Is racquet technology really responsible for the increased power of today's game?

[monologuist]

I was watching some of the Madrid Masters today : Mathieu vs. Verdasco, and the commentators mentioned how guys are hitting clean winners from the baseline these days, and how it is b/c of racquet technology. Of course, this is the kind of comment that I've grown accustomed to hearing from the likes of P.Mac and Drysdale, and granted, there is some truth to it, when it comes to pros who are wielding racquets like Babolats, but in this particular match, it appeared that both players were using realtively low-powered "traditional player's frames" : Mathieu with either an LM Prestige MP or similar Head paintjob, and Verdasco with either a Tecnifibre 315 or 325 or similar paintjob. Verdasco, especially, has amazing power on his forehand, and I can imagine him hitting clean winners from the backcourt using just about anything. I think the tenedency is for ex-players from the pre-Babolat era to attribute the increased power and speed of today's game to equipment technology rather than acknowledge that today's athletes are actually physically stronger, more explosive, or have adopted techniques that allow them to hit with greater pace and accuracy than previous eras...question is, are they just ill-informed or ignorant about the kind of racquets guys are using on tour these days or is about their egos attempting to preserve the legacy of previous eras?

Looking at some of the top "power" players of today's game, I can think of several who seem to be using racquet that are just as heavy and low-powered and demanding as players of 20 years ago were using. Federer, Safin, Blake, J.J., Berdych, Verdasco, are all guys who can hit clean winners from the backcourt with ease, and all of them use relatively traditional, heavy, low-powered racquets. There are others, like Nadal, Roddick, Ljubicic, and several claycourters who use "modern" racquets, and you could argue that they have the technology edge helping their game, but this is by no means the dominating trend.

If guys like Safin and Federer are seemingly able to hit winners from anywhere on the court using racquets that are no different than what champions of 20 years ago were using (Safin is bascically using a Prestige mid and Fed is using something along the lines of a Pro Staff 6.0), and racquet technology is not credited for their ability to do so, what should be credited?

 

[Ash Doyle]

Looking at some of the top "power" players of today's game, I can think of several who seem to be using racquet that are just as heavy and low-powered and demanding as players of 20 years ago were using.

I don't think there is a racquet being used by a pro player today that is as heavy and low-powered as 20 years ago. Head sizes on average have grown since then, weight has dropped, and stiffness gone up.

 

[VGP]

Racket technology is part of the equation. Players now are bigger, stronger, and faster than ever before. Also, they benefit from decades of training and have adjusted their games to succeed on several surfaces.

Remember that Tennis Magazine article (~1997) where Mark Phillipousis used his regular tour frame (Dunlop Rev 200g?), and oversized frame, and a wooden racket and he hit with relatively equal power and accuracy with any of the frames.

The newer technologies have made a difference in stroke production. The half-volley winners from the baseline, swinging volleys, slam-dunk overheads, heavy topspin, etc. have increased but I don't think the increase in power is solely attributable to new racket technologies.

Perhaps difference enough.

 

[andfor]

I think that the game is always evolving. As equipment has changed i.e. lighter and stiffer racquets, players and coachs will find the best technique to take advantage of what's in the players hands. Technique, fitness, strategy will continue to change and evolve. I would like to believe that as players continue to become stonger and faster Serve and Volley will make its return.

I believe that if heavy wood racquets were still the norm the game would be somewhat different than we see it today. Would the players be hitting the ball harder today than 25 years ago? Yes. Would the styles, grips and strokes be the same? No. But back then there was Borg and Vilas with heavy westerns and Curren and Denton with huge serves, hmmmm maybe not.

 

[monologuist]

I don't think there is a racquet being used by a pro player today that is as heavy and low-powered as 20 years ago. Head sizes on average have grown since then, weight has dropped, and stiffness gone up.

ok...don't wanna get too caught up with the figure of "20 years ago"...Sampras won his first GS with a racquet very simialr to what Fed uses today (Wilson PS 6.0 85), and that was 15 years ago. Point is, there was a time when people were using racquets no less powerful than what some of today's top pros use,whether that was 20, 15 or 10 years ago, and they were not hitting clean winners from behind the baseline with regularity. So how do you explain it when guys today do it with similar racquets?

