Is 6ft 1" to 6ft 2" still the optimal height for a male tennis player?

timnz

Legend
Sampras, Federer, Nadal are all 6ft 1" - with 54 Majors to their names combined. Djokovic is 6ft 2" with 20 slams. That's 74 majors for players 73 to 74 inches tall (185 to 188 cm).

Players seem to be bigger in the last 15 years - with 6ft 6" not at all uncommon. However, those really tall players haven't won more than 1 slam each, with many having won none.

So is 6ft 1" to 6ft 2" still the optimum height?

Note: Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic didn't win the slams because of their height but it does seem that their height seems to be optimal for them.
 
Last edited:

The Blond Blur

G.O.A.T.
23ahfi.jpg


@Poisoned Slice
 
D

Deleted member 780630

Guest
Pretty much. Shorter than that, you give up too much on the serve. Taller, you give up too much in movement and mobility. The 6'1" - 6'3" range has the best balance of both.
 

Raul_SJ

G.O.A.T.
We all saw the Wimbledon SF with the 6'5 Berrytini and Herk. The court movement was painful to watch.

Opelka is almost seven feet tall. Moves okay considering but not fun to watch.

Meddy at 6'6 is one of the best big movers. But still clumsy.
 
Last edited:

Sunny014

Legend
Era-wise :

1950s born to mid 1960s born -
Optimum height 5'11 to 6'1 - Most perfect candidates Bjorn Borg, Roscoe tanner and John Mcenroe
Late 60s born to mid 80s born -
Optimum height 6'1 to 6'2 - Most perfect candidates Sampras, Federer, Nadal and Roddick
Late 80s to Late 90s born - Optimum height 6'2 to 6'3 - Most perfect candidates Djokovic and Moorey
2000s born upwards - Optimum height 6'3-6'4 - Most perfect candidates - Felix Augur Alisamme
 

SonnyT

Legend
One thing is very noticeable: the young guns, when they come to shake hands with the B3 at the end of matches, they all tower over the old guns.
 

timnz

Legend
The tallest ever no.1’s are still Marat Safin and Stan Smith at 6’4.

Safin was 21 years ago, Smith was 49 years ago.

Seems like being 6’4 or above isn’t optimal
Seems like it. Even if you go further back - Pancho Gonzales was 6ft 3 1/2". So 6' 4 or so seems to be the maximum for an all time great. Not aware of any number one of history being taller than that. Optimal still seems to be in the 6ft 1 to 6ft 2 range.
 

Fabresque

Legend
Big 3 are all at that height. But guys like Meddy and Zverev tower over them. Tsits is also much taller than the 3 at 6’4, and these are all the up and coming players. I think I agree with @James P , top players average/optimal height will be 6’4-6’7. Big guys are moving a lot better than they used to as well.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Seems like it. Even if you go further back - Pancho Gonzales was 6ft 3 1/2". So 6' 4 or so seems to be the maximum for an all time great. Not aware of any number one of history being taller than that. Optimal still seems to be in the 6ft 1 to 6ft 2 range.


Tallest Wimbledon winner ever was Richard Krajicek at 6'5
Tallest world number 1 ever was Marat Safin 6'4

During Pancho's time 6'3.5 was a very very very tall height, like Karlovic types I guess ? Top guys were 5'7 or 5'8...
Even Boris Becker said once that in his own time 6'3 was considered quite tall but now someone like Andy Murray is 6'3 but quite average.
So average height for top players is going up.
 
Last edited:

socallefty

G.O.A.T.
Medvedev and Zverev are 6’6”. Tsitsipas is 6’4”. Sinner is 6’2”. Djokovic is 6’2” and he is not done winning Slams. There is a chance that the guys who win a lot of Slams in the next few years will have widely varying heights.
 

timnz

Legend
Tallest Wimbledon winner ever was Richard Krajicek at 6'5
Tallest world number 1 ever was Marat Safin 6'4

