Are players fitter today? Has sports science made a difference?

[easywin]

While i have to say that tennis can be quite easy on your stamina/muscles if your way superior in most aspects of the game than your opponent, i think your underestimating the fitness level of professional tennis players.

I was already wondering why nobody questioned your statement

You can improve stamina but tennis doesn't require lots of stamina compared to endurance sports and a fit amateur jogger, cyclist or swimmer has just as much stamina as a top pro.

I dont know how involved you were/are in semi-professional/good amateur tennis and what you define "amateur" but i had the opportunity to train with some of the top u15 kids in germany 3-4 times (I was 19 at that time, 1 year ago).
Maybe i overestimate myself but i always was a good runner ( my best time for 3000m was about 10ish at that time , nothing special but good condition i think) but the way they were training was leaving me exhausted.
I dont know how the training translates into actual professional training but it was not much about hitting but way more about keeping your heartrate really high, much sprinting and fast movements and hitting was just secondary, it wasnt as much about where you hit but how you hit... like you play a slice or hit with half power and you start again

So if i consider myself a fit amateur athlete, i dont think i could hang with the pros. Watching some matches in hot weather going towards 4-5 hours with both players being on an even level i do believe the highest possible effort is at least comparable to football matches or sth like that.

Watching Federer sweeping his opponents at Wimbledon not even breaking a sweat (at least in the past, doh! :twisted looks easy but you dont prepare in training for easy matches - you train for the highest possible physical effort, at least that makes sense to me. And since the courts became slower and more of a defensive playstyle emerged i think its safe to say that the average tennis player needs to train more on his fitness instead of the big serve or the big forehand.

 

[LuckyR]

I don't think they do. I read pro's diaries on atp websites and newspapers and just follow it in general. They can't do it during a week they're playing in because they play nearly everyday and they would be hitting the court with stiff muscles from the gym, since there's a tournament every second week on average they don't get much time to train. Federer and Nadal definitely only do fitness blocks in the preseason, Djoker doesn't look like he does much more than Yoga or flower arranging or something. Tsonga and Berdych are big guys who often don't go too far in tournaments so it's possible they do a lot more gym work than the Fedal or Murrovic.

Well, if the same Pro does more fitness work this year than earlier in their career, there is a clear and consistent move towards a higher percentage of preparation time being placed on fitness vs hitting balls and working on strokes, strategy, drills etc. Modern workouts are head and shoulder above what they were before cross training was appreciated (which was a long time ago, but well after Hopman).

 

[Bobby Jr]

But if you have lots of long breaks it's not hard anymore. 5 hours of tennis and they run a distance top athletes cover in 20 minutes...

The more you bang on with your 'tennis players don't need to be fit' narrative the more you are making yourself look like a fool.

As anyone who has ever done it knows - running 50x 10m sprints with 30 second gaps between each is way way way harder physically than running 500m. It's not even a close call.

Now, I know you say you can easily run around a court for hours on end and that your level of tennis isn't all that relevant but it is, and obviously so. A better player will exert much more energy to get into position and exert more energy hitting and recovering from shots. That's a big part of why they're so much better.

You have claimed elsewhere that all the breaks in tennis effectively make it a non high-endurance sport yet there are millions of people worldwide who can relatively comfortably run a marathon yet playing tennis to a certain level of intensity for the same amount of time it takes them to run the marathon is far more taxing. I am one of them.

The only way I can see say a 10km run being more taxing than than 3.5 hours of tennis is if the level of tennis is so low as to be a joke comparison. The 2-3 shot rallies the average 3.0 player hits - and the pace they hit/play - aren't taking anything like the juice out of you as 15+ shot rallies at a much higher level. You may as well be comparing walking with running.

The distance covered argument you've brought up multiple times shows perfectly how utterly little you know (which was obvious enough already) about fitness. Doing 500x 5m sprints like a tennis match would entail is many times more exhausting than 2.5km run plus it also involves tons of other muscle use and a level of concentration running 2.5km would barely hit 10% of.

Some of the thoughts and comparisons you post on this point are so wrong it is laughable. Tennis players are much fitter all-round on-average than they used to be. The amount of training they do is generally higher, the recovery efforts better/more detailed and the nutritional knowledge better. How that could somehow equate to nothing having changed it a position only a muppet would try and argue.

 

[cjs]

Bolt begins from a dead start, tennis players get a split step which means you don't have to fight inertia.

So let me get this straight. When a tennis play runs in one direction to hit a shot, and then changes direction to hit the next shot, you believe a split step somehow renders Newton's laws of motion invalid?

They teach this stuff at school... perhaps you should of attended.

 

[torpantennis]

So let me get this straight. When a tennis play runs in one direction to hit a shot, and then changes direction to hit the next shot, you believe a split step somehow renders Newton's laws of motion invalid?

They teach this stuff at school... perhaps you should of attended.

I see no answer...

Muscle is like a spring. You load potential energy to the spring by dropping to the split step, which makes you jump with higher power semi-passively. The extra power derived from the loaded spring does not require a active effort controlled by your brain. To do this effectively requires perfect timing and technique.

Google "stretch shortening cycle".

 

[Bobby Jr]

I see no answer...

Muscle is like a spring. You load potential energy to the spring by dropping to the split step, which makes you jump with higher power semi-passively. The extra power derived from the loaded spring does not require a active effort controlled by your brain. To do this effectively requires perfect timing and technique.

Well... to an extent - muscles are not kenetic energy return system which merely unload an earlier loading like a spring or rubberband. They require tons of energy expenditure to contract the muscles which generate heat and chemical by-products which are aren't replenished by loading up the muscle again.

 

[torpantennis]

Well... to an extent - muscles are not kenetic energy return system which merely unload an earlier loading like a spring or rubberband. They require tons of energy expenditure to contract the muscles which generate heat and chemical by-products which are aren't replenished by loading up the muscle again.

Yeah, it ain't automatic. Muscles really do the work even for the unloading of the spring. But if you've got the muscles that are able to fire at the higher power, then it helps.

Murray, BTW, has a more pronounced split step than the other top players. Is he the one with the highest muscle power amongst the top pros?

