Call me ignorant, but....

[ximian]

Is it just me or has today's game completely surpassed even that of Lendl and Connors era? I hear people on the boards talk about how Lendl and others could still take on any of todays players, but even watching the Chang-Lendl match in 1989 FO, man have the strokes/game/pace changed! It seems like they are just playing a little 6.0 level warm-up match. rallying back and forth with ease... And then even watching the 89 FO Edberg vs Chang match. Once again, it just seems to me like the game has picked up and changed sooo much that players of that era with their strokes really wouldn't stand a chance today.

I know some of this has to do with today's racket technology, but i think a much larger part has to do with the changes in technique. Almost all players today hit with an open-stance forhand which can generate far more pace. So call me ignorant, but I think if Lendl stepped on todays court in his prime, he wouldn't stand a chance against the top 50. Perhaps even the top 100.

What do you think?

 

[!Tym]

I understand why you would think that to be logical, but impressions are not actually the same as fact.

Gene Mayer, a doubles specialist from the mid 80s was asked at the last second to fill in at a challenger tournament a few years ago. He was on vacation and said alright even though he had not been training and only playing casually.

He won his first match against Cedric Kaufman easiliy anyway, the same Kaufman who later that year went onto beat Pete Sampras at the French Open.

In the next match, against Mike Bryan (you know of the Bryan twins), he probably would have won that too but got tired. Still it was very close.

One thing you have to note is that the sound is much better now for on-court micing. Now even simple slice backhands sound like they're hit hard.

The Andre Agassi of old used to swing out like a mad man, totally spastic, going for winners on seemingly every shot compared to how he hits today; Lendl owned him. He also owned Courier.

What you see is not the same as actually playing a match. In a real match, anything goes. That's why Courier says there's no one out there today who he feels he couldn't beat on his day, accept maybe Federer at full flight. He says that regardless of any equipment changes or whatever, the one thing that will always remain the same about tennis is that it's mano a mano. When that happens, anything can happen. Ever see the Ultimate Fighter, Mike Whitehead vs. Rashad Evans? Matches are not won on paper, they are won in the octagon. Or how about Anders Jarryd beating Courier twice on the seniors tour? Jarryd is from an early generation than Courier, and Courier's supposed to be one of the founding fathers of the "modern" game right? Well, again like Courier said. Tennis is mano a mano, anything can happen.

Chang well past his prime and much slower than in his prime still took Hewitt in his prime to two tiebreaks on grass, still extended Srichiphan to his limit in two matches, still easily beat Tommy Haas at a masters event, etc.

Edberg OWNED Thomas Muster. Do you think Gaston Gaudio is better than peak Thomas Muster? Not a chance.

See the way Coria choked in his French final? Would young Chang have choked that way? Nope, we know he didn't.

See Philipoussis lose to McEnroe in world team tennis? I did, and though some may believe that match was fixed, I don't think Philipoussis' Mr. Macho Ferrari pride would allow him to accept that. In that match, I saw several occasions where Philipousssis tried to tee off on the ball, sometimes connecting...it didn't matter. McEnroe just poked his racket out and poked it where he wasn't and left the big man stumbling and off balanced. Simple.

Lendl had an eastern grip. In the Higueras article on Nadal's forehand, he talks about how other players felt like they couldn't rush Sampras on his forehand because of his eastern grip. That IS a BIG advantage of the old school eastern grip. The grip makes simple, clean, efficient contact MUCH more obtainable. With the western grips you see today, well look no further than the Moya Sampras Australian final. Moya looked rushed all match long on his forehand. Sampras took a very simple swing, but struck it cleanly and he never looked like he could be rushed that day by Moya's forehand. Now obviously Moya probably wasn't having his best day, but the point is that on a bad day the western grip will often tend to fall apart outside clay, because there simply isn't enough time with this grip. Eastern grips are far more repeatable and stable against pace in my opinion.

Cedric Pioline used an old school eastern grip, and did quite well in the modern age. Yet, Lendl vs. Pioline? 3-1 in Lendl's favor, including one 6-1, 6-2 drubbing. Lendl wasn't peak and neither was Pioline, fair comparison.

No way, do I believe that Cedric Pioline is greater than Ivan Lendl. If Cedric Pioline nearing old age could make it to #5 in the world, peak Ivan Lendl could have and would have done better. He was better than Agassi period in my opinion. He wasn't a choker like Agassi and he was just as fit if not more fit.

Connors complained in the early 90s that Lendl doesn't hit hard like he used to, that he just babies the ball now, and it annoyed him because he wasn't playing like a real man anymore basically. Lendl retorted that since taking pace off his shots against Connors he had owned him. Lendl purposely took the pace off his shots and still won, and in fact in this matchup won A LOT more this way. He said, why would I change what works? Lendl could hit as hard as he wanted or as gingerly as he wanted. The bottom-line to him was not how hard it looked like he was hitting, but rather would he win the match?

In the US Open match I have between Lendl and Agassi, Agassi came out ON FIRE. He was swinging for the fences and nailing everything. Lendl was put on his feet for a bit, then he recovered, gathered his poise, solidified his groundies, and gradually broke Agassi's go for broke game down. By the end of the match, Lendl was bullying Agassi around, and Agassi was repeatedly late on his shots.

The thing with Lendl was that he didn't have to GRUNT hard to make it seem like he was hititng hard. Lendl was more like Davenport. When you see Davenport in person it does not look like she hits that hard compared to all the other shriekers out there. But the thing is, that is just perception influenced by sound. The thing is, though Davenports strokes may not make that exploding, popping sound you get from say a Seles or Sharapova or Williams sister type, he groundies have much the same effect anyway...i.e. the opponents have a tendency to hit late more often than normal.

Lendl WHEN he chose to had a way of making players look like they were hitting late. Davenport has the same effect. Neither are huge grunters nor throw their whole bodies into everything, but in the end their opponets come away remarking on how hard they hit. Brad Gilbert's played or practiced against tons of big forehands including Courier and Agassi's, but he states in his book that Lendl's forehand was the baddest of them all, period. That's first hand experience and that's not something you can always pick up from watching tape in my opinion.

Btw, Lendl also owned Muster and Stich. The same Stich who with an old school game made the finals of the French in the "modern" era.

Anyway, I have Bruguera-Stich at the 96 US Open on tape and something about the way this match was fed to European satellite tv, the sound and color are so washed out. It's amazing how no matter what they do, they're balls seem like absolute nerf balls with no pace whatsoever behind them. Stich's serves 'felt' like they were slower than Scheng Schaalken's in other words. YET, I also have Stich from the 97 Wimbledon semis on tape and in this match every shot from Pioline and Stich seems to sound like a shotgun going off. Why is that? It's not that in one years time, the I've just decided to retire Stich has suddenly improved a thousand fold over the US Open of just a few months ago and is now hitting a thousand fold harder...

See the thing is, if I were to just rely on my 'perception' of how the match 'feels' on tape, that's what I would think. BUT logically I think it's still pretty much the same guy. What's changed is the dyanmics of the broadcost, a FAR crisper satellite feed and sound and color in this distance is the REAL reason why Stich could hit the same serve with the same motion in that Wimbledon semi and it felt like a shotgun going off and yet in this European satellite feed of a US Open match just one year before it sounds like he's hitting nerf balls for serves and that ANY 4.5 would have a chance to return them.

Of course, in real life that wouldn't happen.

 

[35ft6]

I think you guys are both right.

For one, people on these boards use anecdotal evidence very selectively. Brad thinks Lendl hit hardest, well maybe Agassi begs to differ. Courier thinks he could have beaten anybody in his prime? So does McEnroe. Take these comments with a grain of salt. People find the quotes that back up their predetermined opinion, ignoring other quotes in the process. I do it too.

