Since late October last year there haven't been any male players in the top 20 Lleyton Hewitt's height or shorter. First time in male tennis history?

[AlecG]

Since late October last year there haven't been any male players in the top 20 Lleyton Hewitt's height (5'10") or shorter. First time in male tennis history?

 

[adil1972]

Since late October last year there haven't been any male players in the top 20 Lleyton Hewitt's height (5'10") or shorter. First time in male tennis history?

I didnt understood ur post

Forgive my poor english

 

[Kralingen]

Inch for inch top 20.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

I didnt understood ur post

Forgive my poor english

I think OP was saying that since October, no male that's been ranked in the top 20 has been shorter than 180cm (5"10 for our American friends).

So pretty much everyone in the top 20 for the last 9 months have been rather tall players.

 

[adil1972]

I think OP was saying that since October, no male that's been ranked in the top 20 has been shorter than 180cm (5"10 for our American friends).

So pretty much everyone in the top 20 for the last 9 months have been rather tall players.

Ok your post explain it well

 

[taster]

The optimum height has to be somewhere between 6' and 6'3" i would guess. It doesn't mean guys outside that range can't do well, but as you move away from what might well be a bell curve, you have less and less chance to be at the top of the game.

 

[InsuranceMan]

Ran into him the other day he short as hell smaller than he seems even

 

[mattennis]

And yet the shortest one is the N°1 player in the rankings...

 

[AlecG]

The optimum height has to be somewhere between 6' and 6'3" i would guess.

I guess so too, but there are loads of guys in the top 20 taller than 6'3" including Medvedev who was a world no. 1, and no one below 6'0" (on official heights).

 

[AlecG]

And yet the shortest one is the N°1 player in the rankings...

Yep. This is for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, the optimal height may be around 6'0 to 6'3", just tall enough to hit a strong enough first serve. After that more height is diminishing returns for those with enough talent to take advantage of the lower centre of gravity.

Secondly, most men are below 6'3", which means most of the extreme talent is below 6'3". The talent pool is actually larger in the below 6'0" category because most men are shorter than that, yet not one person shorter than Alcaraz & Di Minaur is in the top 20.

I think Alzaraz is actually slightly below the optimal height for a tennis player but makes up for it with talent & a positive tennis-focused upbringing. But the data suggests that if he were a couple of inches shorter (so average height) he wouldn't have a much more difficult time of making it to no. 1.

 

[NeutralFan]

Don't think Hewitt was 5ft10 and don't think Carlos is more than 5ft10

 

[AlecG]

Don't think Hewitt was 5ft10 and don't think Carlos is more than 5ft10

Why? Carlos is the same height as De Minaur. De Minaur is listed as 6'0" & about an inch or two taller than Hewitt.

It doesn't really matter though. I'd say they are both 6'0" or 5'11" & Hewitt is around 5'10" or 5'9. The point is that this year appears to be the first year that we haven't had someone shorter than De Minaur & Alcaraz in the top 20 in tennis history.

 

[NeutralFan]

Why? Carlos is the same height as De Minaur. De Minaur is listed as 6'0" & about an inch or two taller than Hewitt.

It doesn't really matter though. The point is that this year appears to be the first year that we haven't had someone shorter than De Minaur & Alcaraz in the top 20 in tennis history.

I have discussed Carlos's height in detail and i am not going to discuss it again. Carlos is not 6ft

 

[AlecG]

I have discussed Carlos's height in detail and i am not going to discuss it again. Carlos is not 6ft

OK. It doesn't matter. Whether Alcaraz & De Minaur are 6'0" or 5'11" & Hewitt is 5'10" or 5'9, the point remains that this is the first time in history we haven't had someone shorter than Alcaraz & De Minaur in the top 20.

 

[Baseline_Bungle]

I said it years ago and was laughed at - I'll say it again: tennis should have height classes, akin to boxing. Not saying it should all be broken up, of course. Slams and the majority of events should of course stay combined. But instead of all these useless 250s, it'd be nice to throw in a few height-limited championships, such as up to 179cm and up to 169 cm. I think it would make things more interesting and bring a new dimension to the game. It would also provide an incentive for many more players to give it a shot. It's gotten to the point where incredibly talented kids are quitting in their youth if they don't expect to grow beyong a certain height. Because other than the exceedingly and increasingly rare exceptions (Schwartzman, Alcaraz... ), there simply is no chance to reach the upper echelons - or even to make a living as a touring pro - if you aren't at least 6 ft tall.

 

[NeutralFan]

I said it years ago and was laughed at - I'll say it again: tennis should have height classes, akin to boxing. Not saying it should all be broken up, of course. Slams and the majority of events should of course stay combined. But instead of all these useless 250s, it'd be nice to throw in a few height-limited championships, such as up to 179cm and up to 169 cm. I think it would make things more interesting and bring a new dimension to the game. It would also provide an incentive for many more players to give it a shot. It's gotten to the point where incredibly talented kids are quitting in their youth if they don't expect to grow beyong a certain height. Because other than the exceedingly and increasingly rare exceptions (Schwartzman, Alcaraz... ), there simply is no chance to reach the upper echelons - or even to make a living as a touring pro - if you aren't at least 6 ft tall.

This !

 

[AlecG]

I said it years ago and was laughed at - I'll say it again: tennis should have height classes, akin to boxing. Not saying it should all be broken up, of course. Slams and the majority of events should of course stay combined. But instead of all these useless 250s, it'd be nice to throw in a few height-limited championships, such as up to 179cm and up to 169 cm. I think it would make things more interesting and bring a new dimension to the game. It would also provide an incentive for many more players to give it a shot. It's gotten to the point where incredibly talented kids are quitting in their youth if they don't expect to grow beyong a certain height. Because other than the exceedingly and increasingly rare exceptions (Schwartzman, Alcaraz... ), there simply is no chance to reach the upper echelons - or even to make a living as a touring pro - if you aren't at least 6 ft tall.

That would be better than doing nothing. We should also have at least one 250 tournament where you don't get two attempts on serve. Moutet beat Fritz to win the title when they did that in UTS4, but UTS changes the rules too much and is too gimicky. We need a regular 250 with just that one rule change.

 

[Pspielha]

I said it years ago and was laughed at - I'll say it again: tennis should have height classes, akin to boxing. Not saying it should all be broken up, of course. Slams and the majority of events should of course stay combined. But instead of all these useless 250s, it'd be nice to throw in a few height-limited championships, such as up to 179cm and up to 169 cm. I think it would make things more interesting and bring a new dimension to the game. It would also provide an incentive for many more players to give it a shot. It's gotten to the point where incredibly talented kids are quitting in their youth if they don't expect to grow beyong a certain height. Because other than the exceedingly and increasingly rare exceptions (Schwartzman, Alcaraz... ), there simply is no chance to reach the upper echelons - or even to make a living as a touring pro - if you aren't at least 6 ft tall.

This could be said for a lot of sports where height is an obvious advantage. Before the modern power game era, height didn’t really matter in tennis though. Now big serves are such a determining factor for success that shorter players will likely become more and more obsolete on the pro tour. For kids who dream of being a pro athlete, tennis is already a statically terrible choice. Realizing you probably will never make it the top (tall or not) is a reality check that a lot of juniors and parents need.