I dont buy this "evolution of tennis" theory saying today's guys are better athletes

[DoubleDeuce]

The fact is in 2000, the Hewitt era for lack of a better term, the top 100 was significantly smaller than the early/mid 90's, and it has taken until the last year or two for the taller guys to reassert themselves. So that's just a false assumption stated as fact.

Who's bigger, stronger, faster than who?

Let's look at some examples in the top tier guys today:

Bigger: Davydenko? What top guys from the past is he bigger than?
Stronger: Simon? Who is he stronger than from the past?
Faster: Roddick? What top guys is he faster or more agile than?
Fitter: Nalbandian?

Is Fed the fastest guy playing today? Is he faster than Sampras or Borg? Were they or Laver in his day the fastest, biggest or strongest of even within their own eras? Don't let "Rocket" fool you, it was the sarcastic nickname assigned him by Hopman for what Laver wasn't. There were guys faster than both Borg and Sampras within their respective eras.

Strength? It's a nice AND to have but has never been a prerequisite for success and unless Federer, Simon and Davydenko possess "Spidey Strength" obviously still isn't a deciding factor today.

Speed? Roddick has been a top contender in this decade and is below average in terms of speed and agility. Movement is simply a liability for him yet he remains a viable contender among quicker more nimble opponents.

Height? What guys are exploiting the height they may have and which one's shutting out the under 6 footers today?

So even within this generation the claim that smaller, slower, less physically imposing players are being outclassed by behemoths is untrue. They still survive (and better) among their peers who may be bigger and stronger than themselves, but that is no different than any preceding generation. So where's the big change?

The game is faster? Than when? When Laver won his slams and three of the four Majors were still played on real grass? Or in Sampras's era when even after they first introduced slower balls at Wimbledon but still hadn't slowed the surface. Or before the first of two surface slow downs at the US Open and preceding warm up events in 2001 and 2003. Or before all but eliminating carpet from the schedule? Players swing harder off the ground and the ball may, repeat may, leave string beds at higher speeds today, which is doubtful in that there were many more "flat" pure ball strikers in the 80's and 90's, but the major difference is how balls check up and hang after the bounce now. That means slower playing conditions not faster. In fact the ATP and other powers that be would be shocked to learn that all their efforts to slow the game down went for naught. No the game is not faster.

If the claim that players from the past couldn't compete today because the athletes are bigger/stronger/faster it is based on nothing but a false belief. If the claim is that technology makes guys better today, someone needs to go check Fed's stick, which is closer to 80's tech than the peers he dominated the four years prior to this. If it was based on none of the above just check AA's record against everyone of these other bigger/stronger/faster players not named Fed or Nadal in the winter of his career. There's a reason a Blake is #10 today and never made a bigger splash early in his career. He was never a truly elite, all-timer, yet he is just outside looking in, again.

Look back through history and you'll find that if anything there is more evidence to support a greater connect between the extreme top tier guys, 2 or 3 from each generation, across generational lines, than there is between them and draw fillers of each, and draw fillers tend to be just that, draw fillers from generation to generation. Gonzalez could beat Laver, Laver could beat Borg, Borg beat Lendl, Lendl beat Edberg and Becker, Edberg and Becker traded wins with Sampras, Sampras traded wins with Kuerten and Safin and Agassi hung around to play Hewitt, Roddick and Safin to a standstill at the very end of his career while continuing to reach late rounds.

Eventually the prior generation loses motivation and focus, injures out and or merely retire and their successors inherit the realm, with a name or two, dominating their own generations.

There is no historical evidence to support a claim that any "next group" as a whole outclasses the prior generation's elite. It has never happened. Not once. Not ever.

While everyone is entitled to their own opinion I'd be interested in hearing what it is based on other than re-stating of unsupported claims of bigger/stronger/faster, etc.

5

FiveO,

You bring up good points, I liked your davy, simon, rodick, nalby examples. The bigger claim is just false and out of the question for me. Regarding Faster, I do believe it is something that requires special talent as wells as training, athletes from the past could be faster than today's and some slower than today's. However I do believe today athletes are stronger. When I say stronger not as in lifting weight. Stronger specifically in the fields they are trained for. They are stronger not because of the muscles they built, but the way they use those muscles. Today athletes have a better understanding of their bodies and hence can make better use of its potentials. Improvement in science and medicine has helped them improve in ways it was not possible before. Over all, I believe today athletes need to be smarter and more focused than before because the level of competition in today's sports demands it.

Let me make something clear though. I am not saying Djokovic, for example, is better than Laver. I am saying he is stronger and smarter in regards to the game of tennis because of the type of training he has had. "Better" is unclear, we haven't specified a definition for "better" in here.

In a imaginary world, if laver and djok were both 8 years old, and then received tennis training for 10 years according to those years knowledge and expectations of the game, and then had several matches in a certain lenght of time then maybe I would be able to say who is better.

In another imaginary world, let's say you could bring a 21 year old Laver to this date in a back to future fashion (and let's assume ever since laver days tennis rules required everyone to play with the same rackets and other equipments) then I bet you Serena Williams would wolf him down alive. It is the "mind" of the athletes that see the whole game in a different type of frame and this is their strengths.

As I said before in this thread, no Serena or Federer would be who they are now unless Lavers and Lendls showed up first. And this is how the "the frame of mind" of a tennis player has developed.

 

[bet]

The fact is in 2000, the Hewitt era for lack of a better term, the top 100 was significantly smaller than the early/mid 90's, and it has taken until the last year or two for the taller guys to reassert themselves. So that's just a false assumption stated as fact.

Who's bigger, stronger, faster than who?

Let's look at some examples in the top tier guys today:

Bigger: Davydenko? What top guys from the past is he bigger than?
Stronger: Simon? Who is he stronger than from the past?
Faster: Roddick? What top guys is he faster or more agile than?
Fitter: Nalbandian?

Is Fed the fastest guy playing today? Is he faster than Sampras or Borg? Were they or Laver in his day the fastest, biggest or strongest of even within their own eras? Don't let "Rocket" fool you, it was the sarcastic nickname assigned him by Hopman for what Laver wasn't. There were guys faster than both Borg and Sampras within their respective eras.

Strength? It's a nice AND to have but has never been a prerequisite for success and unless Federer, Simon and Davydenko possess "Spidey Strength" obviously still isn't a deciding factor today.

