GOAT Talk

[harinder]

probably the most talked about topic on tennis forums, this is a never ending debate.
well here is my view on goat theory...

i think esentially you cannot have a decisive GOAT as comparisons over time become tougher and tougher. The reasons is simple. As time has passed, competition has intensifed and deepened and the game is not the same anymore. More players and more better players. In addition, there has been breakthroughs in technology leading to newer racquets and more power. Furthermore, the physics of the game are understood more and coaching systems and techniques have become more sophisticated. There has been medical breakthroughs and players are now stronger, fitter and faster. Simply put, tennis has evolved. Following this, it is obvious that if federer or lets say anyone from pro tour today met laver in a match, laver would lose. But this would not be fair because laver has not benefited from the evolution of the game (technology, medical, technique developments). How would laver fair in today's game had he benefited from all the evolutionary aspects i have mentioned. Or how would federer play in the 60's had he been stripped of these same aspects? Its anyone's guess. This is why comparisons become tough over time.

Imo we must draw a line. that line is classic era and open era. Players from the former cannot be compared to the later for the sheer fact that the game has changed on a fundamental level. There should be a greatest of classic era and greatest of open era. Within these broad era's we can only go by hard statistics/records. People seem to have different criteria's to formulate GOAT based on biases. The main proxy is obviously no. of slams but other proxies must be looked at too (no. of weeks at no.1, slam consistency etc)

I think we can short list some names for each of the two categories (in no order)

Classic Era
Laver

• 11 slam titles
• 2 grand slams (62' and 69')
• 185 singles titles

Budge

• first grand slam (38')
• six straight slam titles
• 92 match winning streak

Open Era
Federer

• 13 slam titles
• 237 consecutive weeks at no.1
• 10 straight slam finals

Sampras

• 14 slam titles
• 284 total weeks at no.1
• end of year no.1 six straight times

Borg

• 11 slam titles
• highest slam win percentage - 89.8%
• domination of polar opposites (slow clay and fast grass)

 

[CyBorg]

How would laver fair in today's game had he benefited from all the evolutionary aspects i have mentioned.

He'd benefit by being a terrible volleyer.

P.S. You need to look up 'evolution'.

 

[DoubleDeuce]

How would laver fair in today's game had he benefited from all the evolutionary aspects i have mentioned

Here is my answer to that: Laver's success was, to high a degree, elevated by limits in comptetion he recieved from the world around him. For example, take a look at the top 10 seeded in FO 1968. Number 9 and 10 basically had no tennis carear by todays standards. There is no comparison.

For this reason, even if we apply all the evolutanary benefits to Laver, he would still loose in straight sets to Federer.

But one has to ask this also; How did this evolution become possible?

By the likes of Laver, he paved the way

This can be a typical egg and chicken case.

 

[harinder]

He'd benefit by being a terrible volleyer.

P.S. You need to look up 'evolution'.

i disagree with those who say volleying has become worse. the reason the net game is not widely as employed today is because of power. it has become much more difficult to approach and put away volleys.

The term evolution is not limited to biological evolution. I am not neccesarily talking about gene mutation or natural selection here. Generically, evolution refers to any sort of progressive development. Im using its common definition. For the reasons i listed in the OP, tennis has 'progressed'.

 

[harinder]

Here is my answer to that: Laver's success was, to high a degree, elevated by limits in comptetion he recieved from the world around him. For example, take a look at the top 10 seeded in FO 1968. Number 9 and 10 basically had no tennis carear by todays standards. There is no comparison.

For this reason, even if we apply all the evolutanary benefits to Laver, he would still loose in straight sets to Federer.

But one has to ask this also; How did this evolution become possible?

By the likes of Laver, he paved the way

This can be a typical egg and chicken case.

Its really guess work what sort of player Laver would be today given he had benefited from evolutionary aspects or vice versa with Federer. Thats why its tough to compare.

Only to a degree, can Laver be credited with tennis evolution. He would have set the bar and created a new stantard of play. But alot of tennis evolution is not directly linked to tennis players. Im refering to technological and medical breakthroughs and increased research into the game (physics, technique etc).

