West Coast Ace
G.O.A.T.
+1. Best combo of speed and movement + power/angle.
Tennis: height = talent?
- Thread starter tank_job
- Start date
Totally agreed...and is this a toll thread op?
Isner isnt doesnt have well rounded talent. He just serves from a tree and can ace his way out of trouble. If you evaluate his game from the back of the court he probably doesnt rank top 100 and his return game is probably one of the worst in the ATP. With that said, his serve is the best in the ATP and that strongly correlates with his height
TralalalaNadal
Banned
Guess you better get all the NBA players playing Tennis then. Would love to see a 7'6 yaoming or 7 footer dive for a tennis ball and then get back up as quickly as a six footer guy, LOL.
kthanksbai, nice try
10is
Professional
Great! I'll add some of my picked cherries too!
Rosewall: 5'7"
Hoad: 5'8"
Roche: 5"10"
Kodes: 5'9"
Okker: 5'10"
One should also take into account that in the era of wooden racquets, one did not "need" great height because the game was by necessity based on touch rather than power, and in an era with a lot of slippery grass courts, a relatively low centre of gravity was an advantage.
Apart from that studies have shown that the average height of the population has increased by 20% over the past 50 years, which lends credence to my statement about the average tennis player being taller now than in Laver's day, in addition to the greater physicality entailed by the modern game.
Last edited:
I'm short, but a freakishly good athlete, much better at sports than most tall people.
Honestly, I have to have way better technique, better speed, better intuition and on and on, in order to outplay many tall people who aren't nearly as skilled as me.
In soccer and tennis it's not so bad, but in some sports like basketball and volleyball, it becomes almost impossible, past high school if you aren't a super freak like spud webb or very tall.
Honestly, I have to have way better technique, better speed, better intuition and on and on, in order to outplay many tall people who aren't nearly as skilled as me.
In soccer and tennis it's not so bad, but in some sports like basketball and volleyball, it becomes almost impossible, past high school if you aren't a super freak like spud webb or very tall.
Last edited:
PrinceMoron
Legend
This thread is limited to singles?
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Equipment has nothing to do with the failed OP:
...and as repeatedly illustrated to you and your alternate username, history proves the base premise false time and time again, otherwise tall players Berdych, Querry, Karlovic, Soderling, Isner and others would have proved otherwise by the one way of judging said talents: performance at the majors.
Of the aforementioned tall player names, guess what the collective majors count is: zero. A lack of talent is the beginning, middle and end of their results, not height.
Raiden
Hall of Fame
The OP needs to go back to junior comprehension class.
Height is an advantage, not a talent.
It can't be a talent because you have nothing to do with it (unless you somehow transformed your own height yourself by putting your midget ass in some special two-way sucking vacuum device)
.
Height is an advantage, not a talent.
It can't be a talent because you have nothing to do with it (unless you somehow transformed your own height yourself by putting your midget ass in some special two-way sucking vacuum device)
.
Last edited:
10is
Professional
Your evasivness is telling considering I and others have already stated that, ceteris paribus, height is a necessary but not sufficient condition for success in the modern game.
Talent is something you have nothing to do with. Ever heard of the term: 'innately talented'? The term exists, because some gifted people have to do nothing to get results.
You hear stuff like this all the time: "man, I hate that guy - he does half the work I do, yet does better than me because he's so talented."
This is why tall tennis players are talented without exception - their very height gives them talent, and it's a physical gift they don't have to work on, just like Federer's innately effortless timing.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
You were the kid claiming height was the be-all, end-all of success/ability, hence your laughable--to paraphrase--"if Henin was taller, she would be Federer/GOAT" (used by you and your alternate username). If you did not believe height was so crucial as a career changer, you would not beat that DOA, pointless argument as often as seen on this board.
On that note, Laver proves a shorter player is not hobbled by height, as he is the GOAT based only on supreme talent which is not shaped by size, while taller players do not benefit at all from that genetic roll of the dice (as proven with the careers of tall men Berdych, Querry, Karlovic, Soderling, Isner, et al).
Last edited:
10is
Professional
Exactly! Considering Henin's superlative talent vis-a-vis the field (including Serena). Thanks for validating my point.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Exactly! Considering Henin's superlative talent vis-a-vis the field (including Serena). Thanks for validating my point.
