Just how high was the level of tennis in the Laver/Rosewall era?

C

Crazy Finn

Hall of Fame
tennis tom said:
www.ranker.com

The Shortest Men's Tennis Players Of All Time, Ranked

While you may think all athletes have a taller stature, a tennis player's height is not necessarily an asset when it comes to scoring big on the court. There are actually many short male tennis players, including some of the top tennis players in the field right now. From David Ferrer to...
www.ranker.com www.ranker.com
Click to expand...
How is Laver not on there? Trash, as expected from Ranker.com
 
CyBorg

CyBorg

Legend
Adman said:
Laver would be around Goffin's ranking and stature in our days.

All sports have evolved, soccer from Laver's time looks like a joke.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... I dunno. Whenever I watch David Goffin, I never think "damn, tennis has become so amazing."
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Kralingen said:
oh without a doubt. I’ve seen Laver before, his touch and reading of the game are unbelievable. And at 5’8” playing for 20 years is incredible.

I just mean that the dynamics and advantages in this old style tennis are completely different from what we have today. They barely play the same sport. It’s disrespectful to the old timers to try to compare them with the Big 3, the advantages modern guys have are so immense.
Click to expand...
Give the current crop of players wooden racquets and see what they could do....not much. You needed real skill to play with the older smaller racquet heads.
 
U

urban

Legend
With the small old sticks, which looked like squash rackets, it was a different ball game. You had to hit the ball with the sweet spot in the middle of the racket, otherwise you hit into the ground or into the fence and you felt the pain up to your shoulder. The modern racket are much more forgiving, especially on the return and on groundies. Becker had many mishits with the graphite racket (even Fed had many shanks), but the balls went just over the net, which was impossible with the old wooden sticks. You had to hit with a closed stance and you had to lead with the upper body and arm. To generate any topspin, it cost a lot of arm and wrist strength. Even top players like Roche had problems with the tennis arm and pain in the ellbow. Players like Okker and Santana were the first who played more with an open stance on the forehand.
That said, after looking some Wim matches of today, you can note that the forecourt game is not existent and many shots of yesteryears are gone. The volleys were better executed, were kept lower and had more length and penetration. Same with the approach shot and the half volley. Many, if not all top players today attack on topspin, which is no good, because of the higher bounce, it is easier to return. I think, Fed woud have beaten Djoker on grass with a better, deeper slice approach. Some old shots like dinks, smashs on the knees and other little shots are gone. The lob is only a desperation shot today, it once was a tactical weapon on grass. Rosewall was probing with lobs to find out the good height and keep the attacker a bit more behind the t-line. Laver had an aggressive topspin lob from both flanks as weapon of attack. I think, the old players had a more complete arsenal of shots. The main matter of today is the short direction change on the baseline, which goes best on hard court and is best executed by Djokovic.
 
Last edited:
skaj

skaj

Legend
NiCo515 said:
Laver is a borderline midget with the build and athleticism of lazy suburban dad. He wouldn't be ranked in the top 100 if he was born in 2000. I get that the guy was great for his time, but the competition in those days was a joke compared to today. The draws were full of complete nobodies representing 2-3 countries, whereas today it's talent from every corner of the globe who essentially devoted their entire childhoods to becoming professional tennis players. You can respect the players for what they were for their time, but I doubt any of them would stand a chance at even being competitive in today's era.
Click to expand...

First of all I think that midget is an offensive word. Second, Laver was one of the best athletes in tennis ever - quick, fit, well-coordinated, great all-court mover.
Third, you cannot compare eras the way you are trying to.
 
arvind13

arvind13

Professional
BeatlesFan said:
What's quite laughable is that anyone sits around and disrespects one of the icons of the game with no understanding of past eras. You could also show clips of Lendl playing Becker in the late 1980's and make asinine remarks like, "take a look at Lendl's FH, it's so weak, it lands so short, quite laughable."

