Tennis: height = talent?

tank_job

Banned
I think it's fairly easy to say that the taller you are the more talented you are as a tennis player.

Height is the single most important physical variable in the game.

Tall players such as Karlovic and Raonic can coast on their athletic talent advantage of being tall to bomb heavy serves and big forehands. They don't need to train so hard.

For shorter players such as Nishikori, Santoro, Hewitt, Ferrer, Coria...etc..., all you will ever hear about is how hard working they have had to be in order to compensate for their lack of talent.

In the future we will see taller and taller players at the top (lol) of the game. And the game will be better for it, because talent beats hard work, imo.
 

Andres

G.O.A.T.
Bad example including Santoro and Coria there.

Overall, flawed logic from scratch, starting with a flawed concept. I'll let someone else picks this one up.
 

Alchemy-Z

Hall of Fame
More tall people will only make for slower surfaces.

no one wants to watch serving contest....while it's cool to see 140mph aces now an then. So eventually the tournaments would slow the surfaces change the balls etc..


and with slower surfaces the base liners will once again rise to the top.
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.
Size = talent. Look at Serena.

After that its all politics. Its not what you can do, but who you know. Do you think if Federer wasn't president of the players council he'd be #1 now? Of course not. It's all fixed. The players council rigs everything.

Ok, after that........
 

JMR

Hall of Fame
I think it's fairly easy to say that the taller you are the more talented you are as a tennis player.

So Isner > Federer in talent? Karlovic > McEnroe in talent? Querrey > Laver?

We seldom see a thread more self-evidently wrong from the very beginning.
 

Govnor

Professional
6'1 - 6'4 is sweet spot for tennis. Either side of that, you will have less chance to be an elite player. You could still be one, obviously. But that is the perfect spot for the cross between height and maneuverability.
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
I think it's fairly easy to say that the taller you are the more talented you are as a tennis player.

Height is the single most important physical variable in the game.

Tall players such as Karlovic and Raonic can coast on their athletic talent advantage of being tall to bomb heavy serves and big forehands. They don't need to train so hard.

For shorter players such as Nishikori, Santoro, Hewitt, Ferrer, Coria...etc..., all you will ever hear about is how hard working they have had to be in order to compensate for their lack of talent.

In the future we will see taller and taller players at the top (lol) of the game. And the game will be better for it, because talent beats hard work, imo.
I'd say talent equals talent. Greater height may allow a better angle on the serve, but that's about all.

Indeed greater height in tennis seems to mean worse footwork and decreased agility.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
Height is the most important attribute.

It makes the serve easier and more powerful, and the serve is the foundation of the modern game.

And then there is reach.

My hunch is that many tennis athletes are not good athletes at all (compared to other sports) but get by because of the height.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
I think it's fairly easy to say that the taller you are the more talented you are as a tennis player.

Height is the single most important physical variable in the game.

Tall players such as Karlovic and Raonic can coast on their athletic talent advantage of being tall to bomb heavy serves and big forehands. They don't need to train so hard.

For shorter players such as Nishikori, Santoro, Hewitt, Ferrer, Coria...etc..., all you will ever hear about is how hard working they have had to be in order to compensate for their lack of talent.

In the future we will see taller and taller players at the top (lol) of the game. And the game will be better for it, because talent beats hard work, imo.

Misconception. Being born with gifted talent and height is a 2 independent variable. You can be extremely talented but has no bearing on height, and vice versa. It doesn't matter how much talent/skill you have, but being at 6' ~ 6'3" gives a player the most balance, well adapt to the game unlike if you're 5'7" or 6'9".

To be a world class player like Federer or Graf, you must have the key ingredients - talented, ideal size, mentally strong, the drive, commitment....

I think Laver is incredibly talented but his height is not an ideal size for modern tennis, which he would suffered.
 

smoledman

G.O.A.T.
Height is the most important attribute.

It makes the serve easier and more powerful, and the serve is the foundation of the modern game.

And then there is reach.

My hunch is that many tennis athletes are not good athletes at all (compared to other sports) but get by because of the height.

Yeah not a great athlete:

djokovic-split.jpg


monfils-gael-splits.jpg
 

Legend of Borg

G.O.A.T.
Misconception. Being born with gifted talent and height is a 2 independent variable. You can be extremely talented but has no bearing on height, and vice versa. It doesn't matter how much talent/skill you have, but being at 6' ~ 6'3" gives a player the most balance, well adapt to the game unlike if you're 5'7" or 6'9".