 

[BevelDevil]

I would say modern NBA players are more steroid enhanced. I believe there is no testing at all during the off season and bans are very short. I don't they are more athletic than they were before drug culture started to dominate in the 90's or in the 80's in the NFL.

So you agree that NBA players are more athletic, except you attribute it to steroids. Maybe that's right, maybe not.

How so? I could never do a 4 minute metric mile, however if you gave me long enough breaks I'm sure I could do 9 consecutive 500m bursts in the required time, perhaps even in a faster time. This is the crux, tiredness is less of an issue if you get really long rests very frequently (30-60 seconds between points and 5 two minute deckchair banana breaks a set).

With the modern baseline game, the ball is flying faster, which means you have to move faster to get there, and when you do, you're taking a huge explosive cut on the ball. On top of that, you have to chasing down and hitting more balls. That sounds more athletic.

I'd say 500m bursts require a lot of athleticism and fitness. It requires more top speed and probably strength than racing a mile.

Watching serve-and-volley tennis, there was a ton of down time. At least in the current game, when someone pushes the time limit between points, they are very often recovering from considerable exertion.

Also, most players don't push the time limit like Nadal/Djokovic, and 2nd serves are usually pretty prompt. So the 30-60 second range you are using exaggerates the norm.

Do you think McEnroe really believes Nadal is the best volleyer on tour? Or do you think he just wants to promote volleying to youngsters when he says things like "Nadal couldn't beat Federer until he improved his volleys!".

To promote the sport that we all love so much and I don't think less of them or blame them one bit and I might even do the same in their position. The same reason McEnroe said Sampras was the best ever, then Fed, then Nadal, then Fed again, then Djoker, then Fed again, then Djoker and then back to Nadal again in quick succession!

So commentators always lie to make the current game sound better?

That's not not the case: In the 90s, commentators were openly complaining about big serving hurting the game and basically making it a boring serve fest. This year, at Wimbledon I believe, McEnroe and Navratilova were criticising rackethead size and strings, saying that it reduced the skill level of the game. There have been open complaints about the time between points and MTOs.

So commentators will basically call the tour a bunch of coddled, techno-dependent servebots, yet mysteriously all commentators and coaches are in on a conspiracy to make players seem more athletic. It seems to be an inconsistent argument you're making.

Fed, Sampras and Nadal are among the best ever, and Djokovic is competitive with them, so I don't think he's really far off in that regard.

Of course. I actually don't think the fitness levels have changed at any level but I don't want this thread to become a sprawling disorganised mess where to many issues are tackled at once.

You're ignoring 95% of the tour. That is what creates the mess because sample size shrinks drastically and you end up comparing a handful of guys from a few eras.

Also, it's misleading to ask, "Are players fitter today", then proceed to ignore the vast majority of players.

When most people talk about the athleticism of the tour, they tend to be generalizing about the whole tour, not the top 1-5 players.

 

[BeHappy]

Well, if the same Pro does more fitness work this year than earlier in their career, there is a clear and consistent move towards a higher percentage of preparation time being placed on fitness vs hitting balls and working on strokes, strategy, drills etc. Modern workouts are head and shoulder above what they were before cross training was appreciated (which was a long time ago, but well after Hopman).

They don't. They do 2-5 hours on the court with gym work in the preseason same as they always have. The cross training fad is dead and has been for 20 years.

The more you bang on with your 'tennis players don't need to be fit' narrative the more you are making yourself look like a fool.

As anyone who has ever done it knows - running 50x 10m sprints with 30 second gaps between each is way way way harder physically than running 500m. It's not even a close call.

Now, I know you say you can easily run around a court for hours on end and that your level of tennis isn't all that relevant but it is, and obviously so. A better player will exert much more energy to get into position and exert more energy hitting and recovering from shots. That's a big part of why they're so much better.

You have claimed elsewhere that all the breaks in tennis effectively make it a non high-endurance sport yet there are millions of people worldwide who can relatively comfortably run a marathon yet playing tennis to a certain level of intensity for the same amount of time it takes them to run the marathon is far more taxing. I am one of them.

The only way I can see say a 10km run being more taxing than than 3.5 hours of tennis is if the level of tennis is so low as to be a joke comparison. The 2-3 shot rallies the average 3.0 player hits - and the pace they hit/play - aren't taking anything like the juice out of you as 15+ shot rallies at a much higher level. You may as well be comparing walking with running.

The distance covered argument you've brought up multiple times shows perfectly how utterly little you know (which was obvious enough already) about fitness. Doing 500x 5m sprints like a tennis match would entail is many times more exhausting than 2.5km run plus it also involves tons of other muscle use and a level of concentration running 2.5km would barely hit 10% of.

Some of the thoughts and comparisons you post on this point are so wrong it is laughable. Tennis players are much fitter all-round on-average than they used to be. The amount of training they do is generally higher, the recovery efforts better/more detailed and the nutritional knowledge better. How that could somehow equate to nothing having changed it a position only a muppet would try and argue.

Sorry if you're going to insult me because I have a slightly different opinion to you on this sport we all love then we have nothing more to discuss.

So let me get this straight. When a tennis play runs in one direction to hit a shot, and then changes direction to hit the next shot, you believe a split step somehow renders Newton's laws of motion invalid?

They teach this stuff at school... perhaps you should of attended.

I didn't say that, I said there is less inertia, a lot less. Enough that it doesn't negate the very slow speed they move at 90% of the time.

I see no answer...

Muscle is like a spring. You load potential energy to the spring by dropping to the split step, which makes you jump with higher power semi-passively. The extra power derived from the loaded spring does not require a active effort controlled by your brain. To do this effectively requires perfect timing and technique.

Google "stretch shortening cycle".

There was no answer because I wasn't logged on! I know what the stretch shortening cycle is, it's a combination of that and inertia being overcome if you just google it instead of arguing. The stretch shortening cycle requires no skill it's something that just happens so it's obvious you're the one who needs to look that up.

So you agree that NBA players are more athletic, except you attribute it to steroids. Maybe that's right, maybe not.

It's definitely right.