Not even mildly amusing. Henin's height has nothing to do with the central issue: she was not born with the talent and court understanding to be a GOAT. Her one gimmick (1H-Bh) does not make a great player. Live with it.
Last edited:
And I'm always been consistent about this topic. Why don't you add some input to this topic instead of talking about me.
I don't see how anyone can dispute that height has an effect on the player. If Serena was 5'5" there's no way she would have won 14 slams because her power/serve are drastically reduce. As for undersize player like Henin, who's super talented being at ~5'10" she would be a greater player. With an ideal height + the most gifted talent on the tour, there's no doubt that she would be the best player.
Same height for most of the top players throughout history.
The current surfaces make a big difference for taller players, though (over 6'3"). The low-bouncing grass courts made quick movement much more important than today, and the very slow clay courts of the past made running all day long much more important. Both of these favored smaller, lighter guys over big tall guys. The high-bouncing hard courts and faster clay courts of today help out the taller guys by not forcing them into quick, low-to the ground movements, or forcing them into marathon running contests where their power is completely negated.
Still, the top guys now are not significantly taller than most of the champions of the past - none are as tall as Stan Smith.
He has been listed from 5 9 to 5 11 depending on the source. Also remember there is with shoes and without shoes and depending on the time of day you could be a half an inch taller - usually in the mornings when the spine is relaxed. This was a big source of contention during NFL combines and when they measure the players.
Oddly enough nadal seems a lot taller than 6'1 in person. Maybe uncle toni at it again trying to make him the underdog
Raiden
Hall of Fame
LMAO
You obviously know as much about tennis as a chipmunk.
Justine's backhand is merely her finishing touch - her icing on the cake - her exclamation point that makes crowds go "ooh" and "aah" - but it is by no means the only thing that makes her great.
Not even close. What makes her great are many other things, prominent among which are her unmatched total package of technique, her all court tennis intelligence, her shot selection, and of course her movement: that flawless, perfect footwork (after Graf the best ever footwork in the history of tennis).
But you don't know these things because to you everything is player-cheerleading - your are a clueless Willytard robot
.
Last edited:
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
...said the fool who once admitted he obtained culutral understanding from watching Jersey Shore--fiction.
You're done, boy.
dominikk1985
Legend
stupid thread. you cannot be a midget but most very good tennis players are between 5"10 and 6"3. this is not really tall.
most really tall players have failed or get injured really soon (delpo).
tennis is not a height sport at all.
most really tall players have failed or get injured really soon (delpo).
tennis is not a height sport at all.
dominikk1985
Legend
true but on the other hand people tend to generalize that the sport is going that way completely if that happens.
when bolt came up any guy said "we need to find tall sprinters", "he has an advantage...". but this year another young jamaican came up. he is about 5"10 but runs nearly as fast as bolt.
in tennis the same happenened when delpo came up. anyone was saying "tall players are going to dominate".
back in the 90s muster said that he expects that tennis will be dominated by huge serve/FH bombers.
but guess what, it didn't happen. there are some good tall players but also great players of normal height. the average might have went up a little but so went the average height generally.
most tennis greats were always usually just above average for a male (which went up). ocasionally one is taller but despite the prophecy that tall players will dominate which is about 20 years old now still the 6"1-6"2 athletes dominate.
does that mean there cannot be a great tall player? no of course but it is not that we can expect 7"0 guys to dominate anytime soon especially with the slow courts.
Yes it is !
A player at 5'7" can't serve as a well as a player 6' or above. On the flip side, a player at 6'5" isn't as agile/nimble as a player at 6' or below. This has nothing to do with talent, because many attributes like the one i just mentioned are height related.
Unless if we are talking about bowling, I can see height has no effect.
Capiche ?
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
True. Moreover, Laver was no giant, yet he's the greatest player of all time by far (with astonishing talent), yet today's truly taller players such as Berdych, Querry, Karlovic, Soderling, Isner, et al, are not particularly talented, and its not a stretch to suggest they never will be considered the most talented or successful players. As of this day, none have won even a single major.
You are quite correct about this thread, as it was based on an uttlerly absurd premise.
Last edited:
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Yeah, Laver had so much talent that in his prime, right after winning his 2nd Grand Slam, he lost to a 42-year old Pancho Gonzales.