Speed? Roddick has been a top contender in this decade and is below average in terms of speed and agility. Movement is simply a liability for him yet he remains a viable contender among quicker more nimble opponents.

Height? What guys are exploiting the height they may have and which one's shutting out the under 6 footers today?

So even within this generation the claim that smaller, slower, less physically imposing players are being outclassed by behemoths is untrue. They still survive (and better) among their peers who may be bigger and stronger than themselves, but that is no different than any preceding generation. So where's the big change?

The game is faster? Than when? When Laver won his slams and three of the four Majors were still played on real grass? Or in Sampras's era when even after they first introduced slower balls at Wimbledon but still hadn't slowed the surface. Or before the first of two surface slow downs at the US Open and preceding warm up events in 2001 and 2003. Or before all but eliminating carpet from the schedule? Players swing harder off the ground and the ball may, repeat may, leave string beds at higher speeds today, which is doubtful in that there were many more "flat" pure ball strikers in the 80's and 90's, but the major difference is how balls check up and hang after the bounce now. That means slower playing conditions not faster. In fact the ATP and other powers that be would be shocked to learn that all their efforts to slow the game down went for naught. No the game is not faster.

If the claim that players from the past couldn't compete today because the athletes are bigger/stronger/faster it is based on nothing but a false belief. If the claim is that technology makes guys better today, someone needs to go check Fed's stick, which is closer to 80's tech than the peers he dominated the four years prior to this. If it was based on none of the above just check AA's record against everyone of these other bigger/stronger/faster players not named Fed or Nadal in the winter of his career. There's a reason a Blake is #10 today and never made a bigger splash early in his career. He was never a truly elite, all-timer, yet he is just outside looking in, again.

Look back through history and you'll find that if anything there is more evidence to support a greater connect between the extreme top tier guys, 2 or 3 from each generation, across generational lines, than there is between them and draw fillers of each, and draw fillers tend to be just that, draw fillers from generation to generation. Gonzalez could beat Laver, Laver could beat Borg, Borg beat Lendl, Lendl beat Edberg and Becker, Edberg and Becker traded wins with Sampras, Sampras traded wins with Kuerten and Safin and Agassi hung around to play Hewitt, Roddick and Safin to a standstill at the very end of his career while continuing to reach late rounds.

Eventually the prior generation loses motivation and focus, injures out and or merely retire and their successors inherit the realm, with a name or two, dominating their own generations.

There is no historical evidence to support a claim that any "next group" as a whole outclasses the prior generation's elite. It has never happened. Not once. Not ever.

While everyone is entitled to their own opinion I'd be interested in hearing what it is based on other than re-stating of unsupported claims of bigger/stronger/faster, etc.

5

DUDE ! SHUT $#%%! UP!!!!

You're using knowledge and combining it with common sense. That's NOT ALLOWED HERE. YOU should KNOW that by now.

You are spot on about just about everything, but again, I don't think is allowed here.

 

[FiveO]

FiveO,

You bring up good points, I liked your davy, simon, rodick, nalby examples. The bigger claim is just false and out of the question for me. Regarding Faster, I do believe it is something that requires special talent as wells as training, athletes from the past could be faster than today's and some slower than today's. However I do believe today athletes are stronger. When I say stronger not as in lifting weight. Stronger specifically in the fields they are trained for. They are stronger not because of the muscles they built, but the way they use those muscles. Today athletes have a better understanding of their bodies and hence can make better use of its potentials. Improvement in science and medicine has helped them improve in ways it was not possible before. Over all, I believe today athletes need to be smarter and more focused than before because the level of competition in today's sports demands it.

Let me make something clear though. I am not saying Djokovic, for example, is better than Laver. I am saying he is stronger and smarter in regards to the game of tennis because of the type of training he has had. "Better" is unclear, we haven't specified a definition for "better" in here.

In a imaginary world, if laver and djok were both 8 years old, and then received tennis training for 10 years according to those years knowledge and expectations of the game, and then had several matches in a certain lenght of time then maybe I would be able to say who is better.

In another imaginary world, let's say you could bring a 21 year old Laver to this date in a back to future fashion (and let's assume ever since laver days tennis rules required everyone to play with the same rackets and other equipments) then I bet you Serena Williams would wolf him down alive. It is the "mind" of the athletes that see the whole game in a different type of frame and this is their strengths.

As I said before in this thread, no Serena or Federer would be who they are now unless Lavers and Lendls showed up first. And this is how the "the frame of mind" of a tennis player has developed.

A well stated premise but if I'm understanding your major point, another with which I disagree. Before I get to that though your Laver/Djoker comparison as to "smarter" is ill advised. Watch Laver play the elites of one or two generations later, Connors and Borg for instance and you will see just how tactically lacking many to most of the current crop is.

When examining the history of the game, all of it, in totality, without saying one particular era is superior/inferior to another a pattern emerges. The repetitive theme is how divergent and intuitive the style of the absolute cream of each generation are to each other at the apex of the game and to the rest of their direct competitors.

Just looking at the Open era, while their are identifiable commonalities within generations and crossing them, the true elite of each generation put their own "spin" on things, so to speak. Laver hit with a markedly different style than his peers, and Rosewall still a force at that time struck the ball markedly different than Laver. The core elements are there but their ball striking styles were uniquely their own. Connors was so different no one quite knew what to make of it. However as styles tend to come and go his hitting style was very reminiscent of a player who would become a mentor, Pancho Segura, but in Connors day his approach was singular. Then Borg who was unlike anyone of his day but similar to Little Bill Johnston way back when and Nadal now. Then McEnroe, who other serve and volleyers bore little resemblance to. Then Lendl whose hitting style Ashe would describe as deforming the ball. But despite that Lendl did not make Connors obsolete, nor Borg, nor Mc.

By this time Human Kinetics, high speed film and slo-motion analysis are already common tools being applied to tennis training. Cross training from the likes of Olympic sprint coaches like Henry Hines are already being incorporated into the tennis syllabus. Probably the biggest change regarding fitness training came around this time when Navratilova hooked up with Robert Haas, who applied science to diet and performance in the early 80's, which was further validated when Lendl signed on with Haas in about 1984. But while science was already an integral part of tennis, the pattern of intuitive, off the reservation individuals continued.

