Could you beat either one of these 70 yr olds? (Full match highlights)

[r2473]

After a certain age, generalities are not valid. For example, Laver had a stroke (no pun) and had to relearn tennis by teaching his grand-daughter, and then of course things cam back to him very fast. It would be stupid to ask whether a 4.0 player could beat him during the recovery stage.

Actually, continuing with the previous post, several pro doubles players of an advanced age were playing at Laver's charity. I was in charge of putting placards on the fences. Frankly, I have seen many club doubles better than that. The difference was what they COULD do. They could spin the ball in on the serve with a lot of action. They could hit laser sharp volleys. If you don't focus on those, and instead look at the majority of strokes which they could not reach or goofed up, you would say it was 4.0 level or lower.

The key is what they CAN do, once in while. Rec players CANNOT do that. It is like Karlovic's serve - he loses, but Fed and Nadal cannot do what he does.

Basically what I'm saying is this. These players will quickly identify your strengths and weaknesses and they'll be able to dictate play such as to expose your weaknesses and eliminate your strengths.

You may have a "huge forehand" and a weak backhand. You may be hopeless at the net. Guess how many forehands you'll be hitting in this match. Guess how often you'll be hitting a backhand or being forced to come to net on their terms.

You may identify movement as their weakness, but can you exploit that (given that you will have to do it with your weakest shots)?

 

[r2473]

[I actually won a doubles tournament on that very court, but I digress.]

Toby is an acquaintance of mine and we've made half-hearted efforts to get together and play but it hasn't happened yet. He's a member at Mission Hills so I'd like to get out there and play with him on clay and then grass this fall. We'll see.

Anyhow, the closest I can get to answering this question is that a few months ago I played two practice sets with a guy who's beaten both Toby and Doug. He got to #3 in the O60s ITF rankings last year (take that with a grain a salt). We split sets... I believe it was something like 4-6 7-5 or thereabouts. (I would expect him to beat me more often than not.) Of course, I'm 10+ years younger than these guys. Very few of these top guys really punish the ball (a few of the elite guys in the age group do), but they all seem to be solid in the same ways, so it just comes down to movement, fitness and strategy.

Your opinion on this would be interesting. I'm sure the 60's guys would crush most of the posters on this board.

But what about the guys in their 70's? What level of player do you think it would take to beat Brent or Al? 4.0? 4.5? 5.0?

 

[movdqa]

That's the point. I'm really asking if younger / faster, but less experienced / less skilled players will beat players with this much experience but older. It seems to me that we have differences of opinion (as I expected).

I'm of the opinion that their experience and their "ability to win" would prevail much of the time.

The video is deliberately deceptive. It's two skilled players. If we put Brent against a 4.0 TT poster, we'd see a much different match.

The matchup really matters. A lot of younger players haven't seen heavy slice that you see from seniors or don't know what to do at the net. I played with a junior a few years ago like this. Heavy topspin forehand and backhand - played as close to the back fence as possible and really, really fast. But he didn't know what to do forward of the service line. I know another older guy, coach of one of the nearby high schools. He has one bad knee, is overweight and is at least in his 60s. But I'd guess that he could beat half of his team with placement and variety.

If you're talking about the difference between 60 and 70, then it's quite a bit different. The guys in their 60s likely know as much about tactics and strategy as the guys in their 70s to survive and there's a big difference between 60 and 70 physically.

Some of your players in the 30s and 40s may be familiar with old-school tennis; and some may not. We see that on the boards here when people ask how you deal with particular styles of play. Some people in their 30s and 40s play older people regularly and some may be more used to baseline bashing.

 

[navigator]

Your opinion on this would be interesting. I'm sure the 60's guys would crush most of the posters on this board.

But what about the guys in their 70's? What level of player do you think it would take to beat Brent or Al? 4.0? 4.5? 5.0?

Hmmm... good question. I purposely didn't get involved in that part of the discussion because I don't really know. (Better to lace 'em up and find out than to speculate.) But, if someone put a gun to my head...

