Tennis: height = talent?

JustBob

Hall of Fame
Height does not equate to talent, but tennis players are getting taller, both on the men's and on the women's side because modern tennis has become a physical power game. 15-20 years ago, the standard for men's ideal height was between 6' and 6'2", and the 6'4"+ guys were very few. In fact, in those days, if you were a 12-13 y/o and were "predicted" to grow very tall (6'4"+), it's very likely that you'd have been told "son, you're gonna be too tall to play tennis, pick another sport". And you could get by being shorter (5'10"-) as long as you were technically sound. Today, some might say unfortunately, height/strength/athleticism are as important as being technically sound because you have to be able to play the power game, and power can trump shotmaking ability (see Hingis, and even Federer has stated that he could no longer rely on shotmaking ability alone to beat guys today, like he did earlier in his career.)
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
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???

That's why I keep telling the old-timers that it would be difficult for Rosewall and Laver competing today. Tennis has change, not just 10 yrs ago, but 20 yrs ago when slams are won mostly by player atleast 6'. Size disadvantage hurts, that's a given. If you're 5'7", you get overpower, no serve...that alone is too much to overcome against the bigger boys. It's a miracle that Chang won the FO in 1989, and clay(slow surface) is the best chance for an undersize player.
 

JustBob

Hall of Fame
Plus that 2004-2012 era is an historical anomaly in terms of having 3 players being so dominant. In a "normal era" you might very well have seen a few more 6'3"+ slam winners aside from Del Po.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Plus that 2004-2012 era is an historical anomaly in terms of having 3 players being so dominant. In a "normal era" you might very well have seen a few more 6'3"+ slam winners aside from Del Po.
Don't forget Safin at 6' 5" in 2005 AO.
 
That's why I keep telling the old-timers that it would be difficult for Rosewall and Laver competing today. Tennis has change, not just 10 yrs ago, but 20 yrs ago when slams are won mostly by player atleast 6'. Size disadvantage hurts, that's a given. If you're 5'7", you get overpower, no serve...that alone is too much to overcome against the bigger boys. It's a miracle that Chang won the FO in 1989, and clay(slow surface) is the best chance for an undersize player.
Agreed. I'm not sure someone with Laver's talent could be #1 in today's game. Highest ranked sub 6ft player is David Ferrer at #5 - and he does everything right.

One very talented "younger" player on the tour is Ricardis Berankis. His groundstrokes, volleys and serve are all well developed and well executed. The only thing he seems to be lacking is height (he's only 5ft 9"). I honestly feel if he were 3-4" taller he'd be in the top 25...with strong top 10 potential.
 

okdude1992

Hall of Fame
this thread is so stupid. in tennis movement/coordination=talent. also mental toughness could be considered "talent"

height makes it easier to serve, but harder to move. that is all
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Kohlschreiber, 1.78m with a 1hbh just defeated 2.06m Isner!
That's because Isner's only "talent" is his height, and because of that, he's a poor mover.

But if you take two players of equal talent in everything and one is 5"4" and the other is 6"2", who's more likely to be the multiple Slam winner?
 

Gyswandir

Semi-Pro
That's because Isner's only "talent" is his height, and because of that, he's a poor mover.

But if you take two players of equal talent in everything and one is 5"4" and the other is 6"2", who's more likely to be the multiple Slam winner?

Totally agree.
If equal "talent," then physical attributes will prevail. However, physical attributes can still be compensated for by better talent, conditioning...
That is why someone with talent, conditioning and good physical attributes will win. Hence, Federere, Nadal, Djoko, Sampras...
I think Agassi was a good example of great talent+ excellent conditioning(later period)+ good enough physical attributes

This whole argument about height being the one and only is silly. I think that at a high level and in no particular order, it is about:
Hand eye coordination
bio mechanical coordination
Movement (Speed/Correct footwork)
Stamina
Anticipation/"reading" the opponent and the ball
Physical attributes, like strength, height... BUT there is a point of diminishing returns when it affects the other points, especially movement
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
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.

Emerson (6') and Gonzales (6'2") were not genetic freakshows of their era and are legends who battled Laver. Once again, your lack of historical clarity fails you. Meanwhile you avoid any explanation for the long list of truly tall players (Berdych, Querry, Karlovic, Soderling, Isner, et al) who are not doing a damn thing up to this point--as in winning majors.

Again:

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.



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?

No one was fooled by your intent, but you felt this Olympics non-story should be front and center in a forum about tennis, so the stunt was easy to see. Operating off of suggestive posting alone, your would-be "gotcha" thread was booted.