Come Wilander, Becker and Edberg, all different than their predecessors and from each other. They were followed by the second generation Bollitieri disciples, lead by Courier and Agassi, again markedly different ball strikers than even Lendl. Their peers Chang and Sampras were different still.

The most recent cream of a more homogenized crop today are, again, unique from that whole, Federer and Nadal. The next best, Murray and Djoker, are again different still. It's a repetitive theme, generation to generation.

I've coached the sport for decades with students reaching fairly elite levels, D1 and several making short forays into the lower ranks of the pros, from a former hot-bed, now small pond tennis area of the US. While the bulk of the teaching is ABC core elements to average athletes, the real coaching of potentially very good players has more to do with recognizing a given talent and gently guiding him within his own unique interpretation of those core elements. At a certain level of development, which itself varies from athlete to athlete, the goal is to promote that player's arriving at a desired result in the way most inate to his/her genetic make-up within a broader outline than one might expect. Each athlete is unique, while there are commonalities a coach looks to ingrain in every player from ball striking to tactics and strategy from the onset, once those core elements are mastered the goal is to allow the player to hit and play as intuitively as possible.

Science is not the basis for how Federer or Nadal developed their fh hitting styles. In fact not in the least. After mastering a tennis foundation of core skills, they each found their individual routes to their unique ball striking technique. It is unlikely that either would be able to teach someone to hit with their singular styles. I am sure they do not burden themselves with such thoughts, and probably are less aware of the intracacies of their stroke techniques than a John Yandell, that is if they think about it at all.

The point is that despite OUR knowledge of what they do and how they do it is of no concern to them. Each elite player is as unique as a snowflake, their strengths/weaknesses of body and mind, their eyesight, their flexibility, every gene means their interpretation of each stroke is just as unique. While at the lower levels there are identifiable wrongs, and less efficient rights there are no such absolutes at the higher to elite levels of the sport, those hurdles are well behind them. What it doesn't mean is that juniors could, much less should have their "square" genes crammed into the "round" holes of some preceding great's playing template.

So the belief that there is an "okay, Agassi's fh was this good, and because we know this from our study of his stroke we'll take the next athletically gifted 5 year old and make his fh even better" is way off base. It doesn't happen that way nor should it. In fact the factory tennis meccas have probably done more harm than good to the bulk of tennis talent primarily in the US in that regard. Despite there being an inherent advantage of bringing better day in day out competition together, even if they have the presence of mind to avoid the pitfall of an assembly line, cookie cutter, one size fits all approach, kids will still tend to ape other kids to the good for some but more often toward wasted time and effort examining a bad fit. Imagine a Federer either being forced or attempting to adopt Nadal's game, or vice versa, and I think you can see the problem. Despite the science and the knowledge there is still no one right or absolute better way. There never has been there never will be. Different is different and may serve to be better for a given athlete in a given generation, it doesn't necessarily mean superior to the elite of a prior generation.

The intuitively diverse hitting styles of any era's truly elite players, including today's, combined with the knowledge that similarities in the hitting styles of the greatest players tend to be cyclical rather than linear, (as Federer's game style is more similar to Laver's than Sampras) imo belies any notion that a given era strikes balls more efficiently than the prior one. Differently? Yes. More efficiently? No, not at the levels we are discussing here.

5

 

[CyBorg]

Great post, Five-O. I can't believe just how immodest some of the highhanded claims are in this thread.

 

[CyBorg]

In another imaginary world, let's say you could bring a 21 year old Laver to this date in a back to future fashion (and let's assume ever since laver days tennis rules required everyone to play with the same rackets and other equipments) then I bet you Serena Williams would wolf him down alive. It is the "mind" of the athletes that see the whole game in a different type of frame and this is their strengths.

rofl

Sig-worthy.

 

[fastdunn]

The players in todays current game are bigger, stronger, faster, and the game it self faster.
Does that make todays players better athletes then players from years ago? Yes I think it does.
.

Today's top players are generally smaller than past players.
http://www.tennis28.com/charts/Player_Heights.GIF

Today's players may be well conditioned due to various advancements but the game is being played much slower because today's grass courts and hard courts are much slower than past.

 

[Tennis_Goodness]

I don't know what that is or where it came from, but today's players are phsycially much stronger!

I'll have to find the article or statistic but in 1993 only a handful of people served above 135. Now over 30 some players int he top one hundred can. That's not all just because of the tennis racquet technology!

 

[GameSampras]

Thats why its so difficult to compare the eras. Players like Laver and Sampras could adapt to this baseline bashing, slow court style if they grew up on it as well. And Serve-volley could still work today. No one did it better than those two IMO. Many cannot serve-volley today EFFECTIVELY. Its a higher risk game and you are certainly more proned to era and less consistency than the safe baseline game. Its takes much more skill than just senselessly bashing the ball from the baseline point after point. Talent is Talent. As for fitness, Pete kept his Thalassemia Minor hush hush for many years and that does cause Fatigue. Just defending Pete here a bit.

 

[380pistol]

I don't know what that is or where it came from, but today's players are phsycially much stronger!

I'll have to find the article or statistic but in 1993 only a handful of people served above 135. Now over 30 some players int he top one hundred can. That's not all just because of the tennis racquet technology!

Let me as you a simple question.....

In 1990 when Pete won the US Open his fastest serve of the tournament was 124mph (according to CBS).

Now in 1998 Sampras was hitting aces at 134 to 136mph.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/tennis/1998/wimbledon/news/1998/07/03/wimbledon_menadv/

This was the norm as in the US Open a few months later vs a young Safin he closed the match with an ace at 135mph, and other's that clocked past 130mph. He opened his SF victory over Kucera with a serve that was clocked at 134mh.

And on the fasters serve list on this message board, Pete was clocked at 139mph for his fastest??

So in 8 years slone Sampras was able to hit his 10-12mph faster.... how???

Now if Pete was born in 1981 (not 1871) and started in 2000 instead of 1990, what would his starting serve speed be, seeing it was 124mph in 1990 and improved 10-12mph in 8 years????

And based on that what would Pete (and others) be serving in 2008???

And keep in mind the "smaller, slower, less athlitic, weaker" Sampras was doing this with Wison Pro Staff Original,... and why did Wilson stop manufacturing that racquet???

And ask Andreas Gauzzelli about how the measurement of serve speeds is different. Now they do it from the point the racquet makes contact with the ball, not 6-8 yards later from an angle like they did previously.