I have some recorded matches, including a French Open match between Lendl and Mecir and it's not just the sound, they really are hitting it softer than today's clay court players. Of course, Mecir was known for that, and a match between Lendl and Becker would have undoubtedly been different, but the point still stands. I don't think anybody could get away with hitting that softly these days.

And these "this guy beat this guy therefor it stands to reason he could beat this guy" is interesting, very interesting, but you could probably use this type of logic to eventually get back to Bill Tilden, proving that he could beat Sampras.

So the game has changed. The pace HAS picked up a bit. But maybe the quality of actual play hasn't increased by much, if arguably at all. Who knows. This is a fun argument that will be around forever but it will never be conclusively decided.

 

[AndrewD]

If someone like Lendl was playing on the tour now, do you honestly think he'd be playing the same way he did in the 80's? Of course he wouldn't. However, the one thing he'd have that the average player doesn't is also the one thing that does translate from generation to generation. Namely, the mentality of a champion.

Lendl, taught to play the modern game would still be a great player. So would Borg, Wilander, McEnroe and Connors. Those guys were enormously talented tennis players who would have been great no-matter what style of game they were playing or what era they were playing in. Skills and playing styles can be taught but you can't teach someone the mindset that separates the good from the great. Those guys had it in their day and they'd still have it today.

And the sound of Lendl hitting the ball? You could hear the guy from 5 courts away.

 

[bigserving]

It is always difficult to compare different eras of sports. Today's athletes are far superior to athletes of only a few years ago. Athletes in all sports. Just look at the Olympic games. See the times runners are running, distances jumped, distances things are thrown, weight lifted. Players are bigger stronger and better than ever. It will always be that way.

Twenty years ago, Frig Perry was a freak, playing football at 320 pounds. Now, that is on the smaller size of offensive lineman and Shaq runs the floor in the NBA at 320.

Tennis is no different. The game is so fast these days. That is the biggest difference that I have seen. All of today's players are much faster and have better court coverage than even just a few years ago. They all hit much harder, and far more consistently than ever.

Because tennis is such a duel, it will always be difficult to compare different eras. In tennis, hitting harder, farther, faster, gets you nothing. The game is about winning points to win games, games to win sets, sets to win matches.

I think that most of today's top athlete, tennis players included, all else being equal would dominate prior generations. They are just better. To think that athletic ability has, or is going down, is absurd.

People close to the game feel that Aggasi, when healthy, is playing the best tennis of his career right now. It is just that the players on the other side of the net are also far better than they were.

If Courier says that he could be everyone but Fed I would just say.

The older I get, the better I was.

 

[Rabbit]

Truth be told a champion from any era could compete with any other era.

That's a great story about Gene Mayer. He was not just a doubles specialist, he was at one time #4 in the world. I got a chance to ask him about that match and he said Kaufman was "an idiot". He also said that he was leading in the second set of his match with MikeBryan and basically quit trying because he didn't want to have to play again. Was this his pride talking? Maybe, but he had the results to back it up. At the time, he was 47 and the only 47 year old in the world to have an ATP ranking. It also disproves the theory about players serving bigger now. He must've done fine with both those guys' serves.

Moral is that Gene Mayer was not even close to being a legend in the sport at his peak. Connors, Lendl, McEnroe, Borg all were at that time. IMO, they could knock heads with anyone prior to them or after. You take the top 10 from any generation and plug them into any other generation and they're still top 10 material.

 

[VGP]

...Cedric Kaufman easiliy anyway, the same Kaufman who later that year went onto beat Pete Sampras at the French Open.

Cedric Kaufmann lost to Pete Sampras 8-6 in the fifth in the first round of Roland Garros in 2001.

 

[ximian]

If someone like Lendl was playing on the tour now, do you honestly think he'd be playing the same way he did in the 80's? Of course he wouldn't. However, the one thing he'd have that the average player doesn't is also the one thing that does translate from generation to generation. Namely, the mentality of a champion.

Lendl, taught to play the modern game would still be a great player. So would Borg, Wilander, McEnroe and Connors. Those guys were enormously talented tennis players who would have been great no-matter what style of game they were playing or what era they were playing in. Skills and playing styles can be taught but you can't teach someone the mindset that separates the good from the great. Those guys had it in their day and they'd still have it today.

And the sound of Lendl hitting the ball? You could hear the guy from 5 courts away.

Exactly. If Lendl were born in 86, he'd be an amazing tennis player because of his menatlity and athleticism, etc... But I'm talking about the style of play he was taught. I doubt that if Lendl, in his prime, were to pick up a racket today and knock heads with any of the top 50, he would be rather suprised. Players today play a much different game, are much more fit and are overall a bit faster, etc... that Lendl would really have a tough time. Or Edberg. Or Connors. I highly doubt he'd be in the top 50, probably not even top 100, unless somebody gives me a great deal of substantial evidence that I'm wrong. And I don't think the "this player beat that guy" etc... is good evidence. Especially in doubles. Doubles is a whole new ball game, where vollying and touch and big serves are essentials. I can easily see a fit 47yr old with sound volleys and a big serve competing today. The technique for volleys and serving for the most part hasn't changed, and probably never will.

 

[!Tym]

I have some recorded matches, including a French Open match between Lendl and Mecir and it's not just the sound, they really are hitting it softer than today's clay court players. Of course, Mecir was known for that, and a match between Lendl and Becker would have undoubtedly been different, but the point still stands. I don't think anybody could get away with hitting that softly these days.

I understand where you're coming from yet, there's someone like Davide Sanguinetti who takes hardly ANY cuts at the ball, uses a continental grip forehand practically, and and basically just bunts the ball back. Yet he had no trouble going back and forth from the baseline with Srichiphan. The difference is that players today take a big hack all the time, doesn't mean that's necessarily that much more effective than Lendl who with a wee tiny racket could hit hard WHEN he wanted to. Hitting as hard as you can on every shot may look good from afar, but in real matches I question their actual effectiveness. It tends to balance out...i.e. Srichiphan and Gonzales.

Who came so close to beating Gonzales this summer? Gimelstob. Gimelstob is NOT better than peak Edberg.

Remember Safin when he first made his emergence on tour and was going ballistic from the baseline at the French? Pioline at first was caught off guard by Safin's consistent pace of shot and desire to go for his shots so early. Then, he adjusted to the tempo. And by the end, he was dominating Safin with his simple grip and using Safin's pace against him and actually out hitting him. It happens.

You can't just throw fireballs all the time on the men's tour and win big. Federer doesn't even do that. Lendl vs. Hrbaty? Peak Lendl is better period, and yet Hrbaty's no slouch now is he?

Peak Edberg vs. peak Courier US Open final? Who won that one? Well obviously Courier didn't play his best, but in general he was playing at or near his peak in that era.

Peak Edberg is not the roll over people think it would be. If peak Edberg could DESTROY a "modern" player like Courier, well...

I also have Edberg vs. Rafter on tape. In this match, Rafter played very near his best tennis, even comparable to his "peak" years. Edberg was definitely past his prime at this point, but played a very good match. He still won. Peak Edberg to me is better than peak Rafter as well, or at least just as good.

And, of course, Rafter did alright in the "modern" era didn't he?

Andres Gomez recently beat Sergi Bruguera on the seniors tour in straight sets this year I believe...Gomez has a pot belly and is older than dirt next to Bruguera. Gomez is from an earlier generation, and surely was not better than Lendl during his peak; so no chance right? Wrong. And for those who say Courier and Bruguera had reason to "fix" their matches in Jarryd and Gomez' favor? I couldn't disagree more. What do Courier and Bruguera have to gain reputation wise for purposely losing a match to players from a previous generation who weren't part of the "modern" age?

