How much has tennis actually evolved in the last 15-20 years?

RS said:
I don't know if the arguement was that top players then were expected to be blown out all the time in the first week of a later year of a slam but maybe for some people it was.
Click to expand...
I think it's far from a given 2021 Fed makes the 4R at the FO in 2004 or the QF at Wimbledon. So how much has tennis really moved on?
 
Last edited:
Red Rick said:
Look at average backhand technique. Look at how there's basically no poor movers anymore apart from gigantic hitters. Look at backhand rallies happen compared to back when. Look at how nobody just hits middling backhand down the line approach shots anymore. Go watch 2004 Federer and if you put it side to side with today his backhand is an abject shot apart from highlight reels.

The real problem is you watch highlights of back in the day while watching live matches in this day and age. It's an unfair comparison. If you really think you could take the 2007 Big 3 and time travel them to 2023 and think they would need no adjustment period you're out of your mind.
Click to expand...
I watched the 2013 Roland Garros semi in full the other day and I really didn’t see anything that looked like it would be out of place in today’s game. I’d be curious if someone else has a different opinion. It looks to me like it could’ve been played yesterday between the two best players in the world. The depth from Djokovic isn’t any less than it is now, the ball striking from Nadal is just as good as any other top player you’d see today (probably better). And I don’t think that was a particular outlier from them either, given their normal form at the time. It was unusually aggressive in tactics, perhaps, with both players moving the ball around at the first opportunity (hardly a neutral cross-court rally to be seen). But within that framework it’s even a bit sloppy from both players at times. It’s not like they were redlining their games (with the exception of Nadal in the fifth set) and so we’re comparing the most extreme of outliers from 10 years ago to the standard level of today. I think the two of them from back then would need no adjustment period whatsoever to hang with the best of today.

I realize I’m looking at the two best players and am not trying to refute the idea that the average top 100 player now is better than the average top 100 player ten-fifteen years ago. I also realize I’m looking only ten years back while most people in this thread are focused on 15-20 years. But that brings up the point: If the two best players in the world were just as good 10 years ago, then at what point were they considerably worse? 2007? I also incidentally was comparing bits and pieces (not highlights but sizable chunks of the matches) of the 2007 and 2023 Wimbledon finals. I’ll admit the rally dynamics with Federer’s backhand do start to look like a different era. I don’t know what that means in terms of absolute quality, necessarily. I think the forehand ball striking and movement and net game and slicing from both guys in 2007 is every bit as good as the two guys in 23. And Fed’s serve, in absolute terms, dumps all over the serves of Djokovic and Alcaraz from this year’s Wimbledon.

I realize this is comparing two specific matches – it’s not unreasonable for Fed’s best match of 2007 to be superior to a middling match from Novak in 2023, even if on average 2023 Novak is considerably better. But from a general day-to-day perspective, what adjustments, exactly, would 2007 Federer need to make to hang with the top guys today? Is it really just a matter of more consistently assertive backhand ballstriking? His serve could hang with anyone. His first serve return could hang with anyone. His movement is better than most of the top 10 today. His slice and net game are better than most of the top 10 today. Or is it that top players, on average, just hit with more pace and spin today and so he would need time to adjust his baseline mechanics? I could buy that to an extent, but also based on how 07 Fed dealt with the hardest and heaviest hitters of his day, I don’t think he would be a fish out of water even if he’s facing that level of heavy hitting more frequently than he did 15 years ago.
 
tudwell said:
I watched the 2013 Roland Garros semi in full the other day and I really didn’t see anything that looked like it would be out of place in today’s game. I’d be curious if someone else has a different opinion. It looks to me like it could’ve been played yesterday between the two best players in the world. The depth from Djokovic isn’t any less than it is now, the ball striking from Nadal is just as good as any other top player you’d see today (probably better). And I don’t think that was a particular outlier from them either, given their normal form at the time. It was unusually aggressive in tactics, perhaps, with both players moving the ball around at the first opportunity (hardly a neutral cross-court rally to be seen). But within that framework it’s even a bit sloppy from both players at times. It’s not like they were redlining their games (with the exception of Nadal in the fifth set) and so we’re comparing the most extreme of outliers from 10 years ago to the standard level of today. I think the two of them from back then would need no adjustment period whatsoever to hang with the best of today.

