PROOF of Suface Homogenization and Other Issues

[okdude1992]

I started watching tennis in 2001, and the next year, I remember hearing people complain about Wimbledon slowing down [1] . At some point in 2001 the AEC changed the surface from 70% rye and 30% fescue, to 100% rye grass with the goal of making the courts more durable [2] , and many contend they have played slower with a higher bounce since. In general a lot of the faster courts on tour have disappeared, another example being carpet going away. The last time it was used at the Paris Masters for example was 2006 [3] . During my time on the boards (check join date, lol), I have seen the topic brought up a fair amount of times. It always seemed like a surprising amount of people deny the trend or were unaware of what was happening. 2015 came and went, and I saw posts popping up everywhere about "homogenization". I seem to recall to a lesser degree the same thing in 2008...

Rather than an attempt to undermine any specific player(s), I hope that it's a statement of people taking notice about what the tour has become for the last 15 years!
** This thread is not for the purpose of bashing any players, comparing generations/eras, or critiquing the governing bodies. My intention is to attempt to compile some credible information with sources that allows everyone to form their own opinions **
So, I've done a decent amount of looking lately, the goal being to truly find out about the speed of the surfaces, and also to acknowledge other factors...(more on that later!). Unfortunately the info I have found thus far is sparse and incomplete. Any help on this front will be much appreciated.

In regards to court speed, the ITF is somewhat useful [4] . To paraphrase, the ITF created a guideline for court surface classification in 2000 (CSCS), and later for pace classification (CPCP) in 2008. Each surface they test is awarded a Court Pace Rating (CPR) which is a number from their formula, as well as a classification ie Category 1, Category 2... You can find a more more detailed explanation of their methodologies if interested [5] . CPR essentially relates to coefficient of friction (COF) and coefficient of vertical restitution(COR). A higher CPR number means a court is generally perceived as playing faster.
* I could not find any real CPR values for any of the tournaments! (or COF/COR figures). I'd love to call the manufacturers of the surfaces, or even the tournaments and ask, but apparently it's not publicly available information. I wonder if the ITF even has such information handy...

In any case, it becomes clear that the speed that the courts play is determined by the tournament. I would imagine it varies a year to year. The ITF even writes a disclaimer saying that it has no ruling or regulatory power regarding court standards. They merely provide testing and recommendations. A little while back, Stakhovsky made some allegations that tournament organizers intentionally manipulate how the surface plays [6] . Without seeing any actual CPR measurements, we cannot get a full picture of the surfaces used across the the tour. And even if we did, the tournaments could still alter their courts as they wish - adding more sand/grit to the top layer of a hard court to make it slower, being a simple example. Nothing about that is against any rules.

Long story short, none of this is very transparent. However, by using tournament websites, and the ITF list of classified surfaces, [7] I put together this basic little chart. At this point it seems the best I can do, unfortunately.

Masters 1000 Tournaments

Indian Wells / Plexipave IW / Category 1: Slow

Miami Masters / Laykold Cushion Plus / Category 3: Medium

Monte Carlo Masters / Clay / Category 1: Slow?

Madrid Masters / Clay / Category 1: Slow?

Rome Masters / Clay / Category 1: Slow?

Rogers Cup / DecoTurf / Category 3: Medium

Cincinnati / Pro DecoTurf II / Category 4: Medium-Fast

Shanghai Masters / DecoTurf / Category 3: Medium

Paris Masters / Greenset Grand Prix / Category 3: Medium

ATP World Tour Finals / Greenset Grand Prix / Category 3: Medium


Grand Slams

Australian Open / Plexicushion Prestige / Category 3: Medium

French Open / Clay / Category 1: Slow?

Wimbledon / Grass / Category 4: Medium-Fast?

US Open / Pro Decoturf II / Category 4: Medium-Fast

Something many people may not realize is that aside from Miami, Paris, and the WTF, all the main hard courts are produced by the same company: California Sports Surfaces.
*also if you notice the question marks after all grass and clay tournaments it's because I couldn't find which specific clay surface is used for those tournaments, and grass being a natural surface isn't "manufactured". I simply categorized them by their default speed of the surface (according to the ITF).
​

Sources:
1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/4121364.stm
2. http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/atoz/grass_courts.html
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_BNP_Paribas_Masters.
4. http://www.itftennis.com/media/200593/200593.pdf (page 7)
5. http://www.itftennis.com/media/200593/200593.pdf (esp p. 43-47 are interesting)
6. http://www.letsecondserve.com/2013/08/sergiy-stakhovsky-after-wimbledon-they.html
7. http://www.itftennis.com/technical/courts/classified-surfaces/about-court-pace-classification.aspx

 

[SpinToWin]

Just to make sure, are you speaking of solely surfaces here or conditions in general (which includes balls for instance)?

 

[tennis_pro]

Miami Masters medium? That's by far the slowest hard court I have ever seen.

 

[Noelan]

Rogers Cup Pro DecoTurf II medium fast category 4 (the same surface as in Cincinati and USO)
Shangai DecoColor medium fast category 4

 

[okdude1992]

The next issue I would like to look into is the balls, which may be an equally important factor to the homogenization of the game!
According to the ITF guideline which again goes back to 2000, there should be 3 specific ball types [1] :
Ball Type 1 (fast speed) is intended for play on slow pace court surfaces
Ball Type 2 (medium speed) is intended for play on medium-slow, medium and
medium fast pace court surfaces
Ball Type 3 (slow speed) is intended for play on fast pace court surfaces

I'm not sure how this changed which balls are selected by each tournament, if at all. However, imagine using slightly bigger/higher bouncing balls on faster courts, or slightly smaller/harder balls on slower courts. You are adding a further layer to the homogenization that seems to be occurring with the courts.
I found little success tracking down exactly which specific balls are used at the big tournaments. Any help on that would be appreciated. There are like 200 ITF approved balls, many of which have differing weight, size, rebound height, deformation etc. Just like with the surfaces, the ITF merely provides testing and recommendations, so the choice of balls is again all up to the tournament.