What does the seniors tour have to gain financially when bigger, younger names lose to older names? Yet it happens...not all the time, but it happens.

The point is that people always think that players from previous generations wouldn't stand a chance against newew players for some reason when that's just not the case. Even in the days of Laver, a young Laver's beaten a young Connors.

Like I said, just watching how two players play each other doesn't really mean much.

I have Bruguera vs. Federer on tape when Federer was first starting to make himself known. Bruguera won this match 6-1, 6-1 and was JUST coming off major shoulder surgery that was supposed to end his career. He had no confidence and barely went for any of his shots, yet the thing to note was that even when Federer did go for his shots; they looked like they had absolutely NO pace behind them. I don't know what was in the air, but for some reason the shots in this match from both guys just felt' like there was nothing behind them. Something about the taping, something in the air. If I were to just judge by this one match, I would say I FEEL like these two chumps would be NO competition for even a local 6.0 because it feels and seems so clearly that they have no ability whatsoever to hit hard...which of course obviously is not the case.

I've also played against one of the hardest hitting junior players in the nation years ago, and I remember thinking at that time this guy hits and swings harder than Courier! Why? Because I had recently watched Courier live from up close only weeks earlier, and it just for whatever reason my perception told me this junior guys hits harder than Courier! Of course, well though that may be what I think or thought I saw the reality is different. Courier would wax this kid 6-0 every time I'm sure.

I've also visited pro events with my friends before who don't play really but are just big fans of the game, and they were shocked. Because they expected to see these super heros out there who hit harder than Zeuss. But instead what they found was these guys hitting on practice courts and such and not seeming to hit any more "spectacularly" if you will than me. My friends had seen me play my best, and they always thought I was pretty good, BUT they were shocked because when they saw the big boppers like Srichiphan and Hrbaty going at it, they thought well gee mustn't they hit MUCH, MUCH, MUCH harder than me? I mean if I'm good, they must be soooo much more spectacular. I'll leave it with what one of my friends said, "I think you could hit with these guys." "You should try the pro tour." I said yeah right. He goes, "No, seriously." I said, no seriously, watching guys is not the same as actually playing them. I said I wouldn't even win a game, I'd be lucky to win points. And by and large I feel that to be true.

See, that's the thing, I KNOW I wouldn't stand a chance with these guys, but the point is from afar, if I of all people could fool my casual tennis playing friends into thinking just based on perception and "appearance" of my shots alone that I could at least hit with these guys and not look like a fool doing it? What does that say? It tells me, that reality is far different from percetpion. It's like with eye witness reports. They have a way of coloring things. The only real proof is in the pudding. And when I see guys like Andres Gomez and Anders Jarryd on good days easily taking out Sergi Bruguera and Jim Courier, I know something's up. And that is that the level between generations is far more comparable than we are led to believe.

Tennis is a game where it's in my opinion easy to adjust to pace. As long as the hand eye coordination is there from generation to generation, then there will always be the possibility of a good and even game.

I'll just conclude by saying, Tim Henman is NO Edberg. Tim Henman has been top ten for many, many years and beaten a BIG hitter like Roddick before. Also, David Nalbandian and Nicholay Davydenko are power monsters and very successful because of it.

Karol "the Turtle" Kucera never schooled hard hitters like Juan Carlos Ferrero and Andre Agassi for periods of a match...oops, only he did.

Gustavo Kuerten was the inventor of hitting hard, he hit Andrei Medvedev from an earlier generation off the court. Oops, Medvedev beat him in straight sets at the French.

The point is that no matter what we believe we see on the screen, I just look at these odd matches here and there as the true logic.

Does the game pass players by? Or do players just get old or bored with the game? Sanguinetti today is about the same as Sanguinetti of yesterday, but the KEY is that he still has the ZEST for the game.

Ronald Agenor who definitely was on the wrong half of 40 came THIS close to beating Gustavo Kuerten in a three set dog fight during Guga's prime at the Toronto Masters series event. Ronald Agenor for the record comes from an earlier generation and was not even a top player then.

Top players from generation to generation are the cream of the genetic crop in my opinion. Put them in any generation and they would be top players again. Matches are not won on paper, they are won on the basis of some guys just have "it" and some don't. All the coaches thought Mike Whitehead had "it" over Rashad Evans, that he was just a little bit better in every category. Then the bell rang, and Rashad Evans beat Mike Whitehead comprehensively in "every" "category."

I've seen Hrbaty CLEARLY out hit Marat Safin at the Australian Open. Safin was trying too, but Hrbaty was just hitting cleaner and harder than Safin all day long.

Does this mean that Hrbaty would always do this? No. But it tells me that Hrbaty from an earlier generation at his best is at least still comparable to the more "modern" Safin.

These top guys have a way of competing with each other, games are usually close, and those with the intangibles as well such as Lendl will find their way just fine thank you.

Just my opinion.

 

[larrhall]

The old guys are great, they would still be great. I played several guys in senior tournaments who grew up with wooden racquets and using precision and placement. One in fact used to play doubles with the Mayers brothers and ham-handed Hank Pfister. In every baseline rally I matched him in power, though not in accuracy. Once he got into net, his precision and sequence of volleys was amazing. He had some of the best parental coaching possible as well. He feathered the ball, but he could return pace and he did not miss - simply did not miss.

 

[!Tym]

It is always difficult to compare different eras of sports. Today's athletes are far superior to athletes of only a few years ago. Athletes in all sports. Just look at the Olympic games. See the times runners are running, distances jumped, distances things are thrown, weight lifted. Players are bigger stronger and better than ever. It will always be that way.

Twenty years ago, Frig Perry was a freak, playing football at 320 pounds. Now, that is on the smaller size of offensive lineman and Shaq runs the floor in the NBA at 320.

Tennis is no different. The game is so fast these days. That is the biggest difference that I have seen. All of today's players are much faster and have better court coverage than even just a few years ago. They all hit much harder, and far more consistently than ever.

Because tennis is such a duel, it will always be difficult to compare different eras. In tennis, hitting harder, farther, faster, gets you nothing. The game is about winning points to win games, games to win sets, sets to win matches.

I think that most of today's top athlete, tennis players included, all else being equal would dominate prior generations. They are just better. To think that athletic ability has, or is going down, is absurd.

People close to the game feel that Aggasi, when healthy, is playing the best tennis of his career right now. It is just that the players on the other side of the net are also far better than they were.

If Courier says that he could be everyone but Fed I would just say.

The older I get, the better I was.

Hmm, is it improved genetics that makes the better athlete or improved "supplements," that is the question.

 

[NoBadMojo]

I believe the way tennis is played over the years has changed so dramatically that you really cant even make a decent comparison to players of today to players of yesterday <even recent yesterday>..throw in the technology and the 'better performence through chemistry' angles and it makes almost any comparison pure wild guessing. you can <in some ways> build a case that some players from another era might even be better than todays as i reallythink more real athletes were playing T back then....

 

[urban]

Some good and interesting posts here from both sides. Of course the standard of play and especially the pace is higher today, because the players are bigger, more muscular (with or without supplements) and better equipped than yesteryear. You can see it in football (soccer). 20-15 years ago the best strikers like Pele, Müller, Greaves were around 1,70 high, the bigger, mostly very stiff men were sent back to defend. Today the strikers are mobil and big (around 1,90). I call it the "basketballization" of sports in the 90s. On the other hand, top players with long careers show, that they can adjust to the different game. Connors played against Pancho Gonzales and he played against Pete Sampras and Agassi. And Agassi is still a factor. Maybe he has to improve every year, but he does. And Tym is right, pace is important, but not everything. More important is still length, and a good spin expert can always disturb and destroy the rhythm of the big hitter. Federer this Wimbledon against Roddick reminded me on Arthur Ashe in 1975, when he gave up his attacking style on purpose and slow-balled Connors to death, let him came in and passed him calmly all the way.