 

[tennis-hero]

Laver 11 Slams

9 slams on Grass
60 AO
61 wimby
62 AO
62 wimby
62 US
68 wimby
69 AO
69 Wimby
69 US

2 slams on clay
62 FO
69 FO

Sampras 14 slams

7 on grass
wimby 93-95, 97-00

7 on hard courts
90 US
93 US
94 AO
95 US
96 US
97 AO
02 US

Federer 13 slams

5 on grass
Wimby 03-07

8 slams on hard
US open 04-08
AO 04,06,07

Sampas only won 50% of his slams on grass

Fed has only won 38% of his slams on grass

laver won 81.8% of his slams on grass

Laver's calender slam isn't as good as it sounds

 

[Cenc]

ouchhhhhh
yea volleying is much better now days than in past? is nadal included?
yea also many better players... roddick included?

 

[urban]

But Laver has two clay majors (despite 5 years banned from play in his prime), while Sampras and Federer both have nil. And two RG-Wim back to back, with the two opposite surfaces. If one looks at Laver's hard court record in the 70s, its seems probable, that he would have won more majors on hard court than on grass.

 

[CyBorg]

Generically, evolution refers to any sort of progressive development.

No, evolution refers to change. Not progressive development.

 

[NGM]

Classic Era
Laver

Budge

Two of the greatest. But classic means amateur, you should mention this.

 

[urban]

No, classic era means amateur and pro tennis. By the way, what means amateur. Before 1985, all track and field athletes were 'amateurs'. The best ski racers like Sailer and Killy were 'amateurs'. The Russian ice hockey spornajas, who defeated the Canadian pros including Gretzky, were 'amateurs'. The great rugby and cricket players like Bradman or Sobers were amateurs. Until the 80s, the amateur concept was the leading sports concept in the world (outside the US leagues and the European football leagues). The so called tennis (sh)amateurs were payed athletes, who competed all year long.

 

[NGM]

By the way, what means amateur.

You know what i mean. Before 68 no professional tennis player is allowed to compete in GS. Player won GS that time are all amateur. A fact is professional players were better than amateur players. So winning GS before Open Era was not a feat like today. Millions professional players are competing in every GS today. For them, playing tennis is not for fun, but for life.

 

[DoubleDeuce]

But alot of tennis evolution is not directly linked to tennis players. Im refering to technological and medical breakthroughs and increased research into the game (physics, technique etc).

Great minds think alike.

It's not directly related, as it is not in any other branch of sports or science. People like Laver get the attention of those who will eventually move the game forward. Lavers bring in the audience.

The whole industry needs the likes of Tiger, Phelps, Pele..etc to get the attention and help it move upward. Without them they will struggle. Look at horse racing. It grab my attention by Barbaro, then again I lost interest... the whole horse racing is dying for a tripple crown...and we want our grand slam champ, it gives the game attention it deserves.

 

[akv89]

No, evolution refers to change. Not progressive development.

Not entirely true. Any kind of evolution requires changes in information passed down from one generation to another. In this case, we are talking about information regarding technique, fitness, and technology related to tennis. If this change is not progressive, then it will not persist the test of time because the old way is still a better way to play tennis. These changes are not going to be noticeable since they don't persist and spread. Changes that do are going to be progressive because they are better than the previous way of playing tennis.
Talent may remain the same (although it probably goes up as well since the number of people playing tennis has been increasing since the 60's), but tennis certainly does progress over time.

 

[DoubleDeuce]

No, evolution refers to change. Not progressive development.

Evolution may have been the wrong word to use here, it's meaning is a good subject for another discussion. The intended meaning I believe was improvement, or progress if you will, over time. But that would also be objective. What do we call progress. You would probably mention family and natural values and conclude tthere has been regression and no prgress. Many would disagree saying it takes more to win a game today, you have to be smarter, stronger, mentaly and physically, to win, and thats progress.

 

[urban]

I think, that still 128 players compete in majors. But what i really mean, is, that the complete history of sports for about 100 years was dominated by the amateur principle. Its idiotic, to shut out this big part of sports history. A Bannister would not have run faster, if he got money for his under 4 min mile. A Spitz would not have swam faster, if being paid.

 

[CyBorg]

Not entirely true. Any kind of evolution requires changes in information passed down from one generation to another. In this case, we are talking about information regarding technique, fitness, and technology related to tennis. If this change is not progressive, then it will not persist the test of time because the old way is still a better way to play tennis. These changes are not going to be noticeable since they don't persist and spread. Changes that do are going to be progressive because they are better than the previous way of playing tennis.
Talent may remain the same (although it probably goes up as well since the number of people playing tennis has been increasing since the 60's), but tennis certainly does progress over time.