I know nothing about Al so I'll stick to Brent. I believe Brent was a computer-rated 5.0 a few years ago (probably a weakish 5.0, but still). I *suspect* that he's kind of a middling-to-strong 4.5 at this point. I seriously doubt there are any 4.0s that are going to beat him. But it would probably be a toss-up with a lot of better-than-average 4.5 players. The issue, as others have pointed out, is exploiting the impaired movement. Guys of Brent's age and skill level hit the ball well and do everything pretty well, but if you can keep them moving it gets really tough for them. Although they know this and they're good at compensating for it. And they know how to exploit a glaring weakness. They're a lot harder to beat than it appears on video. But most folks don't play much competitive tennis so they don't understand this.

 

[movdqa]

Basically what I'm saying is this. These players will quickly identify your strengths and weaknesses and they'll be able to dictate play such as to expose your weaknesses and eliminate your strengths.

You may have a "huge forehand" and a weak backhand. You may be hopeless at the net. Guess how many forehands you'll be hitting in this match. Guess how often you'll be hitting a backhand or being forced to come to net on their terms.

You may identify movement as their weakness, but can you exploit that (given that you will have to do it with your weakest shots)?

If you're in your 50s and 60s, then you should have seen this already and figured out how to deal with it. It's not like you've played 40 or 50 years and you've never come up against someone that pounds your weakness. That's what lots of players do. Your response should be to turn that weakness into a strength. So you practice against a lefty with heavy topspin and believe me, you'll either improve your backhand or you'll lose a lot. Maybe you practice running around your forehand so that you can hit a topspin backhand because you eagerly look forward to the practice. Or you may run ten miles a day and do wind sprints so that you can hit that forehand in the backhand corner and still recover.

Players that get better adapt to challenges.

A lot of players my age are old school. They played baseline as well as serve and volley. They play doubles and the net is second nature to them. Younger folks that haven't seen it may be as you say - not used to different styles. But I think that folks in their 50s and 60s are used to them. It may be that a lot of players in their 50s and 60s that have played from their early teens are quite balanced players.

 

[Deleted member 120290]

Watched a few mins of the video. Here are my opinions:

These guys are GOOD and would easily destroy 95% of the posters including me.
What people need to understand is that this is a video of ALL the points, not highlights or rallies.
This is also at a NATIONAL competition, not at a local club or a meaningless match with your buddies.

4.0 players have ZERO chance of competing with these guys.
Low to mid 4.5's would lose to these guys.
I would guess that these seniors are upper 4.5's or higher.

Although my ego tells me I can beat these guys, reality would probably be more like 1-6, 2-6.

 

[Deleted member 120290]

Interesting...according to myUTR, Brent Abel is UTR 8 which is College Men D3 and high 4.5/low 5.0.

 

[Wander]

Time is merciless. Looking at Abel, you still see flashes of what he must have been able to do all the time when he was younger, but he has probably lost so much in movement, consistency and power compared to his pro days. Still plays with really nice looking form.

 

[mightyrick]

I've watched a lot of Abel's YouTube matches. There isn't a single 4.5 I've seen on video, played in person, or heard of... who I think could beat him. His tennis IQ is way too high, movement is too good, and he has way too much racquet skill. I think any 4.5 would UE themselves to death trying.

 

[r2473]

If you're in your 50s and 60s, then you should have seen this already and figured out how to deal with it.

Everyone has (relative) weaknesses. And by relative, I mean in relation to the rest of their game and relative to the opponent they are playing.

ATP players have some clear weaknesses in their game for example when playing against the best in the world. But does that mean I'll be able to exploit their weaknesses?

Now I know you have a tendency to get carried away with the literalness of examples, so let me clearly explain what I'm driving at. I use an extreme example (ATP vs. me) to make the point as clear as is possible. Obviously relative to me, a pro has no weaknesses I can exploit. But now substitute in 70 year old Brent for the ATP pro. Brent has some clear weaknesses. But will they really turn out to be weaknesses in a match between he and I? Well, that will depend on me (and by relation, other TT posters). I suspect Brent will be able to impose his game on most posters up to the 5.0 level. But tennis is for sure about matchups. So I'd bet that quite a few 4.5 players with the right skill set could beat him.

My larger point is that most people do a poor job of assessing their game, others games, and what it really takes to win tennis matches. These "old duffers who can't move" are still rated near 5.0 players. The interesting question then is, if they look like "old duffers who can't move", what makes them so good? Why do they win? I think if you can answer that, it will help you "in your development" (as TTPS would say). But the normal reaction of "my erratic 4.0 game would beat these guys" tells me that most people can't answer this question and so likely aren't able to work on the things they really need to if they want to "develop their games".