 

[bluegrasser]

I think all of the legends would of adjusted to today's game + there's only a few that are in the same class mentally as say - Laver, Borg, Connors, Lendl, Sampras, and that would be Federer & ?????? name escapes me.:0

 

[Serve-And-Volley]

I have to add a story about a guy I hit with from time to time. From the old school, eastern grip, great placement, superb volleys. He smokes me everytime, not because he is that much better than me, but because he hits a cleaner shot, has a mental edge, and knows that even though I have a powerful forehand he can break it down with low skidding slice shots. I tried my aggressive net game, he was used to it, in his prime everyone he played had that game. It would be the same thing on the tour today, put McEnroe against some of the hard hitters he would fair well with great placement, and his mental and match toughness, and the fact they are not used to serve and volley players. This is how it works in the juniors too, I can total demolish other guys by coming to the net and finishing points off quickly. Mac done the same to Phillipousius in WTT.

 

[Aykhan Mammadov]

ximian, I think yr theory is not completely right. Proof: Agassi. He joins old time and new time, he is bridge. If he lost many times to Pete, he won Ivanicevic not so easily at those days, it explains everything.

Another story - the game of some of old players such as Lendl, Wilander was boring.

 

[!Tym]

And yet the thing is, for all the talk about how much the game has changed and how much bigger everyone's hitting...Davide Sanguinetti in old age just matched his best ever finish at a slam and beat one of the game's most explosive shotmakers and biggest hitters along the way. That is a fact, and it just happened yet it is for some reason ignored. A guy like Sanguinetti would be a journeyman in any generation.

Sargis Sargisian took Paul Henri Mathieu to the limit at the US Open this year and as we all know Mathieu beat Roddick this year so he must be a BIG hitter who could easily mop the floor with this aging always been a journeyman and always would be a journeyman in any generation by the name of Sargis Sargisian guy.

And for all the conjecture that yestday's horses wouldn't be able to compete with today's horses, there's the ACTUAL evidence of a 47 year old Gene Mayer. There's John McEnroe handing it to Andy Murray...boy, and isn't he a "modern" basher...NOT. David Nalbandian's got a belly, isn't particularly faster, bigger, or anything else than Malivai Washington even though he is from this "modern" generation of tennis players; yet this physical "specimen" is more than able to hold his own in today's "modern" game...and yet he rarely goes for winners, uses conservative technique, and rarely if ever hits a BIG shot. When Anders Jarryd and Andres Gomez combine this year to shut out Courier and Bruguera out 3-0 without dropping a set, it goes unaddressed. When Muster gets his clock cleaned two matches in a row by Pat Cash and John McEnroe, it's supposed to be an impossibility that this could happen...yet it happened.

Fabrice Santoro is a giant of a man who just keeps on getting younger who breaks the sound barrier on all of his Seles like two-handed shots, that is how is able to go toe to toe and pound it out with today's big hitters such as Roger Federer and Marat Safin and give them as hard a match as anyone else out there today...of course, that amazing Santoro reach certainly helps a lot too. Santoro a dangerous journeyman in any generation? Sure, I could imagine that. Santoro an all-time great in any generation? I'm not buying that.

Sebastien Grosjean and Marcelo Rios are/were really quite tall, it's just that your tv set is formatted wrong.

Jaime Yzaga on a good day beat Pete Sampras on a bad day. Oliver Rochus on a good day beat Carlos Moya on a so-so day. Pete Sampras beat Carlos Moya on a so-so day. Rochus therefore is about equal to Pete Sampras, because he is emblematic of the newer generation where it's all about bigger, taller, stronger.

Nicholay Davydenko and Mariano Puerta are applying for social membership to 6'5" and up tall persons clubs around the world as we speak in an effort to increase their standing and feel better about themselves.

Ivan Lendl and Stefan Edberg were midgets at a mere 6'2". Today's big guns such as Roger Federer are much taller than that, because they are from a newer generation where the best keep on getting bigger. Yes indeed, in the top ten or whereabouts we have giants such as Nicholay Davydenko, Mariano Puerta, Guillermo Canas, Coria, Gaudio, Nalbandian, Grosjean in healthier times, Hewitt, Agassi...and oh yeah, those "giants" Safin, Roddick, and Federer. Let's see 6'4, 6'2.5", 6'1"...where exactly are the giants? Todd Martin 6'6", Richard Krajicek 6'5", Goran Ivanisevic 6'4", Boris Becker 6'3", Michael Stich 6'4", Petr Korda 6'3", Sergi Bruguera 6'2", Cedric Pioline 6'2", Andrei Medvedev 6'4", Magnus Gustaffson 6'1", Pete Sampras 6'1", Stefan Edberg 6'2"...oh yeah, but of course, Michael Chang occupied all the top ten/top 15 contenders back in his day...he was so tall, that he clearly stood out as being the normal height for the ATP elite back then. Nowadays, short guys have no chance of making it close to the top ten unlike in Chang's day...not...again perception is not the same as reality. Myth. Maybe for football or whatever, but in tennis from the Ivan Lendl days to now, where exactly are the increasing number of giants occupying the game's elite? The facts tell a different story.

 

[scotus]

I agree with !Tym all the way.

 

[Golden Retriever]

Ximian, you are ignorant...........

 

[doriancito]

man! some posts arwe so long there is no way im reading any!

 

[ximian]

hey i'll reply to this in a bit... can't do it now

 

[AndrewD]

Truth be told a champion from any era could compete with any other era.

My sentiments exactly and, personally, I think it's a maxim people should memorise because it applies to all sports.

 

[c10]

this is like soccer. 20 years ago, the players that made the difference were the ones that had talent, like Maradona. In todays soccer, players that make the difference are the ones that can run fast the 90 minutes.
In tennis its the same, 20 years ago the game was slower and players had to win without power, which is one of todays most useful weapons. Which players are better? lets define better, because if u define better as the one who wins, then todays players are better because they would beat old players. But maybe if they use wooden racquets, older players would win.
Todays game is about power, speed, anticipation, and of course, the ones that have the touch will have and advantage. I.E. Federer has the touch & power, he is number 1, Nadal has power and exceptonal endurance, he is number 2

 

[urban]

There was a tendency in the late 80s and 90s, with the top players ever growing: Lendl, Edberg, Becker, Stich, Krajicek, Kuerten etc. It looked for a while, as if the basketballers would take over tennis - a vision, already articulated by Arthur Ashe in his very readable book 'Portrait in Motion' (1975). Players like Flipper, Roddick and Safin, who came from the Spanish clay and was big and mobile, seemed to be the new 'idealtype' of a tennis player at around 1,90 or more. This trend seems to be stopped now, the ideal high seems to be 1,82-84. But the trend to build up a muscular bulk is still evident. The reverse side: The big muscles put stress on the ligaments, especially in knees and ancles, and make the players prone to injuries. Many of the big men in the 90s had short careers: Krajicek, Bruguera, Stich, Kuerten, Flipper, and Safin now is feeling the pain. The main surface, hard court, is doing damage, too. And the new technique of body rotation, often done without proper footwork, puts stress on the back, too.

