5'7" Diego Schwartzman reached ATP #11

TnsGuru

Professional
#55
Shorter players know they have a disadvantage and must be mentally/physically strong to compete at the highest level. You put Shwartzman's brain into a Kyrgios skull and you have a GS champion. Taller players have easy power with all that extra leverage but a smaller player needs better timing and sense of anticipation/footwork.

Diego plays tall with a lot of heart while bigger more gifted players tend to be small upstairs.
 
#56
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterexample

The sentence "short players can't be top ranked pro players" is FALSE.

because logic...

In logic, and especially in its applications to mathematics and philosophy, a counterexample is an exception to a proposed general rule or law. For example, consider the proposition "all students are lazy". Because this statement makes the claim that a certain property (laziness) holds for all students, even a single example of a diligent student will prove it false. Thus, any hard-working student is a counterexample to "all students are lazy". More precisely, a counterexample is a specific instance of the falsity of a universal quantification (a "for all" statement).
You and @Sysyphus were talking past each other. You are trying to debunk the statement that "short players can't be top ranked pro players," and you did indeed do it successfully; however, it's not the claim that @Sysyphus was defending. They were arguing that "short players are at a disadvantage in pro tennis such that their chances are far lower," and they also showed that to be true convincingly. I would add that it is a disadvantage overall. There are some ways in which being short is an advantage, it's just that they are outweighed by the others. In particular, Schwartzman has such good technique off the ground in large part because he's so short, which makes it much less likely that he will mistime the ball. (In amateur ranks, women tend to have far better technique than men of the same skill level, both because they have to have better technique to compete with someone with far denser musculature and because being shorter is an advantage in terms of groundstroke technique). However, this advantage off the ground is massively outweighed by the disadvantage on serve and with regard to reach, making his height overall a significant disadvantage on return too. It'd be interesting to know how many more short men there would be in the top ranks of pro tennis if pro players were only allowed one serve. This is also why shorter players were more competitive in the wooden racket era - it was harder to overpower players with better technique before racket technology advanced.
 
#62
I concur. Chang was maybe 5.6, and one point from number 1; Rios was number 1, both were in the Sampras era. Connors was 5.9 maybe. Diego is more like 5.5. Johan Kriek won 2 AOs at 5.7 in the prePoly age. Laver 5.6, Rosewall 5.6 back in the day. These are not just pros, they were TOP pros in tough eras. Diego top 11 in the world... people skoff like that´s nothing...hahahaha. Also my personal fav. Henin, 5.3 maybe, schooled the Williams when she was world number 1 in WTA.
Laver was 5' 8.5"
Look at Photos of him standing next to 5'6" Rosewall.
Chang was 5'8" or 5'9"
 
#63
When someone mentions Schwartzman , it is like a booby prize.
Yea, short players can technically make it to pro, and Schwartzman is the given example.
But no one really mentions it in a serious context.
He is dismissed as if he's an ATP 500.
A mere technicality.

I had no idea 5'7" Diego Schwartzman reached ATP #11
He is currently a top 20 player. TOP 20.

If 5'7" can reach top 10, then height is vastly overrated in tennis.
He is ahead of tens of thousands of taller players.
Fallacy of Exception.
Height obviously matters but Diego has overcome it through great skill. He still won’t win slams due to serve.
I say this as a fellow short guy.
 
#64
Diego is awesome.
The guy took a set off Novak, arguably one of the best players who ever lived.
A whole set? That's adorable.

Diego is a beast.. For his height. His biggest victory is beating Nishikori who was ranked 6. He has very consistent groundstrokes and can stay in any match, but eventually he does not have enough weapons to hurt the top guys consistently.

He reminds me of a poor man Ferrer who will keep coming at you, but is ultimately delaying the inevitable.
 
#65
Diego is the extreme exception, not the rule. The dude is jaw-droppingly talented. His return stats constantly rival Nadal and Djokovic’s. However, having stats like that is really the only way someone that short could get to the top. His serve is just too vulnerable. It’s not even a bad shot, he just can’t get the angles on it that a 6’0 person can get, much less some of the giants of the game. If Diego was half a foot taller, he’d be a number 1 player.
 