 

[adlis]

Fastest recorded serve speeds on the pro tour MPH


Andy Roddick............155,03(249.4kph)............ 2004 davis cup
Chris Guccione............154,11(248kph)............ 2007 davis cup
Ivo Karlovic............153,00(tallest player on list @6ft10)2007 Nottingham
john isner............151,00............2007 Washington
------------------------------150------------------------------
Greg Rusedski............149,00............Indian Wells 1998
Gael Monfils............146,00
Taylor Dent............145,00
Ivan Ljubicic............145,00
Andy Murray............145,00............SAP open 2007<possible speed gun error>
Nicolas Massu............144,40
Jo-Wilfried Tsonga............144,16............2004 paris masters
Joachim Johannson............144,00............2004 davis cup
Marat Safin............144,00
Fernando Gonzalez............144,00
Jose Acasuso............143,13
Agustin Calleri............143,00
Benjamin Becker............142,60
Mark Philippoussis............142,30
Max Mirnyi............142,00
Thomas Johannson............142,00
Dmitry Tursunov............142,00
Robin Soderling............141,67
Fernando Verdasco............141,25
Julian Alonso............141,00
Mario Ancic............141,00
Wayne Arthurs............141,00
Danielle Bracciali............141,00
Mardy Fish............141,00
Carlos Moya............141.00
Nicolas Almagro............140,44
James Blake............140.44
Wesley Moodie............140,00
------------------------------140------------------------------
Bob Byan............139,94............2004 davis cup
Arnaud Clement...........139,19
Nikolay Davydenko............139,19
Lleyton Hewitt............139,19
Ernests Gulbis............139,00
Richard Krajicek............139,00
Pete Sampras............139,00
Alexander Waske............139,00
Igor Andreev............138,85
Vladimir Voltchkov............138.63............2004 davis cup
Michael llodra............138.26............2004 davis cup
Marcos Baghdatis............138,00
Thomas Berdych............138,00
Ilia Bozoljac............138,00
Pablo Cuevas............138,00
Zack Fleishman............138,00
Richard Gasquet............138,00
Jonathan Stark............138,00
Gilles Elseneer............137,00
Jan-Michael Gambill............137,00
Radek Stepanek............137,00
Amer Delic............137,00
Luis Horna............137,00
Irakli Labadze............137,00
Joshua Goodall............137,00............2008 Queens challenge
Juan Carlos Ferrero............136,71
Jeremy Chardy...........136,70
Viktor Troicki...........136,70
Fernando Vicente............136,09
Thierry Ascione............136,09
Thomas Enqvist............136,00
Roger Federer............136,00
Goran Ivanisevic............136,00
Robert Kendrick............136,00
Nicolas Kiefer............136,00
Jamie Murray............136,00............2007 Queens challenge
Dick Norman............136,00
Philipp Petzschner............136,00
sam Querrey............136,00
Robert Smeets............136,00
Janko Tipsarevic............136,00
Mikhail Youzhny...........136,00
Juan Martin Del Potro............135,60
Ivan Navarro Pastor............135,47
Olivier Rochus............135,47 (shortest player on list @ 165cm/5ft5)
Frank Dancevic............135,00
Boris Becker............135,00
Dominik Hrbaty............135,00
Albert Portas............135,00
Raemon Sluiter............135,00
Stanislas Wawrinka............135,00
Donald Young............135,00 (06 US open, Youngest player ever to hit 135MPH @ 17yrs1mth )


Almost all of these speeds are post sampras era.Mainly because The guns read the speed a few cm from the point of contact instead of a few feet and todays pros are BETTER athletes

 

[obsessedtennisfandisorder]

The OP is about "better athletes" as a whole....now obviously Nalby is not
a better athlete than courier but averages for a whole group today is
theoretically better than the average sprint times for say..the top 50 in 1998.

here's my take: I'm hugely impressed with general fitness levels of players today like nadal, murray etc....but SO WHAT.

A) The game has become more "athletically based" for lack of a better term.

No-one s&v anymore...the importance of volleying has reduced see: nadal

B) yes, but does this make them BETTER PLAYERS:

my take on b) ...um...jury still out on that one.

here my formula 1 example, to deal with the technology issue.

Jaun Fangio from Argentina is regarded as one of the finest/most talentedf1 drivers of all time...debates about schumacher vs fangio on f1 forums cont..

Villenueve won the formula 1 champs in 1997...his only title and is not in the same talent league as schy/fangio/prost/senna etc...

Villeneuve was no doubt helped beating schmy by having a FASTER CAR....

compare 1990's Formula 1 times to the times from the 50's(fangio).
and it's laughable how much faster today's cars are....so does that make
Fangio a laughable GOAT contender?

Point: Todays players have better technology racquets, FACT.

Just Because Todays Players Are Faster Doesn't Make Them Better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fangio

check out what schumy says at the bottom.

 

[adlis]

Novak plays some SOCCER part time. todays pros own. party on dudes!

 

[NamRanger]

rofl

Sig-worthy.

If Laver was using his standard wood racquet and Serena had her snow shoe sized racquet, yes, Serena wins this outright, simply because she can put more topspin then Laver has ever faced, more speed, etc.



The only area she doesn't beat Laver in is in touch and movement. However, in the current conditions, Serena would beat up on Laver.



Now, if Laver was playing with a graphite racquet, different story.

 

[fastdunn]

I don't know what that is or where it came from, but today's players are phsycially much stronger!

I'll have to find the article or statistic but in 1993 only a handful of people served above 135. Now over 30 some players int he top one hundred can. That's not all just because of the tennis racquet technology!

It's because ATP changed the reference point of speed gun closer to serve contact point. That happened around year 2000. In the past, serve speed was measured when the ball passed the net. Now it is being measured right after the hit. Plus the ball is slightly bigger, hairer and heavier than past. Plus surfaces is slower. Note that the ball loses 60-70% of speed by the time it reaches the player. In today's game, it is much easier to return serves. Much slower now.


You do not seem to know much about the changes happened between 2000-2003 in ATP. Dramatic changes in surface speed, the type and size of tennis balls, speed guns and so on....