In 20 years when people watch clips of a Djokovic-Nadal match they'll laugh at how softly they hit the ball, how slow they are and how their serves were cream puffs. The games evolves and to pejoratively judge Laver or Rosewall is utterly pathetic. They were two of the greatest players ever, grand ambassadors of the game and are still icons of the sport. But in your myopic world, Rosewall is "laughable."
Click to expand...

that's the most BS cliche that tennis fans and journalists keep trotting out. tennis has evolved. TENNIS HAS EVOLVED!! how has it evolved? I can't comment on the wood racquet era. I started watching tennis in the late 80s. As far as I can tell, tennis has DEVOLVED not evolved. today's next gen and lost gen are the worst tennis generation in terms of racquet skills, variety, technique. today's players are bigger, stronger, faster, more stamina and can hit with more topspin and power. in terms of everything else tennis has devolved. look no further than net coverage and volleys.
 
Gary Duane

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
First of all, everyone joked about "little Kenny's joke of a serve". He was a natural lefty who was forced to play righty, which was probably why he was so strong on the backhand side. But you find out how good players are when they face the next generation, and just studying how good Ken still was near 40 tells you a lot. Talking about how he got creamed by Connors isn't fair because he was old and very tired. All of you should reconsider his later career play and those of others while you are watching old Fed and old Nadal.

So we talk about Ken being from the older generation, but he was still winning matches close to 40. Laver was still winning matches close to 40. And Connors at age 39 got far in another slam. If these guys were still competitive at close to ave 40, that's important. We can conclude from that one thing: these ATGs stayed relative for a long time, with Pancho making the QF of RG in 68 at age 40. Nadal could not win it this year at age 35, with much better nutrition and training and modern medicine.

As for topspin, Laver did it from both wings, and he did it with a heavy wooden club.. He had a forearm the size of Popeye's. Borg did not find it easy to beat him on clay. There's a good match on YouTube with Pancho commentating.

Finally, Rosewall's "weak underspin backhand". It was a lot like Connors forehand, almost flat and lethal. He didn't have a strong serve. How do you think he won so much? It was a super precise shot, and every other pro feared it.

Finally: the pros pre-open-era trained in a way that no one else has ever done. They played everywhere, traveled in any way, worked hard for the money. Played on any surface, in any weather. That's why they were so dominant in the early open era. They were tough in a way that the amateurs were not.

You can miss all that because you are brainwashed by what the modern rackets and strings do. Things were slower, and less precise, because that's what you got with that equipment, and canvas shoes, and just a racket press for a racket you could buy for very little money. Give these modern guys those rackets, with those strings, and those shoes, without their teams and eggs and borderline legal quasi-PEDs, without MRIs and micro surgery and you would make very different conclusions.
 
Gary Duane

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
BeatlesFan said:
What's quite laughable is that anyone sits around and disrespects one of the icons of the game with no understanding of past eras. You could also show clips of Lendl playing Becker in the late 1980's and make asinine remarks like, "take a look at Lendl's FH, it's so weak, it lands so short, quite laughable."

In 20 years when people watch clips of a Djokovic-Nadal match they'll laugh at how softly they hit the ball, how slow they are and how their serves were cream puffs. The games evolves and to pejoratively judge Laver or Rosewall is utterly pathetic. They were two of the greatest players ever, grand ambassadors of the game and are still icons of the sport. But in your myopic world, Rosewall is "laughable."
Click to expand...
I disagree. I think most of the evolution is in the equipment. Check to see how much times have evolved in areas of sport where the conditions have not changed.

This is a long read, but I made it mostly through because I know next to nothing about bowling. A skim will tell you how confusing it is to explain why scores in bowling keep going up:

Are Today’s Bowling Scores Too High?

Through the years, the bowling scores in league and in tournament play have increased. First, we witnessed gradual increases in the median bowling average scoring for all sanctioned bowlers in the country. As bowling became more and more popular in the 1960's with the advent of the PBA telecasts...
www.bowlingball.com

If you want to compare "now" to a few decades ago, you have to find an area in which you can separate training from tech. Even in running you have to consider shoes and the tracks themselves. If you really want to find out how much faster swimmers are, let them dive off a dock, in open water, then swim a long distance in the nude.