Luka888

Professional
#68
Diego is a great player. I admire him so much. True fighter. Ladies, I'm straight, but I also have to say he is so good looking. Better looking than AZ. Let's hope he can do some serious damage at RG. :)

I just like him so much. The thing is what you can do with Dear God gave you. Yes, he is physically short but he is also MUST TALLER than many other tall players. One of my favorites. (y)
 
#71
Diego is a great player. I admire him so much. True fighter. Ladies, I'm straight, but I also have to say he is so good looking. Better looking than AZ. Let's hope he can do some serious damage at RG. :)

I just like him so much. The thing is what you can do with Dear God gave you. Yes, he is physically short but he is also MUST TALLER than many other tall players. One of my favorites. (y)
Lol finally someone else admits Diego is bae af.


Start at 45 secs..... ughhhh lol
 
#72
This is also why shorter players were more competitive in the wooden racket era - it was harder to overpower players with better technique before racket technology advanced.
Good point. It's pretty obvious the balance has changed, and I would put very little emphasis on reach, which I think is exaggerated in importance. The elephant in the room is the serve itself. When you look at service stats it is very clear that they go up and down, in general, according to height. You have guys under 6 foot who have better service stats than much taller players, but when you take all players under 6 foot and compare them with guys much taller, the difference is obvious.

Something obviously has changed. You can say that Laver only did so well because there were not many tall guys around with good coordination, but I find that unlikely. More likely it's about the change in 2nd serve statistics. You had guys way back who could fire off canon shots, but that was on 1st serve. No one had the kind of 2nd serve statistics as today's players get with poly. You can even see the difference comparing 2nd serve stats from the 90s with today's.
 

IowaGuy

Hall of Fame
#74
Good point. It's pretty obvious the balance has changed, and I would put very little emphasis on reach, which I think is exaggerated in importance. The elephant in the room is the serve itself. When you look at service stats it is very clear that they go up and down, in general, according to height. You have guys under 6 foot who have better service stats than much taller players, but when you take all players under 6 foot and compare them with guys much taller, the difference is obvious.

Something obviously has changed. You can say that Laver only did so well because there were not many tall guys around with good coordination, but I find that unlikely. More likely it's about the change in 2nd serve statistics. You had guys way back who could fire off canon shots, but that was on 1st serve. No one had the kind of 2nd serve statistics as today's players get with poly. You can even see the difference comparing 2nd serve stats from the 90s with today's.
I agree with you.

For example, basketball in the 1960's-1980's had plenty of tall, coordinated guys such as Bill Russell, Pete Maravich, Oscar Robertson, Elgin Baylor, Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Julius Erving, Hakeem Olajuwon, Kevin McHale, Moses Malone, etc.

It's not like there were a bunch of 5'9" guys dominating the NBA in the 1960's, 1970's, and 1980's because of a lack of tall guys with good coordination :)
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
#75
I agree with you.

For example, basketball in the 1960's-1980's had plenty of tall, coordinated guys such as Bill Russell, Pete Maravich, Oscar Robertson, Elgin Baylor, Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Julius Erving, Hakeem Olajuwon, Kevin McHale, Moses Malone, etc.

It's not like there were a bunch of 5'9" guys dominating the NBA in the 1960's, 1970's, and 1980's because of a lack of tall guys with good coordination :)
https://runrepeat.com/height-evolution-in-the-nba
 
#78
I agree with you.

For example, basketball in the 1960's-1980's had plenty of tall, coordinated guys such as Bill Russell, Pete Maravich, Oscar Robertson, Elgin Baylor, Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Julius Erving, Hakeem Olajuwon, Kevin McHale, Moses Malone, etc.

It's not like there were a bunch of 5'9" guys dominating the NBA in the 1960's, 1970's, and 1980's because of a lack of tall guys with good coordination :)
I know. People ignore the changes in the game itself. When you change the equipment, you change everything. I grew up using wood, and I quit before everything got changed over. As I've said before, my job and life style stopped me from playing tennis, and I'm not the kind of person who can stand doing anything without total commitment. So I hung it up. I'm frozen in time as a player. I know damned well what I see today was not possible with what I played with. You see players today hit 2HBHs with the "wrong" foot splayed out to the side, and they all do it. Try that with an old heavy wood and gut racket. With those clubs you had to be prepared. No one hit a wristy shot on the forehand the way you see from guys like Sock and Kyrgios. Every shot had to be prepared with a follow-through. Just think of trying to hit a tweener with Laver's racket. People think young players suddenly invented these shots and the old timers were too slow, too uncoordinated and too limited to do such "athletic" shots. Try skidding on concrete with the shoes we used to wear.