Another issue that concerns me is the 32 seed draws. It seems that the French Open 2001 was the last slam with draw of 16 seeds [2] . I would very much like to know who came to this decision, and why. Even shortening all Masters finals and the WTF to only 3 sets is another thing I wonder about. I can see the reasoning - basically "protecting" the top players. The 32 seed draw ensures the top players cannot meet a hot top 20-30 type early and get upset. The 3 set masters finals lessen the wear and tear on the players, and make it more realistic to play all the masters events.

Source:
1. http://www.itftennis.com/media/200593/200593.pdf (p. 7-12 of the PDF)
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_French_Open_–_Men's_Singles

 

[okdude1992]

Rogers Cup Pro DecoTurf II medium fast category 4 (the same surface as in Cincinati and USO)
Shangai DecoColor medium fast category 4

Can you post a link for this? I'll amend it in that case. But the official tournament website for Rogers Cup said DecoTurf, and the Shanghai website said DecoTurf also from what I found:
http://www.rogerscup.com/tournament-info/fact-sheet/
http://en.shanghairolexmasters.com/?page_id=444

 

[Noelan]

It's not from ITF or from Tournaments website, but since the federer fans know everything about tennis best Anyway interesting read
https://www.perfect-tennis.com/tennis-court-surfaces-and-court-speeds/

 

[okdude1992]

Miami Masters medium? That's by far the slowest hard court I have ever seen.

Well according to the ITF the surface is medium. My list is based on what the ITF says, which if you read the rest of my post, doesn't prove much!
I did say that the tournament can basically do what they will in terms of the manufacturing process.

Some other factors to consider which would make the courts slower:
We don't know the CPR. it could be on the low end of Medium
Miami is notorious for being super gritty
Miami is humid as heck which makes the balls fly through the air way slower
We don't know which balls they even use
etc

 

[okdude1992]

Just to make sure, are you speaking of solely surfaces here or conditions in general (which includes balls for instance)?

Was getting there, man. I'm not as adept at writing huge posts as you yet

It's not from ITF or from Tournaments website, but since the federer fans know everything about tennis best Anyway interesting read
https://www.perfect-tennis.com/tennis-court-surfaces-and-court-speeds/

I had a feeling you would quote that. That blog post is pretty good, and I definitely looked at it. But it has quite a few typos, and inaccuracies, and underlying bias. Check my sources.

 

[Noelan]

Yeah I also like to read stuff like that and I'm interested in technical aspect of the game.
I appriciate your contribution

 

[Fiero425]

...

Another issue that concerns me is the 32 seed draws. It seems that the French Open 2001 was the last slam with draw of 16 seeds [2] . I would very much like to know who came to this decision, and why. Even shortening all Masters finals and the WTF to only 3 sets is another thing I wonder about. I can see the reasoning - basically "protecting" the top players. The 32 seed draw ensures the top players cannot meet a hot top 20-30 type early and get upset. The 3 set masters finals lessen the wear and tear on the players, and make it more realistic to play all the masters events.

I still call the rest of the tour gutless who aren't able to finish off an upset with MP's in their pockets and serving for it! It happens to all players at times; even perennial winners like Djokovic! How many times have we seen him in complete control, with a break or 2 up to finish off Rafa or Roger; next thing you know the match is being extended to a 4th and 5th set! With the "also-rans" of the tour, they often just give up when they lose an advantage resulting in too many tournaments with 3 or 4 of the top seeds surviving in tournament after tournament! That shouldn't happen even with the rigged system; esp. the winning of the same players at the top at every major event! In an era long gone, someone ranked 200 could upset Sampras a couple times! It just doesn't happen any more and it's a bit lame and says a lot about the "HEART" of these very athletic and talented players! ;-)

 

[SpinToWin]

The next issue I would like to look into is the balls, which may be an equally important factor to the homogenization of the game!
According to the ITF guideline which again goes back to 2000, there should be 3 specific ball types [1] :
Ball Type 1 (fast speed) is intended for play on slow pace court surfaces
Ball Type 2 (medium speed) is intended for play on medium-slow, medium and
medium fast pace court surfaces
Ball Type 3 (slow speed) is intended for play on fast pace court surfaces

I'm not sure how this changed which balls are selected by each tournament, if at all. However, imagine using slightly bigger/higher bouncing balls on faster courts, or slightly smaller/harder balls on slower courts. You are adding a further layer to the homogenization that seems to be occurring with the courts.
I found little success tracking down exactly which specific balls are used at the big tournaments. Any help on that would be appreciated. There are like 200 ITF approved balls, many of which have differing weight, size, rebound height, deformation etc. Just like with the surfaces, the ITF merely provides testing and recommendations, so the choice of balls is again all up to the tournament.

Another issue that concerns me is the 32 seed draws. It seems that the French Open 2001 was the last slam with draw of 16 seeds [2] . I would very much like to know who came to this decision, and why. Even shortening all Masters finals and the WTF to only 3 sets is another thing I wonder about. I can see the reasoning - basically "protecting" the top players. The 32 seed draw ensures the top players cannot meet a hot top 20-30 type early and get upset. The 3 set masters finals lessen the wear and tear on the players, and make it more realistic to play all the masters events.

Source:
1. http://www.itftennis.com/media/200593/200593.pdf (p. 7-12 of the PDF)
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_French_Open_–_Men's_Singles

I wasn't ware that the guidelines demanded that balls which counteract the surface's intrinsic speed should be used… Interesting… I personally would change that, as it just lessens the magnitude of diversity between surfaces.