Well, that ain't gonna happen. :) But then you'd find out what changes in the rules, changes in the pools and changes in the suits are doing.

Check this out:

en.wikipedia.org

Marathon world record progression - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

From around 1980 to now I think you'll find out that the improvement in times is not that radical, because there isn't that much you can change in the sport. The clothes are lighter, the shoes much better. But it's not night and day. I think you'd see about the same amount of small improvement in tennis without the equipment.
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
urban said:
With the small old sticks, which looked like squash rackets, it was a different ball game. You had to hit the ball with the sweet spot in the middle of the racket, otherwise you hit into the ground or into the fence and you felt the pain up to your shoulder. The modern racket are much more forgiving, especially on the return and on groundies. Becker had many mishits with the graphite racket (even Fed had many shanks), but the balls went just over the net, which was impossible with the old wooden sticks. You had to hit with a closed stance and you had to lead with the upper body and arm. To generate any topspin, it cost a lot of arm and wrist strength. Even top players like Roche had problems with the tennis arm and pain in the ellbow. Players like Okker and Santana were the first who played more with an open stance on the forehand.
That said, after looking some Wim matches of today, you can note that the forecourt game is not existent and many shots of yesteryears are gone. The volleys were better executed, were kept lower and had more length and penetration. Same with the approach shot and the half volley. Many, if not all top players today attack on topspin, which is no good, because of the higher bounce, it is easier to return. I think, Fed woud have beaten Djoker on grass with a better, deeper slice approach. Some old shots like dinks, smashs on the knees and other little shots are gone. The lob is only a desperation shot today, it once was a tactical weapon on grass. Rosewall was probing with lobs to find out the good height and keep the attacker a bit more behind the t-line. Laver had an aggressive topspin lob from both flanks as weapon of attack. I think, the old players had a more complete arsenal of shots. The main matter of today is the short direction change on the baseline, which goes best on hard court and is best executed by Djokovic.
Click to expand...
Completely agree, in spades.
A few years ago, Stolle pointed out the flaws in Federer's volleys, that Federer was not "on top" of the volley, but was too far back to hit a put-away volley.
Volleying is a lost art.
 
Last edited:
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
skaj said:
First of all I think that midget is an offensive word. Second, Laver was one of the best athletes in tennis ever - quick, fit, well-coordinated, great all-court mover.
Third, you cannot compare eras the way you are trying to.
Click to expand...
The fitness of the Harry Hopman school of Australian tennis players was legendary, easily equal to current standards.
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Gary Duane said:
First of all, everyone joked about "little Kenny's joke of a serve". He was a natural lefty who was forced to play righty, which was probably why he was so strong on the backhand side. But you find out how good players are when they face the next generation, and just studying how good Ken still was near 40 tells you a lot. Talking about how he got creamed by Connors isn't fair because he was old and very tired. All of you should reconsider his later career play and those of others while you are watching old Fed and old Nadal.

So we talk about Ken being from the older generation, but he was still winning matches close to 40. Laver was still winning matches close to 40. And Connors at age 39 got far in another slam. If these guys were still competitive at close to ave 40, that's important. We can conclude from that one thing: these ATGs stayed relative for a long time, with Pancho making the QF of RG in 68 at age 40. Nadal could not win it this year at age 35, with much better nutrition and training and modern medicine.

As for topspin, Laver did it from both wings, and he did it with a heavy wooden club.. He had a forearm the size of Popeye's. Borg did not find it easy to beat him on clay. There's a good match on YouTube with Pancho commentating.

Finally, Rosewall's "weak underspin backhand". It was a lot like Connors forehand, almost flat and lethal. He didn't have a strong serve. How do you think he won so much? It was a super precise shot, and every other pro feared it.

Finally: the pros pre-open-era trained in a way that no one else has ever done. They played everywhere, traveled in any way, worked hard for the money. Played on any surface, in any weather. That's why they were so dominant in the early open era. They were tough in a way that the amateurs were not.