I realize I’m looking at the two best players and am not trying to refute the idea that the average top 100 player now is better than the average top 100 player ten-fifteen years ago. I also realize I’m looking only ten years back while most people in this thread are focused on 15-20 years. But that brings up the point: If the two best players in the world were just as good 10 years ago, then at what point were they considerably worse? 2007? I also incidentally was comparing bits and pieces (not highlights but sizable chunks of the matches) of the 2007 and 2023 Wimbledon finals. I’ll admit the rally dynamics with Federer’s backhand do start to look like a different era. I don’t know what that means in terms of absolute quality, necessarily. I think the forehand ball striking and movement and net game and slicing from both guys in 2007 is every bit as good as the two guys in 23. And Fed’s serve, in absolute terms, dumps all over the serves of Djokovic and Alcaraz from this year’s Wimbledon.

I realize this is comparing two specific matches – it’s not unreasonable for Fed’s best match of 2007 to be superior to a middling match from Novak in 2023, even if on average 2023 Novak is considerably better. But from a general day-to-day perspective, what adjustments, exactly, would 2007 Federer need to make to hang with the top guys today? Is it really just a matter of more consistently assertive backhand ballstriking? His serve could hang with anyone. His first serve return could hang with anyone. His movement is better than most of the top 10 today. His slice and net game are better than most of the top 10 today. Or is it that top players, on average, just hit with more pace and spin today and so he would need time to adjust his baseline mechanics? I could buy that to an extent, but also based on how 07 Fed dealt with the hardest and heaviest hitters of his day, I don’t think he would be a fish out of water even if he’s facing that level of heavy hitting more frequently than he did 15 years ago.
Click to expand...
lol he's not, don't eat the crap these guys are feeding you.
 
tudwell said:
I watched the 2013 Roland Garros semi in full the other day and I really didn’t see anything that looked like it would be out of place in today’s game. I’d be curious if someone else has a different opinion. It looks to me like it could’ve been played yesterday between the two best players in the world. The depth from Djokovic isn’t any less than it is now, the ball striking from Nadal is just as good as any other top player you’d see today (probably better). And I don’t think that was a particular outlier from them either, given their normal form at the time. It was unusually aggressive in tactics, perhaps, with both players moving the ball around at the first opportunity (hardly a neutral cross-court rally to be seen). But within that framework it’s even a bit sloppy from both players at times. It’s not like they were redlining their games (with the exception of Nadal in the fifth set) and so we’re comparing the most extreme of outliers from 10 years ago to the standard level of today. I think the two of them from back then would need no adjustment period whatsoever to hang with the best of today.

I realize I’m looking at the two best players and am not trying to refute the idea that the average top 100 player now is better than the average top 100 player ten-fifteen years ago. I also realize I’m looking only ten years back while most people in this thread are focused on 15-20 years. But that brings up the point: If the two best players in the world were just as good 10 years ago, then at what point were they considerably worse? 2007? I also incidentally was comparing bits and pieces (not highlights but sizable chunks of the matches) of the 2007 and 2023 Wimbledon finals. I’ll admit the rally dynamics with Federer’s backhand do start to look like a different era. I don’t know what that means in terms of absolute quality, necessarily. I think the forehand ball striking and movement and net game and slicing from both guys in 2007 is every bit as good as the two guys in 23. And Fed’s serve, in absolute terms, dumps all over the serves of Djokovic and Alcaraz from this year’s Wimbledon.

I realize this is comparing two specific matches – it’s not unreasonable for Fed’s best match of 2007 to be superior to a middling match from Novak in 2023, even if on average 2023 Novak is considerably better. But from a general day-to-day perspective, what adjustments, exactly, would 2007 Federer need to make to hang with the top guys today? Is it really just a matter of more consistently assertive backhand ballstriking? His serve could hang with anyone. His first serve return could hang with anyone. His movement is better than most of the top 10 today. His slice and net game are better than most of the top 10 today. Or is it that top players, on average, just hit with more pace and spin today and so he would need time to adjust his baseline mechanics? I could buy that to an extent, but also based on how 07 Fed dealt with the hardest and heaviest hitters of his day, I don’t think he would be a fish out of water even if he’s facing that level of heavy hitting more frequently than he did 15 years ago.
Click to expand...
First minute of highlights is Djokovic losing like 3 points cause he made weak net approaches. He also gets owned completely from offensive backhand positions time and time again.

Like, the quality of their groundstrokes and their speed is absolutely top notch, and especially Djokovic' backhand isn't the monster it was back then anymore, but the game is still very different.
 