 

[sureshs]

Basically what I'm saying is this. These players will quickly identify your strengths and weaknesses and they'll be able to dictate play such as to expose your weaknesses and eliminate your strengths.

You may have a "huge forehand" and a weak backhand. You may be hopeless at the net. Guess how many forehands you'll be hitting in this match. Guess how often you'll be hitting a backhand or being forced to come to net on their terms.

You may identify movement as their weakness, but can you exploit that (given that you will have to do it with your weakest shots)?

Sure, but these players you are talking about are former pros. It would be surprising if they were not able to do it.

 

[r2473]

Sure, but these players you are talking about are former pros. It would be surprising if they were not able to do it.

I wish I could have somehow hidden Brent's name.

 

[Deleted member 120290]

I often play with a 65 yo, ex-Satellite player who has exceptional racket skills and can see 2 moves ahead of everyone else on the court.
When young guns lose to him in doubles, they say, "Yeah, well in singles I would destroy that old man."

The old man challenges the young guns to singles for money and uses only slice, no topspin or flat shots.
I have never seen the old man lose, not once.

 

[sureshs]

The interesting question then is, if they look like "old duffers who can't move", what makes them so good? Why do they win? I think if you can answer that, it will help you "in your development" (as TTPS would say). But the normal reaction of "my erratic 4.0 game would beat these guys" tells me that most people can't answer this question and so likely aren't able to work on the things they really need to if they want to "develop their games".

The answer is tough and I have seen the issue up close. The single most important factor is the slice. You can see in the video how often Brent Abel is using that. Having started with a slice, I worked for many years on my topspin backhand and that is my primary shot now. The reason is that I was told and read that slice is a weakness in the modern game and a cop out for people with a bad backhand. Federer struggling with it and then going for more topspin only reinforced this notion.

Now it is so bad for me that if I win a point with a slice, I feel ashamed, and will hit more topspin, regardless of whether it gets me points or not. In Brent Abel's time, small wood rackets made slice the only option for most players. I have more options now, and will refuse to slice even if it means an easy point. Meanwhile, older players who slice and slice keep winning, and I keep telling myself they will not be able to win against Nadal.

The other issues of savvyness that you bring up, like anticipation and capitalizing on other's weaknesses, is a by-product of playing many years at a high level, and good genetics and fitness. It falls under the general umbrella of control, which is the ability to deliver a combination of speed, spin and direction on demand under stress. That can be cultivated to some extent, but not very meaningful for a rec player who shows up to play 2 times a week rushing from work.

 

[sureshs]

I wish I could have somehow hidden Brent's name.

I have played with "Brents" before and later learned that they were college or junior tournament players way back when. Hiding the name is not important here. It is just the fact.

 

[sureshs]

The old man challenges the young guns to singles for money and uses only slice, no topspin or flat shots.

LOL that is so true, read my post #64

 

[Deleted member 120290]

1hbh topspin passing shot is probably the toughest shot to hit under tournament pressure.

 

[sureshs]

No, I won't win against Nadal with a topspin backhand, but you bet that I will hit only topspin backhands and lose to Brent Abel, and then say that he would have lost to Nadal with his slicing.

Ego is the problem here. I refuse to slice on the backhand except when stretched wide because it is demeaning to my image as a modern old player who wants to hang with the juniors.

 

[Chadillac]

My larger point is that most people do a poor job of assessing their game, others games, and what it really takes to win tennis matches. These "old duffers who can't move" are still rated near 5.0 players. The interesting question then is, if they look like "old duffers who can't move", what makes them so good? Why do they win? I think if you can answer that, it will help you "in your development" (as TTPS would say). But the normal reaction of "my erratic 4.0 game would beat these guys" tells me that most people can't answer this question and so likely aren't able to work on the things they really need to if they want to "develop their games".

LOL, keep preaching brotha !!

 

[navigator]

Irrelevant. Brent Abel was a pro player.