You can miss all that because you are brainwashed by what the modern rackets and strings do. Things were slower, and less precise, because that's what you got with that equipment, and canvas shoes, and just a racket press for a racket you could buy for very little money. Give these modern guys those rackets, with those strings, and those shoes, without their teams and eggs and borderline legal quasi-PEDs, without MRIs and micro surgery and you would make very different conclusions.
Click to expand...
The players on the old pro tour played a season which would make current players faint just thinking about it.
For example, Hoad played slightly over 100 matches in 1957 in a half season, 155 matches in 1958 despite several months off due to injury, and 170 matches in 1959 in a full season. That is 425 matches over three years of part seasons. These matches were not one-set affairs but best of three and best of five. No tiebreakers.
How many matches do they play in a season today? Fifty or sixty? Even with lighter racquets and less running up to net to volley, a less demanding style of play, they cannot get near the old seasons.
 
Last edited:
M

mcs1970

Hall of Fame
Kralingen said:
:-D:-D:-D at a 23 time Slam champion opening up the match with a double fault that resembles a 12-year-old girl’s service motion. How is a 20-time slam champion at this point looking like he’s learning to serve the ball at tennis camp? That was some incredible comedy. I’m glad I watched. Also LOL at the fact that Rosewall played points with the spare tennis ball in his left hand.

Then watched a bit more, both men hit an assortment of incredible volleys and passing shots. I’m not disrespecting their talent, especially using the tech available in 1974. Seems to be a completely different game to today.

Overall it’s impossible to take anyone who compares these guys to the Big 3 seriously.
Click to expand...


It is pointless to compare across eras. The big 3 play on great courts, have all things from equipment to travel taken care of them because of folks like Laver and Rosewall who came before them.


If the big 3 played in the 60s they would have played a different game. They would have still been great.

All great players in a given era stand on their own merits. Everyone wants to find a GOAT even though the times and conditions are so different. All these greats overcame challenges specific to their era and shone due to their elite talent, fitness and mental toughness. They have much more in common than anything else that separates them.
 
BGod

BGod

G.O.A.T.
Gary Duane said:
First of all, everyone joked about "little Kenny's joke of a serve". He was a natural lefty who was forced to play righty, which was probably why he was so strong on the backhand side. But you find out how good players are when they face the next generation, and just studying how good Ken still was near 40 tells you a lot. Talking about how he got creamed by Connors isn't fair because he was old and very tired. All of you should reconsider his later career play and those of others while you are watching old Fed and old Nadal.

So we talk about Ken being from the older generation, but he was still winning matches close to 40. Laver was still winning matches close to 40. And Connors at age 39 got far in another slam. If these guys were still competitive at close to ave 40, that's important. We can conclude from that one thing: these ATGs stayed relative for a long time, with Pancho making the QF of RG in 68 at age 40. Nadal could not win it this year at age 35, with much better nutrition and training and modern medicine.

As for topspin, Laver did it from both wings, and he did it with a heavy wooden club.. He had a forearm the size of Popeye's. Borg did not find it easy to beat him on clay. There's a good match on YouTube with Pancho commentating.

Finally, Rosewall's "weak underspin backhand". It was a lot like Connors forehand, almost flat and lethal. He didn't have a strong serve. How do you think he won so much? It was a super precise shot, and every other pro feared it.

Finally: the pros pre-open-era trained in a way that no one else has ever done. They played everywhere, traveled in any way, worked hard for the money. Played on any surface, in any weather. That's why they were so dominant in the early open era. They were tough in a way that the amateurs were not.

You can miss all that because you are brainwashed by what the modern rackets and strings do. Things were slower, and less precise, because that's what you got with that equipment, and canvas shoes, and just a racket press for a racket you could buy for very little money. Give these modern guys those rackets, with those strings, and those shoes, without their teams and eggs and borderline legal quasi-PEDs, without MRIs and micro surgery and you would make very different conclusions.
Click to expand...