NatF said:
I think it's far from a given 2021 Fed makes the 4R at the FO in 2004 or the QF at Wimbledon. So how much has tennis really moved on?
Click to expand...
Don't know I tend to agree with Krag about players 15-100 being on average better than ever but nobody on the top being on the level the big 3 were as a combined trio for so long.

Perhaps RG 04 and some other tournaments was a instance were the ranked 15-100 were indeed a lot stronger in that event. I don't think it's possible whatever you narrative is a match or tournament could always be better regardless the year unless you are really extreme.
 
RS said:
Don't know I tend to agree with Krag about players 15-100 being on average better than ever but nobody on the top being on the level the big 3 were as a combined trio for so long.

Perhaps RG 04 and some other tournaments was a instance were the ranked 15-100 were indeed a lot stronger in that event. I don't think it's possible whatever you narrative is a match or tournament could always be better regardless the year unless you are really extreme.
Click to expand...
I agree with that too, just think it doesn't makes up for the weakness at the top...
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS
NatF said:
I agree with that too, just think it doesn't makes up for the weakness at the top...
Click to expand...
Most people do put the Big 3 years top for that reason and there usually is a cutoff but interestingly in this people are stretching as far as the big 3.
 
Red Rick said:
First minute of highlights is Djokovic losing like 3 points cause he made weak net approaches. He also gets owned completely from offensive backhand positions time and time again.

Like, the quality of their groundstrokes and their speed is absolutely top notch, and especially Djokovic' backhand isn't the monster it was back then anymore, but the game is still very different.
Click to expand...
It is impossible to hit perfect shots all the time tbf even in a match like the RG 13 SF.
 
Red Rick said:
First minute of highlights is Djokovic losing like 3 points cause he made weak net approaches. He also gets owned completely from offensive backhand positions time and time again.

Like, the quality of their groundstrokes and their speed is absolutely top notch, and especially Djokovic' backhand isn't the monster it was back then anymore, but the game is still very different.
Click to expand...
I don't mean to be pedantic or anything but I don't really know exactly what you're trying to say here.

1. Do you mean to imply that Djokovic generally hits stronger approach shots now than he did in 2013? Or that top players more broadly hit better approach shots than they did 10 years ago? It's not like Novak never makes weak approaches now - one pretty much lost him the Wimbledon final.

2. Are you saying Djokovic, from an offensive position on the backhand side, gets owned completely by Nadal? Because that's just, like, par for the course playing Nadal on clay. I can't think of anyone ever who could consistently, throughout a match, outmaneuver Nadal on clay using their backhand (other than maybe in a year like 2015). Would 2023 Novak - or any other player in 2023 - do any better than 2013 Novak's "monster" backhand did here?

3. "the game is still very different." In what ways? I'm genuinely curious here. What am I not seeing? What do top players do now that Djokovic and Nadal aren't doing in this 2013 match? It's not a matter of depth, right? Spin rates? Pace? Net play? General tactical approach? Form on various strokes?
 
tudwell said:
I don't mean to be pedantic or anything but I don't really know exactly what you're trying to say here.

1. Do you mean to imply that Djokovic generally hits stronger approach shots now than he did in 2013? Or that top players more broadly hit better approach shots than they did 10 years ago? It's not like Novak never makes weak approaches now - one pretty much lost him the Wimbledon final.

2. Are you saying Djokovic, from an offensive position on the backhand side, gets owned completely by Nadal? Because that's just, like, par for the course playing Nadal on clay. I can't think of anyone ever who could consistently, throughout a match, outmaneuver Nadal on clay using their backhand (other than maybe in a year like 2015). Would 2023 Novak - or any other player in 2023 - do any better than 2013 Novak's "monster" backhand did here?

3. "the game is still very different." In what ways? I'm genuinely curious here. What am I not seeing? What do top players do now that Djokovic and Nadal aren't doing in this 2013 match? It's not a matter of depth, right? Spin rates? Pace? Net play? General tactical approach? Form on various strokes?
Click to expand...
I'm mainly talking about overall baseline strategy. In this match there's still a lot of "I'm standing inside the court I get a short ball so I'll just hit an approach shot" failing to realise that players had become very good at running passings when still balanced. That's also the position where Djokovic got owned a lto on his backhand side. He would be ahead in the rally, with the initiative, get some shorter angled ball on the backhand, and then often just hit an approach shot or drop shot and not really knowing how to proceed in that point. Nowadays he would likely hit a deep backhand either cross or down the line in a way that it cedes maybe some initiative but that it enables him to recover his position.
 