It's also interesting that some tournaments don't do it. Hamburg for instance uses Tretorn Balls which (at least from what I can recall) are slowish, and that on a clay court where the conditions usually are cool and humid (hence very slow conditions).

The lack of data (and seemingly regulations) for such an important factor for the tour is somewhat concerning though…

 

[okdude1992]

I wasn't ware that the guidelines demanded that balls which counteract the surface's intrinsic speed should be used… Interesting… I personally would change that, as it just lessens the magnitude of diversity between surfaces.

It's also interesting that some tournaments don't do it. Hamburg for instance uses Tretorn Balls which (at least from what I can recall) are slowish, and that on a clay court where the conditions usually are cool and humid (hence very slow conditions).

The lack of data (and seemingly regulations) for such an important factor for the tour is somewhat concerning though…

Yes, I was very surprised at that guideline. It is essentially advocating to counteract surface variation with the balls. However, it is just a guideline. I cannot find exactly which balls are used at each tournament. Maybe someone will chime in.

Basically the tournaments can do whatever they want. I really agree with the idea that each tournament should have to conform to a certain range when it comes to surface, balls etc. For example, the USO shouldn't be able to just slow the courts, or the French using quicker balls because they feel like it, or have a particular agenda

 

[Tennis_Hands]

I started watching tennis in 2001, and the next year, I remember hearing people complain about Wimbledon slowing down [1] . At some point in 2001 the AEC changed the surface from 70% rye and 30% fescue, to 100% rye grass with the goal of making the courts more durable [2] , and many contend they have played slower with a higher bounce since.

I have been taught that the estimate for any action is the result that is achieved,, when taken.

So, I am curious whether the people perceive this goal as achieved.

What do you think?

 

[Fiero425]

I have been taught that the estimate for any action is the result that is achieved,, when taken.

So, I am curious whether the people perceive this goal as achieved.

What do you think?

Being HUMAN, the old saying of "be certain of what you wish for" is so apt! I believe the idea was to slow things down to make the game more enjoyable for the fan! Most matches "way back when" were on grass, carpet, or med-fast HC! It was conducive to the "S & V" game of that era, but along came the great 2-handers of Borg and Connors which revolutionized the game! They spawned a new generation of baseliners who could blunt the more aggressive players game, but they needed a little help; so over a long period of 20+ years, we have what is called homogenized court surfaces which is supposed to be fair to everyone! Today though, most people are saying the courts are too slow, trying to take credit away from what Nole's accomplished of late! By Beijing you'd of thought Nole was out there swirling on another layer to make the court even slower! It was ok when Nadal dominated, but many just kvetch about the speed of court for some reason with the latest #1! ;-(

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Being HUMAN, the old saying of "be certain of what you wish for" is so apt! I believe the idea was to slow things down to make the game more enjoyable for the fan! Most matches "way back when" were on grass, carpet, or med-fast HC! It was conducive to the "S & V" game of that era, but along came the great 2-handers of Borg and Connors which revolutionized the game! They spawned a new generation of baseliners who could blunt the more aggressive players game, but they needed a little help; so over a long period of 20+ years, we have what is called homogenized court surfaces which is supposed to be fair to everyone! Today though, most people are saying the courts are too slow, trying to take credit away from what Nole's accomplished of late! By Beijing you'd of thought Nole was out there swirling on another layer to make the court even slower! It was ok when Nadal dominated, but many just kvetch about the speed of court for some reason with the latest #1! ;-(

I will try to navigate through many of the assertions in your post (or at least what I understood from it).

First: My question was a genuine one out of real curiosity.

Isn't it logical that at some point All England Club reviews its decisions and look at the results from them?

If they haven't achieved what they were aiming for then there is no problem in returning to the old style, which at least provide some traditional experiences as oposed to moving towards similarity with other venues in that reagard.

Or if they had other intentions, shouldn't they openly acknoledge this and move on.

It is a kind of not very elegant to use excuses instead of the real reason (if that was the case).

Second: "Back then" there was a healthy mix of surfaces, providing opportunities for players with different styles. Some (I am one of them) would argue, that this was more interesting than today's conditions.

There is a bit of contradiction to the statement, that Borg and Connors "invented" amore potent baseliner and at the same time they needed help.

Tennis has never been about only one thing and as far as I remember Borg was doing pretty well for a baseliner without "help".

A more relevant role is that of the technology, but modern frames and strings were already pretty developed between 1990ies and the early 2000s, so, again, the variety didn't seem to suffer that much.

Third: The talk about too slow courts preceded Djokovic's successes, so it is hardly a knock on him (not that it matters as he has proved himself as an ATG beyond any doubt). It has more to do with the fact that people started noticing how the game becomes less varied as a result of some decisions.

 

[Fiero425]

I will try to navigate through many of the assertions in your post (or at least what I understood from it).

...

Second: "Back then" there was a healthy mix of surfaces, providing opportunities for players with different styles. Some (I am one of them) would argue, that this was more interesting than today's conditions.

There is a bit of contradiction to the statement, that Borg and Connors "invented" amore potent baseliner and at the same time they needed help.

Tennis has never been about only one thing and as far as I remember Borg was doing pretty well for a baseliner without "help".

A more relevant role is that of the technology, but modern frames and strings were already pretty developed between 1990ies and the early 2000s, so, again, the variety didn't seem to suffer that much.

Third: The talk about too slow courts preceded Djokovic's successes, so it is hardly a knock on him (not that it matters as he has proved himself as an ATG beyond any doubt). It has more to do with the fact that people started noticing how the game becomes less varied as a result of some decisions.