Gary Duane said:
I disagree. I think most of the evolution is in the equipment. Check to see how much times have evolved in areas of sport where the conditions have not changed.

From around 1980 to now I think you'll find out that the improvement in times is not that radical, because there isn't that much you can change in the sport. The clothes are lighter, the shoes much better. But it's not night and day. I think you'd see about the same amount of small improvement in tennis without the equipment.
Click to expand...

So are you saying tennis hasn't changed that much in 50 years? Because speaking from a semi-pro perspective even 90s era racquets eliminate a lot of modern game. And guys at that level are usually open to playing around with old racquets for comparisons. For example guys who use a lot of spin lose a massive portion of their game with 90s era and gut strings. I believe the one guy I hit with once was using a 97/98 Yonex and I gave him a 93 Prestige I got used and with fresh gut strings at 50 tension. He looked atrocious even after over an hour of play. His typical corner serves were now impossible for him to hit and he had to regroup to hit standard straight serves. And his forehand became about 30% softer.
 
jussumman

jussumman

Hall of Fame
Kralingen said:
:-D:-D:-D at a 23 time Slam champion opening up the match with a double fault that resembles a 12-year-old girl’s service motion. How is a 20-time slam champion at this point looking like he’s learning to serve the ball at tennis camp? That was some incredible comedy. I’m glad I watched. Also LOL at the fact that Rosewall played points with the spare tennis ball in his left hand.

Then watched a bit more, both men hit an assortment of incredible volleys and passing shots. I’m not disrespecting their talent, especially using the tech available in 1974. Seems to be a completely different game to today.

Overall it’s impossible to take anyone who compares these guys to the Big 3 seriously.
Click to expand...
Hilarious commentary :-D:-D:-D. The only way to compare is by the numbers, not by visually looking at how they played with those rules and technology. And in that regard Rosewall is GOAT, beating any of the Big 3 today.
 
Gary Duane

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
BGod said:
So are you saying tennis hasn't changed that much in 50 years?
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I'm saying. Probably 95% of what we see as different now is from the equipment. That's why I was reading last night about bowling. I don't even LIKE bowling! But I was interested in what has changed. It turns out the lanes have changed, the way they are oiled has changed. The balls are different. The equipment allows a change in technique, and all that brings down the scores. Since scoring is fixed, the average scores tell a story. Now much of the lower scores mean better bowling vs changed equipment.

Even with running, where you have concrete comparisons with times the only way to compare long ago with now is to have men run without clothes and shoes, then somehow determine a running surface that never changes.

What I suspect you would see in running, and swimming, is a gradual reduction of times reflecting nutrition and training, but not huge over the last few decades.

In what I teach, piano, the grand has not changed over the last 100 years. So you hear performance from 100 years ago that are amazing, except of course the recording quality is poor.

I don't know about golf. I'm guessing modern golfers are somewhat better, but I don't know how the clubs have changed, or the balls. I'm just saying that if you freeze the equipment so that it doesn't change, I don't think you see the same huge changes in the play.

Even in basketball, which I again don't know about, how much difference has the 3 point shot made? What other things are different? I don't know. To me modern players look so good, it's scary.

It's just so hard to compare when so many factors change.
 
BGod

BGod

G.O.A.T.
Gary Duane said:
That's exactly what I'm saying. Probably 95% of what we see as different now is from the equipment. That's why I was reading last night about bowling. I don't even LIKE bowling! But I was interested in what has changed. It turns out the lanes have changed, the way they are oiled has changed. The balls are different. The equipment allows a change in technique, and all that brings down the scores. Since scoring is fixed, the average scores tell a story. Now much of the lower scores mean better bowling vs changed equipment.

Even with running, where you have concrete comparisons with times the only way to compare long ago with now is to have men run without clothes and shoes, then somehow determine a running surface that never changes.

What I suspect you would see in running, and swimming, is a gradual reduction of times reflecting nutrition and training, but not huge over the last few decades.