Third Serve said:
There's a common argument that tennis is in a state of continuous evolution whereby one batch of players is better than the previous batch of players and will be superseded by the next batch of players. In essence, the sport is always refining and perfecting itself.
Click to expand...

Evolution just means change, not improvement. The biggest shifts in tennis were caused by changes in the tour, specifically the business side of tennis: corporations imposing on the game alterations that they feel would make them more money. Since the Open Era began, players have done their best adapting to rapidly changing circumstances outside of their control. Those who adapted best in the 70s and 80s were those who were most entrepreneurial, always looking for the next thing (equipment or otherwise) that would give them the advantage. In the 1990s this was largely true as well when early adopters of poly strings saw the best results.

Since 1990 the tour has largely standardized, partly to give the players a less hectic experience, and although there have been changes they have been less drastic than in the 70s and 80s. Since the early 2000s (when the poly strings were widely adopted), the game has changed relatively little in terms of style and matches look mostly the same. The game's best players in the last two decades have been the big beneficiaries of this "quiet period" of the past two decades: Federer, Djokovic, Nadal in particular -- none of whom have had to wrestle with much upheaval on the tour, while also benefitting from the homogenization of surfaces. Their longevity and continued success owes much to these circumstances.

The "organic evolution" perspective is a banality I don't subscribe to. Nothing about professional sports is organic. The bigger side of the game is the business side. Most change happens due to corporate-economic circumstances and is spearheaded by wealthy business interests in dialogue with other governing bodies and players. Tennis is becoming more change-averse now and things are more stable and consistent for players. 20 years that passed between 1973 and 1993 felt like a massive amount of time. Conversely 2003 to 2023 feels like relatively little has happened.

If you look at other sports, you'll see the same patterns. A conservative tradition-oriented sport like baseball, particularly Major League Baseball, doesn't undergo major changes like tennis did, the sole exception being the steroid years (which were since curbed). But otherwise the equipment has stayed the same: bats, gloves, uniforms. You can imagine Mickey Mantle still dominating today. What he did with his bat in the 50s he'd still do today. The nature of pitching has changed, but that's largely due to coaching philosophies about the risk of injuries and the economics of paying $200 million to a guy who might blow out his arm tomorrow. But the game has been pretty much the same for decades upon decades. No one today runs faster than Rickey Henderson or hits the ball harder than Babe Ruth. They could switch to aluminum bats tomorrow and players will hit many more home runs and you can be assured someone will claim that this is proof of "evolution" and players getting bigger and stronger because they're drinking special milkshakes or some nonsense like that. The real big changes are corporate-economic. The NBA also changed in the past three decades, becoming a less physical rough-and-tumble sport, and one more focused on long-range shooting skill, and this was all done by design by the commissioner and the corporate interests at play because this was the business model they wanted. The business side of sport is what changes the sport.
 
Football is just the best team hog all the best players so many players look better than they are. It wasn't like this 15 years ago.
 
Red Rick said:
I'm mainly talking about overall baseline strategy. In this match there's still a lot of "I'm standing inside the court I get a short ball so I'll just hit an approach shot" failing to realise that players had become very good at running passings when still balanced. That's also the position where Djokovic got owned a lto on his backhand side. He would be ahead in the rally, with the initiative, get some shorter angled ball on the backhand, and then often just hit an approach shot or drop shot and not really knowing how to proceed in that point. Nowadays he would likely hit a deep backhand either cross or down the line in a way that it cedes maybe some initiative but that it enables him to recover his position.
Click to expand...
Ah I see what you mean. Thanks for clarifying. I’m not sure I really agree – I certainly don’t think Djokovic failed to realize, in 2013, that Nadal was good at passing shots lol. And that same position, the short ball to the backhand, flummoxed him throughout his career against Nadal on clay. I remember a lot of rallies early on (08, 09) where Novak went for a hard cross-court shot there, prepared to retreat to the baseline, and got burned up the line by Nadal – either a clean forehand winner from Nadal or a scrambling, back-foot shot from Novak to cede control of the rally.