I don't think Borg, Connors, or any of the ATG needed help, but the genre did, that's for sure! You have to admit the sport, if not certain events try to accommodate them or a set of players! At the USO, they went from grass to clay to HC in just 4 years! The clay surface was killing US men's tennis; fine and dandy for Chris Evert at the time! When we started losing our top players earlier and earlier to "dirters" like Vilas, Orantes, Barazutti, Ramirez, Nastase, and so many others, you have to admit they changed the surface for the US men alone to salvage its relevance! Players like Gottfried, Mayer, Stockton, Connors, and even our own clay specialist like Dibbs, Solomon, Gerulaitis, & later Arias & Krickstein were very vulnerable during the clay summer in North America! Wholesale changes were made; even losing US Clay Champ. going/changing to HC.! Nothing was more self-serving than that sea-change of most if not all clay history's been wiped out from shore to shining shore! I miss those small clay event ruled by Borg, Vilas, & Nastase! ;-)

 

[Indio]

Another issue that concerns me is the 32 seed draws. It seems that the French Open 2001 was the last slam with draw of 16 seeds [2] . I would very much like to know who came to this decision, and why. Even shortening all Masters finals and the WTF to only 3 sets is another thing I wonder about. I can see the reasoning - basically "protecting" the top players. The 32 seed draw ensures the top players cannot meet a hot top 20-30 type early and get upset. The 3 set masters finals lessen the wear and tear on the players, and make it more realistic to play all the masters events.

Source:
1. http://www.itftennis.com/media/200593/200593.pdf (p. 7-12 of the PDF)
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_French_Open_–_Men's_Singles

The purpose of the 32-seed draw is probably to eliminate unfortunate (and absurd) matchups such as these:
1991 French, 1st round: Novacek 14 versus Gustafsson 19
1992 Australian, 1st round: Novacek 24 versus Rostagno 25
1993 US, 1st round: Korda 11 versus Ferreira 19
1993 US, 2nd round: Edberg 3 versus Novacek 18
1994 French, 2nd round: Agassi 19 versus Muster 11
1998 US, 1st round: Pioline 17 versus Bjorkman 12
In each case, the loser of the match is stated first. The numbers following each player's name are the rankings, not seedings (which will usually be the same, or very close).
Some supporters of the16-seed system may condone these (minor) injustices as "the luck of the draw", but I believe that the less luck there is in a sporting event, the fairer the outcome will be.
One more thing: That Edberg loss to Novacek at US 93 was one of only two times in the 1990s that a Top 5 player was removed in the 1st or 2nd round of a major by a player ranked from 17 to 32, the other being Muster 5, defeated by Henman 21, in the 1st round at US 97. Implemented to protect the top guns? It's possible, but I believe the reason I provided is more likely.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

I don't think Borg, Connors, or any of the ATG needed help, but the genre did, that's for sure! You have to admit the sport, if not certain events try to accommodate them or a set of players! At the USO, they went from grass to clay to HC in just 4 years! The clay surface was killing US men's tennis; fine and dandy for Chris Evert at the time! When we started losing our top players earlier and earlier to "dirters" like Vilas, Orantes, Barazutti, Ramirez, Nastase, and so many others, you have to admit they changed the surface for the US men alone to salvage its relevance! Players like Gottfried, Mayer, Stockton, Connors, and even our own clay specialist like Dibbs, Solomon, Gerulaitis, & later Arias & Krickstein were very vulnerable during the clay summer in North America! Wholesale changes were made; even losing US Clay Champ. going/changing to HC.! Nothing was more self-serving than that sea-change of most if not all clay history's been wiped out from shore to shining shore! I miss those small clay event ruled by Borg, Vilas, & Nastase! ;-)

I feel that a lot of things influenced the change at the US Open.

I have read some and have seen some, but mostly I am under the impression that to move towards HC was due to a more general trend that was going on: the "americanization" of the sport in North America with their HC and technology spreading everywhere.

I read Forest Hills had problems maintaining the grass and that explains the move to Har-Tru.

The subsequent move to HC at Flushing Meadows was IMO a logical solution in the vein of the above said about the "americanization" (i.e. rationality, easy of use, concern for the developing american players etc).

To go as far as to say that the changes were made to accomodate Chrissy is a bit overreaching IMO. In the the "chaotic" years of the change of venues some might have happened partly because of that but I doubt it. There were more important factors at work.

 

[Fiero425]

I feel that a lot of things influenced the change at the US Open.

I have read some and have seen some, but mostly I am under the impression that to move towards HC was due to a more general trend that was going on: the "americanization" of the sport in North America with their HC and technology spreading everywhere.

I read Forest Hills had problems maintaining the grass and that explains the move to Har-Tru.

The subsequent move to HC at Flushing Meadows was IMO a logical solution in the vein of the above said about the "americanization" (i.e. rationality, easy of use, concern for the developing american players etc).

To go as far as to say that the changes were made to accomodate Chrissy is a bit overreaching IMO. In the the "chaotic" years of the change of venues some might have happened partly because of that but I doubt it. There were more important factors at work.

Just saying that with the clay, happenstance made it advantageous and coincidental since Evert was a great clay courter! I was merely referencing how the clay era disappeared as you say calling it the "Americanization" of North American tennis! Again, it may have just been happenstance it was advantageous for the men to go to "pane" of glass HC speeds! I still remember how Vilas was upset early in '78 USO by one of our "no name" players; Butch Walts IIRC! The upset was occurring during their evening highlight show and it coincidently finished without them having to extend the coverage due to a 5th set even though they were prepared to do so! That court was lightning quick and it was no wonder Borg got nowhere early on in '78 & '79; McEnroe personally thwarting him in the finals of '80 & '81! ;-(

 

[timnz]

I started watching tennis in 2001, and the next year, I remember hearing people complain about Wimbledon slowing down [1] . At some point in 2001 the AEC changed the surface from 70% rye and 30% fescue, to 100% rye grass with the goal of making the courts more durable [2] , and many contend they have played slower with a higher bounce since. In general a lot of the faster courts on tour have disappeared, another example being carpet going away. The last time it was used at the Paris Masters for example was 2006 [3] . During my time on the boards (check join date, lol), I have seen the topic brought up a fair amount of times. It always seemed like a surprising amount of people deny the trend or were unaware of what was happening. 2015 came and went, and I saw posts popping up everywhere about "homogenization". I seem to recall to a lesser degree the same thing in 2008...