In what I teach, piano, the grand has not changed over the last 100 years. So you hear performance from 100 years ago that are amazing, except of course the recording quality is poor.

I don't know about golf. I'm guessing modern golfers are somewhat better, but I don't know how the clubs have changed, or the balls. I'm just saying that if you freeze the equipment so that it doesn't change, I don't think you see the same huge changes in the play.

Even in basketball, which I again don't know about, how much difference has the 3 point shot made? What other things are different? I don't know. To me modern players look so good, it's scary.

It's just so hard to compare when so many factors change.
Click to expand...

Ah I see. Well then yeah I agree, Borg & Lendl fitness would be Top 10 nowadays.

As for basketball which I follow closely and played varsity, the talent pool and Jordan effect has certainly brought the standards up. As well as teams of fitness, dieticians, etc.

To be kind, half of 80s NBA players would struggle to make top NCAA program starting spots. Players like Wilt, Hakeem and Magic would still be Top 10 though.
 
Gary Duane

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
BGod said:
Ah I see. Well then yeah I agree, Borg & Lendl fitness would be Top 10 nowadays.

As for basketball which I follow closely and played varsity, the talent pool and Jordan effect has certainly brought the standards up. As well as teams of fitness, dieticians, etc.

To be kind, half of 80s NBA players would struggle to make top NCAA program starting spots. Players like Wilt, Hakeem and Magic would still be Top 10 though.
Click to expand...
To me that means that the top are always amazing, but the next level gets stronger over time. I don't know if that holds true in all sports. Maybe. I also don't know how much that has to do with more and more people in the world, a bigger talent pool. That would probably not be so valid in tennis because so many talented athletes don't go near tennis except for a casual sport for fun.
 
BGod

BGod

G.O.A.T.
Gary Duane said:
To me that means that the top are always amazing, but the next level gets stronger over time. I don't know if that holds true in all sports. Maybe. I also don't know how much that has to do with more and more people in the world, a bigger talent pool. That would probably not be so valid in tennis because so many talented athletes don't go near tennis except for a casual sport for fun.
Click to expand...

Money. Always about money.

As top heavy as the sport is now, it was even more top heavy in the 70s and 80s. It's just that players didn't travel back then as much so you didn't have stories of Top 50 guys struggling to break even. But you had Top 20 guys with name recognition making less than a top tier corporate job.

Pro sports in general up until the 90s was mostly bragging rights and chasing the dream. Hell 1970s NFL was at least half the league working 2nd jobs in the off-season.
 
U

urban

Legend
I am not so sure, if the pool of talent is really that great today. Tennis is popular for talented athletes in Eastern European countries, see all the women and guys out of Russia, Czechia, Rumania, Bulgaria, Serbia and so on. But it has decreased in traditional tennis countries. Its a shame, that the US, th biggest sporting country in the world, hasn't produced a male top tenner for almost a decade or more. It seems that many top talents went to other sports. India, once a great tennis nation, is now extinct, same with the Mexicans, and overall the South Americans are not the force, they once were. In China and the Pacific region there is a stagnation, after some progress 10 years ago. The French have an ebb, the Germans live by the name of Russian born Zverev. Spain has some new faces, but no winning top star after Nadal. Only the Italians, after a long ebb, have a boom now with many stars suddenly emerging at the same time - like the eruption of the Vesuv. It seems they have a good talent scouting and promoting program, what the French and Spanish federations executed before..
 