With the modern baseline game, the ball is flying faster, which means you have to move faster to get there, and when you do, you're taking a huge explosive cut on the ball. On top of that, you have to chasing down and hitting more balls. That sounds more athletic.

It does sound more athletic, except it doesn't describe reality. This is the reality of tennis 30 years ago compared to today:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyuiEzBb7hk


Players aren't hitting the ball harder, faster or playing for longer.

I'd say 500m bursts require a lot of athleticism and fitness. It requires more top speed and probably strength than racing a mile.

Not if you run the same distance in the same time but with breaks. Try it, I have.

Watching serve-and-volley tennis, there was a ton of down time. At least in the current game, when someone pushes the time limit between points, they are very often recovering from considerable exertion.

But you had to run as quick as you can to the net every time which baseliners don't. The breaks players were taking were nowhere near what they take today with the exception of McEnroe.

Also, most players don't push the time limit like Nadal/Djokovic, and 2nd serves are usually pretty prompt. So the 30-60 second range you are using exaggerates the norm.

As I said I'm only concerned with top players because they determine whether the standard of top level players has risen.

So commentators always lie to make the current game sound better?

That's not not the case: In the 90s, commentators were openly complaining about big serving hurting the game and basically making it a boring serve fest. This year, at Wimbledon I believe, McEnroe and Navratilova were criticising rackethead size and strings, saying that it reduced the skill level of the game. There have been open complaints about the time between points and MTOs.

Yes and they nearly killed the game off completely. They learned their lesson. Very little complaints about time between points from pundits, usually they say "I have no problem with them taking so much time between points because they're working so hard!". I don't blame them and I would do the same. It's about growing the sport.

Do you believe McEnroe really thinks Nadal is the best volleyer on tour and that his netplay is why he beats Federer? Or that he really changed his mind and decided that Fed was the best of all time, then Rafa, then Fed again, then Rafa, then Djoker, then Fed again, then Rafa? He just wants to keep tennis in the headlines and he should be commended for that.

So commentators will basically call the tour a bunch of coddled, techno-dependent servebots, yet mysteriously all commentators and coaches are in on a conspiracy to make players seem more athletic. It seems to be an inconsistent argument you're making.

Only if you deliberately misunderstand it. As an example McEnroe v Connors in the semi final of the USO is up on youtube. Tony Trabert talks about how McEnroe is an insane specimen who has taken fitness to a new level from Borg. There was also the "Borg quit because he was afraid of McEnroe" angle which everyone knew to be false. It's about growing the game and keeping people interested.

Fed, Sampras and Nadal are among the best ever, and Djokovic is competitive with them, so I don't think he's really far off in that regard.

Neither was Roddick for a while. Hewitt too.

You're ignoring 95% of the tour. That is what creates the mess because sample size shrinks drastically and you end up comparing a handful of guys from a few eras.

Also, it's misleading to ask, "Are players fitter today", then proceed to ignore the vast majority of players.

When most people talk about the athleticism of the tour, they tend to be generalizing about the whole tour, not the top 1-5 players.

The top players are what this thread is about. You can start another thread of your own if you like but I'd appreciate if you could stay on topic.

 

[BeHappy]

While i have to say that tennis can be quite easy on your stamina/muscles if your way superior in most aspects of the game than your opponent, i think your underestimating the fitness level of professional tennis players.

I was already wondering why nobody questioned your statement


I dont know how involved you were/are in semi-professional/good amateur tennis and what you define "amateur" but i had the opportunity to train with some of the top u15 kids in germany 3-4 times (I was 19 at that time, 1 year ago).
Maybe i overestimate myself but i always was a good runner ( my best time for 3000m was about 10ish at that time , nothing special but good condition i think) but the way they were training was leaving me exhausted.
I dont know how the training translates into actual professional training but it was not much about hitting but way more about keeping your heartrate really high, much sprinting and fast movements and hitting was just secondary, it wasnt as much about where you hit but how you hit... like you play a slice or hit with half power and you start again

So if i consider myself a fit amateur athlete, i dont think i could hang with the pros. Watching some matches in hot weather going towards 4-5 hours with both players being on an even level i do believe the highest possible effort is at least comparable to football matches or sth like that.

Watching Federer sweeping his opponents at Wimbledon not even breaking a sweat (at least in the past, doh! :twisted looks easy but you dont prepare in training for easy matches - you train for the highest possible physical effort, at least that makes sense to me. And since the courts became slower and more of a defensive playstyle emerged i think its safe to say that the average tennis player needs to train more on his fitness instead of the big serve or the big forehand.

Can I ask whether you took 30 seconds to a minute between points and had 5 two minute deckchair breaks a set? This really does make an enormous difference. Continuous play is non stop sprinting with barely a break, but when you have very long breaks between points and play an hours tennis spread out over 6 hours like Murruy v Djoker did in the AO last year then I question the difficulty.

 

[jg153040]

Can I ask whether you took 30 seconds to a minute between points and had 5 two minute deckchair breaks a set? This really does make an enormous difference. Continuous play is non stop sprinting with barely a break, but when you have very long breaks between points and play an hours tennis spread out over 6 hours like Murruy v Djoker did in the AO last year then I question the difficulty.

Come on let's be reasonable here. That is still 100 or more sprints over the course of 6 hours. Tougher than sprinting, since you need to change directions and also use additional force to hit the ball.

You try making a few hundred reps over the course of 5 hours with 200 heart rate each.

This is not just cardio. This is anaerobic cardio with 200 heart rate. Some very smart posters here did explain it to you.

Maybe you should cut your losses and move on.

 

[BeHappy]

Come on let's be reasonable here. That is still 100 or more sprints over the course of 6 hours. Tougher than sprinting, since you need to change directions and also use additional force to hit the ball.

You try making a few hundred reps over the course of 5 hours with 200 heart rate each.

This is not just cardio. This is anaerobic cardio with 200 heart rate. Some very smart posters here did explain it to you.

Maybe you should cut your losses and move on.

They don't run very fast, top speeds of 15mph which is a 20 second 100m, they reach that speed only a small minority of the time.

I'm fit and like any fit people you might know from running clubs, swimming clubs or velodromes or what have you I don't have any problem with playing tennis full out for 2-3 hours with breaks only to pick up the balls (not that I'm a great player or anything but fitness isn't an issue).