Oh, and Laver used to say that Lew Hoad was a greater player than he was and now says Federer is a greater player than he was.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
That's called "playing nice." Learn what it means.
...once again, height has no bearing on talent or success, otherwise, today's taller players such as Berdych, Querry, Karlovic, Soderling, Isner, et al, would be seen as the most talented (they're not in any such conversation), and would have managed at least one major, but thay have not.
Again, the OP's premise (and that of any supporting it) is absurd, to say the least.
Yeah, Laver had so much talent that in his prime, right after winning his 2nd Grand Slam, he lost to a 42-year old Pancho Gonzales.
Oh, and Laver used to say that Lew Hoad was a greater player than he was and now says Federer is a greater player than he was.
Yep. And Lew Hoad is a bigger player than him. Consider tennis with no player at Laver's height dominate the game in the past decades, it's not a rocket science to acknowledge that Laver would suffer playing modern tennis.
Vcore89
Talk Tennis Guru
I'm going to take a cue from Wilson tennis (and fool around a bit).
Their venerable PS 85 was a 6.0 (six-oh!)in the 80s and 90s. Today, it is called 6.1 (six-one). May I assume that during those period, men winning the most titles are averages at 6 feet tall while nowadays the averages are 6 foot 1. Perhaps in the next decade it shall be 6.2?:neutral:
Although professionals are in essence 7.0, there has yet to be a 7 footer GS winner.:|
Their venerable PS 85 was a 6.0 (six-oh!)in the 80s and 90s. Today, it is called 6.1 (six-one). May I assume that during those period, men winning the most titles are averages at 6 feet tall while nowadays the averages are 6 foot 1.
Perhaps in the next decade it shall be 6.2?:neutral:Although professionals are in essence 7.0, there has yet to be a 7 footer GS winner.:|
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
And when was the last time a male player under 5' 8" won at least one major?
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
If the greater height=talent nonsense held any truth at all, then Laver would not have earned his GOAT title in an era where players such as Emerson (6') or Gonzales (6'2") and other then-taller players existed, as the unsubstantuated advantage (in its blanketing attempt) would be applicable to all eras--not just one. Clearly, there are no height=talent standards throughout history as proven several times in this thread.
Talent--genuine talent is the beginning and end of it all. Some taller players have it (ex. Becker), while others (Martin, and current players Berdych, Querry, Karlovic, Soderling, Isner, et al) do not. Similarly, some short players have legendary talent (Laver) while others (Henin) suffered from limited skills--talent if you will, hence her defenders having to pull nonsensical junk theories out of their asses in order to explain why she could not win on the level of her generation's greatest player.
On that note, Davenport (6'2" 1/2) towered over Serena Williams (5'9"), but she's nowhere near as accomplished as the shorter Williams...or even Hingis (5'7"). Height was supposed to be this great advantage, but....no. It comes down to genuine talent, not height.
So much for this pointless theory.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
^^^^
If Henin had no skills nor talent then the hundreds of players she beat must have had even less skills and talent.
If Henin had no skills nor talent then the hundreds of players she beat must have had even less skills and talent.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
^ Noise which avoids...
If Henin had no skills nor talent then the hundreds of players she beat must have had even less skills and talent.
If Henin had no skills nor talent then the hundreds of players she beat must have had even less skills and talent.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Pay close attention, as you are lost...again: Henin in relation to this BS premise only matters as an example of one short player having limited skills (Henin) while another (Laver) reached the zenith of the sport with superior talent. Height played no part in any of it. All inherent talent. Once again...
But continue to avoid the truth of history.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
^ Noise which avoids...
If Henin had no skills nor talent then the hundreds of players she beat must have had even less skills and talent.
Oh, and I'm sure Laver being lefty didn't help him win whatsoever.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Irrelevant: her supporters think adding height would have made her the player she was not born to be...only the fact of the matter is that her lack of talent --not height--prevented her from being the best of her generation and one of the best of all time.
Again...
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
So a midget player with no talent was able to win 7 Slams and be the #1 player in the world for many years?
Gee, I wish I were shorter and had less talent. I'd be a multi-Slam winner, too.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
So a midget player with no talent was able to win 7 Slams and be the #1 player in the world for many years?
Gee, I wish I were shorter and had less talent. I'd be a multi-Slam winner, too.