And if you have any evidence that NO tennis players were on the banned list, please share it with us.

You were the author of the BS booted thread with the suggestive crap, so to reiterate:

Originally Posted by pinky42
Because unless there is evidence that pro players are on the list it is off topic. So far no such evidence has been presented. When you get the list of 107 players, try again.

The burden of proof is all yours.
 
Last edited:
I'm curious to know if there's been any research into WHY so many tennis players now are taller. It has been shown that intense training during from a young age for certain sports, results in physical characteristics that are beneficial. Gymnasts, for example, over the years have grown shorter and more muscular because they are training for more and more difficult routines from as young as 3yo.
 

Zarfot Z

Professional
I'm curious to know if there's been any research into WHY so many tennis players now are taller. It has been shown that intense training during from a young age for certain sports, results in physical characteristics that are beneficial. Gymnasts, for example, over the years have grown shorter and more muscular because they are training for more and more difficult routines from as young as 3yo.

I think it's more of a matter of human evolution. As we get better access to food, it is only natural that our bodies will grow bigger. Therefore, with each passing generation people are getting marginally taller.
 

Wuppy

Professional
I'm curious to know if there's been any research into WHY so many tennis players now are taller.
Erm, because the short ones don't make it to the pros and you never hear of them.

Gymnasts, for example, over the years have grown shorter and more muscular
Erm, because the guys/girls who grow to 6ft don't become Olympic gymnasts.

That's like saying OMG jockeys are so short it must be because the human race is getting smaller or because jockeys have special training regimens. No, it's because big dudes slow down horses so big dudes aren't going to be riding in any races that you or I will ever see.

It is "evolution" of a sort.. evolution of the sport. And it's generated simply by a plethora of people to choose from. And the plethora of people to choose from comes from the fact that more people are trying to become pros. And the reason so many people are trying to become pros is due to the ever increasing prize money.

Suppose I invent a sport called Butt Ball. You hit a ball with your butt until it goes into a goal. At first there's no money so average dudes with mediocre talent and average butt-sizes will play.

50 years later it's a multi-billion-dollar industry and pros are making tens of millions a year and therefore it attracts people with enormous butts who can move them in all directions.

Those people were there all the time, it's only when the money went up that their parents trained them (or paid to train them) to become Buttballers. When there was no money their parents sent them to accounting school.
 
Last edited:

Vcore89

Talk Tennis Guru
Erm, because the short ones don't make it to the pros and you never hear of them.


Erm, because the guys/girls who grow to 6ft don't become Olympic gymnasts.

That's like saying OMG jockeys are so short it must be because the human race is getting smaller or because jockeys have special training regimens. No, it's because big dudes slow down horses so big dudes aren't going to be riding in any races that you or I will ever see.

It is "evolution" of a sort.. evolution of the sport. And it's generated simply by a plethora of people to choose from. And the plethora of people to choose from comes from the fact that more people are trying to become pros. And the reason so many people are trying to become pros is due to the ever increasing prize money.

Suppose I invent a sport called Butt Ball. You hit a ball with your butt until it goes into a goal. At first there's no money so average dudes with mediocre talent and average butt-sizes will play.

50 years later it's a multi-billion-dollar industry and pros are making tens of millions a year and therefore it attracts people with enormous butts who can move them in all directions.

Those people were there all the time, it's only when the money went up that their parents trained them (or paid to train them) to become Buttballers. When there was no money their parents sent them to accounting school.

Hahaha, very humorous considering you chose the gluteus maximus and rightly so because it is also the biggest and amongst the strongest muscle!:)
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Emerson (6') and Gonzales (6'2") were not genetic freakshows of their era and are legends who battled Laver. Once again, your lack of historical clarity fails you. Meanwhile you avoid any explanation for the long list of truly tall players (Berdych, Querry, Karlovic, Soderling, Isner, et al) who are not doing a damn thing up to this point--as in winning majors.

Um...Logic fail!!

Just because shorter players could win during the wood era, does not imply that taller players could NOT win during the same era.

Oh, and didn't Del Potro (6'6") and Safin (6'4") win Majors over the past few years?

And who ever claimed that EVERY tall player should be winning Majors? Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic are all 6'1"-6'2", does that mean that EVERY player of that height should be winning Majors?

Please stop embarrassing yourself with your ridiculous, I mean non-existent, logic.

