The earlier in their development they got exposed, the better they would adapt.
That's not so simple... The main factor is the level of competition. When a sport moves from amateur to professional status much more people are competing for the top spot, and investing many more hours. It is very unlikely that the first champions in any sport would have performed at the same level today. The best athletes in ski jumping are much less talented that the best athletes in football (soccer), simply because competition is much fiercer in football.Agree that if they learned the modern game early on, they would still be at the top. Athletes are athletes, regardless of generation. However, over time better equipment emerged and a more effective way to play tennis evolved. I can’t fault them for that. If they had to switch to the current game as adults, they would get destroyed. But it doesn’t work like that.
But the old guys would also be benefiting from the same technology, training, fitness improvements, etc.Elite level sport tends to improve decade by decade, participants get faster stronger and fitter. The science of sport, diet, recovery from injury and maintaining peak fitness improves. As does stuff like racket tech and technique. So it is unlikely they would compete with today's top players.
Correct. My OP was asking more if that style backhand (more of a continental, flat and slice) would still cause a problem for today's top 150-200 players. I think it would.But the old guys would also be benefiting from the same technology, training, fitness improvements, etc.
Comparing apples and oranges is foolish.Those old guys had never seen athletic tennis players like there are nowadaze
Stan and Arthur were pretty tall, but nowhere near what is athletic today. Brian was a better mover, but didn't have nearly the power...spin, of today's players and any net game would be completely neutralized
Actually, I think I A and B were 6'2".
In my early days I modeled Tommy Okker's forehand. The "Flying Dutchman."Jake....I know you are not stupid.
Tom Okker was considered really hard to play against because of his topspin forehand. Tom was a little guy, the size of Coffan or Nalbandian.
Another guy who hit extreme TOUGH topspin was one Bjorn something. He was maybe 6", like Mac.
Faced against the supreme movers at 6'3" to 6"9" of today.....it's no chance in heck.
A "what if" kind of thinking, in many social circles isn't entertained seriously.How do you decide which piece of fruit you want for lunch? Don't you have to compare different things? Aren't you always, in effect, comparing apples to oranges?