Of course I'm tired when the match is over and I sweat but when I see them taking these huge breaks between points and playing an hours worth of tennis over 5 hours it becomes obvious it isn't that hard really.

I can see why people who don't do any fitness work at all other than tennis get exhausted by tennis but anyone who's serious about their fitness won't have a problem getting through a tennis match.

 

[BobbyOne]

The old pros till 1967used to play almost every day! Thus they had good condition.

 

[torpantennis]

The old pros till 1967used to play almost every day! Thus they had good condition.

Thus they played at lower power levels. :mrgreen:

 

[torpantennis]

I'm fit and like any fit people you might know from running clubs, swimming clubs or velodromes or what have you I don't have any problem with playing tennis full out for 2-3 hours with breaks only to pick up the balls (not that I'm a great player or anything but fitness isn't an issue).

Of course I'm tired when the match is over and I sweat but when I see them taking these huge breaks between points and playing an hours worth of tennis over 5 hours it becomes obvious it isn't that hard really.

I can see why people who don't do any fitness work at all other than tennis get exhausted by tennis but anyone who's serious about their fitness won't have a problem getting through a tennis match.

And that's due to these "marathoners" SERIOUSLY lacking in muscle power. Even though they play "full out", their own "full out" muscle power level is ridiculous compared to the true tennis athletes. Why do you think the average maratoners are 60kg, whereas average tennis players are 85kg? What's that difference? All fat? :idea:

 

[BeHappy]

And that's due to these "marathoners" SERIOUSLY lacking in muscle power. Even though they play "full out", their own "full out" muscle power level is ridiculous compared to the true tennis athletes. Why do you think the average maratoners are 60kg, whereas average tennis players are 85kg? What's that difference? All fat? :idea:

Is Djoker less fit than Ginepri or Berdych?

 

[torpantennis]

Is Djoker less fit than Ginepri or Berdych?

Djoker is the most fit. Regarding weight, they all have an ideal BMI of 23-24. Marathoners typically are seriously underweight, like anorectics. Which as healthier? Which is more athletic? Check this article, and see where your sports are in athletic challenge compared to tennis.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/sportSkills

 

[BeHappy]

Djoker is the most fit. Regarding weight, they all have an ideal BMI of 23-24. Marathoners typically are seriously underweight, like anorectics. Which as healthier? Which is more athletic? Check this article, and see where your sports are in athletic challenge compared to tennis.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/sportSkills

Djoker is much thinner today than when his weight was taken, especially in the last year. He's not as big and strong as Berdych or Ginepri or even Michael Russel. I suppose you think they're fitter?

I don't understand why you compare tennis players to marathon runners either? They run a distance in 2 hours that tennis players run in a year.

 

[torpantennis]

Djoker is much thinner today than when his weight was taken, especially in the last year. He's not as big and strong as Berdych or Ginepri or even Michael Russel. I suppose you think they're fitter?

I don't understand why you compare tennis players to marathon runners either? They run a distance in 2 hours that tennis players run in a year.

Thinner in what regard? Weight? Looks? I seriously doubt that Nole has lost any significant weight. Good athletes with a significant amount of muscle typically look thin, but their weight surprises you. That's because muscle weighs more than fat. I'm an example of that. I used to have a marathoner's physique, but have since gained 17kg, but nothing on the waist. I can still fit into the same size of jeans as earlier on waist, but not anymore on thigh. That's due to all the sports specific training. This has also significantly added explosiveness, not necessarily maximum speed, into the movement. That's the difference of a anorectic endurance sportsman and a real healthy athlete, explosiveness and 15-20 kgs worth of muscles. That's the difference of top tennis stars and top marathoners. Think they can both move as explosively? Think they can both hit the tennis ball with as much weight?

The reason I compare marathoners to tennis players is because you compared the distances they "run" in their sports. If you cannot see the challenge of explosive movements compared to jogging, then go to gym, do some explosive jump exercises with weights, and feel the difference by yourself. Then one day you'll maybe appreciate the tennis stars as athletes as much as I do.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Sorry if you're going to insult me because I have a slightly different opinion to you on this sport we all love then we have nothing more to discuss.

I am not disagreeing with you because we have a difference of opinion. I am mocking you because you fail to comprehend basic concepts and continually cite examples and situations which you count as valid which are actually fringe or outlying and then refute the veracity of examples which can (and have) been replicated world over for years.

Mock is about all half of your opinions on this topic are worthy of. They are so out of step with the knowledge level of understanding of fitness and you also flat ignored all the salient examples/opinions people have offered that I assumed - charitably - that you were actually engaging in a comprehensive trolling effort. I struggle to believe you could actually believe some of the stuff you have claimed and I even listed a stack of them in another thread so you might see them together and have an epiphany of sorts that perhaps you actually know little about fitness (regardless how fit you might be yourself).

And, as usual, you continue your regular habit of plain ignoring any post which you can't facetiously attack or refute with an outlier/fringe example you can dig up.

 

[BeHappy]

Thinner in what regard? Weight? Looks? I seriously doubt that Nole has lost any significant weight.

He has.

I am not disagreeing with you because we have a difference of opinion. I am mocking you because you fail to comprehend basic concepts and continually cite examples and situations which you count as valid which are actually fringe or outlying and then refute the veracity of examples which can (and have) been replicated world over for years.

Mock is about all half of your opinions on this topic are worthy of. They are so out of step with the knowledge level of understanding of fitness and you also flat ignored all the salient examples/opinions people have offered that I assumed - charitably - that you were actually engaging in a comprehensive trolling effort. I struggle to believe you could actually believe some of the stuff you have claimed and I even listed a stack of them in another thread so you might see them together and have an epiphany of sorts that perhaps you actually know little about fitness (regardless how fit you might be yourself).

And, as usual, you continue your regular habit of plain ignoring any post which you can't facetiously attack or refute with an outlier/fringe example you can dig up.

I've answered or tried to answer every post in this thread, I only refused to answer your last one because you called me names. I'm not going to engage in that sort of discussion.