During Pancho's time 6'3.5 was a very very very tall height, like Karlovic types I guess ? Top guys were 5'7 or 5'8...
Even Boris Becker said once that in his own time 6'3 was considered quite tall but now someone like Andy Murray is 6'3 but quite average.
So average height for top players is going up.
And yet, heights of number 1 players don't seem to be going up. So there seems to be an optimal range that doesn't seem to have changed much of late.
 

timnz

Legend
Medvedev and Zverev are 6’6”. Tsitsipas is 6’4”. Sinner is 6’2”. Djokovic is 6’2” and he is not done winning Slams. There is a chance that the guys who win a lot of Slams in the next few years will have widely varying heights.
They haven't yet, though I expect them to win a few. But like when I started this thread, they have been players over 6ft 4" win slams - but only a handful. No dominant number 1 has been over 6ft 4" (and in the last 20 years no one over 6ft 2") and the guys in the last 20-25 years who have won 10 plus slams each are all in the 6ft 1 to 6ft 2 range. So these really tall guys will win a handful, but wonder if they will ever be dominant?
 

Sunny014

Legend
And yet, heights of number 1 players don't seem to be going up. So there seems to be an optimal range that doesn't seem to have changed much of late.

It is going up by 1 inch every 10-15 years.... Imo this is the range

Unless Lorenzo Musetti destroys everyone from his generation and becomes another Federer, definitely the heights have gone up.


1950s born to mid 1960s born - Optimum height 5'11 to 6'1 - Most perfect candidates Bjorn Borg / John Mcenroe / Lendl (slightly above this range)
Late 60s born to Early 80s born - Optimum height 6'1 to 6'2 - Most perfect candidates Sampras, Federer, and Roddick
Mid 80s to Early 90s born - Optimum height 6'2 to 6'3 - Most perfect candidates Nadal, Djokovic and Murray
Mid 90s borns upwards - Optimum height 6'3-6'5 - Most perfect candidate - Felix Augur Alisamme
 
Last edited:

timnz

Legend
It is going up by 1 inch every 10-15 years.... Imo this is the range

Unless Lorenzo Musetti destroys everyone from his generation and becomes another Federer, definitely the heights have gone up.


1950s born to mid 1960s born - Optimum height 5'11 to 6'1 - Most perfect candidates Bjorn Borg / John Mcenroe / Lendl (slightly above this range)
Late 60s born to Early 80s born - Optimum height 6'1 to 6'2 - Most perfect candidates Sampras, Federer, and Roddick
Mid 80s to Early 90s born - Optimum height 6'2 to 6'3 - Most perfect candidates Nadal, Djokovic and Murray
Mid 90s borns upwards - Optimum height 6'3-6'5 - Most perfect candidate - Felix Augur Alisamme
Since Sampras no-one has been number 1 over 6ft 3 inches except Safin at 6ft 4" and him only briefly.
 

Amen786

Semi-Pro
Sampras, Federer, Nadal are all 6ft 1" - with 54 Majors to their names combined. Djokovic is 6ft 2" with 20 slams. That's 74 majors for players 73 to 74 inches tall (185 to 188 cm).

Players seem to be bigger in the last 15 years - with 6ft 6" not at all uncommon. However, those really tall players haven't won more than 1 slam each, with many having won none.

So is 6ft 1" to 6ft 2" still the optimum height?

Note: Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic didn't win the slams because of their height but it does seem that their height seems to be optimal for them.
Winners of past 75 slams
5'11 to 6'2 = 72
6'3" & above :- 3
 

MS_07

Semi-Pro
Medvedev and Zverev are 6’6”. Tsitsipas is 6’4”. Sinner is 6’2”. Djokovic is 6’2” and he is not done winning Slams. There is a chance that the guys who win a lot of Slams in the next few years will have widely varying heights.


alcatraz, musetti, sinner - 6'1"

if these 3 don't start beating crap out of **********, zed, meddy soon, we are doomed.
another lost generation
 

SonnyT

Legend
Connors, Borg and Mad, the original Big 3, were all under 6 feet. We will never see a world # 1 that short again. Slam champs that short will be very few and far in between, if there's any.
 

mental midget

Hall of Fame
yep. there’s a ceiling to how well someone can serve regardless of equipment, and we’ve seen it already. at the end of the day serves come back, and tennis will always be about movement. that 6’1 or so range is the best balance and imo the best players will always hover in that range.
 