 

[ximian]

Okay, I think you misunderstand my argument. Am I saying Lendl won't compete? NO. Am I saying Lendl won't win many matches? NO. Am I saying Lendl won't be top 20? YES. There is a difference. And narrowing down my argument to saying that the sole reason for all this is because today's players are stronger / more powerful / etc. is wrong. Yes, that probably is one of the main reasons, but the other factors you have to consider is that people like Sanguinetti and Santoro grew up playing against these big hitters and have adapted their game to form a winning strategy. I'm saying Lendl, who has been out of the action for a long time now, will be surprised by the amount the game has changed and will not do too well. If he jumps right in, he might land anywhere from 50-150 on the entry chart. So yeah, he will have success, just not nearly as much as he experienced in the 80s. HOWEVER, give him a year or so to get used to today's style of play and Lendl will adapt his game to todays game and once again start winning. Perhaps even climbing into the top 10.

And yet the thing is, for all the talk about how much the game has changed and how much bigger everyone's hitting...Davide Sanguinetti in old age just matched his best ever finish at a slam and beat one of the game's most explosive shotmakers and biggest hitters along the way. That is a fact, and it just happened yet it is for some reason ignored. A guy like Sanguinetti would be a journeyman in any generation.

Sargis Sargisian took Paul Henri Mathieu to the limit at the US Open this year and as we all know Mathieu beat Roddick this year so he must be a BIG hitter who could easily mop the floor with this aging always been a journeyman and always would be a journeyman in any generation by the name of Sargis Sargisian guy.

And for all the conjecture that yestday's horses wouldn't be able to compete with today's horses, there's the ACTUAL evidence of a 47 year old Gene Mayer. There's John McEnroe handing it to Andy Murray...boy, and isn't he a "modern" basher...NOT. David Nalbandian's got a belly, isn't particularly faster, bigger, or anything else than Malivai Washington even though he is from this "modern" generation of tennis players; yet this physical "specimen" is more than able to hold his own in today's "modern" game...and yet he rarely goes for winners, uses conservative technique, and rarely if ever hits a BIG shot. When Anders Jarryd and Andres Gomez combine this year to shut out Courier and Bruguera out 3-0 without dropping a set, it goes unaddressed. When Muster gets his clock cleaned two matches in a row by Pat Cash and John McEnroe, it's supposed to be an impossibility that this could happen...yet it happened.

Again, this evidence doesn't really say much. The Gene Mayer example is doubles. Big difference. And McEnroe has continually been playing and has been able to adapt his game to todays game. That's a BIG reason for his success, and my position takes this into account. This, and when he played Andy Murray, it was before Murray made his breathrough and Murray didn't have much confidence (or at least not nearly as much). That and Murray is much more a counterpuncher, not a basher. Plus, McEnroe had trouble beating a washed - out Phillippousis! The same phillippousis who can't get past the 2nd round at all. Granted, McEnroe in his prime is far better than he is now, but I don't think that automatically means he (McEnroe) would be top 20. I'm talking about the the style of play McEnroe plays and was brought up to play. If he was brought up in today's generation, with his play style, continually knocking heads with the top 50 he would have adapted his game and probably be somewhere in the top 10. BUT because he wasn't brought up in today's generation - and if was magically transported to 2005 with his 80s style of play, he would have a lot of trouble competing initially. And only after he adapts his game would he find some success. And even then top 10 is all I would really say. Not 1, 2 or 3, just maybe top 10.

Fabrice Santoro is a giant of a man who just keeps on getting younger who breaks the sound barrier on all of his Seles like two-handed shots, that is how is able to go toe to toe and pound it out with today's big hitters such as Roger Federer and Marat Safin and give them as hard a match as anyone else out there today...of course, that amazing Santoro reach certainly helps a lot too. Santoro a dangerous journeyman in any generation? Sure, I could imagine that. Santoro an all-time great in any generation? I'm not buying that.

Here is where you misunderstand my position.

Sebastien Grosjean and Marcelo Rios are/were really quite tall, it's just that your tv set is formatted wrong.

Jaime Yzaga on a good day beat Pete Sampras on a bad day. Oliver Rochus on a good day beat Carlos Moya on a so-so day. Pete Sampras beat Carlos Moya on a so-so day. Rochus therefore is about equal to Pete Sampras, because he is emblematic of the newer generation where it's all about bigger, taller, stronger.

Nicholay Davydenko and Mariano Puerta are applying for social membership to 6'5" and up tall persons clubs around the world as we speak in an effort to increase their standing and feel better about themselves.

Ivan Lendl and Stefan Edberg were midgets at a mere 6'2". Today's big guns such as Roger Federer are much taller than that, because they are from a newer generation where the best keep on getting bigger. Yes indeed, in the top ten or whereabouts we have giants such as Nicholay Davydenko, Mariano Puerta, Guillermo Canas, Coria, Gaudio, Nalbandian, Grosjean in healthier times, Hewitt, Agassi...and oh yeah, those "giants" Safin, Roddick, and Federer. Let's see 6'4, 6'2.5", 6'1"...where exactly are the giants? Todd Martin 6'6", Richard Krajicek 6'5", Goran Ivanisevic 6'4", Boris Becker 6'3", Michael Stich 6'4", Petr Korda 6'3", Sergi Bruguera 6'2", Cedric Pioline 6'2", Andrei Medvedev 6'4", Magnus Gustaffson 6'1", Pete Sampras 6'1", Stefan Edberg 6'2"...oh yeah, but of course, Michael Chang occupied all the top ten/top 15 contenders back in his day...he was so tall, that he clearly stood out as being the normal height for the ATP elite back then. Nowadays, short guys have no chance of making it close to the top ten unlike in Chang's day...not...again perception is not the same as reality. Myth. Maybe for football or whatever, but in tennis from the Ivan Lendl days to now, where exactly are the increasing number of giants occupying the game's elite? The facts tell a different story.

I'm not debating height. I don't that has anything to do with what we are talking about.

this is like soccer. 20 years ago, the players that made the difference were the ones that had talent, like Maradona. In todays soccer, players that make the difference are the ones that can run fast the 90 minutes.
In tennis its the same, 20 years ago the game was slower and players had to win without power, which is one of todays most useful weapons. Which players are better? lets define better, because if u define better as the one who wins, then todays players are better because they would beat old players. But maybe if they use wooden racquets, older players would win.
Todays game is about power, speed, anticipation, and of course, the ones that have the touch will have and advantage. I.E. Federer has the touch & power, he is number 1, Nadal has power and exceptonal endurance, he is number 2

I agree with this. And think about it for a bit. As more and more people play tennis, the cream of the crop will get better. Thus it really isn't a stretch to say that today's top 10 is a step above yesterday's top 10. Because the more people play, the tougher the competition gets, and thus the cream of the crop gets better and better. That's why I said that McEnroe and Lendl might land somewhere in the top 10 (after they have had a chance to adapt their game). Todays players are bigger, stronger, faster, etc... And this is easily show with sports like running which have no modern technological advantages, and results are easily comparable to runners of old. And we continually see that times are getting better and better. The fastest is always getting faster. The same idea applys to other sports as well, except it's much harder to gauge the improvement because results are relative. Federer beat Hewitt in their prime, but Federer never got a chance to even play Lendl in his prime, etc... But still I think its obvious that today's top 10 is a step above previous generations of players.

 

[35ft6]

You take the top 10 from any generation and plug them into any other generation and they're still top 10 material.

I don't have time right now to read all of the fine posts on this thread, but I would like to point out that this just isn't mathematically possible.

I remember hearing once that Tony Roche could still beat Lendl in practice matches. This was when Lendl was number 1. Anything can happen in a practice match, and anything can happen in a single match, too. We can find isolated results that "prove" whatever we believe, but I'm talking about sustained results, how players from previous generations would do over the span of 52 weeks on the modern tour. Could Tony Roche have been number 1 in the world in 1987? I seriously doubt it.