 

[Bobby Jr]

I've answered or tried to answer every post in this thread, I only refused to answer your last one because you called me names. I'm not going to engage in that sort of discussion.

No you haven't. You haven't addressed most of the salient points made to counter your argument. You just add in disparate examples which can generally be distinguished from the norm easily.

 

[BeHappy]

No you haven't. You haven't addressed most of the salient points made to counter your argument. You just add in disparate examples which can generally be distinguished from the norm easily.

Disparate examples? My argument is that top players of the past were just as fit (tiredness wasn't an issue, speed and height can't be improved) and did the same training (2-5 hours of tennis a day with weights in the off season) and ate the same food (unprocessed meat and vegetables) as top players today. Players like Roy Emerson, Vilas, Borg, Lendl etc. You even tried to dismiss the video of Borg v Lendl 1981.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Disparate examples? My argument is that top players of the past were just as fit (tiredness wasn't an issue, speed and height can't be improved) and did the same training (2-5 hours of tennis a day with weights in the off season) and ate the same food (unprocessed meat and vegetables) as top players today. Players like Roy Emerson, Vilas, Borg, Lendl etc. You even tried to dismiss the video of Borg v Lendl 1981.

Ah, don't try and re-frame the many laughable claims you've made in addition to the "players of the past were just as fit as those of today". That one is hard to measure scientifically but it is especially spurious (or clueless) to rely on a couple of well-picked videos to make a point. They don't represent the norm - even for those particular players.

You've claimed you don't need to be particular fit to play tennis. If that is true, which it is not, then it makes it even more likely that modern players are fitter than players of bygone eras because - according to you - the were nowhere near the potential fitness roof anyway. All that is required for today's players to be fitter would be to train more on their fitness - which they do do. Today's players train on-average more on their specific fitness more than in past eras - a point confirmed previously by Laver, Lendl, Becker, BORG, Courier, Agassi, Sampras and many more.

But that's a pointless pwning since you already claimed that you don't need to be particularly fit to play tennis. :lol:

To remind everyone of some whoppers you've claimed in this and recent threads:

- Lendl hit as big as Federer.
- "I have never seen a tennis player improve his power or speed yet."
- Sport science efforts have not improved the level of tennis since the 1980s
- "Nadal lives on coke and chocolate" - despite Nadal himself saying otherwise
- Borg did not dope because if he had to the level tennis players would need to he would be dead. :lol:
- Borg's fitness was constant therefore he could not have been doping. > here
- "tennis simply does not require that much stamina" > here
- "Federer is not faster than Lendl was... or Wilander" > here
- "If Federer is better than Lendl it is because he doesn't choke in major finals and because he has better touch" > here
- it is a fact there have been no increases in performance from sports science > here
- "even your average Joe can build up enough stamina required to finish a tennis match at a professional level because it really isn't that taxing" > here
- Monfils and Gilles Simon have minimum skills > here
- "sports science and training methods haven't changed tennis at all." > here
- on Saturated fat: "there is no proof or consensus among scientists that the amount you consume will have any effect on your health at all" > here
- "Borg and Lendl ... were every bit as good as anyone today in any category you care to mention. Spin, power, consistency etc." > here
- Berdych has a better serve than Federer

Plus, a still to be answered query on one of your examples
- Two Olympic rowing teams went on different diets and had no performance change. Who are they? I'm still waiting on some more info than your memory of it which I am inclined to think left out some major, salient details.

 

[torpantennis]

...
- "even your average Joe can build up enough stamina required to finish a tennis match at a professional level because it really isn't that taxing" > here
...

TBH, this is about the only point I agree on the claims. The fit average Joe does not lack in stamina, since that's not the real challenge of the sport. But the lack on explosiveness and muscle power is huge. The most fit average Joe, that also trains on gym, can even have stamina and strength (ability to hold heavy object in place), but the ability to produce power (ability to move heavy object explosively) is ridiculous compared to the pro.

BTW, nice work BobbyJr. The list made my day! :lol:

 

[Bobby Jr]

Here's another gem from someone who really knows his stuff about sport performance. Ex WADA chief Dick Pound.

In this Daily Mail article he says,

"When you look back at the era of McEnroe and Connors, in their prime they looked like little old men compared to the brutes now, thrashing around for four hours with a force and intensity that's ridiculous. Has tennis got a problem? Of course it has."

I'm not sure I entirely agree with him but the fact he notices the difference in tennis nowdays compared to that era suggests perhaps tennis players are fitter than they used to be.

 

[BeHappy]

Ah, don't try and re-frame the many laughable claims you've made in addition to the "players of the past were just as fit as those of today". That one is hard to measure scientifically but it is especially spurious (or clueless) to rely on a couple of well-picked videos to make a point. They don't represent the norm - even for those particular players.

You've claimed you don't need to be particular fit to play tennis. If that is true, which it is not, then it makes it even more likely that modern players are fitter than players of bygone eras because - according to you - the were nowhere near the potential fitness roof anyway. All that is required for today's players to be fitter would be to train more on their fitness - which they do do. Today's players train on-average more on their specific fitness more than in past eras - a point confirmed previously by Laver, Lendl, Becker, BORG, Courier, Agassi, Sampras and many more.

But that's a pointless pwning since you already claimed that you don't need to be particularly fit to play tennis. :lol:

To remind everyone of some whoppers you've claimed in this and recent threads:

- Lendl hit as big as Federer.
- "I have never seen a tennis player improve his power or speed yet."
- Sport science efforts have not improved the level of tennis since the 1980s
- "Nadal lives on coke and chocolate" - despite Nadal himself saying otherwise
- Borg did not dope because if he had to the level tennis players would need to he would be dead. :lol:
- Borg's fitness was constant therefore he could not have been doping. > here
- "tennis simply does not require that much stamina" > here
- "Federer is not faster than Lendl was... or Wilander" > here
- "If Federer is better than Lendl it is because he doesn't choke in major finals and because he has better touch" > here
- it is a fact there have been no increases in performance from sports science > here
- "even your average Joe can build up enough stamina required to finish a tennis match at a professional level because it really isn't that taxing" > here
- Monfils and Gilles Simon have minimum skills > here
- "sports science and training methods haven't changed tennis at all." > here
- on Saturated fat: "there is no proof or consensus among scientists that the amount you consume will have any effect on your health at all" > here
- "Borg and Lendl ... were every bit as good as anyone today in any category you care to mention. Spin, power, consistency etc." > here
- Berdych has a better serve than Federer

Plus, a still to be answered query on one of your examples
- Two Olympic rowing teams went on different diets and had no performance change. Who are they? I'm still waiting on some more info than your memory of it which I am inclined to think left out some major, salient details.