mmk

mmk

Hall of Fame
ibbi said:
^This. Genuinely difficult sport to master playing with those things that don't do half the work for you.
Click to expand...
Yep, any number of shots I make by just putting the racquet out would not be possible with wood. I carry a couple of wood racquets with me and occasionally get one of my opponents to hit with me using them. They are always surprised at how different it is.
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
urban said:
I am not so sure, if the pool of talent is really that great today. Tennis is popular for talented athletes in Eastern European countries, see all the women and guys out of Russia, Czechia, Rumania, Bulgaria, Serbia and so on. But it has decreased in traditional tennis countries. Its a shame, that the US, th biggest sporting country in the world, hasn't produced a male top tenner for almost a decade or more. It seems that many top talents went to other sports. India, once a great tennis nation, is now extinct, same with the Mexicans, and overall the South Americans are not the force, they once were. In China and the Pacific region there is a stagnation, after some progress 10 years ago. The French have an ebb, the Germans live by the name of Russian born Zverev. Spain has some new faces, but no winning top star after Nadal. Only the Italians, after a long ebb, have a boom now with many stars suddenly emerging at the same time - like the eruption of the Vesuv. It seems they have a good talent scouting and promoting program, what the French and Spanish federations executed before..
Click to expand...
Don't forget, Tennis Canada has upped its game and several Canadian tennis stars have emerged in the last decade, Raonic, Shapovalov, Felix, Andreescu.
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Just looking at today's play at Wimbledon, it seems that the level of play is no higher today than it was 65 years ago. Much better lobs then.

 
Last edited:
mmk

mmk

Hall of Fame
BGod said:
Money. Always about money.

As top heavy as the sport is now, it was even more top heavy in the 70s and 80s. It's just that players didn't travel back then as much so you didn't have stories of Top 50 guys struggling to break even. But you had Top 20 guys with name recognition making less than a top tier corporate job.

Pro sports in general up until the 90s was mostly bragging rights and chasing the dream. Hell 1970s NFL was at least half the league working 2nd jobs in the off-season.
Click to expand...
In the early 60s Mickey Mantle was the highest paid athlete making $100K, and the average US household income was about $5K - so 20:1. The average US household income today is around $50K, and Patrick Mahomes' new contract is for $50M/year - 1000:1. If Djokovic manages to win Wimbledon he'll have made $6.2M just from the first three slams - 124:1. Athletes were underpaid for a long time, but at the top end they're likely overpaid now.
 
BGod

BGod

G.O.A.T.
mmk said:
In the early 60s Mickey Mantle was the highest paid athlete making $100K, and the average US household income was about $5K - so 20:1. The average US household income today is around $50K, and Patrick Mahomes' new contract is for $50M/year - 1000:1. If Djokovic manages to win Wimbledon he'll have made $6.2M just from the first three slams - 124:1. Athletes were underpaid for a long time, but at the top end they're likely overpaid now.
Click to expand...

Wilt Chamberlain also got 250k a year on a 5 year contract in 1968. But those are major leagues and more popular sports. Gordie Howe in the NHL started the 60s making 25k the ended making 45k. He was in decline then but a recognizable name.

Tennis players outside of the Top 5 guys were making peanuts by comparison. Total prize money for 1969 Wimbledon was 33,000 pounds. The men's winner, Rod Laver received 3,000.
 
M

MiamiWeekendWarrior

Hall of Fame
Dan Lobb said:
Just looking at today's play at Wimbledon, it seems that the level of play is no higher today than it was 65 years ago. Much better lobs then.

Click to expand...

can't see the first vid but in the second vid the guys look like they're playing in slow motion even though the video is slightly sped up and the women look like what I can see at the 60 and over beginner tournament at my local club.
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
MiamiWeekendWarrior said:
can't see the first vid but in the second vid the guys look like they're playing in slow motion even though the video is slightly sped up and the women look like what I can see at the 60 and over beginner tournament at my local club.
Click to expand...
Speed in old films is hard to determine, but to me it looks like the speed is similar to the current play shown above. AND the lob technique is clearly superior in the older Wimbledon footage...the players today seem to have never learned proper lob technique.
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Compare the women finals from today and 1980, the last time an Australian woman won at Wimbledon. Looks like about the same level of play.

 
M

MiamiWeekendWarrior

Hall of Fame
Dan Lobb said:
Compare the women finals from today and 1980, the last time an Australian woman won at Wimbledon. Looks like about the same level of play.

Click to expand...

lmao! You've got to be kidding. I can't see the first vid but just looking at the very first point in the second vid, Evert opens the match with a blistering 70mph serve right into Evonne's forehand sweet spot. Evonne responds with a blistering 40mph slice forehand.....