Was he better at handling that situation in recent years? Maybe. Though surely some of that is down to Nadal’s reduced foot speed. Rafa wasn’t as good at defending, so Novak had more options at his disposal. He didn’t have to be as perfect. And incidentally, he still hit plenty of bad droppers. Consider this from Waspsting’s analysis of their 2021 match:

“Serving at 5-6, Djoko’s down break and set point. A rally develops and Djoko pulls out his BH drop shot. You can count on one hand the number of matches where Djoko wins more points than he loses drop shotting Nadal on clay and this match is no different. When Djoko plays the shot, he’d won 1/10 points in the match going for BH drop shot. All that matters is on this point, he makes it for a winner. He misses another one early in tiebreak from well inside court shortly after, and finishes match winning 4/15 points won when going for it (also 1/1 with FH drop shot).”

15 different points in four sets, Djokovic hit a backhand dropper. And that’s a match he won! And he blew his break lead in the fourth set in 2022 with some poor shot selection in that short-ball-to-the-backhand position, including a drop shot Nadal returned for a winner. According to Tennis Abstract, he hit 15 backhand droppers (winning 40%) in 2022 as well, compared to just 11 (winning 55%) across five sets in 2013. Maybe on average he’s better now at dealing with that situation than he was in 2013, but it’s not, like, night and day. He still goes for dumb droppers – more now, actually, than 10 years ago. And obviously that’s just one facet of baseline play and strategy.
 
Last edited:
McGradey said:
This upload came right on cue for this thread.

Anyone think this level wouldn’t hold up to the rigours of 2023?

Click to expand...
I enjoyed that!
I didn't watch as much tennis back then as I do now, and have to admit that I'd kind of forgotten how great Nalbandian could play. Federer is still ingrained in memory.
The average quality and variation, court usage, and creativity in that video was pretty amazing.
Only thing that perhaps, and I stress perhaps, stood out a little for me in a less favourable way compared to today was the speed and quality of serves?
 
Halfdan said:
Only thing that perhaps, and I stress perhaps, stood out a little for me in a less favourable way compared to today was the speed and quality of serves?
Click to expand...
Yep, Nalbandian’s serve was middling at best. Fed’s was all about the placement and variation — he had more than sufficient pace but wasn’t ‘express’.
 
CyBorg said:
Evolution just means change, not improvement. The biggest shifts in tennis were caused by changes in the tour, specifically the business side of tennis: corporations imposing on the game alterations that they feel would make them more money. Since the Open Era began, players have done their best adapting to rapidly changing circumstances outside of their control. Those who adapted best in the 70s and 80s were those who were most entrepreneurial, always looking for the next thing (equipment or otherwise) that would give them the advantage. In the 1990s this was largely true as well when early adopters of poly strings saw the best results.

Since 1990 the tour has largely standardized, partly to give the players a less hectic experience, and although there have been changes they have been less drastic than in the 70s and 80s. Since the early 2000s (when the poly strings were widely adopted), the game has changed relatively little in terms of style and matches look mostly the same. The game's best players in the last two decades have been the big beneficiaries of this "quiet period" of the past two decades: Federer, Djokovic, Nadal in particular -- none of whom have had to wrestle with much upheaval on the tour, while also benefitting from the homogenization of surfaces. Their longevity and continued success owes much to these circumstances.

The "organic evolution" perspective is a banality I don't subscribe to. Nothing about professional sports is organic. The bigger side of the game is the business side. Most change happens due to corporate-economic circumstances and is spearheaded by wealthy business interests in dialogue with other governing bodies and players. Tennis is becoming more change-averse now and things are more stable and consistent for players. 20 years that passed between 1973 and 1993 felt like a massive amount of time. Conversely 2003 to 2023 feels like relatively little has happened.

If you look at other sports, you'll see the same patterns. A conservative tradition-oriented sport like baseball, particularly Major League Baseball, doesn't undergo major changes like tennis did, the sole exception being the steroid years (which were since curbed). But otherwise the equipment has stayed the same: bats, gloves, uniforms. You can imagine Mickey Mantle still dominating today. What he did with his bat in the 50s he'd still do today. The nature of pitching has changed, but that's largely due to coaching philosophies about the risk of injuries and the economics of paying $200 million to a guy who might blow out his arm tomorrow. But the game has been pretty much the same for decades upon decades. No one today runs faster than Rickey Henderson or hits the ball harder than Babe Ruth. They could switch to aluminum bats tomorrow and players will hit many more home runs and you can be assured someone will claim that this is proof of "evolution" and players getting bigger and stronger because they're drinking special milkshakes or some nonsense like that. The real big changes are corporate-economic. The NBA also changed in the past three decades, becoming a less physical rough-and-tumble sport, and one more focused on long-range shooting skill, and this was all done by design by the commissioner and the corporate interests at play because this was the business model they wanted. The business side of sport is what changes the sport.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised this post is getting so much support when it's so clearly wrong. There is obviously an extent to which organizations and rule changes drive changes in sports and there are times when players gain advantages by utilizing these changes but players and coaches themselves are the biggest drivers of change.