Rather than an attempt to undermine any specific player(s), I hope that it's a statement of people taking notice about what the tour has become for the last 15 years!
** This thread is not for the purpose of bashing any players, comparing generations/eras, or critiquing the governing bodies. My intention is to attempt to compile some credible information with sources that allows everyone to form their own opinions **
So, I've done a decent amount of looking lately, the goal being to truly find out about the speed of the surfaces, and also to acknowledge other factors...(more on that later!). Unfortunately the info I have found thus far is sparse and incomplete. Any help on this front will be much appreciated.

In regards to court speed, the ITF is somewhat useful [4] . To paraphrase, the ITF created a guideline for court surface classification in 2000 (CSCS), and later for pace classification (CPCP) in 2008. Each surface they test is awarded a Court Pace Rating (CPR) which is a number from their formula, as well as a classification ie Category 1, Category 2... You can find a more more detailed explanation of their methodologies if interested [5] . CPR essentially relates to coefficient of friction (COF) and coefficient of vertical restitution(COR). A higher CPR number means a court is generally perceived as playing faster.
* I could not find any real CPR values for any of the tournaments! (or COF/COR figures). I'd love to call the manufacturers of the surfaces, or even the tournaments and ask, but apparently it's not publicly available information. I wonder if the ITF even has such information handy...

In any case, it becomes clear that the speed that the courts play is determined by the tournament. I would imagine it varies a year to year. The ITF even writes a disclaimer saying that it has no ruling or regulatory power regarding court standards. They merely provide testing and recommendations. A little while back, Stakhovsky made some allegations that tournament organizers intentionally manipulate how the surface plays [6] . Without seeing any actual CPR measurements, we cannot get a full picture of the surfaces used across the the tour. And even if we did, the tournaments could still alter their courts as they wish - adding more sand/grit to the top layer of a hard court to make it slower, being a simple example. Nothing about that is against any rules.

Long story short, none of this is very transparent. However, by using tournament websites, and the ITF list of classified surfaces, [7] I put together this basic little chart. At this point it seems the best I can do, unfortunately.

Masters 1000 Tournaments

Indian Wells / Plexipave IW / Category 1: Slow

Miami Masters / Laykold Cushion Plus / Category 3: Medium

Monte Carlo Masters / Clay / Category 1: Slow?

Madrid Masters / Clay / Category 1: Slow?

Rome Masters / Clay / Category 1: Slow?

Rogers Cup / DecoTurf / Category 3: Medium

Cincinnati / Pro DecoTurf II / Category 4: Medium-Fast

Shanghai Masters / DecoTurf / Category 3: Medium

Paris Masters / Greenset Grand Prix / Category 3: Medium

ATP World Tour Finals / Greenset Grand Prix / Category 3: Medium


Grand Slams

Australian Open / Plexicushion Prestige / Category 3: Medium

French Open / Clay / Category 1: Slow?

Wimbledon / Grass / Category 4: Medium-Fast?

US Open / Pro Decoturf II / Category 4: Medium-Fast

Something many people may not realize is that aside from Miami, Paris, and the WTF, all the main hard courts are produced by the same company: California Sports Surfaces.
*also if you notice the question marks after all grass and clay tournaments it's because I couldn't find which specific clay surface is used for those tournaments, and grass being a natural surface isn't "manufactured". I simply categorized them by their default speed of the surface (according to the ITF).
​

Sources:
1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/4121364.stm
2. http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/atoz/grass_courts.html
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_BNP_Paribas_Masters.
4. http://www.itftennis.com/media/200593/200593.pdf (page 7)
5. http://www.itftennis.com/media/200593/200593.pdf (esp p. 43-47 are interesting)
6. http://www.letsecondserve.com/2013/08/sergiy-stakhovsky-after-wimbledon-they.html
7. http://www.itftennis.com/technical/courts/classified-surfaces/about-court-pace-classification.aspx

Golly even the ITF has lost sight of what courts speeds are. Miami isn't 'medium' - it is one of the slowest courts out there.

 

[90's Clay]

It was a carefully done scheme by the ITF to create more dominant all time greats (Lets face it, there would be no all year dominant players like Fed/nadal/Nole if they kept the all conditions with the depth of specialists on each courts and no bazooka rackets).

The only way to get eyes on the product is create all time greats an rivalries year round.. There is no possible way to do that under the 90s conditions for instance. No possible way whatsoever.

They are trying to create "super players" and the only way to create super players is homogenize the conditions, keep tennis only baseline play, give them bazooka rackets, and optimal conditions years.

But at the end of the day, they have only destroyed the sport. The future of the men's game is in jeopardy.


Once Nadal/Fed/Nole retire hundreds of thousand of people are going to tune off to tennis.


I think at the end of the day, it will prove that polarization, variety of conditions and gameplay, clashing of styles and most importantly DEPTH of competition on ALL surfaces is what should have been the focus. This creates year round rivaliries/talents on various surfaces and clashing of styles which makes the game fun

Homgenizing surfaces, with baseline play year round, laser rackets, only give you 2-3 great players and an era of utter DUDS. But when those 2-3 players retire and past their peak you just have table scraps of crapola left.

 

[xFedal]

It was a carefully done scheme by the ITF to create more dominant all time greats (Lets face it, there would be no all year dominant players like Fed/nadal/Nole if they kept the all conditions with the depth of specialists on each courts and no bazooka rackets).