To be a world class player like Federer or Graf, you must have the key ingredients - talented, ideal size, mentally strong, the drive, commitment....

I think Laver is incredibly talented but his height is not an ideal size for modern tennis, which he would suffered.

You don't seem to like Laver very much, do you?

Are a member of Club Chopin?
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
You don't seem to like Laver very much, do you?

Are a member of Club Chopin?

Why would you say that if I believe a player's height plays a role? I think Chang and Davydenko suffer too because of being undersize. Does that makes me not liking them? Nope.
 

drgchen

Rookie
More like: HEIGHT makes up for a lack of TALENT in tennis. Taller players can survive without the need to actually play the game.

Club and league tennis shows this even better than the pro level. Any tall hack can serve big and do pretty well. Talented players will usually take them apart. Having height and talent makes you really good.
 

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
It's a height/movement issue, IMO.

We generalize height as adventageous up to a certain point, but at some point we generalize that it becomes a relative disadvantage because of movement.

I don't think there's any concrete cut off. If a player is tall with good movement, then height is usually a clear advantage. If they're tall with awful movement, then they have the advantage of height really only on serve, and it hurts the rest of their game. Clearly, some tall players are somewhere in the middle. They have "okay" movement which will be fine against some players, but will be exploited against others.

As to the premise of the thread, I think that's an awfully broad and generally incorrect statement.
 
Last edited:

InvisibleSoul

Hall of Fame
If you can find someone with all the attributes of Federer, except taller, then you'll probably have a player better than Federer.

Problem is, height generally comes with a trade off of other attributes, such as decreased mobility, etc.

It's true that if you're really tall, you start off with an advantage. The other parts of your game might not be as good, but if your serve is good, you stand a good chance to win any match.

Maybe in the future, some real freak of nature will come along... someone who's 6'8" but is just as athletic and gifted as Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, etc.

It was like that for sprinting too, before Usain Bolt came along, right?

People always thought that once you get past a certain height, you're less likely to be able to sprint well. Usain Bolt came and threw that theory right out the window.
 

Tcbtennis

Hall of Fame
If you can find someone with all the attributes of Federer, except taller, then you'll probably have a player better than Federer.

Problem is, height generally comes with a trade off of other attributes, such as decreased mobility, etc.

It's true that if you're really tall, you start off with an advantage. The other parts of your game might not be as good, but if your serve is good, you stand a good chance to win any match.

Maybe in the future, some real freak of nature will come along... someone who's 6'8" but is just as athletic and gifted as Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, etc.

It was like that for sprinting too, before Usain Bolt came along, right?

People always thought that once you get past a certain height, you're less likely to be able to sprint well. Usain Bolt came and threw that theory right out the window.

Once that tall, athletic, excellent mover is identified, he will not be playing tennis and will be put into another sport that has a lot more material and financial support.
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
Once that tall, athletic, excellent mover is identified, he will not be playing tennis and will be put into another sport that has a lot more material and financial support.

Goran Ivanisevic and Gael Monfils are two lightning fast 6'5" players. Greg Rusedski had great speed too.

Height is important and so is speed. Some players have a huge first serve despite being short like Daniel Bracciali, Laver, Michael Russel, but it's very rare.

It takes an incredible shoulder to hit a kick serve with the same power that taller players hit it flat or mildly sliced.
 
Bad example including Santoro and Coria there.

Overall, flawed logic from scratch, starting with a flawed concept. I'll let someone else picks this one up.

Two words. Roger Federer (6'1")

If height is the single most important factor in tennis success wouldn't giants dominate the majors and rankings? They don't. Occasionaly they make it to the final and then just get schooled by people who can do more than just hit bomb aces. The replies here pretty much are on target (6'1 - 6-3) being the ideal height, compromise nimbleness with serve angle advantage.

It make me think of the string tension dilemma.. power vs control. If I go for super low tension I can hit mad bombs on the serve, but then once in play I cannot hit any winners with accuracy. String at highest end and my speed of serve is pathetic. So, you end up stringing somewhere close to the middle tension to be able to play on both ends, though compromised.

No one here wants to watch a serving competition, so boring. The shorter guys that run around around to get the ball and work for their shots have much appreciation from the fan base as they make for much more entertaining tennis.
 

Tcbtennis

Hall of Fame
Once that tall, athletic, excellent mover is identified, he will not be playing tennis and will be put into another sport that has a lot more material and financial support.

I should have been more specific and added ... In the U.S. any tall, athletic, excellent mover ...
 

