Aussie help here. What were margaret's Aussie 'hard court' championships played on

[BTURNER]

I have never received a clear answer yet on this question.
Margaret Court's clay tournament wins include The Victoria (Brisbane) and Queensland (Melbourne) 'Hard' Court Championships in 1960, the 1961 Australian Hard Court Championships in Rockdale in1961, Queensland again in 1963. What kind of clay would those events have been played on? Was it 'real' true clay, or the crushed brick of Europe or something else they were sliding on? Was it slower or faster than the dirt of RG or did it compare closer to that Virginian metabasalt clay American tennis was played on?

Next we have some British 'Hard ' court championships of the late 60'salso described as clay. The London Hard Court championships of 1968 & 69 in Hurlingham, and the British Hard court championships in Bournemouth in 1969, a Rothmans hard court tournament in 1970 held in Sutton and I have the same questions. Were they played on crushed brick like European tournaments were or something else. Describe the properties of these courts.

 

[Cashman]

At that point in time, Australian hard/clay courts were essentially one of three different types:

• Antbed courts are made of crushed termite mounds, sometimes mixed with sand or loam. They tended to be located in rural NSW and Queensland (not a lot of termite mounds in the city).
• Loam courts are made of... well, loam. Loam is a sort of mix of soil, clay and sand. They were quite popular in areas of NSW, Victoria and South Australia which have a lot of loamy soil.
• En tout cas courts are made from layers of clay, sand and crushed brick. They are a slightly more modern kind of court than antbed or loam and started to become popular after WW2, particularly in the major cities in the wetter parts of southeastern Australia where their improved drainage made them more practical than loam.

Materials were highly regional and in the case of antbed and loam, frequently intermingled and just regarded as 'pressed earth'. They mostly played kind of similar - all generally faster and firmer than European clay. I think (think) at that point in time the clay courts at Rockdale were loam. The other two, it will be impossible to get a specific answer unless you can work out which clubs hosted the championships. Gun to my head, a highly speculative guess would be that the Melbourne courts were en tout cas and the Queensland courts would have been antbed. But all three could have been played on ETC for all I know. It was replacing a lot of courts in the 50s and 60s.

But I don't think there is really a meaningful answer to this question. Even if you could find out the exact construction of each court, it wouldn't really matter. In those days, court types were not as rigidly defined as they are now. Australia is a very big country with very harsh weather conditions, and at that point in time it had a very small and highly-dispersed population. This meant people just made tennis courts with whatever material was robust and locally available, and all courts just existed on a spectrum of materials with similarish qualities.

Grass courts were equally diverse - they were just planted with whatever variety grew well locally. All grass courts played kind of similar, and all hard/clay courts played kind of similar, so that is how they were grouped and people didn't concern themselves much with the differences beyond that.

 

[BTURNER]

At that point in time, Australian hard/clay courts were essentially one of three different types:

• Antbed courts are made of crushed termite mounds, sometimes mixed with sand or loam. They tended to be located in rural NSW and Queensland (not a lot of termite mounds in the city).
• Loam courts are made of... well, loam. Loam is a sort of mix of soil, clay and sand. They were quite popular in areas of NSW, Victoria and South Australia which have a lot of loamy soil.
• En tout cas courts are made from layers of clay, sand and crushed brick. They are a slightly more modern kind of court than antbed or loam and started to become popular after WW2, particularly in the major cities in the wetter parts of southeastern Australia where their improved drainage made them more practical than loam.

Materials were highly regional and in the case of antbed and loam, frequently intermingled and just regarded as 'pressed earth'. They mostly played kind of similar - all generally faster and firmer than European clay. I think (think) at that point in time the clay courts at Rockdale were loam. The other two, it will be impossible to get a specific answer unless you can work out which clubs hosted the championships. Gun to my head, a highly speculative guess would be that the Melbourne courts were en tout cas and the Queensland courts would have been antbed. But all three could have been played on ETC for all I know. It was replacing a lot of courts in the 50s and 60s.

But I don't think there is really a meaningful answer to this question. Even if you could find out the exact construction of each court, it wouldn't really matter. In those days, court types were not as rigidly defined as they are now. Australia is a very big country with very harsh weather conditions, and at that point in time it had a very small and highly-dispersed population. This meant people just made tennis courts with whatever material was robust and locally available, and all courts just existed on a spectrum of materials with similarish qualities.