 

[Kevin Patrick]

ximian,
The Gene Mayer example was not doubles(check out the link)
He was 45 years old in 2001. Hadn't played a match on tour since 1984. Entered a challenger. Won one round(against a guy that would have match point on Sampras later that year) Loses next round to Mike Bryan 6-3, 7-6.
He managed to adjust to the modern tour game after a 17 year absence. This guy was no Borg, Connors, Lendl, or McEnroe. He was their pigeon. I'm sure if you saw footage of him from 1984, you'd think he was a 6.0 player. Looks are deceiving.

The only reason most players retire/decline is injury/age/indifference. Tennis players really aren't that athletic or fast in the big picture(compared to some sports mentioned-soccer, nfl, basketball-those sport require athleticism first, skills later. The reverse is true in tennis. Speed in tennis is more related to anticipation than raw speed. I'd be surprised if anyone on tour today could beat Borg or Gerualaitis from 1977 in a footrace, but that's irrelevant. But it's a fact that Coria/Hewitt etc would be blown away in any race, any distance against a guard in the NBA or a receiver in the NFL. A tennis court is really small, you don't need to be that fast to cover it well. So all this 'evolution of tennis players bs' is rather amusing.

35,
Offcourse Roche wouldn't be #1 in 1987. He was never near that ranking when he played, getting as high as 8 in 1975 despite a ton of injuries. If Roche could indeed beat Lendl in practice in '87, no doubt he could be top 10 in 1987 if he was 25 in 1987 not 42.

Your point about results over a 52 week season seems rather odd in the context of tym's posts. In essence you are saying you need to be injury-free & young to be in the top 10. This has always been the case. Rabbit is talking about skill/talent level not fitness & youth. It's a given in these arguments that the player being discussed is healthy & young.

Also you say we can't use "isolated results" to prove anything. Why not? This is the only factor that can be used in these arguments. If you say a 1980s player can't compete with the amazing studs on tour today & I cite a challenger result(when said player is 45 years old not the ideal 25), doesn't that prove anything?

I can't imagine what some of you would be saying if Agassi retired in '97 after dropping to #141. He really proves a lot about how much being healthy is a factor in staying at the top. Lendl was crippled by injuries the last few years of his career. Saying Lendl couldn't be top 100 today is like saying Dr. J or Magic would be benchwarmers in today's NBA.

The Tennis Channel is showing seniors tonight. Todd Martin(who played on tour wayyy back in 2004) plays a 100 hundred year old Johnny Mac. If it's close, I'm sure it just means that Todd was being nice & that 25 year old Mac of 1984 couldn't beat Justin Gimelstob today.

http://www.atptennis.com/en/players...p?year=2001&query=Singles&player=M038&x=8&y=6

 

[ximian]

ximian,
The Gene Mayer example was not doubles(check out the link)
He was 45 years old in 2001. Hadn't played a match on tour since 1984. Entered a challenger. Won one round(against a guy that would have match point on Sampras later that year) Loses next round to Mike Bryan 6-3, 7-6.
He managed to adjust to the modern tour game after a 17 year absence. This guy was no Borg, Connors, Lendl, or McEnroe. He was their pigeon. I'm sure if you saw footage of him from 1984, you'd think he was a 6.0 player. Looks are deceiving.

Even so, this really doesn't prove much for your side either. I said Lendl would win matches. He'd still be pretty darn good. Perhaps somewhere near top 50. So we are in agreement there. And Gene Mayer wouldn't be top 50. He might fall somewhere from 100-200, but probably not under 100 (I should point out that this is speculation, and it just happens to be my opinion). But that doesn't mean he wouldn't win any matches. Of course he would, otherwise he wouldn't be playing professional tennis. And to say that the guy he beat later held match point against Sampras is irrelevant. Anything can happen on a given day and there are too many other factors to consider before that statement can actually mean something substantial. If anything it speaks to the depth of Men's tennis. But as we all know, to be top 20 in Tennis requires consistency which the guy Mayer beat obviously didn't have.

The only reason most players retire/decline is injury/age/indifference. Tennis players really aren't that athletic or fast in the big picture(compared to some sports mentioned-soccer, nfl, basketball-those sport require athleticism first, skills later. The reverse is true in tennis. Speed in tennis is more related to anticipation than raw speed. I'd be surprised if anyone on tour today could beat Borg or Gerualaitis from 1977 in a footrace, but that's irrelevant. But it's a fact that Coria/Hewitt etc would be blown away in any race, any distance against a guard in the NBA or a receiver in the NFL. A tennis court is really small, you don't need to be that fast to cover it well. So all this 'evolution of tennis players bs' is rather amusing.

Yeah I competely agree that tennis requires more skill over athleticism (however I think athleticism is a huge factor, not some tiny factor. It just happens that skill is a larger factor). But when we are talking top 50 material, what separates the 50th from the 20th is very small things, like athleticism. To totally negate athleticism as a factor is not very smart. No matter what sport. So if you've got 50 guys who are all VERY skillful, the difference in athleticism is huge! And if you can make it to top 50, I can guarantee that you are already just about as good as you can get with regard to anticipation.

35,
Offcourse Roche wouldn't be #1 in 1987. He was never near that ranking when he played, getting as high as 8 in 1975 despite a ton of injuries. If Roche could indeed beat Lendl in practice in '87, no doubt he could be top 10 in 1987 if he was 25 in 1987 not 42.

as somebody above just mentioned, practise matches don't say much. anything can happen in a practise match. In a tournament setting, players have tapered and come out fresh and ready both mentally, physically, and emotionally for a battle. In this setting Roche would probably have been dominated by Lendl.

Your point about results over a 52 week season seems rather odd in the context of tym's posts. In essence you are saying you need to be injury-free & young to be in the top 10. This has always been the case. Rabbit is talking about skill/talent level not fitness & youth. It's a given in these arguments that the player being discussed is healthy & young.

I'm not sure where you got the essence of my post to be that you need to be injury-free and young.

Also you say we can't use "isolated results" to prove anything. Why not? This is the only factor that can be used in these arguments. If you say a 1980s player can't compete with the amazing studs on tour today & I cite a challenger result(when said player is 45 years old not the ideal 25), doesn't that prove anything?

Of course it proves something, we just don't know what. There are too many factors to consider to be able to arrive at a definite answer. Just because this is the only factor that can be used in these arguments doesn't make them more substantial. We need to take all evidence in context. And I answered this particular incident above with one possible explanation.

I can't imagine what some of you would be saying if Agassi retired in '97 after dropping to #141. He really proves a lot about how much being healthy is a factor in staying at the top. Lendl was crippled by injuries the last few years of his career. Saying Lendl couldn't be top 100 today is like saying Dr. J or Magic would be benchwarmers in today's NBA.

NBA is different. I don't think that was a fair statement to make, because the way the NBA is played really hasn't changed much. So please don't bring another sport into the mix here. I did with running to make a point, but you are making a much broader statement that is more of an attack.

With regard to Agassi, I believe he himself has said that in the last few years he has been playing the best tennis of his life. So there you have it. Agassi has had to improve to stay where he was at. And I think it's clear that Agassi has probably been in better shape now than he was 10 years ago. So yeah, health and fitness plays a huge factor into all this, but I don't see the relevance with regard to my argument.

The Tennis Channel is showing seniors tonight. Todd Martin(who played on tour wayyy back in 2004) plays a 100 hundred year old Johnny Mac. If it's close, I'm sure it just means that Todd was being nice & that 25 year old Mac of 1984 couldn't beat Justin Gimelstob today.