LeeD

Bionic Poster
And then there are sports like basketball, volleyball, high jump.
Balanced by jockey, tunnel rats, and soccer.
 

PrinceMoron

Legend
If you are 194 cms and have size 12 shoes, when you stand up to the baseline the top of the net is in line with the outside edge of the baseline.

Makes it easy to see if the net is low/high. That is a talent worth having.

All those people who spend all day looking through the net, I feel sad for you.
 

psYcon

Semi-Pro
Increased height doesn't mean you are more talented. If that were the case then Yao Ming would be more talented than Jordan. yea right!
 

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
Once that tall, athletic, excellent mover is identified, he will not be playing tennis and will be put into another sport that has a lot more material and financial support.

I agree, that will be the case in a LOT of situations, though some may choose tennis, hopefully.
 

tank_job

Banned
Height compensates for talent

No, you misunderstand.

Talent is a physical attribute that you are born with.

And height is also the most important part of the modern game (big serves, high kicking topspin).

Therefore, height IS talent in tennis.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
No, you misunderstand.

Talent is a physical attribute that you are born with.

And height is also the most important part of the modern game (big serves, high kicking topspin).

Therefore, height IS talent in tennis.

Talent does not refer to a physical attribute per se, but what is done with it.

Einstein's brain (preserved) is 1/3rd larger than average. But that was not his talent. His flair for science was the talent.
 

firepanda

Professional
Height is a natural advantage, sure. But I definitely wouldn't call it a talent. Considering, Karlovic is capable of hitting two shots, I'd say he has the talent of a pickled rat's brain.
 

10is

Professional
More like: HEIGHT makes up for a lack of TALENT in tennis. Taller players can survive without the need to actually play the game.

Club and league tennis shows this even better than the pro level. Any tall hack can serve big and do pretty well. Talented players will usually take them apart. Having height and talent makes you really good.

Exactly; and having an abundance of talent without adequate height (relative to the field) to maximize the potential of that talent can be a distinctc disadvantage. Case in point Henin ... had Henin (5'5") been blessed with Serena's height (5'10") she would have been Federer's female equivalent -- the Female GOAT. Of this I have no doubt whatsoever.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
OP should rename himself to "tank_thread".

Quoted for truth.

The thread:

Tennis: height = talent?

Once again, this unsubstantiated, BS "theory" comes up, when history (yeah, that strange, unknown thing to certain TW members) proves shorter players have been blessed with great talent, such as Rosewall (5'7") and the one and only GOAT--Laver (5'8").

This board has already witnessed another member (and his alternate username) use the baseless "tall" argument as a way of trying to explain why the shorter Justine Henin was not a better player in the Williams era. The truth of the matter was that her lack of ability in key areas was the reason she did not win more majors not height, which goes back to how individual, fantastic talents allowed shorter Laver to accomplish what no other man since is capable of doing, so the "taller=talent" idea holds no water at all.
 
Last edited:

10is

Professional
Rosewall (5'7") and Laver (5'8").

Oh he of BLUNDEROUSFOLLIES! Considering the average height of the field was much shorter in those days (compared to today), it is not surprising why these individuals were as competitive and successful as they were (i.e physical parity).
 

flymeng

Semi-Pro
The optimum height for a male tennis player is 6'1" according Jim Courier. It helps you with your serve, stability and speed. Federer, Nadal, Courier and Sampras are 6'1" tall.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
Oh he of BLUNDEROUSFOLLIES! Considering the average height of the field was much shorter in those days (compared to today), it is not surprising why these individuals were as competitive and successful as they were (i.e physical parity).

Expecting such a historically ignorant response from you (and your alias who will post soon), the height of talents such as Emerson (6') and Gonzales (6'2") were not some oddity.

Much like your pointless support of that hack Henin, your attempt to make some out-of-left-field generalization blows up in your face.
 

LeeD

Bionic Poster
In tennis, it seems height over 6'5" pretty much insures you a very short shelf life at the top of the game, and tons of time recovering from injuries you sustained trying to get there and holding for a short time.
Or, a bright flash in the pan.
 

citybert

Hall of Fame
Height is important in all sports. Even golf, shorter golfers cant get enough torque in their backswing, same with baseball swing, tennis forehand and same with hockey shot. Football and basketball is no question. Yes there are exceptions like messi, pedroia etc but it is very rare.
 
for sure the taller the better, but there is no relation with talent. What is happening is that tall players are more talented nowadays than it used to be in the past... but this is a different story
 
Top