 

[plasma]

I like the stats on topsipin, they do point to some clear advantages in modern technology... but I'd like to challenge any pro in the top 100 to match Roscoe Tanner. In 1976 he was in the guiness book of world records. 140 mph serve with a standard size racket...
Ray Robinson had to quit boxing because he got so good he could kill a man with one punch, (sadly, he did actually...)
The argument for newer is better is always hype, with a standard size rack I doubt Roddick (fastest serve ever, over 160!) could top 120!

 

[Andres]

I like the stats on topsipin, they do point to some clear advantages in modern technology... but I'd like to challenge any pro in the top 100 to match Roscoe Tanner. In 1976 he was in the guiness book of world records. 140 mph serve with a standard size racket...
Ray Robinson had to quit boxing because he got so good he could kill a man with one punch, (sadly, he did actually...)
The argument for newer is better is always hype, with a standard size rack I doubt Roddick (fastest serve ever, over 160!) could top 120!

I'm sorry, but before Roddick, Rusedski held the fastest serve record with 149 mph. Before that, it was Philippoussis' and his 142.3 mph serve. And by 1993, Goran Ivanisevic had the official fastest serve record with 136 mph.

Tanner and Guinness World Record? No. Plasma, please, get your facts straight.

 

[akv89]

The OP is about "better athletes" as a whole....now obviously Nalby is not
a better athlete than courier but averages for a whole group today is
theoretically better than the average sprint times for say..the top 50 in 1998.

here's my take: I'm hugely impressed with general fitness levels of players today like nadal, murray etc....but SO WHAT.

A) The game has become more "athletically based" for lack of a better term.

No-one s&v anymore...the importance of volleying has reduced see: nadal

B) yes, but does this make them BETTER PLAYERS:

my take on b) ...um...jury still out on that one.

here my formula 1 example, to deal with the technology issue.

Jaun Fangio from Argentina is regarded as one of the finest/most talentedf1 drivers of all time...debates about schumacher vs fangio on f1 forums cont..

Villenueve won the formula 1 champs in 1997...his only title and is not in the same talent league as schy/fangio/prost/senna etc...

Villeneuve was no doubt helped beating schmy by having a FASTER CAR....

compare 1990's Formula 1 times to the times from the 50's(fangio).
and it's laughable how much faster today's cars are....so does that make
Fangio a laughable GOAT contender?

Point: Todays players have better technology racquets, FACT.

Just Because Todays Players Are Faster Doesn't Make Them Better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fangio

check out what schumy says at the bottom.

The question was never about talent. It was about whether today's players are better athletes. Fangio was certainly way ahead of his time in terms of driving skill despite the fact that he always sought to drive for the best team. But there is absolutely no way you can claim that he is even close to being as athletic as any of today's drivers in F1.

 

[plasma]

you callin' ME a liar???

I'm sorry you were right, tanner didn't hit a 140 mile per hour serve in 1976...IT WAS 153 MPH!!!!!!
http://nfsctour.com/big.html
although the 1976 guiness book quotes it as 140.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEDOpCLw6eQ
roddick at 155 is still only half as strong; as the aeropro has twice as much power as Tanner's standard racket....
Jimmy Doyle was the name of the fighter who was killed in Cleavland by Ray Robinson, who begged promoters not to let it happen after he had a premenition of it in a dream....
here is the sad but true story which is still sad to true boxing fans:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Doyle_(boxer)
whether it's talent or athleticism, the level of skill back then was far superior, people were probably a heck of a lot more polite as well!!!

 

[NamRanger]

you callin' ME a liar???

I'm sorry you were right, tanner didn't hit a 140 mile per hour serve in 1976...IT WAS 153 MPH!!!!!!
http://nfsctour.com/big.html
although the 1976 guiness book quotes it as 140.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEDOpCLw6eQ
roddick at 155 is still only half as strong; as the aeropro has twice as much power as Tanner's standard racket....
Jimmy Doyle was the name of the fighter who was killed in Cleavland by Ray Robinson, who begged promoters not to let it happen after he had a premenition of it in a dream....
here is the sad but true story which is still sad to true boxing fans:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Doyle_(boxer)
whether it's talent or athleticism, the level of skill back then was far superior, people were probably a heck of a lot more polite as well!!!

There is a very little difference in power between a wood and graphite racquet. Flipper proved this when he bombed with only a 3-5 mph difference between his wood and graphite racquets.

 

[Rickenbacker4003]

The players were better in the past. Today the technology makes up for any deficiencies.

 

[bet]

I'm sorry, but before Roddick, Rusedski held the fastest serve record with 149 mph. Before that, it was Philippoussis' and his 142.3 mph serve. And by 1993, Goran Ivanisevic had the official fastest serve record with 136 mph.

Tanner and Guinness World Record? No. Plasma, please, get your facts straight.

Oh GOD! People still believe this stuff?
Roddick's record is MEANINGLESS. IT CANNOT BE COMPARED IN ANY WAY TO THE OTHER serves you mentioned. WHEN are people going to get this? Ah, forget it, never mind!

 

[!Tym]

There is a very little difference in power between a wood and graphite racquet. Flipper proved this when he bombed with only a 3-5 mph difference between his wood and graphite racquets.

...no, effectively, in REAL matches, there IS. A very HUGE difference, in fact. Wood has good mass, that's why it's still possible to clock it. But actually getting the ball IN the court AND w. the vicsious spin component you see today is another story, an entirely different story. The head size on a wood racket is tiny, and imparting the violent topspin motion swings you see today with a full western grip is virtually impossible to do effectively in real matches with wood. In real matches, you have to balance not what you can go for (i.e. a theoretical "max" speed), but also what you can effectively, consistently, repeatedly get IN the court w/o mishitting terribly or gasp...swinging and missing entirely which is very easy to do with wood. Imo, a big reason for the tennis boom is that w. the old wood rackets, the general public was more mesmerized by what they saw the pros being able to do. If you take an average person and put a racket in their hand, and if they try to hit it hard, they're gonna whiff...a lot. For the average player, playing a wood racket today vs. the modern Babolats they're used to would feel like hitting w. a broom stick...i.e. almost impossible.

These days, w. all these modern air light, super powerful, frames, even old grannies can seem to crank it up pretty decent, get it deep, merely just a poke. I've seen it many times, they play poke & giggle doubles. They poke at the ball, it goes deep, they can have a reasonably good time. With wood, it's just a lot harder for an unaccomplished player to be able to put on any semblance of what the pros do imo. These days, almost anyone feels like they can get a herculean cut in the court every once in a while.