The burden of proof is all yours.
There's no need to prove that tennis is an Olympic sport and that pro tennis players are "Olympic athletes" because everyone, except obviously you, already knows that.
 

yellowoctopus

Professional
I like to think of height as a physical potential, along with other attributes that a player is given. How he/she takes advantage of these is that's what matters.

As for talent, I subscribe to the philosophy behind the book 'talent is overated'. So having the 'right height' for tennis doesn't become a talent until one actually put in the hard work to take advantage of it. Even then, there are plenty of other potential attributes players have that account for his or her successes.

Also, IMHO, perhaps the most important potential attribute of all for the game of tennis is the one between the ears.

talent-is-overrated-book-cover.png
brain-fitness.bmp
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
Just because shorter players could win during the wood era, does not imply that taller players could NOT win during the same era.

The premise has nothing to do with "wood eras," but the effect of height overall in some warped connection to talent, which the examples throughout history for men and women flatly disprove, thus the premise is intellectually bankrupt, much like your incessant avoidance of historical fact. Shame is smothering you, yet you cannot see it.

There's no need to prove that tennis is an Olympic sport and that pro tennis players are "Olympic athletes" because everyone, except obviously you, already knows that.

Obviously, everyone who commented on why your pointless thread was moved understand it had no business in a player forum when you failed to produce any of the 107 names--specifically tennis players--yet you hoped placing it here would aim false accusations at one star tennis player--Nadal.

Bottom line: your thread was not fit for the forum where it was launched and you have yet to provide a list in order to defend your BS-laden thread.
 

Wilander Fan

Hall of Fame
Its because its expensive to develop talent and tennis players need to be developed early. Coaches cant see things like footwork, hand-eye, agility, etc..or think they can train these things into a kid. Height is something that can be seen fairly young so the tall kid will get more coaching. Also, early on before the finer points of the game come together, purely physical traits give a huge advantage.

That being said, height is a big advantage on serve because of geometry.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
The premise has nothing to do with "wood eras," but the effect of height overall in some warped connection to talent, which the examples throughout history for men and women flatly disprove, thus the premise is intellectually bankrupt, much like your incessant avoidance of historical fact. Shame is smothering you, yet you cannot see it.
What I and everyone else can see is that your posts keep getting deleted. I'm sure getting banned again for the nth time is next.

If you wanted to become a pro tennis player, would you prefer to be 5' 4" or 6' 2"?

Obviously, everyone who commented on why your pointless thread was moved understand it had no business in a player forum when you failed to produce any of the 107 names--specifically tennis players--yet you hoped placing it here would aim false accusations at one star tennis player--Nadal.

Bottom line: your thread was not fit for the forum where it was launched and you have yet to provide a list in order to defend your BS-laden thread.
Tennis is an Olympic sport, thus pro tennis players are "Olympic athletes". Thus, ANY general story that affects Olympic athletes is appropriate in a pro tennis player forum. Just like it would be in a cycling forum or running forum or gymnastics forum or rowing forum or weightlifting forum or volleyball forum, etc. ALL Olympic sports consist of Olympic athletes, including pro tennis players.

So please explain to us why any mention of doping immediately makes you think only of Nadal? It's obvious to all of us that you must doubt his innocence. You have yet to explain what kind of inside information you have on this. So please do share.
 
I think it's more of a matter of human evolution. As we get better access to food, it is only natural that our bodies will grow bigger. Therefore, with each passing generation people are getting marginally taller.

