Discussion in 'Tennis Tips/Instruction' started by nextbigbigthing1, Oct 21, 2011.
Is that height fine , or too small?
fine, but you better be quick and in shape.
David Ferrer is 5' 8"
Hewitt is 5'11"
Compared with some amusement park rides, I'm pretty sure that the tour has no height requirements. The only thing that needs to be big enough is your game.
Yea, Ferrer is pretty tough to be one of the smaller guys on tour. Great example. He stands in and hits through the ball, serves pretty well for his size, and is quick. He has decent hard court results and I think he won a small grass court tournament a couple of years ago.
He has wins over Nadal and Roddick on hard courts.
One tough cookie.
Davydenko is another example. He has wins over Nadal and many other top 10 players on hard courts. I think he is 5'10".
yes but tough to be top 10
Davydenko doesn't just have wins over top 10 players, he has a high rank of #3, was top 5 for 4-5 years and top 10 for 6-7 years. And he's only about 150lbs.
Not really! See above!
How about Olivier Rochus at 5'6"? I believe he's been consistently ranked in the top 50 quite a few years.
I know he won the French Open doubles title in 04.
Seriously dude, 5'11" is borderline "tall". Go enjoy life and don't worry about things like this.
Laver, Rosewall, McKinley, Richie, Nastase, Orantes, Connors, Agassi were all 5'10" or less and all former #1's (except McKinley who was a Wimbledon champion as an amature and, at 5'6", one of the great leaping acrobatic athletes in tennis history).
I am missing how this is even a valid thread. The fact that there are indeed ATP pros 5'11" and shorter makes the answer to the initial question obvious and not open to debate.
I'm just trying to figure out why someone would think 5'11" is too short to do anything.
194 cms is a bad height as it means that when you stand toe to the baseline the nettape obscures the baseline exactly. It also means you know when the net is not at the right height. However, you get the reputation for being pernickety, it just drives you nuts if you are 194cms.
I guess all those shorter than me are looking under the net at the court. Must be odd.
Nah, remember, short people got no reason to live. But if Renee Richards can do it, there's the WTA.
I know, i gave examples of player within the last 10-15 years, forgot Agassi though
Ask Olivier Rochus
Yes, we can sit here all night dropping names, i think the point has been made already.
I suspect (touring) pros under six feet will be rare or disappear soon. The proliferation of very tall pros will make it harder and harder for average height guys to keep hitting balls that bounce at their eye level.
With the speed and defense in today's game it's also becoming tougher for the very tall pros who don't move as well as the rest of the guys on the tour.
I think a lot of the shorter players are shorter than their listed heights. I've seen several players listed between 5'9" and 5'11" in person and they don't seem quite that tall. It's pretty common, both inside and outside of sports, for men to exaggerate their height. I'm just about 5'10", and I can't tell you how many times I've someone had someone shorter than me tell me they're 6'.
Im not so sure about that if they continue to slow the surfaces down OR keeping the same surface speed as now
Maybe this is their secret, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lREErGZTW3U
Andre Agassi was 5'11" (8 slams). I think being an ATP pro goes beyond height, because I'm sure theres a lot of players in the 6'1" to 6'5" range that never made it big.
Making a living as an ATP seems like a tall order, especially after being knocked down a peg or two each season.
Nope. You have to be at least 7 feet to play center in the NBA!
Yah Chang, Rochus and and Grosjean are all shorter than their listed heights by an inch or two when you meet them in person and they are already all listed as pretty short.
Chang was usually listed 5'8"-5'9" on paper but the two things I noticed when I saw him play live in person are (1) that he seemed shorter than that, and (2) his legs were huge.
I just ordered my pair!
Only in elevator shoes!
Just gotta ask, why would women be interested in this product. Wouldn't they just buy a shoe with a higher heel? I also don't see how you could play sports in these.
Wow That was quite interesting pic.
I think shorter players have other good quality to counteract to taller opponents.
If your good enough, your big enough!
rochus must be shorter then 5 6 , as ivo clearly has at least 3 foot on him ...
I'm a 5'2" male and if I had wanted to play pro I would have dominated. So, it is not a problem.
There are plenty of guys under 6 foot with success as a pro. It is definitely more difficult to make into the higher ranks. Most guys who are able to do that make up for it with something else, typically speed from what I've seen.
Oh yeah thats true. Rochus is 150 and Ivo 250cm
Borg 1.80 m (5 ft 11 in)
Agassi 1.80 m (5 ft 11 in)
McEnroe 1.80 m (5 ft 11 in)
Wilander 1.82 m (6 ft 0 in)
Federer 1.85 m (6 ft 1 in)
Sampras 1.85 m (6 ft 1 in)
Nadal 1.85 m (6 ft 1 in)
Roddick 1.88 m (6 ft 2 in)
Lendl 1.87 m (6 ft 2 in)
Edberg 1.88 m (6 ft 2 in)
Djokovic 1.88 m (6 ft 2 in)
Becker 1.90 m (6 ft 3 in)
Best height for tennis players seems to be 1.80-1.90cm with the optimum being about 1.85cm. This is tall enough to have great firepower, reach and serving abilities but still short enough to allow great footwork/movement and longevity.
Many players of earlier eras were shorter, though. I didn't include them in the list because the game has developed a lot and has different requirements nowadays. While guys like Rochus at 1.65 m (5 ft 5 in) can still be pro, it doesn't seem to be enough to be a top player.
that implies that rochus is under 3'10"
i'd give him 4 10 max
isnt the average height in the atp around 6'1 - 6'2? you have to be pretty tall to be a pro i guess, especially with poly strings that make the game so much quicker and faster. what about olivier rochus?
They need to be 6'2 because they don't have the TW forum to guide them. You can dominate at 5'2 if you listen to the Masters here.
Yes, and it has been for at least 20 odd years now. People have been calling for doom and gloom for short players for at least as long if not longer. In fact, I recall people questioning whether a short player could survive on tour way back when the answer was "Ken Rosewall!"
I also think we will see a continuing trend towards no short players but only because kids still seem to me to be getting taller and taller. That is actually all I have seen in the past 20 years....the juniors were getting taller...and so were the pros...but as I said, since at least the early 90's, the average height of the top players hasn't gone up much.
Many experts said in the early 90's that a person under 6' would never win a slam again...Agassi proved them wrong, and the existence of the other short players on tour (many already mentioned) proved it wasn't so. Some others: Gaudio, Chang, Costa, Clement, Grosjean, Coria, Davydenko, Ferrero, Kiefer, Johansson etc. Does one really think that if Federer were an inch or two shorter, he'd be off the tour?
Height is commonplace....doesn't guarantee much.....I'd rather find a world-class junior with unreal foot speed or racquet feel.....that is special......
Except, if you're 6'5 + with a wonderful serve, you may have a chance to survive on serve alone....although if that's all you have, you probably won't be at the top, no matter how good your serve is. In fact, you might not get out of the satellites, it's happened plenty of times.
No. The requirements of the game really haven't changed at all. The qualities that truly define "talent" remain unchanged. The one area where height is nearly a no drawbacks advantage: the serve, certainly has become more central than ever, but still not enough to make the real difference.
PS. 5 ft 5 was always likely to short to be a top player. Though who knows, that may be an unwarranted judgment on my part based on having no exemplars. Certainly 5'8 or 5'9 was enough to be at the top in any era, including now.
Separate names with a comma.