The only way to get eyes on the product is create all time greats an rivalries year round.. There is no possible way to do that under the 90s conditions for instance. No possible way whatsoever

Give the boy Nole some credit he beat 31 top 10 players, fed in 06 beat 19 ffs. Nadal never beat 20 top tenners in 2008 and 2010

 

[90's Clay]

Give the boy Nole some credit he beat 31 top 10 players, fed in 06 beat 19 ffs. Nadal never beat 20 top tenners in 2008 and 2010

He deserves credit for sure.. But there isn't much of a "top 10" today. You Nole, 34 year old Fed past his best days, the Headcase Dud Murray, and only Nadal left to steal some if hes healthy which he hasn't been in a long time with NO ONE in their 20s getting it going.

The men's game is in trouble. So is the women's when Serena retires. It may go the way of the dinosaurs.. EXTINCTION if there is no future.

 

[nowhereman]

It was a carefully done scheme by the ITF to create more dominant all time greats (Lets face it, there would be no all year dominant players like Fed/nadal/Nole if they kept the all conditions with the depth of specialists on each courts and no bazooka rackets).

The only way to get eyes on the product is create all time greats an rivalries year round.. There is no possible way to do that under the 90s conditions for instance. No possible way whatsoever.

They are trying to create "super players" and the only way to create super players is homogenize the conditions, keep tennis only baseline play, give them bazooka rackets, and optimal conditions years.

But at the end of the day, they have only destroyed the sport. The future of the men's game is in jeopardy.


Once Nadal/Fed/Nole retire hundreds of thousand of people are going to tune off to tennis.


I think at the end of the day, it will prove that polarization, variety of conditions and gameplay, clashing of styles and most importantly DEPTH of competition on ALL surfaces is what should have been the focus.

Homgenizing conditions only give you 2-3 great players and an era of utter DUDS. But when those 2-3 players retire and past their peak you just have table scraps of crapola left.

The people don't want all that though. They want to see the big names all year round at all the tournaments, not depth in the game. It's all just a business and the ITF have pretty much sold out for the sake of profit. It would be nice to see polarized conditions, variety in the game, and more than 4 players who can win big tournaments, but that just doesn't sell, not anymore at least.

 

[90's Clay]

The people don't want all that though. They want to see the big names all year round at all the tournaments, not depth in the game. It's all just a business and the ITF have pretty much sold out for the sake of profit. It would be nice to see polarized conditions, variety in the game, and more than 4 players who can win big tournaments, but that just doesn't sell, not anymore at least.

Thery aren't gonnna wanna see the men's game in a few years after Nadal/Fed/Nole hang it up either. The health of tennis is in critical condition for the future.

Right now they are just hanging their hats on a few guys to keep the popularity going (Fed, Nole) With Nadal if hes healthy and confident. But there will come a day in the near future they are gone and no one to take their place.

 

[AceSalvo]

Golly even the ITF has lost sight of what courts speeds are. Miami isn't 'medium' - it is one of the slowest courts out there.

ITF are just trying to use their jedi mind tricks on the official court speeds.. clear as daylight almost all of the tour is slow..

 

[nowhereman]

Thery aren't gonnna wanna see the men's game in a few years after Nadal/Fed/Nole hang it up either. The health of tennis is in critical condition for the future.

Right now they are just hanging their hats on a few guys to keep the popularity going (Fed, Nole) With Nadal if hes healthy and confident. But there will come a day in the near future they are gone and no one to take their place.

Well I think media hype will do a good job in at least trying to promote the game. The next crop of players from the next generation look completely hopeless, but you still hear all these commentators and analysts talking them up and hyping up their status. I mean, what do you think the whole "Baby Fed" thing is about? Dimitrov doesn't seem to be anywhere close to Fed's level yet he's earned that nickname not just because he plays like Fed, but so they can market the sport better. Federer has pretty much been the face of tennis since Pete and Andre left, so making all these comparisons with him to Dimitrov makes it much easier to appeal to all the people.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

It was a carefully done scheme by the ITF to create more dominant all time greats (Lets face it, there would be no all year dominant players like Fed/nadal/Nole if they kept the all conditions with the depth of specialists on each courts and no bazooka rackets).

The only way to get eyes on the product is create all time greats an rivalries year round.. There is no possible way to do that under the 90s conditions for instance. No possible way whatsoever.

They are trying to create "super players" and the only way to create super players is homogenize the conditions, keep tennis only baseline play, give them bazooka rackets, and optimal conditions years.

But at the end of the day, they have only destroyed the sport. The future of the men's game is in jeopardy.


Once Nadal/Fed/Nole retire hundreds of thousand of people are going to tune off to tennis.


I think at the end of the day, it will prove that polarization, variety of conditions and gameplay, clashing of styles and most importantly DEPTH of competition on ALL surfaces is what should have been the focus. This creates year round rivaliries/talents on various surfaces and clashing of styles which makes the game fun

Homgenizing surfaces, with baseline play year round, laser rackets, only give you 2-3 great players and an era of utter DUDS. But when those 2-3 players retire and past their peak you just have table scraps of crapola left.

You are using a hindsight and are going backwards from the current problems.

Are you acquainted with the problems that the cirquit was facing during the years?

Come on, make us think better of you and tell us what you know about the 90ies and the problems with the surfaces back then (the don't start in the 90ies but whatever).

Your username is 90s clay, so you should know both about the 90s and the clay.

It is easy to talk about a grand scheme, and although it is obvious that the game moved to a slower speed it is not like everybody saw that coming (or they have to have earned A LOT of money from such a plot for themselves).

Moreover, there were superplayers before the plague we have now.

Do you think that players like Laver or Borg were not superplayers?

How about Graf and Navratilova?

 

[metsman]

It was a carefully done scheme by the ITF to create more dominant all time greats (Lets face it, there would be no all year dominant players like Fed/nadal/Nole if they kept the all conditions with the depth of specialists on each courts and no bazooka rackets).