Grass courts were equally diverse - they were just planted with whatever variety grew well locally. All grass courts played kind of similar, and all hard/clay courts played kind of similar, so that is how they were grouped and people didn't concern themselves much with the differences beyond that.

So all they really had in common was was a substrate that you slid on when you ran?

 

[Cashman]

So all they really had in common was was a substrate that you slid on when you ran?

No. Like I said their playing qualities were all somewhat similar, and not entirely dissimilar to other kinds of clay around the world. They also generally all had some component of clay-like soil and sand in their construction.

But this was before the days of commodified court surfaces and materials, everything existed on a spectrum

 

[Moose Malloy]

The British Hardcourt Championships, which were held in Bournemouth between 1968 and 1983, were actually played on American clay, but were called Hardcourt because at the time, Britain generally only had two types of surface, grass and shale, a loose form of clay.

Hard Court Tennis - Deconstructing the Hard Court – HEAD

It has been almost 40 years since the US Open made the switch from grass (via three years on green clay) to hard courts, a move that changed tennis for good.

www.head.com

 

[thrust]

I don't understand the point of this thread. In Court's era few tournaments were played on today's typical Hard courts, primarily in South Africa and California. European clay courts are not all the same, as well as the slam grass courts in the Court era. Wimbledon was the fastest, If I recall correctly.

 

[BTURNER]

I don't understand the point of this thread. In Court's era few tournaments were played on today's typical Hard courts, primarily in South Africa and California. European clay courts are not all the same, as well as the slam grass courts in the Court era. Wimbledon was the fastest, If I recall correctly.

I can tell you the point. Its not about what we now refer to as 'hard courts'at all. I was trying to ascertain more about Margaret's clay court experience , and about all the clay tournaments she has won ( She has actually won more than we ever discuss) Wiki has a listing of all her tournaments including a bunch of 'Hard court' tournaments that were in fact what we call clay venues today. . . But I wanted to know how fast or slow those clay court tournaments actually played. I knew about the American green clay, and the European red clay, but I knew next to nothing about the kinds of clay courts Australia had , and those late 60's British 'Hard court championships' . Did they play more like Sarasota or more like RG? That was the point of this thread.

 

[thrust]

I can tell you the point. Its not about what we now refer to as 'hard courts'at all. I was trying to ascertain more about Margaret's clay court experience , and about all the clay tournaments she has won ( She has actually won more than we ever discuss) Wiki has a listing of all her tournaments including a bunch of 'Hard court' tournaments that were in fact what we call clay venues today. . . But I wanted to know how fast or slow those clay court tournaments actually played. I knew about the American green clay, and the European red clay, but I knew next to nothing about the kinds of clay courts Australia had , and those late 60's British 'Hard court championships' . Did they play more like Sarasota or more like RG? That was the point of this thread.

The fact is that great players like: Court, Laver and Rosewall were good enough to win on any surface, so did. I don't think there were many important clay court tournaments in Australia or the US. As you know, in these players era 3 of the 4 slams were on grass, so most the lead up tournaments were on grass in the US, Australia and England. The lead up tournaments to the French were mostly on European clay.

 

[BTURNER]

The fact is that great players like: Court, Laver and Rosewall were good enough to win on any surface, so did. I don't think there were many important clay court tournaments in Australia or the US. As you know, in these players era 3 of the 4 slams were on grass, so most the lead up tournaments were on grass in the US, Australia and England. The lead up tournaments to the French were mostly on European clay.

Frankly, your posts here are not telling me anything I did not already know. This thread is designed to look in a different direction than European clay tennis which is discussed at nauseum . These Aussie players had claycourt tennis in their early background, and in their backyards long before they ever showed up in Europe. This thread is specifically about those events.

 

[urban]

Backyard is pretty correct. The young Laver had in his family house an antbed court, where his tennis loving family played on. Legend goes, that once in the middle of the night, young Rodney woke up through the sound of the tennis balls, his family hit with the famous coach Charlie Hollis, and so his career started, and the antbed court helped developing his topspin style. Hard court or Hartplatz in German was a common desgination for clay courts in Europe and Australia. Besides, like natural surfaces clay courts play very differently. Hamburg was always a bit slower and with lower bounce than other vernues. Rome sometimes played as fast as real cement courts. And even at RG, the bounce on Chatrier and Lenglen is different. Sampras hated to play on Lenglen, because it was much slower. In contrast, the old bull ring at RG was playing pretty fast.