Just for the record, Brent was an open player when he was younger but never earned an ATP point so he never had a ranking. The main reason his seniors results are better than the open results of his younger days is his fitness. I'm sure a lot of guys that throttled him 30+ years ago can barely move now.

 

[ChaelAZ]

side note:
with the advent of tls, tr, utr...
i wonder how many folks have claimed "i'm high X NTRP level" only to find out they weren't
i've had a few folks say, oh, yeah, i'm "high X", only to find out they were just about to get bumped down

Funny side UTR story.

So I had singed up and fell right in where I thought I would be at the moment. That was around April. So in May I get an email and it says I am up to 5.10 or something like that. I think I even posted here my UTR jumped and I hadn't even played a match since October of last year. Then in June I got another bump email that said 6.7 or such...

lol. Until I realize it was the email title with the actual DATE!

So they send out this email called the UTR Round-up, like the one I just got the other day was UTR Round-up 7.11. I though the first one I got in May 5.5 was my UTR going up cuz it was so close. Then a 6.15 one, I thought I was getting back to my 4.0ish level, but wasn't playing so it seemed odd. Then it dawned on me!

Yeah...funny stuff. I ain't so smart or observant at time!

 

[ChaelAZ]

Anyway, I would play them and it would be fun. The result could be good or bad, but really as long as they are competitve points I don't worry.

 

[Deleted member 23235]

Funny side UTR story.

So I had singed up and fell right in where I thought I would be at the moment. That was around April. So in May I get an email and it says I am up to 5.10 or something like that. I think I even posted here my UTR jumped and I hadn't even played a match since October of last year. Then in June I got another bump email that said 6.7 or such...

lol. Until I realize it was the email title with the actual DATE!

So they send out this email called the UTR Round-up, like the one I just got the other day was UTR Round-up 7.11. I though the first one I got in May 5.5 was my UTR going up cuz it was so close. Then a 6.15 one, I thought I was getting back to my 4.0ish level, but wasn't playing so it seemed odd. Then it dawned on me!

Yeah...funny stuff. I ain't so smart or observant at time!

haha, i'd have done the same thing!
we should all post a vid in dec, we'll be amazing then

 

[ChaelAZ]

haha, i'd have done the same thing!
we should all post a vid in dec, we'll be amazing then

By then I should be ready for D1 or Futures.

I'm in!

 

[sureshs]

Just for the record, Brent was an open player when he was younger but never earned an ATP point so he never had a ranking. The main reason his seniors results are better than the open results of his younger days is his fitness. I'm sure a lot of guys that throttled him 30+ years ago can barely move now.

He had an ATP doubles ranking of 769.

He also earned prize money of $33 so he was a pro!

His last match was against Todd Nelson.

 

[FightMeAtTheNet]

Keep watching. They made a lot of errors in the first 3 games. Starting from the 4th game Al starts to pick up his game. Consistency improves. Al hits some balls that would trouble almost players on this board.

I watched the rest of the first set including the comeback and agree that after 3 games they both raised their levels. Brent moves extremely well for a 70 year old. Taking the full set into account I can definitely see 4.5.

Even at my prior rating of strong 4.0, they'd probably beat me but would actually love to play a high ranked guy at their age level.

 

[mad dog1]

I watched the rest of the first set including the comeback and agree that after 3 games they both raised their levels. Brent moves extremely well for a 70 year old. Taking the full set into account I can definitely see 4.5.

Even at my prior rating of strong 4.0, they'd probably beat me but would actually love to play a high ranked guy at their age level.

Make no mistake, those guys are good regardless of age. Way better than the majority of the posters on the board.

 

[Gary Duane]

I had a look at Connors vs Rosewall, Forest Hills, 1974 and there was your smooth, slice and low-powered game going up against the brute power of Connors. And the guys playing today hit a lot harder with more topspin and RHS. Connors had a lot of easy volleys when he came to net as the return was a slice shot that was popped up. Yes, you can do a lot with slice today in the modern game but you'd better have a decent topspin backhand too when the other guy pounds your backhand and comes to net.

Rosewall was almost 40. I'd put money on Rosewall against Connors of the same age, almost 40, using the old rackets, which Connors incidentally never used.

Connors was 18 years younger in 84. Rosewall turned 40 in November.

 

[mad dog1]

Running long distance take patience, planning, and strategic and tactical thinking.