This is really desperate on your part Bobby. You think you're impressing everyone with all these links, but all you're doing is showing everyone how obsessed you are with not "losing" an argument. You want to split this argument into a thousand different directions. I've put my central opinions that this topic is on in the post you quoted.

Now, if you want to argue with me on those points I'd be interested in what you have to say, but if you want to argue about a bunch of side issues then more and more side issues would develope and it would become like the heads of the hydra.

Once again, this thread is about whether or not top players like Fedal and Murrovic etc are fitter than top players of the past like Emerson, Vilas, Borg, Lendl and whether sports science has made a difference to their training or diet. From what I can see the answer is no, they eat meat and vegetables and train on the court 2-5 hours a day with some gym work in the off season the same as they always have. In addition stamina as even torpan agrees, isn't that big a deal for tennis and height and speed are genetic.

 

[BeHappy]

Here's another gem from someone who really knows his stuff about sport performance. Ex WADA chief Dick Pound.

In this Daily Mail article he says,

"When you look back at the era of McEnroe and Connors, in their prime they looked like little old men compared to the brutes now, thrashing around for four hours with a force and intensity that's ridiculous. Has tennis got a problem? Of course it has."

I'm not sure I entirely agree with him but the fact he notices the difference in tennis nowdays compared to that era suggests perhaps tennis players are fitter than they used to be.

Does it? A self confessed liar:

Yay for google and google books!

From page 177, part of Chapter 7, titled Fear Inc, from the book Risk:

Sins of omission are far more common than active deceit in fear marketing, but out -and-out lies do occasionally come to light. Dick Pound, the crusading chairman of the World Anti-Dopin Agency, caused a furor when he said one-third of the players in the National Hockey League were using illegal performance-enhancing drugs so Michael Sokolove asked Pound (for an article that appeared in the New York Times) how he came up with that figure. 'He leaned back in his chair and chuckled,' wrote Sokolove, 'completely unabashed to admit that he had just invetned it. "It was pick a number," he said. "So it's 20 percent. Twenty-five per cent. Call me a liar."' A liar he may be, but Dick Pound is no fool. As Sokolove wrote, Pound is passionate about the fight against doping and he knows that 'his best weapon is his brilliance as a forumulator of quotes, his ability to make headlines and call attention to his cause.' Pound even wrote a book called High Impact Quotations.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...#v=onepage&q=dan gardner "dick pound"&f=false

 

[August]

Definitely they are fitter, at least in the top 10.

Today's slower surfaces give more importance for fitness. That's why players need to concentrate more on it.

 

[syc23]

The bottom line is that no one knows. If you transport players to another era then their game and fitness levels will be shaped by the technology and training that they would have access to.

 

[torpantennis]

In addition stamina as even torpan agrees, isn't that big a deal for tennis and height and weight are genetic.

Oh c'mon, weight being genetic? Then why could I change (as an adult) my "genetic" marathoner's body into an athletic one by adding 20kg of weight (without groving my waist), and transforming BMI of 18->25, adding a lot of explosiveness into my movements during the process? Anybody else could do the same whenever they want. It just takes at least 3-5 years of time! Ain't anything genetic in it.

And there's other than just stamina to fitness, a total of 9 different components:

http://www.brianmac.co.uk/conditon.htm

 

[BeHappy]

Oh c'mon, weight being genetic? Then why could I change (as an adult) my "genetic" marathoner's body into an athletic one by adding 20kg of weight (without groving my waist), and transforming BMI of 18->25, adding a lot of explosiveness into my movements during the process? Anybody else could do the same whenever they want. It just takes at least 3-5 years of time! Ain't anything genetic in it.

And there's other than just stamina to fitness, a total of 9 different components:

http://www.brianmac.co.uk/conditon.htm

I meant speed not weight! I'll fix that now!

I doubt you got much faster, no offence. Placebo effect.

 

[torpantennis]

I meant speed not weight! I'll fix that now!

I doubt you got much faster, no offence. Placebo effect.

Maximum speed is more genetic. I don't think I've gained anything there in the process. But things such as jumping have most definitely improved. And due to more energy being stored in the muscles, I could do explosive sequential jumps for a longer time. That's close to what is required in tennis.

And a higher weight itself is an advantage in tennis. Your strokes have potentially more weight especially when you include linear forward body momentum. That's why bigger guys like Delpo and Berdych use more classical forehands. If you can then move the higher weight body with the same speed, there's no disadvantage to it.

 

[BeHappy]

Maximum speed is more genetic. I don't think I've gained anything there in the process. But things such as jumping have most definitely improved. And due to more energy being stored in the muscles, I could do explosive sequential jumps for a longer time. That's close to what is required in tennis.

And a higher weight itself is an advantage in tennis. Your strokes have potentially more weight especially when you include linear forward body momentum. That's why bigger guys like Delpo and Berdych use more classical forehands. If you can then move the higher weight body with the same speed, there's no disadvantage to it.

Jumping is just as genetic as speed.

Murray, Hewitt and Chang all put on lots of muscle and didn't improve their power. I have never seen anyone improve their power by putting on weight and lots of people have tried it. It just doesn't work in practice.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Does it? A self confessed liar:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

You still wont read posts as they're written. The part of the quote I highlighted was about their performance, not the drugs aspect Pound claimed.

You suggest that not only does Pound make stuff up about drugs use but he also makes stuff about the performance of tennis players. Whether drugs are involved or not, the intensity/physicality level comment Pound makes is relatively obvious to most people who have followed tennis for a long time. That, by basic reasoning, suggests tennis players are fitter than they used to be - something you refute - regardless of the pharmaceutical help they might have had.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Jumping is just as genetic as speed.