 

[CyBorg]

If Laver was using his standard wood racquet and Serena had her snow shoe sized racquet, yes, Serena wins this outright, simply because she can put more topspin then Laver has ever faced, more speed, etc.

Serena wouldn't win if Rod was wielding a frying pan.

 

[plasma]

In the early 80's teenage Eric Korita was clocked at over 140 with his Prince Boron. If you were around back then you know that "todays" fast serves are nothing new. The numbers and stats don't lie, you just don't have them all, lol.

 

[Okazaki Fragment]

In the early 80's teenage Eric Korita was clocked at over 140 with his Prince Boron. If you were around back then you know that "todays" fast serves are nothing new. The numbers and stats don't lie, you just don't have them all, lol.

Serves have gotten faster since the 80s. Roddick hit 155mph. The numbers don't lie.

 

[TheTruth]

This opinion appears based on a presumption that technology and the direct cause/effect on human evolution directly related to those "advances" in technology is seems equally rooted in a "belief" that technology is a single edged sword yielding only benefit without any costs. IMO this leads to circular reasoning and an invalid conclusion, ostensibly "newer is better" because "newer is better".

Love that line, "newer is better" because "newer is better." So many adhere to that type of thinking in today's society.

Historically, almost every technological advance as it relates to human performance is, inherently, a double edged sword.

Calculators, word processors, text messaging, etc. have caused "newer and better" students to lose the ability to perform simple math calculations, spell and/or use proper grammar. They/we lost skills.

So true!

The false belief that the "missile age" would render dog-fighting skills obsolete, lead to pilots no longer being trained in those skills as they had been in the past and to the point where ultra cutting edge jet fighters were no longer even equipped with a2a guns/cannons. It was a nice belief, right up until the time that those pilots found themselves on the losing end of the very dog-fights in numbers unheard of since WWII. They lost skills.

The jet age analogy also points to another issue in the "newer/better" assumption. Humans have limits. Dictating that the next "newer/better" generation of jet fighters will have to be unmanned.

In tennis, transitioning is a lost skill.

Human performance records have been standing for longer and longer periods of time, and if broken are broken by fractions forcing times to be recorded out to thousandths of seconds from the tenths deemed adequate just a few decades ago. When a given record is shattered, based on recent history, it usually means that we'll just have wait another period of time before the testing for PEDs catches up to the "newer and better" way to cheat that caused it to happen.

The "fitter" thing also strikes me as funny, especially when the very recent example in the form of Andy Murray is staring us in the face. Murray suddenly has made himself a very real top tier contender only AFTER finally dedicating himself to a real training regimen. It's admirable, but also serves as an example of what Murray wasn't doing prior to that and what the majority of the tour still isn't doing.

Good point!


The Aussie's of the 50's and 60's were renowned for their fitness. Borg, Connors and alot of other guys were renowned for it, not just Lendl. Before they may have approached fitness and diet inefficiently but they were fit and on a subjective level, likely tougher because much of what they did was either unnecessary or actually working against their desired goals. Being relatively "unfit" and at the top of the game in any era maybe happened once in the form of McEnroe, but early on and in response to the gauntlet thrown down by Lendl, even he got the message. Becker, Edberg, Chang, Courier, Sampras, Agassi, etc., the top guys, just coincidently, were not only talented but among the fittest. Again, Murray wasn't vying for elite status until he raised his fitness level to that of his elite peers and above the other guys on tour.

Great post. Great lines bolded. This was fun and interesting to read.

 

[TheTruth]

A well stated premise but if I'm understanding your major point, another with which I disagree. Before I get to that though your Laver/Djoker comparison as to "smarter" is ill advised. Watch Laver play the elites of one or two generations later, Connors and Borg for instance and you will see just how tactically lacking many to most of the current crop is.

When examining the history of the game, all of it, in totality, without saying one particular era is superior/inferior to another a pattern emerges. The repetitive theme is how divergent and intuitive the style of the absolute cream of each generation are to each other at the apex of the game and to the rest of their direct competitors.

Just looking at the Open era, while their are identifiable commonalities within generations and crossing them, the true elite of each generation put their own "spin" on things, so to speak. Laver hit with a markedly different style than his peers, and Rosewall still a force at that time struck the ball markedly different than Laver. The core elements are there but their ball striking styles were uniquely their own. Connors was so different no one quite knew what to make of it. However as styles tend to come and go his hitting style was very reminiscent of a player who would become a mentor, Pancho Segura, but in Connors day his approach was singular. Then Borg who was unlike anyone of his day but similar to Little Bill Johnston way back when and Nadal now. Then McEnroe, who other serve and volleyers bore little resemblance to. Then Lendl whose hitting style Ashe would describe as deforming the ball. But despite that Lendl did not make Connors obsolete, nor Borg, nor Mc.

By this time Human Kinetics, high speed film and slo-motion analysis are already common tools being applied to tennis training. Cross training from the likes of Olympic sprint coaches like Henry Hines are already being incorporated into the tennis syllabus. Probably the biggest change regarding fitness training came around this time when Navratilova hooked up with Robert Haas, who applied science to diet and performance in the early 80's, which was further validated when Lendl signed on with Haas in about 1984. But while science was already an integral part of tennis, the pattern of intuitive, off the reservation individuals continued.

Come Wilander, Becker and Edberg, all different than their predecessors and from each other. They were followed by the second generation Bollitieri disciples, lead by Courier and Agassi, again markedly different ball strikers than even Lendl. Their peers Chang and Sampras were different still.

The most recent cream of a more homogenized crop today are, again, unique from that whole, Federer and Nadal. The next best, Murray and Djoker, are again different still. It's a repetitive theme, generation to generation.

I've coached the sport for decades with students reaching fairly elite levels, D1 and several making short forays into the lower ranks of the pros, from a former hot-bed, now small pond tennis area of the US. While the bulk of the teaching is ABC core elements to average athletes, the real coaching of potentially very good players has more to do with recognizing a given talent and gently guiding him within his own unique interpretation of those core elements. At a certain level of development, which itself varies from athlete to athlete, the goal is to promote that player's arriving at a desired result in the way most inate to his/her genetic make-up within a broader outline than one might expect. Each athlete is unique, while there are commonalities a coach looks to ingrain in every player from ball striking to tactics and strategy from the onset, once those core elements are mastered the goal is to allow the player to hit and play as intuitively as possible.