The thing is that the vast majority in the US are quite out of shape and couldn't even run a few miles; and that probably includes most tennis players. I have a 5.0 friend and he's about 40 pounds overweight. But he plays a style that maximizes the assets and minimizes the liabilities. That means shorter points and first-strike tennis.

If running doesn't provide much of a benefit to tennis endurance, why does David Ferrar run for an hour a day? His style of tennis is brutal, attrition - type tennis. Knowing that you can stay out there all day long and run down ball after ball after ball weighs on your opponent unless your name is Federer, Nadal, Murray or Djokovic. Even before the match starts.

Running is great for endurance and cardio. I’ve done a lot of running in the past. Not as much as you but used to train enough to run a marathon and some 5k and 10k events. The difference between tennis endurance and running endurance is in running, you just run in one direction - forward. How often in tennis do you get to just run forward? For me, not often. I find that I’m sprinting and stopping , shuffling left to right, right to left, diagonally, forward and backward. In fact, I’m probably only running forward like 10-20% of the time and it’s in very short bursts before I have to slow or stop to change direction. Therefore I find training to shuffle, sprint and stop laterally and diagonally far more effective for tennis than straight distance running.

 

[RetroSpin]

I seriously doubt there are any 4.0s that are going to beat him.

Nominated for Understatement of the Year Award.

I watched a little of the video and was underwhelmed, so I totally get where people are coming from on this. I just think the real thing would be a lot different than they are expecting.

 

[MyFearHand]

I've watched a lot of Abel's YouTube matches. There isn't a single 4.5 I've seen on video, played in person, or heard of... who I think could beat him. His tennis IQ is way too high, movement is too good, and he has way too much racquet skill. I think any 4.5 would UE themselves to death trying.

I'm a computer rated 4.5 and my UTR is 9.32 so according to UTR I'd beat him pretty easily.

 

[Deleted member 120290]

I'm a computer rated 4.5 and my UTR is 9.32 so according to UTR I'd beat him pretty easily.

According to myUTR, 9.32 is mid 5.0. If you are UTR 9.32, you would definitely beat him handily.

 

[user92626]

This is why I don't mind hitting with or playing against pushers. I just have a lot of patience. I posted the image of doing 400 miles this past month. Anyone else here doing that kind of mileage? Do you think that the two older guys are doing that kind of mileage?

I'm fairly new to tennis, but everything I've been reading tends to agree that long distance running doesn't provide much benefit to tennis endurance. Although, if your perspective is that it takes patience and a very strong mental fortitude to run that far - I'd have to agree.

The amount of steps and distance that movdqa does is pretty impressive and quite rare. Why i liked it immediately.

Unless he has gone thru something similar, I don't think Bulldog know what he's talking about. 5 years ago I only put in 30 miles of roadbike biking every weekend in the summer, then I came out to play and NOBODY could match my stamina and strength, and we're talking about late 30s, 40s competitive guys here.

About recreational singles playing, unless you possess one or two very unique skills such as exceptional volleying or very low, sharp FH shot that your opponents simply cannot deal with, winning just comes down to running hard all day, putting the ball back in play and not making mistakes. That's why you see much crying foul from people here about "pushers". LOL.

These two older men already show they have impressive tennis skills for their age, and naturally you don't see many like them at your courts, but the topic/question raised in this thread isn't if you have seen old men this good. It's a question about their match-up against you specifically.

I don't know what others see but their playing looks similar to the level of 3.5 women. Or maybe a bit better if you're generous.

 

[SoaD]

Go to 3:24. That ball was so in.

 

[MyFearHand]

According to myUTR, 9.32 is mid 5.0. If you are UTR 9.32, you would definitely beat him handily.

I think the chart is a bit off though. This season in 4.5 leagues I'm 1-1 in singles (granted the one I lost was in a 3rd set breaker) and 1-2 in doubles. So unless most of the 4.5s in my area are sandbagging I think the UTR chart is off.

 

[steve s]

Anyone here play open tournaments, maybe with an age range. Got some questions if you have the time??

 

[user92626]

Video to video comparison, is it weird to anyone that these old men's hitting is somehow noticeably better than that of these 4.0s, if they think 4.0s cannot beat them?