 

[ohplease]

Awesome, we get to talk about this again!

The genie's out of the bag. People were figuring out nutrition, exercise, and modern technique even before the dawning of the graphite era.

Maybe PMac and Cliffie can start a "figure tennis" tour, where they can award style points to the kind of strokes they like? As opposed to, you know, the kind of strokes that - oh I don't know - win matches?

In fact, why doesn't PMac put his money where his mouth is? If style's so important, he shouldn't pick anybody with modern gear or game for his Davis Cup team. Complaining about the sorry state of the modern game while relying on it's practitioners to pay his checks?

Do yourself a favor - if Courier ain't talking, turn the audio off.

 

[blackdafied]

Today's baseline basher game would vanish overnight if everyone had to use wooden rackets. The increased weight, flex, and smaller headsize would not permit players to hit heavy spin shots with as much margin for error. Granted, it's possible for the top players to pull it off, but don't even expect the likes of Federer or Sampras to play with the same style you're used to seeing them play. Pete might have an easier time transitioning because he already hits with the flatter eastern forehand whereas Fed's western grip generates more spin only because the racket face is more closed. That's already hard to do extremely consistently on a 90 sq in frame. If he tried to swing as hard with a wooden frame, his errors would increase dramatically. Just remember how many bad backhands he hit during the US Open semis and finals. That off-day on the backhand wing was a visible reminder of how difficult it is to be consistent with a small frame already. Federer and other players would be forced to play more conservatively with wooden rackets if they wanted to keep the errors at the level they are used to now with graphite.

You could kiss the extreme western grip forehand goodbye as only the most highly skilled players would try it. Regular players would frame the ball too much.

Two-handed backhands would still be in vogue because of the increased precision required to hit a backhand with pace and accuracy.

Serves would obviously max out in the 120s because smaller headsizes and wood mean less topspin and pace. And that's the men's game. Granted, they'd still hit the ball harder than Mac and Connors did in their day. Ivan Lendl is probably the ideal model of how baseliners of today would play if racket technology never advanced past 1985.

I don't know if tennis would be anymore exciting without today's technology. I agree with a lot of fans that it's nice to see players able to hit the ball so damn hard. At the same time, the contrasts of yesterday are missing. Therefore technology should be reigned in to the extent that we get more balance in the pro game. With racket technology--especially head size--grondstrokes are so dominant that only a player as good as Sampras would dare come into the net, and that's only on first serves.

If we limit racket headsize to 85 sq inches, then we favor serve and volleyers too much because nobody will be able to hit comparable returns on the serve. Thus a medium between serves and returns must be established. Somewhere between 90 and 95 sq in for men is optimal. That way you put a reasonable limit on power, spin, and margin for error that does not weigh heavily toward any style of play.

Heck, if we had a sport where even 25% of the top players were serve and volleyers, that'd be great. More balance and contrast in matchups means more excitement.

 

[SageOfDeath]

I agree mostly with the last part, if there were even ammount of different players that would be awsome.

 

[nicepuppy]

Everyone will likely disagree with me, but I'll go ahead and write this anyway...

I would like to question the notion that pro players weren't hitting clean winners from the baseline in the 70s and 80s. OK, so it's been 20-30 years since I watched any of those matches (I don't watch classic tennis videos, unfortunately), and I may be remembering poorly, but I really, really think I saw Connors and Borg hitting baseline winners with semi-regularity...not as much as these days, sure, but still often enough that it wasn't *that* big a deal. I remember in Lendl's first FO final against Borg the announcers being so excited about his inside-out forehand, and both of them hitting occasional baseline winners despite the other being ten feet behind the baseline. Connors' would often hit approach shots that turned out to be clean winners. But so many players were serve&volley that the vast majority winners were from the net, or passing shots, simply because that's where rallies quickly wound up. (It could be that players back then seemed to do more wrong-footing, which can allow for winners with less overall power, and Connors hit the ball so flat there simply wasn't much elapsed time between the racquet and the baseline.)