This will be an interesting result. Todd, who was probably playing 100-125 tennis when he retired will show us something. His best showing was a Q showing in Miami, with no major victories to get there and eventually losing to Andrei Pavel. But please remember that there is a MAJOR difference between playing 100 lvl tennis vs. 50 lv tennis. And to go from 50 to 20 is even bigger and then from 20 to 10 is again, a huge step. So even if McEnroe wins (which I think he might) again does not say much. Especially since McEnroe has already grooved his game against today's modern players so he really shouldn't be involved in this debate at all, since I am arguing that the style of play, along with improved athleticism etc. combines to make yesterday's top players unable to compete initially if they were to step into 2005 magically 25 years old again. However, give them a year or so (maybe half a year) and they can grove their game to compete and probably make it top 20. Some might even go top 10.

 

[Kevin Patrick]

Well, Mayer did get to #4 in 1980. Why are you so sure he wouldn't be top 50 today? Like tym said, santoro & sangunetti...

I just don't think you can judge a player by how they look on tape(like you did on post #1)
I have Lendl-Chang on tape. They way he played that match isn't indicative of how he played necessarily, just that day. I remember the commentators criticizing how passive he was hitting the ball & that he should have ripped the ball more. It was his strategy for clay & it didn't always work. The same time Lendl-Chang were playing Courier-Chesnokov were on Court 1. It looked like Courier was hitting the ball twice as hard as Lendl. He still ended up losing to Chesnokov. And to Lendl badly at the US Open that year. And in 1991, indoors, when he was at his peak, & Lendl was on the decline(check out the link)
Lendl hit the ball a lot harder than you realize. Ask Courier & Agassi. He just didn't go for it on every shot like they did. Plus he was supremely fit & fast so he couldn't be rushed. And he played with a tiny racket with no power.

I've seen that Fed-Bruguera match that tym mentioned. They did look like amateurs. You didn't even see a glimpse of Fed's potential. Looks can be deceiving.

Also, you really think atheticism separates top 20 from top 50? Nalbandian looks like a fat ass. Is he more athletic than most top 50 guys?
Is anyone on tour really as fit as Lendl? Or as fast(the guy could really cover the court, esp for a big guy) Lendl's Grand Slam matches were often 4 to 5 hrs in length. He never looked tired. Most of today's players never play those kind of grueling matches. I sincerely doubt they spend the time in the gym he did. Roddick seems too busy playing exos for charity. Fed's off saving the world..

And Todd beat Pernfors 6-1,6-1 yesterday, Mac certainly has a challenge ahead of him.

http://www.atptennis.com/en/players/headtohead/head2head.asp?player1=lendl&player2=courier

 

[dmastous]

Does anyone remember Borg's abortive attempt at a comeback in the 80's? How'd that go for him. First he tried with his old wood racquet. He got swarmed over by a journeyman in Monte Carlo 1 & 1 (or something like that). Then he tried with a custom made racquet and did no better.
Maybe by the time he tried his comeback he was over the hill and unable to keep up with all the youngsters, or maybe his playing style just didn't make a dent in the game at the time.
The game has changed so much since even the 80's, that there's no real easy formula to make a comparison between players from different eras.
But the competative spirit is what it is, and translates the same in any era. A player with the kind of spirit that, say Conners (love him or hate him), possessed would succeed in any era because he would do whatever it took for him to succeed. He would use racquet & string technology to his benefit, as well as train just as hard and as much as the modern player. He would hit as hard and with as much spin as the modern player because that's what it would take to win.
I remember when I was a John Gardiner's (don't laugh) they told me about Ken Rosewald. At this time he was the "touring pro" for Gardiners. Everyonce in awhile he would come to the resort and play in a doubles match against the top pros there. One Friday the Gardiner pro team won a doubles match. The following morning (an off day) he was back in the pro shop looking for them and a rematch. He probably would have been in his 60's at this time. Still a little guy, all eyebrows. That kind of competitive spirit transcends technology and generations. That kind of personality would succeed in any sport at any time (except he was a little guy so maybe Basketball would have been a tough sell).

 

[35ft6]

35,
Offcourse Roche wouldn't be #1 in 1987. He was never near that ranking when he played, getting as high as 8 in 1975 despite a ton of injuries. If Roche could indeed beat Lendl in practice in '87, no doubt he could be top 10 in 1987 if he was 25 in 1987 not 42.

"No doubt?" That's the attitude I'm talking about, using isolated matches to make grand inductions.

Your point about results over a 52 week season seems rather odd in the context of tym's posts. In essence you are saying you need to be injury-free & young to be in the top 10.

Okay, being injury free and young certainly doesn't hurt, but it has more to do with one isolated match doesn't prove much. Gene Mayer beating Jerome G is what it is, and nothing more. One can make all sorts of inferences based on how 47 year old Gene did against Jerome in this one match ("just imagine if he were 25!" "he's even better at 47 than he was at 27!" "he wasn't even top 10 in his prime, boy the quality of play on the ATP has really dropped!") but to me what matters is how player A of generation B would do over a year, not what he can do in one match.

Also you say we can't use "isolated results" to prove anything. Why not? This is the only factor that can be used in these arguments. If you say a 1980s player can't compete with the amazing studs on tour today & I cite a challenger result(when said player is 45 years old not the ideal 25), doesn't that prove anything?

It can suggest a lot of things, but I don't know about "prove." Like people have said, tennis is a one on one sport, and because of that all sorts of unexpected results can occur due to bad match ups and what not. I'm talking about making general statements based on isolated matches and insisting they're matters of fact. Again, what exactly does Gene Mayers victory then subsequent loss prove? It proves that Gene Mayer can still ball, but aside from that what more would you add?

I'm talking about the fallacy of biased sample here.

Saying Lendl couldn't be top 100 today is like saying Dr. J or Magic would be benchwarmers in today's NBA.

Did somebody actually say Lendl couldn't be top 100 today?

The Tennis Channel is showing seniors tonight. Todd Martin(who played on tour wayyy back in 2004) plays a 100 hundred year old Johnny Mac. If it's close, I'm sure it just means that Todd was being nice & that 25 year old Mac of 1984 couldn't beat Justin Gimelstob today.

According to several members of Tennissport in Queens, Mac will sometimes get beaten by the top club pro, who's not even in the top 500 (actually, I don't even know if he's in the top 1000, I do know he was at the club everyday so it's safe to assume he's not playing on the tour full or even part time...). And since Mac beat Andy Murray just a year ago 1 and 1, it's reasonable to say that the club pro could have won the US Open Juniors, right? See how ridiculous this can get?

 

[omniexist]

You're ignorant.

 

[JaisBane]

I hate to intrude, but I think the argument is beginning to stall and could benefit from (I have a feeling this could become a trademark phrase of mine) "a change in perspective." People like to say that the game has changed so much and that the pace is so much greater than it was even a few years ago, but this seems more than a little self-gratifying to me. I feel that it is not the game itself that has changed, but rather it is the paradigms of the players that has changed. This is a result of rackets being more powerful, but the impact of this much more indirect than we realize.

The fact is that the majority of tour players are not playing with rackets that are significantly more powerful than the classic graphite frames from 15-20 years ago. They play with "players rackets" which are low-powered, heavy, and have varying degrees of head-lightness. The differences between the majority of rackets out there are more superficial and cosmetic than anything else (just for the record here, I'm speaking only about graphite frames; the differences between wood, metal, and graphite frames are certainly much more than cosmetic).

