greats play overlaps the greats of the next gen. Also note the due paid to them by those who faced and succeeded them.
Rosewall?
Sedgman?
Gonzales?
Kramer?
Riggs?
Budge?
Perry?
Vines?
The Four Musketeers?
Tilden?
Check the records and how late each of these guys faired against the next greats of the generation. For example:
In 1941 when Tilden was 48 he could still take matches off of the then prime undisputed number 1 in the world Don Budge.
A 49 yo McEnroe beat a 37 yo Sampras last year....
(ok, Pete tweaked his back, but still)
Then when they were both healthy, McEnroe played his "best ever" according to Sampras in the Black Rock finals of '08.
As for McEnroe vs. Federer, they haven't played one-on-one. I assume McEnroe would get beat, but he is almost twice Federer's age......and Federer's 28.
The un-equalizer is equipment. I think the reason a 48 year old former great could still hang with a 24 year old current great is the equipment, not the athleticism. Everyone gets slower with age. It was true in 1949 as it is in 2009. It's just magnified now with how the game is played.
I would have to debates Pete's claim... I don't think he could judge how well Mac played since he never played McEnroe in '84 what many of us would consider his best tennis.
but giving up a step of foot speed in todays game is the difference between returning a ball and watching it go by you.
I would debate that todays game has never had so many well conditioned athletes. Which I attribute to the new training regiments and eating practices... I don't remember seeing muscles like Nadal's on McEnroe or Connors in the '80s.
Although, Vilas was pretty beastly at the time.....and could run all day.
Linkage across the generations should be enough. You concede Hoad and Trabert. Link it back from them. Note how the greats play overlaps the greats of the next gen. Also note the due paid to them by those who faced and succeeded them.
Rosewall?
Sedgman?
Gonzales?
Kramer?
Riggs?
Budge?
Perry?
Vines?
The Four Musketeers?
Tilden?
Check the records and how late each of these guys faired against the next greats of the generation. For example:
In 1941 when Tilden was 48 he could still take matches off of the then prime undisputed number 1 in the world Don Budge.
In '46 and '47 Don Budge after a suffering a severely career limiting shoulder injury played the then #1 Bobby Riggs nearly to a stalemate h2h facing each other nearly 50 times each of those two years when Budge was 31 and 32. And Riggs barely eked Budge out at that time.
Kramer shelled Gonzales early on in Pancho's pro career.
Pancho barely beat Segura and an aging Kramer by 1953, had a back and forth with Hoad but dominated Rosewall early.
The point is there is tremendous linkage Great to Great through the generations. These guys, the greats of the past, going all the way back proved their metal against the next greats, and they against the greats that then followed them.
They're legit. Their pedigrees and results against the next measuring sticks prove it.
5
Cannot disagree with anything you have said... but my point is that the current players have the benefit of the science of the sport. They now not only train better, but eat better. They are trained to understand the most effective way to play the current game... they have now become technical players, position of your body your racket etc...
What I love about the past is that these players were naturally gifted... thoughtful players and not so much the atomatons of today (I know I am going to get kicked for that statement, and I am making it as a general statement not a blanket one). I also fully agree with your statement about functional training, but I am not sure chopping wood helps my game. And running in snow would help my endurance but not my explosive starts and stops required in tennis. I am not interested debating the issue... just stating my thoughts.
I do believe that as far as training is concerned you cannot beat the science of what is being provided currently. But that does not mean it will not get better as the science of it improves. We learn from the past and the current players have the full advantage of learning from the greats of yesteryear.
The players of today may have as much or more game... but are they as skilled and masterful as those of the past... I would say very few.