Something has changed the balance of serving so that the ace count keeps going up and up, and 2nd serve stats are through the roof.

Take a look at this:

https://www.atptour.com/en/stats/2nd-serve-points-won/all/clay/all/

To get to just one player from the 90s you have to go down to Muster, and Kohlschreiber is in 10th place. The stats for guys who started playing in the 80s are all wrong, so you can't get a good read on the guys who were still playing in the 90s whose records are incomplete.

Now look at grass:

https://www.atptour.com/en/stats/2nd-serve-points-won/all/grass/all/

Sampras is #63. Agassi is #40, and Agassi's stats should have gone up because he converted to poly, right? But again both started before the ATP started keeping stats, and you absolutely can't trust the ATP, which is horribly sloppy.

What we can see is the almost total dominance of modern players. Is that logical?

Now you look at 2nd serve return points, which has to show the opposite, and it does:

https://www.atptour.com/en/stats/2nd-serve-return-points-won/all/grass/all/

Murray is #20, Djokovic #52, Federer #111. The balance between serving and returning has been utterly destroyed by modern rackets and poly, and the 90s was in no way at all like the 50s, 60s and most of the 70s.

That's why we see so many TBs today. No one can break serve any more in comparison to what things used to be like.
 
#80
We've been through this a million times and Diego is about 5'5. Definitely a short dude. Incredible success given his height, but he's the exception that proves the rule.

Current (as of Monday) top 10:
Djokovic, 6'2
Nadal, 6'1
Zverev, 6'6
Fedr, 6'1
Delpo, 6'6
Anderson, 6'8
Nishikori, 5'10
Thiem, 6'0
Isner, 6'10
Tsitsipas, 6'4 (official, I think he might be taller).
Nishikori is not 5'10 LOL
 
#81
When someone mentions Schwartzman , it is like a booby prize.
Yea, short players can technically make it to pro, and Schwartzman is the given example.
But no one really mentions it in a serious context.
He is dismissed as if he's an ATP 500.
A mere technicality.

I had no idea 5'7" Diego Schwartzman reached ATP #11
He is currently a top 20 player. TOP 20.

If 5'7" can reach top 10, then height is vastly overrated in tennis.
He is ahead of tens of thousands of taller players.
If you look at the best players in the history of the modern game, they are between 5'10" and 6'2", therefore saying that someone under 5'9" does not have a chance to be successful on tour then you might as well say that players over 6'3" does not have a chance either.
 
#82
It might be 5 ft 9 if you average all the ages/demographics of men in the US but certain sectors are much taller. I bet the average height for young upper middle class men is close to the atp top ten average and thats where most US tennis players come from.
What a silly comment. So NBA players (who are taller that ATP players) comes from the upper middle class?
 
#83
Shorter players know they have a disadvantage and must be mentally/physically strong to compete at the highest level. You put Shwartzman's brain into a Kyrgios skull and you have a GS champion. Taller players have easy power with all that extra leverage but a smaller player needs better timing and sense of anticipation/footwork.

Diego plays tall with a lot of heart while bigger more gifted players tend to be small upstairs.
If you put Schwartzman’s brain into Kyrgios’ skull, social media would be a lot worse off.
 
#85
When someone mentions Schwartzman , it is like a booby prize.
Yea, short players can technically make it to pro, and Schwartzman is the given example.
But no one really mentions it in a serious context.
He is dismissed as if he's an ATP 500.
A mere technicality.

I had no idea 5'7" Diego Schwartzman reached ATP #11
He is currently a top 20 player. TOP 20.

If 5'7" can reach top 10, then height is vastly overrated in tennis.
He is ahead of tens of thousands of taller players.
This isn't news. The GOAT is 5'8".
 
Top