What has changed in the past 20 years are beginner and 'tweener frames. These frames let players hit harder with less effort from all levels. For both players that begin as kids and adults, they gain a taste for what it's like to hit winners from the baseline much earlier than in the past. It's always thrilling to blast an outright winner and watch your opponent struggle to get a frame on it, and so beginning tennis players become obsessed with baseline winners because the thrill comes with far less effort dedication when compared with developing mechanically sound strokes and an attacking net game. As one improves their strokes and movement they seek stronger opponents, they become more consistent and in turn so do their opponents. It no longer becomes as easy to hit those baseline winners, but the desire is still there. They learn to move the opponent around the court and set up points so they can hit baseline winners and they learn how to hit comfortably and offensively while on the move even while off balance and out of position. Accuracy improves and they learn secondary tactics for when they are drawn in to the net or pushed far behind the baseline, but they always want to get back to the baseline as quickly as possible so they can crank another winner. They soon leave behind their light and head-heavy rackets in their search for more controlled power, but they still want something that feels like what they're used to playing with. If they get to the pro level then they're forced to develop a more diverse range of skills so that they can take advantage of opportunities, but this in no way implies that the desire for hitting baseline winners is diminished. By this point their groundstrokes are so polished that every point becomes a war of attrition. In this kind of environment athleticism becomes much more of a determining factor and those with the desire (and ability) to chase down every ball have the potential to reach equal standing with those who posses a much more diverse shot selection and a more creative with point construction. Such is the development of a baseline basher.

As for how this pertains to the debate at hand, I'll be frank. The strategies of old would be just as effective today, in the hands of their masters. Being able to hit hard has nothing to do with being able to win. Matches are not won by 150mph serves, just like you don't win in golf with a 300yrd drive. To say that someone like Johnny Mac or Ivan Lendl wouldn't be able to compete simply because modern players hit harder or are more athletic is ridiculous. The only reason that players hit harder today is because more players like hitting hard, not because it is a vastly more effective strategy.

 

[federerhoogenbandfan]

Hewitt did take Chang to two tiebreaks in one match on grass in 2002, but their second match on hard courts Chang got crushed 6-2, 6-2 by Hewitt. I suspect if they had played 6 times that year, their match in Hertogenbasch would have been their only competitive match, Hewitt may have been rusty moving from clay to grass and not fully adapted to the grass yet.

 

[35ft6]

I hate to intrude...

This is a message board. Intrude at will.

I feel that it is not the game itself that has changed, but rather it is the paradigms of the players that has changed. This is a result of rackets being more powerful, but the impact of this much more indirect than we realize.

The fact is that the majority of tour players are not playing with rackets that are significantly more powerful than the classic graphite frames from 15-20 years ago.

...

What has changed in the past 20 years are beginner and 'tweener frames. These frames let players hit harder with less effort from all levels.

7 out of the top 10 players (entry ranking) don't play with players frames.

As for how this pertains to the debate at hand, I'll be frank. The strategies of old would be just as effective today, in the hands of their masters.

I don't think so. Agassi made a great point. He said modern rackets helped the little guys more than the big guys, the counterpunchers more than the aggressive players with the big serves. I think he's right. Modern rackets, even player frames, allow guys to hit bigger returns and hit passing shots even when they're not in perfect position. Bottom line: serve and volleying has gone from being the best way of playing (with wooden rackets with tiny heads) to a much riskier play.

Being able to hit hard has nothing to do with being able to win.

True and not true. When Roddick became number 1 I think it's mostly because he was hitting hard. Even though he was playing smarter than he was previous to Gilbert, it was smart in terms of not trying to be what he wasn't, it was smart that he tried to impose his huge serve and forehand on people, but not smart as in he was executing sophisticated patterns of play.

Matches are not won by 150mph serves, just like you don't win in golf with a 300yrd drive. To say that someone like Johnny Mac or Ivan Lendl wouldn't be able to compete simply because modern players hit harder or are more athletic is ridiculous.

Here's what the bottom line is for me. When Lendl started cross training, getting into insanely good shape, and using a big serve and forehand to dictate play, he was the "first" of his kind. People used to go on and on about how fit he was and about his huge forehand. Would Lendl still be great today? Probably, so that's not the kind of change I'm talking about. Now almost EVERYBODY has a big serve... almost EVERYBODY has a huge forehand... and almost EVERYBODY is in incredible shape. That's the difference. So if you compare the top players of 1985 to the top players of today, the difference isn't vast, but compare the players ranked 20 to 100 in 1985 to the players with the same ranking from today, and I'll bet that there's a lot more deadly players today than in 1985.

The only reason that players hit harder today is because more players like hitting hard, not because it is a vastly more effective strategy.

I compare this to the 4 minute mile, which people used to think was impossible, but once one person did it all sorts of people suddenly were able to do the impossible. I think each generation has taken it further in terms of what's a reasonable pace to hit at. What used to be considered a reckless cut at the ball is now considered the norm.

So anyway, yes, I do think the difference between the top players of past 20 years isn't that great, but I think the ATP has changed a lot as a whole. Now most of the guys are like Lendl in terms of fitness and power. And then some of the top guys, like Safin, Roddick, and Federer, are way more powerful.

 

[arosen]

If Courier says that he could be everyone but Fed I would just say.

The older I get, the better I was.

Yep. Say, Jim v.s. Llubicic. Courier winning this one? Yeah, righ, get real, Jim.

 

[callitout]

Mac and Courier were wonderful in their primes, and you dont lose nearly as much in tennis by losing a step as you do in a contact sport like football (where you'd be injured quickly by being a step late). In tennis you just lose 4 and 4 and then 2 and 2 as you decline. Watching those guys hitting at USO on the practice court next to Nadal anyone could see a huge difference at this stage. To pretend that Mac's touch would give Nadal lots of trouble at this stage is a joke. Mac in his prime against Nadal on grass no doubt I'll give it to Mac easy. On clay Nadal easy. But Mac isnt the same player now. Sure he beat Murray when he was a junior. But we've seen the difference between a good junior and a good pro at least one year maybe more and a few hundred ranking places (Donald Young anyone).
BTW at this years USO Mac was trying to hit with Murray but unable to handle his serve. Unfortunately Andy doesnt have a PR machine to broadcast that he smoked 46 yo Mac (probably wouldnt help his cause too much).j

 

[Rabbit]

I don't have time right now to read all of the fine posts on this thread, but I would like to point out that this just isn't mathematically possible.

Please note that in my post I said top ten material. I fully understand that you can't have twenty top ten players. Likewise, I agree that Tony Roche probably couldn't make #1 in the world. I don't believe he did when he was a top tenner.

 

[erik-the-red]

Take some of the players on the Delta Tour of Champions. Now, of course, the youngest player there is like 34 and none of them are at their peak physical condition, but I believe that in an exhibition match, these guys could give some 50 < x < 16 players trouble.

They're probably too old to tolerate the rigors of seven-day tournaments, but for a single match, I think they can still do "something".

Take Mac v. Philippoussis, as has already been mentioned several times in this thread. I saw that match. Sure, Flip is out of shape, not focused, and whatnot. But, he's seventeen years younger than Mac! McEnroe was acing him with his crazy lefty serve and had time to finish off points at net!

 

[Rob_C]

I understand why you would think that to be logical, but impressions are not actually the same as fact.

Gene Mayer, a doubles specialist from the mid 80s was asked at the last second to fill in at a challenger tournament a few years ago. He was on vacation and said alright even though he had not been training and only playing casually.

He won his first match against Cedric Kaufman easiliy anyway, the same Kaufman who later that year went onto beat Pete Sampras at the French Open.

Actually, Sampras beat that guy 8-6 in the 5th, it was a good result though.

 

[sureshs]

Lendl, taught to play the modern game would still be a great player. So would Borg, Wilander, McEnroe and Connors.

I am not sure about McEnroe. I see him on the senior tour, and his groundstrokes are not powerful. I have heard he uses the continental grip exclusively, when even in his day eastern was more common. Also, his physical build would not stand up to today's tall and muscular players who can generate far more pace.