If you went back in time grabbed peak Mickey Mantle out of the 50s and put him on LSU he would struggle to compete with college competition leave alone the pros. Pitchers now throw harder, smarter, and with more spin than they did in the 1950s theres absolutely no comparison. The average fastball last year was over 95 mph. 20 years ago it was in the high 80s. Can you imagine what it was in the 50s another 50 years ago? Today's pitchers also pitch on a lower mound so add another couple ticks compared to the 50s guys. And that's not even the biggest change. Have you seen the movement today's pitchers are able to achieve it's absolutely outrageous. Do you think they were talking about how to manipulate seam shifted wake for more movement in 1950 or not? I'm gonna go with no. In today's game we have Adonises like Luis Robert who's all of 6'2" 220 pounds covering more ground in CF than Mantle could dream of. He hit a ball over 115 mph and hit a top speed of 20 mph on the basepaths and he probably topped that in the field. He would be an alien in 1950.

Babe Ruth ate 6000 calories a day mostly in hot dogs and steaks chainsmoked on the sidelines was a massive alcoholic and was constantly partying and sleeping with prostitutes and he dominated professional baseball. How is this possible? Because the level of professionalism in the game during his time doesn't even compare to today. He would never even sniff the lowest level of minor league baseball if we teleported him to today.

Again with the NBA the changes were driven by amazing players and smart coaching. Eventually teams figured out that slow half court offense built around post ups and isolations was inefficient. Getting out in transition is the best way to score and spacing the game out allows for your best players to have the most impact on offense and of course 3>2. Thus pace and space was born driven largely by Nash and D'Antoni and perfected by Kerr and Curry. It wasn't the rules. It was the game moving closer and closer to its platonic ideal over time aided by greater talent. Same thing in baseball with the move towards three true outcome hitting the death of the volume starter and emphasis on power pitching. The 2023 Nuggets would trounce any team from the 2003 NBA. Just the way of the world.
 
Last edited:
The Guru said:
I'm surprised this post is getting so much support when it's so clearly wrong. There is obviously an extent to which organizations and rule changes drive changes in sports and there are times when players gain advantages by utilizing these changes but players and coaches themselves are the biggest drivers of change.

If you went back in time grabbed peak Mickey Mantle out of the 50s and put him on LSU he would struggle to compete with college competition leave alone the pros. Pitchers now throw harder, smarter, and with more spin than they did in the 1950s theres absolutely no comparison. The average fastball last year was over 95 mph. 20 years ago it was in the high 80s. Can you imagine what it was in the 50s another 50 years ago? Today's pitchers also pitch on a lower mound so add another couple ticks compared to the 50s guys. And that's not even the biggest change. Have you seen the movement today's pitchers are able to achieve it's absolutely outrageous. Do you think they were talking about how to manipulate seam shifted wake for more movement in 1950 or not? I'm gonna go with no. In today's game we have Adonises like Luis Robert who's all of 6'2" 220 pounds covering more ground in CF than Mantle could dream of. He hit a ball over 115 mph and hit a top speed of 20 mph on the basepaths and he probably topped that in the field. He would be an alien in 1950.

Babe Ruth ate 6000 calories a day mostly in hot dogs and steaks chainsmoked on the sidelines was a massive alcoholic and was constantly partying and sleeping with prostitutes and he dominated professional baseball. How is this possible? Because the level of professionalism in the game during his time doesn't even compare to today. He would never even sniff the lowest level of minor league baseball if we teleported him to today.

Again with the NBA the changes were driven by amazing players and smart coaching. Eventually teams figured out that slow half court offense built around post ups and isolations was inefficient. Getting out in transition is the best way to score and spacing the game out allows for your best players to have the most impact on offense and of course 3>2. Thus pace and space was born driven largely by Nash and D'Antoni and perfected by Kerr and Curry. It wasn't the rules. It was the game moving closer and closer to its platonic ideal over time aided by greater talent. Same thing in baseball with the move towards three true outcome hitting the death of the volume starter and emphasis on power pitching. The 2023 Nuggets would trounce any team from the 2003 NBA. Just the way of the world.
Click to expand...
In Basketball is this a agreed opon take?
 