I wish that were the case. That exceptions were born, not made, along the evolutionary ladder; and that talent is limitless. But my grandfather was 6'1"...what's up with that? But only in his prime. No one would believe that to be possible. I used to be bitter, but I was just trying to eat. Losing 20 plus pounds along the way, and yummy steamed white stuff with paste...not pace. Sometimes ramen noodles w/out the noodles, like ye old last proud Germanese doggie left laughing along the wasabi breezeway. I wish I had make-believe perfect concentration pills then (so I could tell you now, why they don't work, and celebrities semi-regularly drop-dead, never *satisified*), so that then I would know I was capable of concentrating and being a potential Harmontard "maniac, maniac...!" *don't* want to hear it, nope, I'm not living to be congratulated everyday, today. Never was a need, just me, like OJ, never was into Emma Watson or fantasy, only AppleMJ, the MJ I never paid much attention to. I hear that's unusual for INFP's, but it's not true. I used to watch Bruguera-Muster from friendly recorded VHS tape, over and over, on rabit ears t.v....doing my best to save da family, from behind closed shared coridors, "sacrificing" my own best marks, but I've never received an ounce of credit for that...but know I'm just as smart as, absolutely, absolutely "could have been," but I have a strong detest for now. It's easy to be a professional, in comparison; even easier to be forgotten. Jaded, it's better to have known, and grown, into an inner grem*lin. Today. I imagine that Donald Young, grows one, loses the hangdog demeanor, with one dream: "I want to fight you to the mother-bl**ping death (jeepers), because *I know I'd never be able to take the last punch.*" It's an important distinction to reach, when you're only swinging with conviction at flies, but not your fellow man. That's the important part. Dignity, dignity...you're *lost, if you've never had to *found* it, whew! Focus on the little things, and not highly appraised shrink whose there half-because they care, half-becasue they could have taken credit for turning you into their human experiment today, take notes, what have you, and really only, because ultimately they're paid to, or coerced into. Somehow, it just doesn't *feel* the same. When you've reached the stage of the "!000" Yeard Stare," lo...ng after, that's when the exclamation mark rises. You are your own socket, a wry smile, and inner glee. Put some chapstick on, but only if you can afford it. Don't really care today. The greater the lost potential, the greater the will to overcome. Make your inner desire, something frozen and ferocious...something to lick-on, and should anyone ask. Laugh, and spit particles, in *focused* space. In your *own* little world, when the *crowd* ceases to exist; *only, innebriated* then, will we know if Donald Young ever had *will* potential...or he was full of, worse than fluff, dust. Whatever became of Evan Tanner, "I've paid my dues...this, is my day in the sun!" So...("superline...if it ever saves even one 'mad men,' *exonerated* was it worth it? Probably not, but it was the *right* thing to do.") Looking back, to try without dying? I have *no right* too. Doping is a talent too. I don't want to die like Evan Tanner, relying on what's remaining, just because I can. Everyone does it. But Marion Jones glows today, possitively radiates, and I believe her. I can feel her relief, her inner beauty coming through, the *clean* lines, the beginning of an angelic afterglow, because it's the *right* thing to do. While Lance Armstrong, one shelters himself from hell, with a twin who would not otherwise care, more of the like, when you do not see the need to, and make that your company. You have to *want* to go through hell, like it's the only thing that matters, to discover that it was the only thing that ever mattered, and call me then. Having already been through a form of *passing* hell, I thought there was no going back there. But, because the will is good. I learned that I could, and really *needed* to. It's how humans carry along in spirit, when every life trajectory is different. Flip a rock to the moon, in every sunless well of heartspring with room to grow, a new horizon. It tantalizes you that way, but *only if* you would *flinch.* Don't be scared, homely. "...when, the final outcome is already known. The only thing you should be concerned about, is the best possible accounting of self at any cost..." so why begin today? A little less like the long ago, "ghost-sewn fiber" (loosely, rough-hewn, trnsltd. into "as I am my own reward," not implied, how [we must not have] inquired), of "Eva Longista..."

I can remember quaking along on my thumb, for the safety humbling effect#, of a do or die, "name." Looking back, this is why. This is why taxi drivers w. bad backs, tall for their land in their day, drive 24/2 life, now shorter, post-op, "Boy, I was really something then." But nothing today. And, then that wry smile, remerges. And everyday, feels like clmibing a mountain...if I *weren't so tired,* for when you know you are *not alone.* And discover a solace in a made-your life destiny, that led you "so self-senseless-" no doubt, alive, when "glows absentee, when wrong?" A voltage true whispery in your traces, of a single number of all you'll ever known, and more. From "...imbibed (Alpha)," & sucking on my thumb, out of my mind, on the verge of what I only thought was redemption, when it only led to further be "...imbued." The dews never end, when indebted, and the will still kicks. Inscribed "...alone and helpless; everything has beauty, but not everyone sees it; art of war; human touch, inner beauty." What's missing? Does a singing bowl resonate from the beginning, middle, or to *what end?*

The most important part, is in every hand, and every stub of the harmless (or handless:). "Why is every life not perfectly fair? Because, you'd have to die, silly, to make it so) me." Just because the Donald didn't eclipse his career height potential, "no reason to residual linger." It's not important anymore, attributes that can't be altered by inflatable silicone baloons, and Windex, what's the point? As an imaginary fashion neoaccessory, a side, a part of, that razzles & dazzles so seriously. In every hand, only a small part of, just in the beginning, just for me, I made a "live earned, palm app," for everYoung was, then again, only the (feint?) possibilities.

Whenever I get tired, I rip my hands into that palm (literally), so I don't get tired.