Murray, Hewitt and Chang all put on lots of muscle and didn't improve their power.

Injury prevention and increasing overall blood volume > helpful especially in tennis. More muscle (within reason) means less work per fibre which in-turn means less chance of taking that muscle to failure point in an explosive movement. More blood volume means more efficiency in some areas and a longer anaerobic curve for muscles.

In tennis that would have tons of benefits - especially in the thighs and shoulders which come under the highest strain of jointed muscles.

 

[BeHappy]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

You still wont read posts as they're written. The part of the quote I highlighted was about their performance, not the drugs aspect Pound claimed.

You suggest that not only does Pound make stuff up about drugs use but he also makes stuff about the performance of tennis players. Whether drugs are involved or not, the intensity/physicality level comment Pound makes is relatively obvious to most people who have followed tennis for a long time. That, by basic reasoning, suggests tennis players are fitter than they used to be - something you refute - regardless of the pharmaceutical help they might have had.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. For him to use McEnroe as some sort of standard of hard work shows he knows nothing about tennis or is lying.

For him to say that pot bellied Federer, skinny Djoker and Murray ( ) are "brutes" is laughable. Brutes compared to who? We've seen it all before. Djoker is like Lendl, Nadal like Becker etc.

Injury prevention and increasing overall blood volume > helpful especially in tennis. More muscle (within reason) means less work per fibre which in-turn means less chance of taking that muscle to failure point in an explosive movement. More blood volume means more efficiency in some areas and a longer anaerobic curve for muscles.

In tennis that would have tons of benefits - especially in the thighs and shoulders which come under the highest strain of jointed muscles.

Is that why Hewitt has been constantly injured for 8 years? You have no idea what you're talking about and all your frantic wikipedia reading isn't fooling anyone.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Is that why Hewitt has been constantly injured for 8 years? You have no idea what you're talking about and all your frantic wikipedia reading isn't fooling anyone.

Straw man, hello again.

Lendl and Chang were fitness leaders and both had their career's cut short by injury. By your previous logic you should be here now saying that tennis players should be as unfit as possible to reduce the chance of injury.

Hewitt's case is just as much evidence that some people are injury prone despite their efforts - often for congenital reasons. Nadal is probably a good example - his fitness efforts, like Hewitt's, have reduced his changes of injury and have undoubtedly helped him play a lot more than had he not been so fit. His knee injuries are chronic, overuse injuries (as opposed to being acute injuries) which simply cannot be guarded against to the nth degree.

Federer's back or Del Potro's wrist are in a similar boat. They have learned to manage them - but their effects still pop up now and then to various amounts. Their fitness levels with respect to those injuries would surely play a positive role but being what they are - they're in management mode more than being able to get rid of them completely.

Sadly for you, and much to many people's amusement, I do have an idea what I'm talking about and not a single wiki session is needed to continually pwn you on basic physiology. It is especially ironic considering you claimed to know so much about the broad topic of fitness.

To remind you what you said here: "I actually know much more about this subject than you, believe me, and if you continue to argue with me you will learn that."

Who were those rowers again? I'm still waiting.

 

[BeHappy]

Straw man, hello again.

Lendl and Chang were fitness leaders and both had their career's cut short by injury. By your previous logic you should be here now saying that tennis players should be as unfit as possible to reduce the chance of injury.

Hewitt's case is just as much evidence that some people are injury prone despite their efforts - often for congenital reasons. Nadal is probably a good example - his fitness efforts, like Hewitt's, have reduced his changes of injury and have undoubtedly helped him play a lot more than had he not been so fit. His knee injuries are chronic, overuse injuries (as opposed to being acute injuries) which simply cannot be guarded against to the nth degree.

Federer's back or Del Potro's wrist are in a similar boat. They have learned to manage them - but their effects still pop up now and then to various amounts. Their fitness levels with respect to those injuries would surely play a positive role but being what they are - they're in management mode more than being able to get rid of them completely.

Sadly for you, and much to many people's amusement, I do have an idea what I'm talking about and not a single wiki session is needed to continually pwn you on basic physiology. It is especially ironic considering you claimed to know so much about the broad topic of fitness.

Who were those rowers again? I'm still waiting.

I said I'd find that study if you'd concede that it proved you wrong, if you won't then why should I bother spending time finding a study I read about years ago?

Yes players will just get injured whether they're fit or not, that was my point. Although your choosing Lendl was a poor example because he played great for a long time. Thanks for admitting it. No one's buying your regurgitated wikipedia articles for a minute.

 

[Bobby Jr]

I said I'd find that study if you'd concede that it proved you wrong, if you won't then why should I bother spending time finding a study I read about years ago?

So, you expect me to concede I was wrong on a point before I get to see it? Given your track record of spurious use of examples and inability to grasp basic concepts (or compare footage) I'd say the likelihood you've omitted or forgotten some major, salient details about the study which substantially distinguish it in some way which doesn't suit the way you framed it is nearing 100%.

Yes players will just get injured whether they're fit or not, that was my point. Although your choosing Lendl was a poor example because he played great for a long time.

So Lendl played great for a long time and was a fitness fanatic yeah? Does that not support the argument that fitness prevents injury? :lol:

Which way do you want to argue it man? Either Hewitt was super fit and his injuries are (your) proof that fitness efforts don't protect you from injury, or that Lendl's fitness efforts DID protect him from injury and allowed him his long career?

You are full of self-pwnage today aren't you?

 

[BeHappy]

So, you expect me to concede I was wrong on a point before I get to see it? Given your track record of spurious use of examples and inability to grasp basic concepts (or compare footage) I'd say the likelihood you've omitted or forgotten some major, salient details about the study which substantially distinguish it in some way which doesn't suit the way you framed it is nearing 100%.

Nonsense. If it was as I said it was then will you admit I'm right?

So Lendl played great for a long time and was a fitness fanatic yeah? Does that not support the argument that fitness prevents injury? :lol:

Which way do you want to argue it man? Either Hewitt was super fit and his injuries are (your) proof that fitness efforts don't protect you from injury, or that Lendl's fitness efforts DID protect him from injury and allow him a long career?

