How many French Opens would Ralph have won had the tour not slowed down the surfaces?

How many real French Opens would Ralph have if not for surface homogenization?


  • Total voters
    18
#1
Experts say that Roland Garros speed in the 90's was the equivalent of Wimby today.

If Roland Garros wasn't slowed down like the rest of the tour has been in the last decade+, how many real French Opens would Ralph had won? It's easy for Ralph to win RG when the tour is slow the entire year and it basically sets him up for RG for 11 months of slow court speeds.

Rafa fans like 90's clay liked to give an asterisk for Fred's wimby wins because of the grass "slowing down", so it's only logical we question how many titles Rafa would have had the clay at Roland Garros not been slowed down as well.
 
#2
We also have to factor this in too, if USO and Wimby were still faster, Rafa would have been eliminated earlier in those events and he would be better rested for clay season instead of taking a 2-3 month hiatus.
 
#7
Experts say that Roland Garros speed in the 90's was the equivalent of Wimby today.
But what experts say this?

When you say "experts say", you are one step away from "people say", one of the favorite phrases of TWOTUS, our Twitter President, who uses that to claim any "facts" are "true".

I think if you look at games won you will find out that the differential between results on clay and grass re games won on serve and return were pretty much the same in the 90s as they are today. It's hard for me to believe that RG, if it were as fast as today's grass, would not have produced a lot of players winning more than 90% of service games.

I think the dominant change is not court speed but rather the strings. If courts were made as fast as they may have been in the 90s, most likely there would be nearly no return games won on fast surfaces today, and probably at or over 90% on clay today.

You'd probably have more net approaches today with faster courts, but likely more TBs and less breaks.
 
#9
But what experts say this?

When you say "experts say", you are one step away from "people say", one of the favorite phrases of TWOTUS, our Twitter President, who uses that to claim any "facts" are "true".

I think if you look at games won you will find out that the differential between results on clay and grass re games won on serve and return were pretty much the same in the 90s as they are today. It's hard for me to believe that RG, if it were as fast as today's grass, would not have produced a lot of players winning more than 90% of service games.

I think the dominant change is not court speed but rather the strings. If courts were made as fast as they may have been in the 90s, most likely there would be nearly no return games won on fast surfaces today, and probably at or over 90% on clay today.

You'd probably have more net approaches today with faster courts, but likely more TBs and less breaks.
The experts of tennis talk.
 
#10
But what experts say this?

When you say "experts say", you are one step away from "people say", one of the favorite phrases of TWOTUS, our Twitter President, who uses that to claim any "facts" are "true".

I think if you look at games won you will find out that the differential between results on clay and grass re games won on serve and return were pretty much the same in the 90s as they are today. It's hard for me to believe that RG, if it were as fast as today's grass, would not have produced a lot of players winning more than 90% of service games.

I think the dominant change is not court speed but rather the strings. If courts were made as fast as they may have been in the 90s, most likely there would be nearly no return games won on fast surfaces today, and probably at or over 90% on clay today.

You'd probably have more net approaches today with faster courts, but likely more TBs and less breaks.
Same here. I'd love to know what "expert" ever claimed that.
 
#11
Untestable question, thus irrelevant.

Also, players adapt their game to the conditions of their time, not to some fictional time travels proposed by TTW users.
 
#17
I see. So, a 6 year old Nadal was interested in court speed to work out his career path?

He must have the highest IQ amongst tennis pros then. :rolleyes:
Oh, not him! Toni was looking to make him champ well before he knew his own trajectory. Toni told Nadal

"Remember, mijo, you gonna moonball from a mile behind the baseline then you win, no? Also remember to go to Switzerland and play an exhibition match for your foundation for Christmas present, no?"

and then Nadal became left-handed in tennis because Toni broke Nadal's right hand to stop him from playing.

In case you can't tell, I'm f*cking with you...
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
#18
There are plenty of armchair experts here. They've never picked up a racket and stepped on to a court but write here like they know everything about tennis.
There were few people with some tennis career trying to post here, but all of them left as they were unable to stand comments of other posters. If you are up to serious discussion about tennis you are at the wrong place.
 
Last edited:
Top