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...atings-seem-more-and-more-weird-to-me.620908/

 

[Steady Eddy]

Go to 3:24. That ball was so in.

I couldn't see him make the call, but it said 30-15 before the point, then 30-30, so he must have called it out.

Did look like it hit the line. I don't know if that was deliberate though.

 

[Steady Eddy]

Video to video comparison, is it weird to anyone that these old men's hitting is somehow noticeably better than that of these 4.0s, if they think 4.0s cannot beat them?

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...atings-seem-more-and-more-weird-to-me.620908/

Which 4.0 s? There are two screens. The one on the bottom seems way better than the one on the top.

 

[heninfan99]

Video to video comparison, is it weird to anyone that these old men's hitting is somehow noticeably better than that of these 4.0s, if they think 4.0s cannot beat them?

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...atings-seem-more-and-more-weird-to-me.620908/

I don't find the difference astonishing, it's to be expected. There's a wide range in each USTA level.

 

[mcs1970]

Never underestimate older guys who have played at a higher level no matter how slow or frail they look or no matter how slow or easy paced their games look when you are observing them from the sidelines. Those guys know what works for them, can place the ball on a dime, and most importantly, they won't beat themselves. Sure you can beat them, but they will make you beat them. Nothing will be given free to you.

 

[Deleted member 23235]

Video to video comparison, is it weird to anyone that these old men's hitting is somehow noticeably better than that of these 4.0s, if they think 4.0s cannot beat them?

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...atings-seem-more-and-more-weird-to-me.620908/

to me the difference is in the depth, placement.
i've lossed to "good old guys", and while they can't move as well, or hit as hard, they also don't let me wind up and hit big shots.
their serve is "slow" but always well placed, and keeping me guessing.

 

[tlm]

This is pretty good for guys that are 70 years old. I would like to play against these guys, not saying I could beat them but I’m sure I could give them a good match. They don’t hit enough pace to rush their opponent. I have much better movement than them and I would just play long points against them.

I can slice and dice all day against guys that just float the ball back, plus I would be hitting some topspin shots mixed in. I would have to resist going for winners and just move them around and plan on at least 10 shot rally’s.

To me the key would be to keep them back and keep them moving, they can’t hurt you from the backcourt. But they can play well at the net and once they move in the court they are very good. They would probably whoop me but it would be fun playing them and seeing if I could make it competitive.

 

[BulldogLouisiana]

Unless he has gone thru something similar, I don't think Bulldog know what he's talking about. 5 years ago I only put in 30 miles of roadbike biking every weekend in the summer, then I came out to play and NOBODY could match my stamina and strength, and we're talking about late 30s, 40s competitive guys here.

Hehe, I admitted that I was just quoting what I've read and heard. I'm definitely not an expert on exercise, but obviously sitting on your butt isn't as good as running a marathon. Riding bikes has always been recommended for training fast twitch muscles, but everything is subjective. I'm out of shape and haven't ridden in a couple of years, but I could go hop on a road bike and grind out 50 miles without a doubt. However, it's flat where I live. I'd die pretty fast on a mountain bike on some trails.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

Why aren’t they playing drop shot/lob? Do you get black balled if you do that in the 70+ league?

 

[tlm]

Why aren’t they playing drop shot/lob? Do you get black balled if you do that in the 70+ league?

That is a strategy I use pretty often and I agree that it should work against these guys with limited movement. The only problem is that it needs to be a pretty good dropper because these guys are good once close to the net.

 

[WildVolley]

You know you're in trouble when an old guy pulls a Weed racquet out of his bag.

Both these guys would make you beat them as they're playing very safe tennis.

 

[RetroSpin]

Why aren’t they playing drop shot/lob? Do you get black balled if you do that in the 70+ league?

No, dropshots are the big weapon. I am guessing these guys respect each other's quickness and don't want to invite them to the net. I'm sure the shots are a lot heavier than they appear in the vids as well.

 

[Steady Eddy]

Seldom does a player keep the ball in play for 4 strokes. Then comes the UE. How would they beat a young pusher?

 

[Windsor]

The answer is simple: either you are a solid 4.5, or you don't win against these two. Since only a minimal fraction of posters here are close to that level, most tt warriors that claim would win, would instead get beaten handily by the guys in the video.