You are full of self-pwnage today aren't you?

Just like the rowing study those two examples prove that fitness neither raises or lowers risk of injury, injury and fitness are two completely independent factors.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Nonsense. If it was as I said it was then will you admit I'm right?

On the point that relative diets trialled over a short period and measured between two rowing teams against their own previous form had no measurable effect on performance - absolutely. I'd love to see a study of that nature.

Just like the rowing study those two examples prove that fitness neither raises or lowers risk of injury, injury and fitness are two completely independent factors.

Wrong. You cannot say that because it is impossible to accurately test for in terms of each persons' physiology and inherent physical weak spots. (i.e. you can't do a test on two people, or even 200 - which shows fitness efforts have no effect on injury rates because specific injuries often require a combination of factors for them to occur. Some of those factors can be mitigated through preparation, others managed through prevention and others are down to pure luck regardless of any efforts).

 

[BeHappy]

On the point that relative diets trialled over a short period and measured between two rowing teams against their own previous form had no measurable effect on performance - absolutely. I'd love to see a study of that nature.

Absolutely you'll admit you're wrong, or you'd just absolutely love to see it?

Wrong. You cannot say that because it is impossible to accurately test for in terms of each persons' physiology and inherent physical weak spots. (i.e. you can't do a test on two people, or even 200 - which shows fitness efforts have no effect on injury rates because specific injuries often require a combination of factors for them to occur. Some of those factors can be mitigated through preparation, others managed through prevention and others are down to pure luck regardless of any efforts).

I can say that because some tennis players train really hard like Hewitt and Rafter and are injured all the time, and some hardly train at all like Philippoussis or Baghdatis and are injured all the time. I have watched a lot of tennis and followed many players careers and neither in tennis or any other sport have I seen hard training players get more or less injuries than lazy players.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Absolutely you'll admit you're wrong, or you'd just absolutely love to see it?

Go look and see where I placed my punctuation. It's kind of obvious.

I can say that because some tennis players train really hard like Hewitt and Rafter and are injured all the time, and some hardly train at all like Philippoussis or Baghdatis and are injured all the time.

So examples which show both sides of the coin prove what? Nothing, that's what.

You are trying to demonstrate something that a lack of evidence (injuries which haven't happened) is somehow indicative of a relationship to training/non-training. Causative evidence doesn't work like that - injuries are often non-related. Almost by definition injuries are a surprise when they occur (acute ones especially) so efforts to prevent them cannot be concluded as having worked or simply had no effect and that player was simply lucky to not get injured.

Your argument framing is far too simplistic to make the sort of conclusions you do. You omit major details which would have a massive effect on injury rates/non-injury rates. As an example of how misguided you are, if you want to show Hewitt as an example of how fitness efforts do not prevent injury then the larger body of evidence must also hold true. But it doesn't. It only does for Hewitt and a few others. Most players on tour actively engage in fitness efforts but most also don't get injured very often (not least ones which incapacitate their tennis efforts). Therefore - taken in isolation of other factors - being fitter does demonstrate some added level of protection from injury. In that light Hewitt becomes the exception, not the rule as you wish to frame him.

For someone who wants to portray themselves as knowledgeable on this topic you show an acute lack of persuasive point-forming skills.

 

[BeHappy]

Go look and see where I placed my punctuation. It's kind of obvious.

Well I'll take a look over the next week or so. It will take some finding because I read about it many years ago but if I can find it I'll post it up here.

So examples which show both sides of the coin prove what? Nothing, that's what.

No trend either way exists showing your proposal that in tennis phsyical fitness reduces the risk of injury from what I can see. If you have spent the last 2-3 decades compiling statistical data showing the opposite I'll take a look.

 

[torpantennis]

Don't you dare to tell me that proper training does not prevent injuries! I could not even walk 5 years ago, due to "genetic" lower back problems. Then I decided to start some serious training, building my core muscles, deep abdominals and pelvic floor muscles, with intense Pilates sessions and gym training. Now I haven't got any back pain anymore, not even after multiple 2-3h tennis sessions. So it's just a claim of a lazy couch potato that proper training does not prevent injuries.

And regarding power development and muscles, the biggest problem of average Joes on gym is the lazyness of doing some explosive plyometric trainings. When was the last time you saw somebody on gym doing anything explosive? They all just lazily move big weights, developing no explosiveness at all.

 

[BeHappy]

Don't you dare to tell me that proper training does not prevent injuries! I could not even walk 5 years ago, due to "genetic" lower back problems. Then I decided to start some serious training, building my core muscles, deep abdominals and pelvic floor muscles, with intense Pilates sessions and gym training. Now I haven't got any back pain anymore, not even after multiple 2-3h tennis sessions. So it's just a claim of a lazy couch potato that proper training does not prevent injuries.

And regarding power development and muscles, the biggest problem of average Joes on gym is the lazyness of doing some explosive plyometric trainings. When was the last time you saw somebody on gym doing anything explosive? They all just lazily move big weights, developing no explosiveness at all.

Well first of all I'm glad to hear you got better!

But that was rehabilitation, I've never noticed players who train hard getting injured more or less often than players who do.

Sprinters improve very little so I don't think those plyometric exercises do all that much. They might do enough to make the difference between first and second for a sprinter but I don't think they would make a slow player like Almagro or Soderling fast.

 

[torpantennis]

Well first of all I'm glad to hear you got better!

But that was rehabilitation, I've never noticed players who train hard getting injured more or less often than players who do.

Then how can you explain this: Before I started to strenghten the core, I got back problems so that I couldn't walk 3 times within a single year. There was no injury, just most propably an imbalance of strength of muscles around the lower back. The relatively weaker abdominals just let the lower back move too much during rapid movements, which then caused the lumbago type of pain. I didn't know anything about what caused the pain back then. But after strenghtening the core, I haven't got any problems

Isn't this a clear case study which shows that proper training and balanced muscle strength can prevent injuries? A transformation of 3 injuries/year into no injuries in 5 years.

 

[BeHappy]

No it shows that you rehabilitated your injury which everyone knows you can do.

 

[torpantennis]

But this was such an injury that could have been eliminated beforehands with better muscle balance.