If I'm remembering poorly (I grow old), just tell me and pass on by.

 

[bluegrasser]

Winners from the baseline but not five feet behind...

 

[35ft6]

A big difference between the winners today and the winners of 25 years ago is that back then guys had to set up their winners more. So yeah, they probably were hitting winners 5 feet behind the baseline back then, but usually after hitting 4 or 5 shots to eventually set the winner up. Today, a guy is liable to hit a winner out of nowhere, his opponent doesn't have to be out of position first. You give some of these guys any kind of look at the ball, even if they're several feet behind the baseline, and they're going to hit a winner. Guys back then were hitting winners but not winners out of absolutely nowhere.

 

[mary fierce]

Lendl himself pointed out last month in the New York Times that the game involves much more speed and power than when he played, something easily confirmed by watching video from that era and wondering if it's in slow motion. Each birth generation is on average an inch taller now than the preceding one (this may have less to do with nutrition than people think; studies show that taller men are not only more likely to have children but also to have a larger number of them when they do) and sports, as with pre-school, starts earlier for more kids than it did a generation ago. And on a purely mathematical basis, the fact that in the time that the world population has gone from say 1 or 2 billion to 6 billion the draw at a slam has remained 128 men and 128 women, which means there are that many more statistical anomalies (i.e. exceptionally gifted athletes) competing for those spots. It's inevitable just on this basis that you'd see more speed and power. And as the financial incentives have caught up with other sports (and perhaps passed, in the case of hockey), more and more of those exceptional athletes may be passing up other sports to pursue tennis.

 

[Rabbit]

R. I. P......

 

[William Bedford]

Strings have something to do with it too.

 

[ohplease]

Lendl himself pointed out last month in the New York Times that the game involves much more speed and power than when he played, something easily confirmed by watching video from that era and wondering if it's in slow motion. Each birth generation is on average an inch taller now than the preceding one (this may have less to do with nutrition than people think; studies show that taller men are not only more likely to have children but also to have a larger number of them when they do) and sports, as with pre-school, starts earlier for more kids than it did a generation ago. And on a purely mathematical basis, the fact that in the time that the world population has gone from say 1 or 2 billion to 6 billion the draw at a slam has remained 128 men and 128 women, which means there are that many more statistical anomalies (i.e. exceptionally gifted athletes) competing for those spots. It's inevitable just on this basis that you'd see more speed and power. And as the financial incentives have caught up with other sports (and perhaps passed, in the case of hockey), more and more of those exceptional athletes may be passing up other sports to pursue tennis.

I'd agree with most of your analysis except for the whole evolutionary advantage angle. If there were a consistent selection pressure producing successive generations on average an inch taller than the last, every generation, we should all be much, much taller than we are right now.

Anyway, your point remains: it's not just the gear.

 

[mary fierce]

I'm not giving an opinion here -- this is the result of what seems to be good published medical data. Average height (USA was studied) has gone up about an inch every 25 years in the last century, apparently based on some selective mating advantage for genes that favor height, as tall males are having far more children than short males. Is this a biological difference or do females who want large families consciously or unconsciously gravitate toward taller "breeding stock"? I don't know, but the data are fairly clear and straightforward. Take a look around next time you go to the mall at just how tall the average teen is lately, then look around at the average adult.

 

[ohplease]

I'm not giving an opinion here -- this is the result of good published medical data. Average height (USA was studied) has gone up about an inch every 25 years in the last century, apparently based on some selective mating advantage for genes that favor height, as tall males are having far more children than short males. Take a look around next time you go to the mall at just how tall the average teen is lately, then look around at the average adult.