Specious. You would have to show how these things are applied to prove progress and also discuss other factors involved that prevented progress.

The homogenized state of the contemporary game is a factor that suggests that the game hasn't progressed as much as it suffered tactically and then stagnated.

Evolution is something different from what you're talking about it. What you're suggesting is technological and physical determinism and that's not what evolution is. Post modern thinking debunks these notions, because if we buy into them we're essentially buying into utopian ideals of eventually reaching a pure state over a matter of time.

That doesn't work. The Roman Empire stagnated and then rapidly collapsed.

 

[CyBorg]

Evolution may have been the wrong word to use here, it's meaning is a good subject for another discussion. The intended meaning I believe was improvement, or progress if you will, over time. But that would also be objective. What do we call progress. You would probably mention family and natural values and conclude tthere has been regression and no prgress. Many would disagree saying it takes more to win a game today, you have to be smarter, stronger, mentaly and physically, to win, and thats progress.

In other words, you have no scientific claims to support your statement.

 

[edmondsm]

The OP makes it clear. The GOAT is Federer, there is hardly an argument against it. Everyone talks about Laver winning two calender slams, big deal. No body gave a rats-ass about the Australian Open back then, except Australians. Conners skipped it most of his career, so did Borg, McEnroe. Even as late as the 90's, Agassi didn't play it until he won in 95'.

Didn't McEnroe say in his book that if he had known people would be counting the Australian Open as a major he would have played there alot more?

I've got my flame-retardent coat on so, flame away.

 

[edmondsm]

Specious. You would have to show how these things are applied to prove progress and also discuss other factors involved that prevented progress.

The homogenized state of the contemporary game is a factor that suggests that the game hasn't progressed as much as it suffered tactically and then stagnated.

Evolution is something different from what you're talking about it. What you're suggesting is technological and physical determinism and that's not what evolution is. Post modern thinking debunks these notions, because if we buy into them we're essentially buying into utopian ideals of eventually reaching a pure state over a matter of time.

That doesn't work. The Roman Empire stagnated and then rapidly collapsed.

We're not talking about purity here. Purity is a completely subjective. But let's say if (a big IF) there are 5 times as many kids and young adults working toward winning grand slam tournaments today as there were 40 years ago. Wouldn't we be able to say then, logically, that it is harder to win majors today then it was 40 years ago?

 

[akv89]

Specious. You would have to show how these things are applied to prove progress and also discuss other factors involved that prevented progress.

The homogenized state of the contemporary game is a factor that suggests that the game hasn't progressed as much as it suffered tactically and then stagnated.

Evolution is something different from what you're talking about it. What you're suggesting is technological and physical determinism and that's not what evolution is. Post modern thinking debunks these notions, because if we buy into them we're essentially buying into utopian ideals of eventually reaching a pure state over a matter of time.

That doesn't work. The Roman Empire stagnated and then rapidly collapsed.

Stagnation means long periods of no change, homogeneity means that there is little difference between elements at a certain point in time. I don't see how you connected these two to be the same thing especially considering that we have seen big changes in the game the past few years to get to this homogenous state.
At no point in my post did I imply that evolution has to be deterministic. It doesn't and in the case of genetic evolution, it isn't. I provided a self consistent argument based on the basics of game theory that shows why evolution generally results in progression. I'll make myself clearer:
1. Assume a system of elements in competition with each other. In this case, we have tennis players competing for wins.
2. The player with the best game/game plan/resources/etc or a combination of those is generally going to be the winner.
3. The next generation consists of similar players from the previous generation except for two players with unique game/game plans/resources etc and the same talent.
4. One of the two has fewer resources, tries to play serve and volley in an era that favors baseliners/all courters and thus cannot compete with the rest of the players. This kind of player goes away and all we see is more of the same.
5. The second player has better resources and has an all court game. He wins a couple tournaments, makes some money that he can invest in his game and his game improves a bit more. He is more successful than the first player.
6. There is new racquet technology resulting in more power.
7. The first player finds it easier to serve and volley due to weak returns and due to his relatively better ability to volley.
8. The first player ends up more successful than the second.

The example above is meant to show that in a large population of competing elements, the one with the best assets for the given circumstances is going to be the most successful. That was my point about why changes that are progressive are the ones that persist.
In addition, one has to note that evolution in this case IS deterministic because players are aware of what is going on around them and can change their games accordingly.
Add to that the fact that more people are playing tennis and probably more money is being spent on tennis than a few decades ago and you should see my point.