Jokervich

Hall of Fame
Sampras, Federer, Nadal are all 6ft 1" - with 54 Majors to their names combined. Djokovic is 6ft 2" with 20 slams. That's 74 majors for players 73 to 74 inches tall (185 to 188 cm).

Players seem to be bigger in the last 15 years - with 6ft 6" not at all uncommon. However, those really tall players haven't won more than 1 slam each, with many having won none.

So is 6ft 1" to 6ft 2" still the optimum height?

Note: Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic didn't win the slams because of their height but it does seem that their height seems to be optimal for them.
The ideal height is 20 feet tall so every serve can bounce so high that it's almost unreturnable.
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
It seems like 6'1 or 6'2 is the optimal height. 6'3 seems to be the height where your body breaks down faster over time. Both Kuerten and Murray are 6'3 and both had bad hip issues. If you're shorter than 6'1 in the modern era, you will be at disadvantage on the retun because of reach as well as getting passed more often at the net.
 

DMP

Professional
If you're shorter than 6'1 in the modern era, you will be at disadvantage ...because of ... getting passed more often at the net.

I am not sure that is a big issue these days!! :)

Probably the biggest issue is the height the ball is kicking up.

I think the tall guys can certainly win Slams these days, but I think to get to 10+ will be a problem. Big men don't last. Marathon runners are small and wiry. A long, winning, career is a sort of marathon.
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
I am not sure that is a big issue these days!! :)

Probably the biggest issue is the height the ball is kicking up.

I think the tall guys can certainly win Slams these days, but I think to get to 10+ will be a problem. Big men don't last. Marathon runners are small and wiry. A long, winning, career is a sort of marathon.

Yea the height the ball is kicking can be a problem too especially if you're Diego's height. I was more thinking about someone who is like 5'10. Can win multiple Slams but can't dominate like the 6'1 or 6'2 guys.

I agree with you about tall guys.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
Yes, people who claim over 6'3 is the new optimal height are nuts. 6'1 to 6'3 will remain the optimal height and I would even go as low as 6'0 (Agassi, Wawrinka, Nadal to name a few).

People are just overall taller that's why the average is going higher, but it doesn't translate to it being the new optimal norm. A great 6'1 will always be at a height advantage over a great 6'4 guy because the 6'1 beats him up on the movement department while still having a very good serve.

Having said that the 6'4 / 6'5 guys are moving better than 6'4 / 6'5 guys even 10 years ago. Even Janowicz who was eaten by injuries moved really well for a 6'8 guy.
 
Last edited:

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
6'1 is the optimal height in the past 40 years. It's hard to argue when Edberg, Lendl, Sampras, Fed and Rafa are all 6'1. That's 68 slams between those 5 players.

Also remember that Mac, Connors, Borg and Andre were all 5'10 to 5'11 in height and they are all ATG's.

We'll see how Zverev's career pans out. Just 20 years ago it would have be unimaginable for a 6'6 guy to be #1 or win slams, but now both Zedrot and Med are that height. I personally think it's way too tall to be an elite mover, but Zed/Med might prove me wrong.
 

DjokoLand

Hall of Fame
Yeah seems that way too be fair. I always think of people comparing the big 3 too older players and putting it in the conditions that the players had back in 70/80s but then I think of Rosewall who was 5,7 the same height as Diego and feel he would struggle
 

Jaitock1991

Hall of Fame
It seems to be historically in recent times at least. It's a bit like that's when you'll get the most advantage in terms of serving and reach, while still having your centre of gravity be low/compact enough to maintain world class mobility. Taller and your mobility suffers to much for your serve to make up for it(Dr. Ivo comes to mind), shorter and your serve suffers too much for your mobility to make up for it(Schwartzman comes to mind). Around the 6'1 - 6'2 range appears to be the sweet spot.

That said, it also seems, as other posters have already pointed out, that it's trending upwards slightly.
 
Top