Compare that to Pliskova blasting 110mph+ serves and both of them hitting laser beam forehands and backhands most of the time.

Give me a break.
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
MiamiWeekendWarrior said:
lmao! You've got to be kidding. I can't see the first vid but just looking at the very first point in the second vid, Evert opens the match with a blistering 70mph serve right into Evonne's forehand sweet spot. Evonne responds with a blistering 40mph slice forehand.....

Compare that to Pliskova blasting 110mph+ serves and both of them hitting laser beam forehands and backhands most of the time.

Give me a break.
Click to expand...
Take a look at these highlights from today...they look like they are playing pat-ball. dinks and lobs....and poor lob technique.
Groundstrokes look better in that 1980 classic.
 
M

mental midget

Hall of Fame
CyBorg said:
No, it doesn't.

Imagine seeing who made this year's Wimbledon semifinals and thinking that tennis has "evolved" into something unprecedented. This sport is at its most homogenized and dull in history.
Click to expand...

agree. more physical, arguably less 'skilled' although it's safe to say most top players from every era would likely have been top players in any era, all else being equal. if rios could get to #1 i would give modern laver' a preeettty decent shot at the same.
 
M

MiamiWeekendWarrior

Hall of Fame
Dan Lobb said:
Take a look at these highlights from today...they look like they are playing pat-ball. dinks and lobs....and poor lob technique.
Groundstrokes look better in that 1980 classic.
Click to expand...

Right....those groundstrokes that land about as deep as a drop shot unless they're hit 15 feet above the net are being hit much harder than a modern groundstroke that lands 6 inches inside the baseline and clears the net by about...........6 inches.
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
MiamiWeekendWarrior said:
Right....those groundstrokes that land about as deep as a drop shot unless they're hit 15 feet above the net are being hit much harder than a modern groundstroke that lands 6 inches inside the baseline and clears the net by about...........6 inches.
Click to expand...
Naw, take another look...many of the 1980 strokes are hit deep. And much better net play and lobs.
 
M

mental midget

Hall of Fame
players are generally better conditioned today thanks to 1. sports science, 2. the nature of the game. but as for the 'sport evolving' meaning any advances in skill or technique...no way. the old clips are sometimes deceptive but here's one worth watching if you picture the woody era to be a bunch of pattycake strokes in slow motions:
 
Karma Tennis

Karma Tennis

Legend
mcs1970 said:
If the big 3 played in the 60s they would have played a different game. They would have still been great.
Click to expand...

Federer certainly. Djokovic, probably.

Nadal is the outlier. His brand of tennis is somewhat unique. A lot of his success comes from using a light large hooped tennis racquet with stiff poly strings. It is questionable as to whether his stroke technique would have been as well suited to the small hooped wooden racquets and natural gut strings of yesteryear.

Is there any video anywhere of Rafa hitting with something like Borg's tennis racquet? I would really like to see that.

At the end of the day, you can only beat who you play. The top players of any era are the top players because they beat their opponents more often than not.
 
M

MiamiWeekendWarrior

Hall of Fame
mental midget said:
players are generally better conditioned today thanks to 1. sports science, 2. the nature of the game. but as for the 'sport evolving' meaning any advances in skill or technique...no way. the old clips are sometimes deceptive but here's one worth watching if you picture the woody era to be a bunch of pattycake strokes in slow motions:
Click to expand...

0:11...... the video somehow paused and got stuck there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

hoodjem
The Rosewall Skidder?
Replies
41
Views
8K
thor's hammer
thor's hammer
L
Rosewall & Laver
2
Replies
66
Views
7K
kiki
kiki
P
Rosewall > Laver
5 6 7
Replies
343
Views
35K
KG1965
K
D
Why was Laver unsuccessful against Rosewall at the French Pro?
Replies
21
Views
2K
kiki
kiki
BGod
Ken Rosewall vs. Rod Laver?
2
Replies
58
Views
7K
urban
U
Top