I also don't see the point about the Roman Empire. It fell apart due to internal strife, civil war, not stagnation.

 

[DoubleDeuce]

In other words, you have no scientific claims to support your statement.

This is not possible to argue with you in terms of science. Clearly you are fixed in your believes and when cornered simply refuge to ridicule and samart-alecky comments. The clear example was last night when I challenged the competency of Laver opponents in FO 1968. You simply ducked out.

Here is another chance. Compare player achievements and history seeded 9 and 10 in 1968 with today's 9 and 10, for everyone to see.

 

[gj011]

Laver played in the open era as well. He is the only one that has GS in the open era in 69, hence he is undisputed GOAT IMO, open or not open era.

 

[urban]

Mr. DoubleDeuce, what players you are talking about? Go to the draws of the open tournaments in 1968-70, there are to be found on the internet. They were very deep. The 16 seeded draw in Wimbledon 1968 included Laver, Rosewall, Gimeno, Newcombe, Emerson, Santana, Hoad, Gonzales, Ralston, Buchholz, Okker, Drysdale, Roche, Ashe, Pilic, Stolle, Graebner, almost all hall of famers, multiple major winners or at least finalists, with at least more than ten or fifteen tournement wins in pre open and open competition.. And people like Tiriac and Bungert, you referred to on other posts, had about 30 and 15 tournament wins, and great Davis Cup records, too.

 

[akv89]

Laver played in the open era as well. He is the only one that has GS in the open era in 69, hence he is undisputed GOAT IMO, open or not open era.

I've often questioned why so many people see the GS as the end all be all of being a GOAT. The best answer I've received so far is that it is the most successful a person can be over a year, although that itself is no indication of overall greatness of a full career. The reason I have an issue with this argument is because Federer was two matches away from being a double consecutive GS champion, Wilander was one Wimbledon away from winning a GS and nobody would even dare consider him a great, and so forth. It doesn't seem right to put so much emphasis on a couple matches over a topic as complicated as arguing about the greatest of all time.

 

[DoubleDeuce]

Mr. DoubleDeuce, what players you are talking about? Go to the draws of the open tournaments in 1968-70, there are to be found on the internet. They were very deep. The 16 seeded draw in Wimbledon 1968 included Laver, Rosewall, Gimeno, Newcombe, Emerson, Santana, Hoad, Gonzales, Ralston, Buchholz, Okker, Drysdale, Roche, Ashe, Pilic, Stolle, Graebner, almost all hall of famers, multiple major winners or at least finalists, with at least more than ten or fifteen tournement wins in pre open and open competition.. And people like Tiriac and Bungert, you referred to on other posts, had about 30 and 15 tournament wins, and great Davis Cup records, too.

Dear Mr. Urban, this is very simple. Are you challenging the fact that competition today is way harder than it was 40 years ago?

If the answer is yes, then yes, I was reffering to Ion Tiriac the number nine seed 1968. Please list those 30 tournaments you claim he won and compare it with number 9 seed today.

If the answer is no then case is closed, point made.

 

[CyBorg]

Stagnation means long periods of no change, homogeneity means that there is little difference between elements at a certain point in time. I don't see how you connected these two to be the same thing especially considering that we have seen big changes in the game the past few years to get to this homogenous state.

The game changed radically beginning with the introduction of new racquet technology, but change has since slowed down considerably. What some folks here are tying in change to is the idea of progress, and I don't see evidence of progress. If anything, there is evidence that the game is losing a lot of elements that used to be commonplace.

At no point in my post did I imply that evolution has to be deterministic. It doesn't and in the case of genetic evolution, it isn't. I provided a self consistent argument based on the basics of game theory that shows why evolution generally results in progression. I'll make myself clearer:
1. Assume a system of elements in competition with each other. In this case, we have tennis players competing for wins.
2. The player with the best game/game plan/resources/etc or a combination of those is generally going to be the winner.
3. The next generation consists of similar players from the previous generation except for two players with unique game/game plans/resources etc and the same talent.
4. One of the two has fewer resources, tries to play serve and volley in an era that favors baseliners/all courters and thus cannot compete with the rest of the players. This kind of player goes away and all we see is more of the same.
5. The second player has better resources and has an all court game. He wins a couple tournaments, makes some money that he can invest in his game and his game improves a bit more. He is more successful than the first player.
6. There is new racquet technology resulting in more power.
7. The first player finds it easier to serve and volley due to weak returns and due to his relatively better ability to volley.
8. The first player ends up more successful than the second.