Science is not the basis for how Federer or Nadal developed their fh hitting styles. In fact not in the least. After mastering a tennis foundation of core skills, they each found their individual routes to their unique ball striking technique. It is unlikely that either would be able to teach someone to hit with their singular styles. I am sure they do not burden themselves with such thoughts, and probably are less aware of the intracacies of their stroke techniques than a John Yandell, that is if they think about it at all.

The point is that despite OUR knowledge of what they do and how they do it is of no concern to them. Each elite player is as unique as a snowflake, their strengths/weaknesses of body and mind, their eyesight, their flexibility, every gene means their interpretation of each stroke is just as unique.

While at the lower levels there are identifiable wrongs, and less efficient rights there are no such absolutes at the higher to elite levels of the sport, those hurdles are well behind them. What it doesn't mean is that juniors could, much less should have their "square" genes crammed into the "round" holes of some preceding great's playing template.

So the belief that there is an "okay, Agassi's fh was this good, and because we know this from our study of his stroke we'll take the next athletically gifted 5 year old and make his fh even better" is way off base. It doesn't happen that way nor should it. In fact the factory tennis meccas have probably done more harm than good to the bulk of tennis talent primarily in the US in that regard. Despite there being an inherent advantage of bringing better day in day out competition together, even if they have the presence of mind to avoid the pitfall of an assembly line, cookie cutter, one size fits all approach, kids will still tend to ape other kids to the good for some but more often toward wasted time and effort examining a bad fit. Imagine a Federer either being forced or attempting to adopt Nadal's game, or vice versa, and I think you can see the problem. Despite the science and the knowledge there is still no one right or absolute better way. There never has been there never will be. Different is different and may serve to be better for a given athlete in a given generation, it doesn't necessarily mean superior to the elite of a prior generation.

The intuitively diverse hitting styles of any era's truly elite players, including today's, combined with the knowledge that similarities in the hitting styles of the greatest players tend to be cyclical rather than linear, (as Federer's game style is more similar to Laver's than Sampras) imo belies any notion that a given era strikes balls more efficiently than the prior one. Differently? Yes. More efficiently? No, not at the levels we are discussing here.

5

Post often!

 

[helloworld]

If Laver was using his standard wood racquet and Serena had her snow shoe sized racquet, yes, Serena wins this outright, simply because she can put more topspin then Laver has ever faced, more speed, etc.



The only area she doesn't beat Laver in is in touch and movement. However, in the current conditions, Serena would beat up on Laver.



Now, if Laver was playing with a graphite racquet, different story.

Rod Laver can beat Serena 6-0 6-0 with his old wooden racquet. I'm not even joking.

 

[MAX PLY]

Rod Laver can beat Serena 6-0 6-0 with his old wooden racquet. I'm not even joking.

Absolutely agree. It would not be close. Frankly, I would take Tilden with his technology over Serena in a rout--seriously.

 

[SourStraws]

Serves have gotten faster since the 80s. Roddick hit 155mph. The numbers don't lie.

True..... But Colin Dibley had a 148 mph with a wooden racquet.... Only a 7mph diff


S.S.

 

[35ft6]

They're talking about the athletes from top to bottom. If you decide to compare only a few people different eras, you can get any result you want. Overall, the athletes are better today. Just ask the players themselves, both active and retired. Whether they're better tennis players or not is a whole 'nother story depending on how you define "better." But it can't be denied that in the last 50 years, the quality of athlete has improved on both tours, not just in terms of raw athleticism but in how that athleticism is honed. That pretty much goes for every sport. It's just a matter of starting off with a bigger gene pool, and then throwing in modern diet and training techniques.

 

[NamRanger]

Rod Laver can beat Serena 6-0 6-0 with his old wooden racquet. I'm not even joking.

Highly doubt it. Rod Laver didn't see 120+ serves and 70+ mph groundstrokes with loads of topspin on them. The technological difference gives Serena a clear advantage, especially on today's surfaces.



Even though male athletes are clearly superior to females, this isn't even a contest when considering the technological gap. Sure, a Samurai from Japan from the old days of swords and bows is a far superior physical specimen to me, but give me an Assault Rifle and teach me to operate it properly and I win that fight easily.



That is how big the technological gap is between wood racquets and natural gut, and graphite racquets and polyester strings of today.

 

[Andres]

Highly doubt it. Rod Laver didn't see 120+ serves and 70+ mph groundstrokes with loads of topspin on them. The technological difference gives Serena a clear advantage, especially on today's surfaces.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpdPX9avs1M

I'm on the Laver crushes Serena bandwagon, Nam.

 

[NamRanger]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpdPX9avs1M

I'm on the Laver crushes Serena bandwagon, Nam.

Wood vs Graphite is a huge difference. Bjorn Borg, the physical freak, tried to come back against a no name graphite player and failed miserably, losing every match. And he was considered one of the best wood players of his time.



It's not a bandwagon, it's just people being far too ignorant and Serena hating. Laver is a great player, and he would EASILY crush Serena with a graphite racquet. However, you're handicapping him with a wood racquet against a very powerful woman. Granted, Laver can hit the ball hard with a wood racquet, but I don't think he's going to be cranking anything near the level of Serena, nor with the same amount of RPMs on it.


Even if Laver wins, it would be far closer than you expect it to be.

 

[CyBorg]

Wood vs Graphite is a huge difference. Bjorn Borg, the physical freak, tried to come back against a no name graphite player and failed miserably, losing every match. And he was considered one of the best wood players of his time.

You pretty much lose this argument right away by calling Jordi Arrese a no-name player.

 

[Chopin]

Most reasonable people who play tennis themselves and/or coach know that the game has gone upwards in terms of global involvement, infrastructure and knowledge about training and stroke mechanics. There are more people striving to become pros, players start earlier, and tennis is more of a global game than it was in the “glory” days. It makes perfect, logical sense that today's players are, on average, superior. Former pros acknowledge it, the top coaches acknowledge it, and most respected tennis historian acknowledge it. Now, I'm not comparing today's players to the Sampras era but rather, the Laver era. Laver was great for his time but his generation wouldn't hold a candle to today's pro in terms of athletic genes. People who think so just don't get it.