 

[thrust]

Frankly, your posts here are not telling me anything I did not already know. This thread is designed to look in a different direction than European clay tennis which is discussed at nauseum . These Aussie players had claycourt tennis in their early background, and in their backyards long before they ever showed up in Europe. This thread is specifically about those events.

I am not trying to teach you anything, as you probably know more about tennis than I do, My point is that Aussie clay court tennis was insignificant as very few tournaments were played on them, as far as I know.

 

[BTURNER]

I am not trying to teach you anything, as you probably know more about tennis than I do, My point is that Aussie clay court tennis was insignificant as very few tournaments were played on them, as far as I know.

They certainly were not significant in the sense that the Italian, the German or Hilton Head were. But If you believe as I do, that early youthful exposure to clay and specifically the 'slide' is a very big deal when you are trying to create an all surface champion in the making, like Court, Goolagong, Laver, Rosewall, Roy Emerson,Jack Crawford, fred Stolle, Lew Hoad. The significance of heretofore small local events now seems more interesting. That's a lot of clay court winning from a country full of lawn tennis courts in a world full of Spanish, Italian, French, and Germans that they took the title from. Maybe those local 'hard court' events like Victoria, or Queensland and I don't know how many other clay courts dotting the countryside, changed the history of Aussie and world tennis by supplying 12, 14, and 17 yr old boys and girls with experience moving on a surface that was sometimes completely foreign to other english speaking players who never won squat on clay.

Its no mystery to me that Aussies won grass tournaments all over the globe. But why were they taking over the dirt season over dirtballers? I think their actual playing experience on their own native soil matters.

 

[Cashman]

I don't understand the point of this thread. In Court's era few tournaments were played on today's typical Hard courts, primarily in South Africa and California. European clay courts are not all the same, as well as the slam grass courts in the Court era. Wimbledon was the fastest, If I recall correctly.

It's interesting background to help understand why postwar Australia (a tiny country of only 8 million people) produced so many all-time great tennis players who dominated the global scene for the better part of 20 years

A lot of it comes down to the conditions they grew up on. These rough-and-tumble, bumpy-and-unique backyard 'clay' and grass courts exposed players like Court and Laver to a huge variety of very difficult playing surfaces in their formative years.

For them to then go overseas and play on the immaculate lawns of Wimbledon and the smooth clay of Roland Garros - well, that's pretty much tennis on easy mode.

 

[Cashman]

But I wanted to know how fast or slow those clay court tournaments actually played. I knew about the American green clay, and the European red clay, but I knew next to nothing about the kinds of clay courts Australia had , and those late 60's British 'Hard court championships' . Did they play more like Sarasota or more like RG? That was the point of this thread.

If you ever come to Australia and want to play on an antbed/loam court let me know. They are still somewhat common in rural areas, particularly on cattle stations.

There are still quite a few shale courts in the UK as well

 

[BTURNER]

It's interesting background to help understand why postwar Australia (a tiny country of only 8 million people) produced so many all-time great tennis players who dominated the global scene for the better part of 20 years

A lot of it comes down to the conditions they grew up on. These rough-and-tumble, bumpy-and-unique backyard 'clay' and grass courts exposed players like Court and Laver to a huge variety of very difficult playing surfaces in their formative years.

For them to then go overseas and play on the immaculate lawns of Wimbledon and the smooth clay of Roland Garros - well, that's pretty much tennis on easy mode.

 

[martinezownsclay]

I do wish there were more hard court events then, especialy majors, as I have a feeling hard courts would have been Court's very best surface, even over grass, or clay which she was excellent on, or carpet. She had the all around game and great ball striking, and solid movement with sure footing, perfect for hard courts. She also liked a true bounce. Laver is another one who I feel would be known as his very best surface being hard courts if there were more events on it. There were a decent number of regular tour events, but still not a ton, especialy bigger events, relatively speaking.

 

[Angrybirdstar]

Laver is another one who I feel would be known as his very best surface being hard courts if there were more events on it.

guessing it would have helped take some pressure off his forehand and show off his backhand, though his returning might have needed to be tamed a bit

She had the all around game and great ball striking, and solid movement with sure footing, perfect for hard courts

i'm curious about the ball striking point - i've heard Court's footwork was impressive and i've felt that beating Evert at RG was one of her most notable achievements, but never that sort of subversion to the primary s&v style