RS said:
In Basketball is this a agreed opon take?
Click to expand...
Amongst non-casuals. All sports have heads buried in the sands it was better back in the good old days fans but go on the player comparisons board of RealGM and ask and there will be overwhelming consensus. Same would be true of any front office analyst who works for any of the 30 NBA teams if you could ask one of them. In my experience, it's only tennis where people don't overwhelmingly believe the athletes are better now than they've ever been before. Probably because it's true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS
The Guru said:
Amongst non-casuals. All sports have heads buried in the sands it was better back in the good old days fans but go on the player comparisons board of RealGM and ask and there will be overwhelming consensus. Same would be true of any front office analyst who works for any of the 30 NBA teams if you could ask one of them. In my experience, it's only tennis where people don't overwhelmingly believe the athletes are better now than they've ever been before. Probably because it's true.
Click to expand...
I haven't noticed if it happens among tennis fans more than other sports. Maybe though.

Anyway I think even in tennis terms it's more common that you think I have seen it argued endlessly even in tennis terms. I don't think people are actually denying that the average tennis player across the whole Top 20/30/50/100/200 etc is better than in the past they are just questioning the strength of the top compared to when we had all the big 3 in top form who you agree are exceptions and have extended the rule more than the norm.
 
Last edited:
RS said:
In Basketball is this a agreed opon take?
Click to expand...
Absolutely not. Jordan fans are constantly talking about how soft the current NBA is and how these pretty boys wouldn’t be able to survive in the 90s. The Jordan fanboys somehow all believe basketball peaked in the 1990s and has now been ruined.

Jordan idolatry mixed with LeBron hatred has literally ruined the way an entire generation views basketball.

Basketball fans are just like tennis fans calling everyone a weak era mug who couldn’t survive in the epic 90s. The irony of saying LeBron who is arguably the most physically imposing player of all time would struggle with physicality is hilarious of course.
 
The Guru said:
I'm surprised this post is getting so much support when it's so clearly wrong. There is obviously an extent to which organizations and rule changes drive changes in sports and there are times when players gain advantages by utilizing these changes but players and coaches themselves are the biggest drivers of change.

If you went back in time grabbed peak Mickey Mantle out of the 50s and put him on LSU he would struggle to compete with college competition leave alone the pros. Pitchers now throw harder, smarter, and with more spin than they did in the 1950s theres absolutely no comparison. The average fastball last year was over 95 mph. 20 years ago it was in the high 80s. Can you imagine what it was in the 50s another 50 years ago? Today's pitchers also pitch on a lower mound so add another couple ticks compared to the 50s guys. And that's not even the biggest change. Have you seen the movement today's pitchers are able to achieve it's absolutely outrageous. Do you think they were talking about how to manipulate seam shifted wake for more movement in 1950 or not? I'm gonna go with no. In today's game we have Adonises like Luis Robert who's all of 6'2" 220 pounds covering more ground in CF than Mantle could dream of. He hit a ball over 115 mph and hit a top speed of 20 mph on the basepaths and he probably topped that in the field. He would be an alien in 1950.

Babe Ruth ate 6000 calories a day mostly in hot dogs and steaks chainsmoked on the sidelines was a massive alcoholic and was constantly partying and sleeping with prostitutes and he dominated professional baseball. How is this possible? Because the level of professionalism in the game during his time doesn't even compare to today. He would never even sniff the lowest level of minor league baseball if we teleported him to today.

Again with the NBA the changes were driven by amazing players and smart coaching. Eventually teams figured out that slow half court offense built around post ups and isolations was inefficient. Getting out in transition is the best way to score and spacing the game out allows for your best players to have the most impact on offense and of course 3>2. Thus pace and space was born driven largely by Nash and D'Antoni and perfected by Kerr and Curry. It wasn't the rules. It was the game moving closer and closer to its platonic ideal over time aided by greater talent. Same thing in baseball with the move towards three true outcome hitting the death of the volume starter and emphasis on power pitching. The 2023 Nuggets would trounce any team from the 2003 NBA. Just the way of the world.
Click to expand...

Great Post, 100% agreed, athletes keep getting better over 15 years time on an average.

Thats why I am not a fan of plucking someone from the distant past and making them play in the present, it would always be a lost cause.