 

[Chopin]

They're talking about the athletes from top to bottom. If you decide to compare only a few people different eras, you can get any result you want. Overall, the athletes are better today. Just ask the players themselves, both active and retired. Whether they're better tennis players or not is a whole 'nother story depending on how you define "better." But it can't be denied that in the last 50 years, the quality of athlete has improved on both tours, not just in terms of raw athleticism but in how that athleticism is honed. That pretty much goes for every sport. It's just a matter of starting off with a bigger gene pool, and then throwing in modern diet and training techniques.

Exactly. It amazes me how many TW posters can't acknowledge this fact. To use common sense is not the same as saying "Laver sucks."

 

[JoshDragon]

If Laver was using his standard wood racquet and Serena had her snow shoe sized racquet, yes, Serena wins this outright, simply because she can put more topspin then Laver has ever faced, more speed, etc.



The only area she doesn't beat Laver in is in touch and movement. However, in the current conditions, Serena would beat up on Laver.



Now, if Laver was playing with a graphite racquet, different story.

Not quite. Laver, (in his prime) would still beat Serena even with wood and Laver would play better with a wood racquet than with a graphite. The transition from wood to graphite is huge and it would be very hard to make that transition for Laver in a short amount of time, he would be better off with the wood racquet.

If Laver, were taking on Sampras or Federer that would be completely different though.

 

[mental midget]

if we're talking about a laver in his youth and not current laver, which would be comical, without question he beats serena with a wooden racket. i doubt serena would argue this point.

 

[Chopin]

if we're talking about a laver in his youth and not current laver, which would be comical, without question he beats serena with a wooden racket. i doubt serena would argue this point.

I truly hope no TW posters were actually talking about Laver today in his 70s. There are little girls at Bollettieri's Academy that would beat him today, to say nothing of the golden set Serena could serve him. Though of course, I wouldn't be that surprised if a TW poster responded to me claiming that Laver today in 2008 would beat Serena.

 

[JoshDragon]

I truly hope no TW posters were actually talking about Laver today in his 70s. There are little girls at Bollettieri's Academy that would beat him today, to say nothing of the golden set Serena could serve him. Though of course, I wouldn't be that surprised if a TW poster responded to me claiming that Laver today in 2008 would beat Serena.

Only the most hardcore Laver fan would believe that Laver would be able to beat Serena today.

 

[GameSampras]

Oh come on.. Laver would serve and volley Serena Doughnuts williams off the court with a triple bagel

 

[JoshDragon]

Oh come on.. Laver would serve and volley Serena Doughnuts williams off the court with a triple bagel

No, it wouldn't be a triple bagel but Laver would probably still win pretty easily: 6-4,6-3,6-2.

 

[West Coast Ace]

...nothing changes in 8 years, that's a short timespan. The evolution crap is stupid really..

I think you've got 'stupid' cornered. But hey, what's one more Sampras jock sniffer in our little community, desperately trying to plug the leaks in the legacy...

But back to the debate: why don't you ask Tommy Haas - he's been around for a while. Did he do yoga back when he started? No. Does now. The players in the 90's couldn't even spell pilates. Training methods have improved whether you want to accept it or not. Youth tennis academies have improved their training methods. There is no proof that Sampras or Agassi did anything but play tennis when they were juniors. Now the juniors work out, go to school, then practice tennis. New advice for optimum nutrition - and new supplements - are created every year. There was no protein shake commercials on TV just a few years ago.

You point to Nalby and like others make fun of him. But like the others this just shows your ignorance in the area of fitness. You can't spot train. Some people just have a certain amount of body fat in localized areas that won't come off. And he has a very good 5 set record - 14 wins 10 losses. If his fitness were as bad as you think, there's no way he could have that much success in long matches.

Can't wait for your 'Pioline and Stich would own Djokovic' and 'Muster in his prime mauls Rafa' threads...

 

[Alexio92]

Well, the answer is simple.

If the old guys trained as hard as current guys do then they would be of an equal chance to win on a surface that would have been the same from both eras. Thats the same as if the current players used older training techniques, there is not much else to say. If the older players used old training as they did in their prime though, they may be competative and may win a few matches because tennis isnt just fitness.

 

[West Coast Ace]

...because tennis isnt just fitness.

Yes and no. You have GET TO the ball to hit it. So advances in training that improve endurance, speed and agility help the players get into a decent hitting position.

And look at the guy who our illustrious OP is trying to prop up - I haven't heard of Pete signing up to be on Dancing With The Stars...

 

[CyBorg]

But back to the debate: why don't you ask Tommy Haas - he's been around for a while. Did he do yoga back when he started? No. Does now. The players in the 90's couldn't even spell pilates. Training methods have improved whether you want to accept it or not. Youth tennis academies have improved their training methods. There is no proof that Sampras or Agassi did anything but play tennis when they were juniors. Now the juniors work out, go to school, then practice tennis. New advice for optimum nutrition - and new supplements - are created every year. There was no protein shake commercials on TV just a few years ago.

In other words, you're drinking the corporate cool-aid.

 

[CyBorg]

Only the most hardcore Laver fan would believe that Laver would be able to beat Serena today.

No, it wouldn't be a triple bagel but Laver would probably still win pretty easily: 6-4,6-3,6-2.

Stay in school.

 

[David L]

Here's Agassi's take on the subject for all you armchair pundits. Maybe you'll learn something.

IT: Few others have seen more changes in tennis. What adjustments did you have to make since the early days of Connors, McEnroe and Lendl?

AA: The fitness level has only increased over the years. Connors was 5-foot-9. Now you've got guys routinely that are 6-foot-3 and above. It's rare that you play somebody under that. The physicality has changed dramatically. Compare Nadal at 20 to me at 20. It's a sport that has started to figure out that the stronger and more physical you are, the more capable you are as an athlete. I was onto that earlier than most, building my strength and the base that was the foundation of my game. As a result, I served bigger and was able to handle pace better so as the game got faster, I could just shorten my swing. I got smarter with my shots. I've had to get more aggressive. It used to be where I could just run people around until they fell to the ground. But guys are just too strong now. It's a different game than in the past.

http://www.insidetennis.com/0906_agassi.html

 

[sureshs]

No, it wouldn't be a triple bagel but Laver would probably still win pretty easily: 6-4,6-3,6-2.

Laver can hardly run any more. He had a stroke a few years ago and relearnt tennis playing with his grand daughter. Even in exo doubles, he doesn't run any more. Give him a break.