The only way to get eyes on the product is create all time greats an rivalries year round.. There is no possible way to do that under the 90s conditions for instance. No possible way whatsoever.

They are trying to create "super players" and the only way to create super players is homogenize the conditions, keep tennis only baseline play, give them bazooka rackets, and optimal conditions years.

But at the end of the day, they have only destroyed the sport. The future of the men's game is in jeopardy.


Once Nadal/Fed/Nole retire hundreds of thousand of people are going to tune off to tennis.


I think at the end of the day, it will prove that polarization, variety of conditions and gameplay, clashing of styles and most importantly DEPTH of competition on ALL surfaces is what should have been the focus. This creates year round rivaliries/talents on various surfaces and clashing of styles which makes the game fun

Homgenizing surfaces, with baseline play year round, laser rackets, only give you 2-3 great players and an era of utter DUDS. But when those 2-3 players retire and past their peak you just have table scraps of crapola left.

Why will hundreds of thousands of people tune off when weak era MUGerer retires? I say GOOD RIDDANCE.

 

[nowhereman]

Why will hundreds of thousands of people tune off when weak era MUGerer retires? I say GOOD RIDDANCE.

Yeah, but it's better than having DiMUGtrov or RaoMUG around as the best players.

 

[90's Clay]

Think about it for a minute.. Is anyone gonna want to tune in to see Dimitrov, Raonic, Tomic, Krygios Young etc?


They're a bunch of BUMS

 

[nowhereman]

Is anyone gonna want to tune to see Dimitrov, Raonic, Tomic, Young etc?

Not those guys, but I might watch the generation after that(Kyrgios, Coric, Chung, Kokkinakis). Kyrgios in particular looks promising, definitely more so than Dimi or Raonic.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Think about it for a minute.. Is anyone gonna want to tune in to see Dimitrov, Raonic, Tomic, Krygios Young etc?


They're a bunch of BUMS

Have you seen anyone of the said players upclose while playing or even training?

 

[90's Clay]

Have you seen anyone of the said players upclose while playing or even training?

Do we need to see them up close in person to know they are a goof troop of a crew with a FRACTION of the talent, ability, mental toughness, focus of the players that came before them ?

A few of these guys have already had a few years of big opportunities to win titles. What they have done?? A whole lotta NOTHING.

They can't even manage to get any finals appearances.

 

[metsman]

Yeah, but it's better than having DiMUGtrov or RaoMUG around as the best players.

PAMPRAS even at this age could beat those MUGS black and blue...on clay

Sad thing is he probably can....

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Do we need to see them up close in person to know they are a goof troop of a crew with a FRACTION of the talent, ability, mental toughness, focus of the players that came before them ?

A few of these guys have already had a few years of big opportunities to win titles. What they have done?? A whole lotta NOTHING.

They can't even manage to get any finals appearances.

You are not consistent with your argumentation.

You asked, if anyone would want to tune in to see them, to which I objected with the idea that a person, who is able to appreciate the stratospheric (for any ordinary viewer) ability of the said players would watch.

It is irrelevant how they compare to an ATGs, as, like I said, a person can appreciate that they are far beyond he can reproduce or even witness ona regular basis.

Your argument becomes even worse when talking about tennis fans: they would recognize instantly the skill that those guys show.

Your argument is pretty moot when it comes to marketing the game as well, because, as long as the companies are willing to advertise heavily the Raonices, Dimitrovs and Nishikoris of the world can and will be the new Federers and Nadals. After all, in Federer's and Nadal's absence they will rack up titles.

 

[AceSalvo]

Think about it for a minute.. Is anyone gonna want to tune in to see Dimitrov, Raonic, Tomic, Krygios Young etc?


They're a bunch of BUMS

ITF is reaping enough $$$ currently to cover for what may become the most talent-less genX of all time in a few years.. still, the dip in $$$ is gonna hurt...

it will take a miracle to save the ITF.. so far, that miracle does not have a name...

 

[nowhereman]

PAMPRAS even at this age could beat those MUGS black and blue...on clay

Sad thing is he probably can....

He could easily beat them. Pete played in the STRONGEST clay era after all.

 

[AceSalvo]

as long as the companies are willing to advertise heavily the Raonices, Dimitrovs and Nishikoris of the world can and will be the new Federers and Nadals.

and one can easily say what the outcome is based on the USO ' 14 crowd..

 

[90's Clay]

The main problem is this is the FIRST time in history you have no one to pick the torch up from the predecessors. You had guys like Andre/Sampras/Courier etc. who picked the torch up from Mac, Lendl, Wilander, Becker etc. You had Hewitt/Roddick (to a lesser degree) pick the torch up from Pete and Andre in the early 2000s. They weren't as good obviously but they were solid and already winning tournaments by their early 20's. Then you had Rafa/Fed pick the torch up and began beating them.. Then you had Nole/Murray from there pick the torch up from Rafa/Fed.

You have.... Who now?? No one.. THey have had YEARS to pick the torch up. It was theirs from the taking And no one is doing it. You got the same guys on top now that were on top 8-10 years ago. And their 8-10 years older, and worn down, and past their best.. Then you got these guys in their mid 20s who should ALREADY be consistent and winning slams, and taking big titles from guys like Fed/Nole.


Thats not good to me.. Im sorry.. Not good for the long term heath of the game. Fed shouldn't even be in finals anymore playing Nole. Nole shouldn't be as dominant now with all the miles he has.. You should have guys like DImitrov, and others who should already be stealing slams and in the top 3

The only way the sport is going to survive is when you have young guys taking over from their predecessors, start winning slams, and show some kind of consistency to winning

 

[nowhereman]

The main problem is this is the FIRST time in history you have no one to pick the torch up from the predecessors. You had guys like Andre/Sampras/Courier etc. who picked the torch up from Mac, Lendl, Wilander, Becker etc. You had Hewitt/Roddick (to a lesser degree) pick the torch up from Pete and Andre in the early 2000s. They weren't as good obviously but they were solid and already winning tournaments by their early 20's. Then you had Rafa/Fed pick the torch up and began beating them.. Then you had Nole/Murray from there pick the torch up from Rafa/Fed.