You're mistaken - new racquet technology resulting in more power favors the returner.

As for new skills and the effect of new skills - this isn't as grand an effect as some here claim. If anything, players with skills that deviate from the norm often have very little impact on other players. Bjorn Borg is a good example. Due to consemer-oriented and homogenized nature of the game (as mentioned below) the skills that are commonly taught are those that predominate first and ensure immediate result second. Not those that ensure long-term results.

The example above is meant to show that in a large population of competing elements, the one with the best assets for the given circumstances is going to be the most successful. That was my point about why changes that are progressive are the ones that persist.

You are assuming that changes are produced organically. This means that you're ignoring conditions of the capitalist system, wherein it isn't the player who is the focus of those changes, but the fan. The reason why racquets were altered were to make them more fan-friendly and get more people to play the game. The reason why tennis balls went from white to yellow at Wimbledon was to suit the visibility of the fans watching. The reason why the courts at the US Open went from grey to blue was to get more fans to watch.

This is basically the crux of what I have been saying and explains why the game has gone downhill in terms of skill. It has become increasingly more of a corporate product and less geared towards the player and more towards the average fan. You're making a false assumption that all change is organic.

In addition, one has to note that evolution in this case IS deterministic because players are aware of what is going on around them and can change their games accordingly.
Add to that the fact that more people are playing tennis and probably more money is being spent on tennis than a few decades ago and you should see my point.

Again, see my point above and spending more money on tennis does not ensure that the money goes towards enriching the quality of the game. Money goes towards enriching the game as a product and product only.

Tennis has been in decline in America since the 1970s. In decline in Australia. In decline in Sweden. Still trying to pick up the pieces in Great Britain. In a lackluster shape currently in South America, comparing to earlier in the decade.

I also don't see the point about the Roman Empire. It fell apart due to internal strife, civil war, not stagnation.

It fell apart because it rotted from within, against its own interests, despite internal claims of progress.

 

[CyBorg]

This is not possible to argue with you in terms of science. Clearly you are fixed in your believes and when cornered simply refuge to ridicule and samart-alecky comments. The clear example was last night when I challenged the competency of Laver opponents in FO 1968. You simply ducked out.

Here is another chance. Compare player achievements and history seeded 9 and 10 in 1968 with today's 9 and 10, for everyone to see.

I replied to you and so did urban, who actually made a very good point. You merely ignored the points of both he and myself.

In the dictionary beside the word troll is your picture.

 

[FiveO]

1968 FO Seeds....................1968 Rankings...........1968 Top Money Winners

1.) Laver............................1.) Laver....................1.) Laver
2.) Rosewall........................2.) Ashe.....................2.) Roche
3.) Andres Gimeno................3.) Rosewall................3.) Rosewall
4.) Roy Emerson.................. 4.) Roche...................4.) John Newcombe
5.) Pancho Gonzalez.............5.) Okker....................5.) P. Gonzalez
6.) Fred Stolle.....................6.) Newcombe.............6.) Drysdale
7.) Lew Hoad.......................7.) Graebner...............7.) Gimeno
8.) Bob Hewitt.....................8.) Ralston..................8.) Emerson
9.) Ion Tiriac.......................9.) Drysdale................9.) Ralston
10.) Wilhelm Bungert............10.) Pancho Gonzalez....10.) Stolle

To demonstrate how many more players were missing from that particular FO draw, here are the '68 Wimbledon seeds:

1.) Laver (Australia)
2.) Rosewall (Australia)
3.) Gimeno (Spain)
4.) Newcombe (Australia)
5.) Emerson (Australia)
6.) Manuel Santana (Spain)
7.) Hoad (Australia)
8.) Gonzalez (USA)
9.) Ralston (USA)
10.) Butch Buchholz (USA)
11.) Stolle (Australia)
12.) Okker (Netherlands)
13.) Ashe (USA)
14.) Drysdale (South Africa)
15.) Roche (Australia)
16.) Nikki Pilic (Croatia)

No Tiriac(Romania) and Bungert (Germany) weren't seeded.