Translated: you avoid the evidence of history, because you have no conclusive proof of height=talent and greater results (a fantasy which would not help Henin in any way), and operate from wild emotionalism, much like that which made you create a Nadal/doping thread which was booted out of GPPD.
As expected.
But for a recap:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Agreed. For example Isner's height helps him with the serve but the man's movement and general smoothness of his game seems to be hurt by his height. I saw a graphic the other day that Isner's played more tiebreaks than any player on the tour. My guess is that's because his serve is very hard to break and he just can't return well enough to break serve.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Oh really? Out of the guys that have won Slams in the past 10 years - Federer, Nadal, Roddick, Safin, Djokovic, Del Potro - how many are under 6 feet tall?
Oh, and please show us when I've EVER started a "Nadal/doping thread". :???:
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
You are citing 10 years--not my argument, as i'm talking about that scary thing you ignore: the larger field of history for men and women--which blows that argument apart, and you have avoided that matter for obvuious reasons.
Moreover, the existence of a legion of current tall players who fail to win majors was posted several times, and you still run away from that, but for clarity:
Your little thread which was deservedly booted to Odds and Ends--posted as a troll thread attempting to connect dots that cannot be linked. As noted before, by posting that in a tennis board, it was clear you are suggesting guilt of a tennis player, thus the burden of proof rested on your shoulders, but you could not prove it, so why post it in the orignal forum: to stir up false accusations. This is not an Olympics or Olympic lead-in board. In fact, another member pointed out reasons for your thread's booting:
Again, there's only one reason you created this thread on a tennis board and in the targeted forum. You realized you had no relevant evidence, so your motive for posting this was clear.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Yeah, back in the days of wood racquets, shorter guys under 6 feet tall like Laver, Rosewall, Connors, Borg, McEnroe, etc. could win Slams because the game was much less physical than it is today. You could win with just finesse and guile. Today, you need more power and a bigger serve to win.
Right, and if my thread was actually only about Nadal, why was it moved out of the Pro Player forum? Is Nadal NOT a Pro Player? The fact that it was moved out of the Pro Player forum proves that it was not about Nadal (in addition to the fact that there was never any mention of Nadal). Only people like you who have doubts about Nadal's innocence would immediately think any thread about doping in the Olympics must only be about Nadal. :???:
And if you have any evidence that NO tennis players were on the banned list, please share it with us. Oh, you don't have any evidence, do you? Tennis is an Olympic sport, is it not? Thus, tennis players are "Olympic athletes", are they not? Thus, that article is VERY relevant on a tennis board, as well as relevant on any sport's board that is an Olympic sport. And since I'm not active on any gymnastics board nor swimming board nor track and filed board nor fencing board nor wrestling board nor volleyball board nor water polo board nor handball board nor soccer board nor field hockey board nor table tennis board nor judo board nor badminton board nor weightlifting board nor rowing board nor cycling board nor marathon board nor boxing board nor diving board but ONLY a tennis board, why would I post the article anywhere else? :???:
Timbo's hopeless slice
Hall of Fame
5 10 in elevator shoes, maybe! I have met Daveeed a coupe of times and I can assure you he is more like 5' 8" in tennis shoes!
This is a facile argument.
ubermeyer
Hall of Fame
I think height is only an advantage if the player can still be athletic while being that tall. For example, Lebron James would have an advantage if he was a tennis player because not only is he 6'8 he is ridiculously athletic. However, Karlovic, Isner, etc. aren't very "athletic" and so they don't move that well, so their serving and power advantages don't make up for that.
Murrayalmagrofan
Semi-Pro
Novak is listed at 6ft 2" (Andy Murray is 6ft 3").
Height doesn't equal talent, but the sweet spot for men's tennis (at least in the last decade) seems to be in the 6ft 1" - 6ft 2" range.
Looking at the players who finished the year ranked #1 over the last 10 years gives us the following;
2003---Andy Roddick---6ft 2"
2004---Roger Federer---6ft 1"
2005---Roger Federer---6ft 1"
2006---Roger Federer---6ft 1"
2007---Roger Federer---6ft 1"
2008---Rafael Nadal---6ft 1"
2009---Roger Federer---6ft 1"
2010---Rafael Nadal---6ft 1"
2011---Novak Djokovic---6ft 2"
2012???
Similar threads