It's extremely difficult to attribute anything exclusively to evolutionary advantage. Let's see the study.

Further, here's a secondary source that cross-references anthropology, history, and economics that argues that the average American height waxes and wanes with the relative distribution of wealth, particularly in contrast to Scandanavian countries, who are both tall (and growing taller) and socially progressive: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040405fa_fact

Again - I'm not saying that your point about evolutionary advantage is without merit. I simply think it's overstated. I also think while there might be something there, just as compelling an argument could be made with regard to height vs. wealth/nutrition as compared to height vs. genetics.

 

[jackson vile]

I don't think there is a racquet being used by a pro player today that is as heavy and low-powered as 20 years ago. Head sizes on average have grown since then, weight has dropped, and stiffness gone up.

If you are compairing wood and graphite there is no comparison, I think that the graphite itself did not change the game but rather it allowed the players themselves to change the game.

Buy allowing them to put more power into shots it led to players worrying more about speed instead of pinpoint accuracy and then you saw a mix.

You can see this buy racquets the pros use, they use smaller head sizes lower power such a rdx500 ect. So it is really the players

 

[35ft6]

Is this a biological difference or do females who want large families consciously or unconsciously gravitate toward taller "breeding stock"? I don't know, but the data are fairly clear and straightforward. Take a look around next time you go to the mall at just how tall the average teen is lately, then look around at the average adult.

On Craigslist personals, women seeking men, you definitely see a lot of women asking that the man be at least 5'11". That seems to be the most popular minimum height. I didn't realize this until this short guy at work kept pointing it out. He's not too happy about it.

 

[35ft6]

It's extremely difficult to attribute anything exclusively to evolutionary advantage. Let's see the study.

Again - I'm not saying that your point about evolutionary advantage is without merit. I simply think it's overstated. I also think while there might be something there, just as compelling an argument could be made with regard to height vs. wealth/nutrition as compared to height vs. genetics.

I don't think the poster ever brought up evolution. He just said that successive generations are on average becoming taller. You're probably right that it's not about reproductive fitness, as even though tall men may do "better" than short men, there's plenty of women to go around for tall and short men alike.

I know people in Asian countries are becoming taller, and the general consensus seems to be it's because of western diets becoming more popular there.

 

[ohplease]

I don't think the poster ever brought up evolution. He just said that successive generations are on average becoming taller. You're probably right that it's not about reproductive fitness, as even though tall men may do "better" than short men, there's plenty of women to go around for tall and short men alike.

I know people in Asian countries are becoming taller, and the general consensus seems to be it's because of western diets becoming more popular there.

mary fierce: "selective mating advantage for genes"

dictionary.com: evolution - Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

"reproductive fitness" might not be spelled like "evolution" - but we're in the same ballpark here.

 

[BreakPoint]

I know people in Asian countries are becoming taller, and the general consensus seems to be it's because of western diets becoming more popular there.

In some Asian countries more than others. For instance, the Chinese are getting very concerned that the Japanese are starting to catch up to them in height. The Chinese have historically been taller, so they are trying to figure out how to feed their people better so that they remain taller than the Japanese. Perhaps that's why there are now McDonald's and KFC's all over China.

 

[35ft6]

mary fierce: "selective mating advantage for genes"

That's why I put "I don't think." I was too lazy to look over his entire post again. I stand corrected. I would have hoped that the rest of that paragraph would have betrayed my understanding of evolution but I guess I was wrong twice in that post.

 

[35ft6]

Perhaps that's why there are now McDonald's and KFC's all over China.

The Chinese are supposedly mad for KFC. And the Asians used to be so trim...

 

[Swissv2]

There is without a doubt an increase in serve speed, but many have overlooked that aspect.

Advancing research into proper diet, conditioning, strength training have all contributed to the increased speed of play. But as for height, the top players have remained at a decent height of 6'0''+ for a long time now.

my 0.02