Neither were:

Other "handsome 8" players:

Roger Taylor (Great Britain)
Pierre Barthes (France)

nor were

Jan Kodes (Czechoslovakia)
Stan Smith (USA)
Alex Metreveli (Russia)
Alex Olmedo (Chile>USA)
Manuel Orantes (Spain)
Bob Lutz (USA)
Thomas Koch (Brazil)
Cliff Richey (USA)
Owen Davidson (Australia)
Mark Cox (Great Britain)
John Alexander (Australia)
Clark Graebner (USA)
Ray Moore (South Africa)
Charlie Pasarell (USA)

Was the '68 FO a "weaker" draw? Yeah. But check out who was missing.

BTW Laver also won the French Pro Championships in '68 def. Newcombe in that final.

From Times Online

June 23, 2008

The 100 greatest Wimbledon players ever (Men and Women combined)

Katie Scott, Calvin Shulman

Wilhelm Bungert(Germany, right-handed) 20pts
b 1939 Mannheim
Runner-up 1967
Semi-final 1963; 1964

Bungert was a finalist in 1967 as an unseeded player. He was only the second German player to do reach the final, 30 years after Gottfried von Cramm. Bungert beat Roger Taylor in five sets in the semi-final but lost in straight sets to John Newcombe in the final. He was also a semi-finalist in 1963 and 1964. He owns a tennis and golf centre in Hilden and is today perhaps most famous for having an adidas shoe named after him.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/tennis/article4176943.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1

Was '68 a weak era? If someone says so, they don't know the era.

5

 

[CyBorg]

Was '68 a weak era? If someone says so, they don't know the era.

Some folks will cling to anything. The 68 RG draw was a good example of variety from country-to-country, but as many know draws aren't equivalent to actual rankings.

 

[akv89]

The game changed radically beginning with the introduction of new racquet technology, but change has since slowed down considerably. What some folks here are tying in change to is the idea of progress, and I don't see evidence of progress. If anything, there is evidence that the game is losing a lot of elements that used to be commonplace.

I will admit that change has slowed down, but it still is progress. Change going backwards cannot persist as I have explained before. Do you have an explanation behind why certain elements of the game, ex. volleying are goind down?

You're mistaken - new racquet technology resulting in more power favors the returner.

It's arbitrary, it was just an example.

As for new skills and the effect of new skills - this isn't as grand an effect as some here claim. If anything, players with skills that deviate from the norm often have very little impact on other players. Bjorn Borg is a good example. Due to consemer-oriented and homogenized nature of the game (as mentioned below) the skills that are commonly taught are those that predominate first and ensure immediate result second. Not those that ensure long-term results.

Fair enough. But how do you prove that this consumer oriented nature is hurting the quality of tennis? And could you give me an example of skills that ensure immediate results but not long term results in the professional tour.

You are assuming that changes are produced organically. This means that you're ignoring conditions of the capitalist system, wherein it isn't the player who is the focus of those changes, but the fan. The reason why racquets were altered were to make them more fan-friendly and get more people to play the game. The reason why tennis balls went from white to yellow at Wimbledon was to suit the visibility of the fans watching. The reason why the courts at the US Open went from grey to blue was to get more fans to watch.

This is basically the crux of what I have been saying and explains why the game has gone downhill in terms of skill. It has become increasingly more of a corporate product and less geared towards the player and more towards the average fan. You're making a false assumption that all change is organic.



Again, see my point above and spending more money on tennis does not ensure that the money goes towards enriching the quality of the game. Money goes towards enriching the game as a product and product only.

Tennis has been in decline in America since the 1970s. In decline in Australia. In decline in Sweden. Still trying to pick up the pieces in Great Britain. In a lackluster shape currently in South America, comparing to earlier in the decade.

See my question above regarding the consumer oriented nature of the current game.

It fell apart because it rotted from within, against its own interests, despite internal claims of progress.

So how does it prove that it was because of stagnation, or lack of changes? The reason there was war was because a lot of things did change. You don't have to respond to this part for fear of diverting from the topic.

 

[CyBorg]

I will admit that change has slowed down, but it still is progress. Change going backwards cannot persist as I have explained before. Do you have an explanation behind why certain elements of the game, ex. volleying are goind down?

I think that much of the real rapid progress happened up to the 1930s. Beyond that tennis was pretty much fully formed - this is my opinion based on watching and reading about players in those and later eras - until it suddenly changed dramatically with the introduction of new technologies in the 1980s.