You have.... Who now?? No one.. THey have had YEARS to pick the torch up. It was theirs from the taking And no one is doing it. You got the same guys on top now that were on top 8-10 years ago.

Well maybe it'll be someone unexpected who'll come and pick up the torch. In the early 70's after all, the situation looked pretty similar. Back then, 37 year old Rosewall was winning slams and it didn't look like anyone special was coming along. But then, all of a sudden Connors comes along in 74 and wins 3 slams in a year. Borg follows along shortly and a new era is ushered in. So give it some time, things might not be as hopeless as they seem.

 

[AceSalvo]

things might not be as hopeless as they seem.

the mindset of the next gen points only to hopelessness.. entitlement has just skyrocketed in the last decade or so..

 

[frinton]

This was one of the best threads that I came across on this board in a long time... Until the trolls came in with their jibber-jabber!
Anyway, one of the main reasons to slow down things in tennis was, that serve monsters like Goran, Pete and others would turn matches into mainly serve-battles with very few points that saw a ball in play (on the faster courts for sure). It was not about getting ride of serve and volley in favor of baseline tennis. They wanted to bring back more play and stopping the endless service battles. I believe it was the right thing to do. Players were getting physically much stronger (and taller) and started using the modern rackets better and better.
But from today's perspective I think the trend has gone too far, conditions are too homogenized and too slow. We are at the other extreme and a correction into the other direction would be welcomed by many fans (probably not the XYZ-player trolls, but who cares?)

 

[okdude1992]

This was one of the best threads that I came across on this board in a long time... Until the trolls came in with their jibber-jabber!
Anyway, one of the main reasons to slow down things in tennis was, that serve monsters like Goran, Pete and others would turn matches into mainly serve-battles with very few points that saw a ball in play (on the faster courts for sure). It was not about getting ride of serve and volley in favor of baseline tennis. They wanted to bring back more play and stopping the endless service battles. I believe it was the right thing to do. Players were getting physically much stronger (and taller) and started using the modern rackets better and better.
But from today's perspective I think the trend has gone too far, conditions are too homogenized and too slow. We are at the other extreme and a correction into the other direction would be welcomed by many fans (probably not the XYZ-player trolls, but who cares?)

Thanks. Well see, there are other threads about homogenization out there. Plenty of people seem to have finally taken notice after 2015.


But my goal was simply to bring out the information without any bias. I know my post was long but it seems almost nobody read it . These guys talking about the ITF ruining tennis... The ITF doesn't do **** except talk, test some things, and make recommendations. The tournaments have all the power. So when Larry Ellison decides to make Indian Wells the slowest, highest bouncing hardcourts around because he is a Rafa fan...I see that as a big issue. I mean I like Rafa and love the Indian Wells tournament. I've played on those courts quite a few times. I just think that's not the way the sport should work.

 

[okdude1992]

They aren't gonnna wanna see the men's game in a few years after Nadal/Fed/Nole hang it up either. The health of tennis is in critical condition for the future.

Right now they are just hanging their hats on a few guys to keep the popularity going (Fed, Nole) With Nadal if hes healthy and confident. But there will come a day in the near future they are gone and no one to take their place.

I agree. The sport of tennis has built up the brand of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and is now surviving off them. Particularly Fedal are almost bigger than the sport. This is particularly stupid Imo, because when those guys go away it leaves a huge hole in the sport. It would be in the best interest of the game for them to promote THEIR OWN brand. If the ATP/ITF could convince people that they need to watch 500, 250, even challenger events..! The game would be able to bring in way more fans, sponsors etc if people cared about the players outside of the top 5. But why should they? There is no marketing push at all for tennis at those levels. I also think the way that tennis is broadcast on TV is terrible, but anyways

The popularity of tennis is an interesting discussion, but I'd like to try and keep on track with the thread. Homogenized conditions and such...

 

[okdude1992]

Back to the focus: I want to know the CPR numbers of all the tournaments now. But that seems out of reach.

How about which specific balls they are using at each of the Premier 13 to start. Can anybody help with compiling that info please? Or even tell me where I might find it? The tournament sites don't even say...

 

[Dolgopolov85]

So when Larry Ellison decides to make Indian Wells the slowest, highest bouncing hardcourts around because he is a Rafa fan...I see that as a big issue. I mean I like Rafa and love the Indian Wells tournament. I've played on those courts quite a few times. I just think that's not the way the sport should work.

I don't know about the high bouncing part but IW played slow even in the 90s. Here's Agassi-Sampras:

 

[okdude1992]

I don't know about the high bouncing part but IW played slow even in the 90s. Here's Agassi-Sampras:

I've seen that video before. Awesome tennis .

I know IW is historically slow too, but my point wasn't really about Ellison, IW or Rafa. I just don't think it should be up to the tournaments to do whatever they please. Because they may have a particular agenda rather than being impartial.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

IDK works both ways. Paris sprung a surprise with an ultra fast court in 2010 but since then, ostensibly, complaints from players have brought the speed down dramatically. I say ostensibly because there's nothing on the record but I remember during the 2013 tournament the commentators were saying it was being slowed down to match the speed of O2 and questioned where then is the adaptability. I also think that is wrong. Certainly it would be unthinkable for tournaments to be uniformly pace-matched in the 90s. If that is what is happening now, it is not good for the game from a long term holistic perspective but as said above it is more about arranging the same set of match ups to happen again and again for the sake of TV ratings and all that.