If we bring 31 year old Sampras (of 2002) to 2012 to play 31 year old Federer then will result in Sampras getting smoked due to poor fitness and obsolete playing style.

However if we bring 1971 Sampras to 1981, and then make him grow up with Federer, now you are looking at a legit clash of equals in 2012 when they are both 31.
 
Last edited:
Bambooman said:
They would have kept playing if their old style was so good.
Click to expand...
What is the 'evolution' really? Seems like slower courts, slower balls and slightly more spinny strings are the main change. Given that Steffi won 6 RG against players in the first moon-ball era, I don't think she would have struggled to adapt to today's slow game, and obviously her fitness was superior. Good players are just good players, any era.
 
Kralingen said:
Absolutely not. Jordan fans are constantly talking about how soft the current NBA is and how these pretty boys wouldn’t be able to survive in the 90s. The Jordan fanboys somehow all believe basketball peaked in the 1990s and has now been ruined.

Jordan idolatry mixed with LeBron hatred has literally ruined the way an entire generation views basketball.

Basketball fans are just like tennis fans calling everyone a weak era mug who couldn’t survive in the epic 90s. The irony of saying LeBron who is arguably the most physically imposing player of all time would struggle with physicality is hilarious of course.
Click to expand...
I am very limited on Basketball knowledge but this is what I have observed from the little I have seen on debates.
 
I secretly think Mayweather would beat Ray Robinson but the later is still miles greater.
 
It's kind of funny how some sports truly trash players from the past, while other sports treat them like deities. Here's what I've seen from several goat lists that I've looked at and the comments. Note: I don't necessarily agree with a lot of them. But this is just my observation:

Hoops: The GOAT is either MJ or Lebron on 95% of the lists I've seen. Nobody is close, although Kareem often occupies the #3 spot. Wilt Chamberlain was said to have played against milkmen and plumbers, so he usually misses the top-5; despite his ridiculous stats and athleticism.

hockey: Gretzky occupies the #1 spot, with Orr and Howe battling for #2.

baseball: Babe Ruth, who peaked 100 years ago, occupies the #1 spot. Wilie Mays and Hank Aaron from 60 years ago are usually in the top 5, as is Ty Cobb(peaked 110 years ago). Barry Bonds is usually in the top 5 as well. I haven't seen a modern player(someone that has played in the last 15 years) crack the top 10 list

American football: Tom Brady usually tops these lists. But you'll get players like Jerry Rice(peaked in the 1980s), Jim Brown(peaked 65 years ago), and Joe Montana(peaked 35 years ago) make the top 5 list. American football seems to have an even mix among generations to make their lists)

Tennis: The Big 3 dominant the top 3 spots on the goat list, with Laver and Sampras competing for #4 on most lists. I don't see guys like Tilden or even Pancho make the top 4 ever. They are usually struggling to make the top 10.

Baseball is the funny one. Players from 50+ years ago dominant most goat lists in that sport. I never understood that.
 
Like are betting on Rocky Marciano and Jack Dempsey to even beat a Razor Ruddock or that they can crack harder than him. And Marciano and Dempsey are miles greater maybe that's even a understatement.
 
RS said:
Like are betting on Rocky Marciano and Jack Dempsey to even beat a Razor Ruddock or that they can crack harder than him. And Marciano and Dempsey are miles greater maybe that's even a understatement.
Click to expand...
Razor Ruddock beats Fury.
 
Tyson Fury led the weakest heavyweight division in history. Its sewer level standard makes Wlad's time on top feel like fine dining.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS
Like how many guys from the 40s and 50s would even beat a David Haye or Alexander Povetkin? They are not even historically considered great but we rinse them for being mugs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

aman92
How much has Tennis actually evolved over the past 20 years?
Replies
36
Views
725
The Guru
The Guru
NatF
Thank you Fognini: How much has tennis actually evolved? Redux.
11 12 13
Replies
644
Views
21K
TheFifthSet
TheFifthSet
aman92
20 years on - Has Tennis really evolved?
Replies
19
Views
720
TheGoldenEra1990’s
TheGoldenEra1990’s
D
Tennis has not evolved a great deal since 2000
2 3 4
Replies
183
Views
13K
RacquetAbuse101
RacquetAbuse101
Raining hopes
Tennis truly has evolved.
Replies
39
Views
3K
WhiskeyEE
WhiskeyEE
Back
Top