In other threads I offered the example of baseball as a sport that changed a lot less over the years than a sport like tennis (but changed nonetheless due to the use of alluminum in college and certain supplements, including steroids). But pitchers could throw 100mph 60 years ago, as they do now. Joe DiMaggio had a perfect swing, as Todd Helton does now.

In tennis, I believe that traditionally the main focus has been to have a keen mind, be fit, resilient and have developed groundstrokes and good hands. Beyond that it was about adjusting to the surroundings. Today it's almost the same, except that power is emphasized.

Tennis always went through phases - sometimes it was all about the serve and volley, at other times it was all-court tennis; at times somewhere in between. But the thinking is that if one had all the requisite skills and abilities to adapt then one would adapt.

Changes in technologies and the sudden commercialization of the game changed that. Now tennis requires a different kind of player than in the past and I also posit that the commodified nature of the game will cause fewer changes of the stylistic nature from generation to generation. Going forward I expect a contunuance of all-court player.

For better or worse, it's a different sport almost. If tennis had as much of a reverance for its own history as baseball did we would still play with wood and no one would be making bold claims about evolution.

Corporations and their PR machines like to stress that they're improving things, but that's easy for them to do, because they've turned tennis into a power game. 40 years ago claims of progress in the corporate sense were impossible to make, because tennis was purely a touch sport. Back then to be great one had to simply play as often as one could and practice. Today, power is increasingly vital, but power isn't as complex and individual a notion as ingenuity or skill. Power can be made more powerful. Rackets can be juiced up. Balls can be juiced up. Players can be made bigger, stronger and bulkier. Supplements can be and are made to make all of this happen. You can't out-skill skill. But you can out-power power.

It's all a corporate ploy. They took a game that was perfectly fine, saw an opportunity to make money on it and realized that the only way to do that would be by transforming the game into something they could manipulate. In came oversized toy racquets and power friendly conditions and ca-ching.

Fair enough. But how do you prove that this consumer oriented nature is hurting the quality of tennis? And could you give me an example of skills that ensure immediate results but not long term results in the professional tour.

This relates to the unforunate nature of the pressures on coaches within a business environment. Kids enter a program wherein their parents pay big bucks and expect immediate results. Most coaches will tell you that in order to get immediate results they will emphasize size and power and focus on working with kids who can give them that right away.

I theorize that this is why players today are bigger and more powerful. Because, first of all, today's equipment rewards power and, second of all, all the focus in the academy environment is on the big kids, not the little guys with good hands.

Edberg is the kind of player who is extinct and this can be explained directly by his experience of growing up as a player and this is going back 25-30 years now. When Borg was the big star, Sweden standardized its system to teach all young talent to play like Borg. This means that the baseline game was encouraged and everything else was blasphemy.

Edberg survived as a kind of fluke, or, a better way of putting, as an individual who beat the system. He was a slimmer player who began as a baseliner, realized that it didn't work for him and switched to the serve and volley to utilize his skills better.

Today, players like this are almost extinct. Because of technology, because of consumer-pressured philosophies.

So how does it prove that it was because of stagnation, or lack of changes? The reason there was war was because a lot of things did change. You don't have to respond to this part for fear of diverting from the topic.

Something happened along the way that brought the empire to its equilibrium and eventually by virtue of hubris and lazyness everything fell apart.

The reason why I brought this up is because one assumes that a body or organism or structure that begins to form by growing will simply continue to get better.

This doesn't mean that tennis is like the Roman Empire or that it will crumble. Rather, I think tennis had reached a point where it was enormously popular and competitive (60s and 70s) and then a number of things happened that have severely hurt it. One is that it inevitably fell back to earth just because. Two, because of increased popularity, consumer culture intervened and sadly brought forth folks who thought that it would be ideal to turn the game into power-first-skill-second. Eventually, people like De Villiers were given reigns, manipulating organization and playing around with stuff like the round-robin format, all done specifically to gear to the fans, while tennis players were in astonishment over how much they were ignored (the irony here is that fans aren't happy either). Every since reaching equilibrium tennis has turned to desperate measures to get back to it, with very little success.

Instead of saying that new technologies and consumerism has ruined tennis I simply prefer to say that what we have now is a new sport that demands a different kind of athlete. Some athletes that were ideal for the sport in the past are ideal for it now. That's just the way things are.

Supplements and weight training don't make a difference to me. This is all a matter of philosophy - if you read older books on tennis you will see that weight training was often seen as a big no-no for the type of game that tennis was and we're all slaves to common knowledge.