The fact is, there's never been a shorter Coetzer that hoped, who did not *ignore,* and played *up* to their full potential. Rios wasn't always there in his head, but when he was, he was no feeble-minded, petal pulp spitting, assassin, caving in, just because there's no *process,* the match is going by too fast. This is what happens when you can't arrest yourself on the fly in front of others, and grit your teeth, and bear it. Fact is, height matters at that level. It's why even tanking pros, still find it "easy enough" to put up some games. All the tall ones make it through, all the short ones wither like raisins, who "ants, who never say can't!" *train their sights on. "Illusions of grandeur," nothing wrong with, but never got anyone anywhere. Short or even average *attribute* people on tour, can't slip, in and out, of Goran Ivanisevic (consciousness).

But, ultimately, why would you want to be "rewarded" for just an attribute...like curves, and already rich, like why Kanye'? Snazzy song, but I know for a fact; he's no Montell Jordan yet, just 6'8" he stood? Limber!

"Eva glow, into the teal tan after...(a drifter)," in search of, EveTea... Until you've, upon that "threshold of (stumbled) absentea(ism), without being...," you're not ready to glow, never really known, until the heart flies by, without a cuase, let's be honest here, other than you're own. At that point, who cares, what the "Jonese's" think. Business talk, for miming sheep. When all else fails, try to do as babies do. Walk with your palms, until your feet are ready to.
 
Go, get up, go low, if the ball is low; but most of all: a sane driver, is one who tries, (even) when no one is watching.... Sometimes, that's the price you gotta pay, for admission & subsequent life upheavel. If "the definition of a tragicomedy is when circumstances outweigh your ability to explain," that's what "I'm" saying. Then you either have to "try" today, or you don't, long after songs like "Hate Me Now," for a buck, but with passion and soul. Not for your sake, but right or wrong, it's the only way out.

Right or wrong, it's the only way, just a "glimmer" of, what you "were" capable of showing. If I'm not dead yet, it's because I'm at the bottom of a mountain, faced with an impossible task, yet only I know if/how potentially capable a heart erased in error can be. "Were" only because I'm better now, I've learned new "tricks," not bought in any textbook, guided in blindness, as the fan whizz's into a whir, on my life.

It occurs to me, that height does not = "talent." An attribute you can't control, does nothing for you. Now, developing a heart that tingles long after, the scene of his youngest ever triumpth. I used to concern myself with, thinking I was fully capable of, had been through enough, was ready and full of it (life, promise, hope, "destiny," whatever...). Just get with it, and accept that the twilight was never yours, only the horizon is. Better :-?, > :twisted:, that's what I always say.
 

chatt_town

Hall of Fame
That's definately not true. There is a medium or whatever. I think once you get over say 6'4...you are going to have some serious problems keeping up. I think 6'1 to 6'2 is where your best tennis gets played. Some of them move like cats and still possess the power to pass you. I haven't seen Karlovic or Isner in a Slam final yet much less win one. It may help their service games but that is about it. We just had this conversation last night while watching Raonic play Murray. I'm no big Murray fan but anyone that watches tennis and pays attention can clearly see that in most cases Murray is going to win that match especially in a 3 out of 5 match. They thought like you "he's taller so he should win". I say that Murray is one of the best returners while Raonic's movement will hamper him returning not to mention Murray moves much better. So movement is what gives you and advantages. Big serves will eventually get returned by the top players in the game so your serve will only take you so far and that's about the only advantage I see in being that tall on the tennis court.


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.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
This debate was settled just now with the Berdie-Fed match
Yup, being 6'5" certainly didn't hurt Berdych. Gives him a monster serve and it's so hard to ace someone with such wide reach. Also, longer arms give you more torque which allows you to hit the ball harder with the same stroke. Just ask Berdych, Del Potro, Soderling, and Rosol.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
Yup, being 6'5" certainly didn't hurt Berdych. Gives him a monster serve and it's so hard to ace someone with such wide reach. Also, longer arms give you more torque which allows you to hit the ball harder with the same stroke. Just ask Berdych, Del Potro, Soderling, and Rosol.

Isner and Ivo are also doing disproportionately well due to their height.

Only negative thing about height is the risk of injury from falling - happened to Berdych now.
 

okdude1992

Hall of Fame
Erm, because the short ones don't make it to the pros and you never hear of them.


Erm, because the guys/girls who grow to 6ft don't become Olympic gymnasts.

That's like saying OMG jockeys are so short it must be because the human race is getting smaller or because jockeys have special training regimens. No, it's because big dudes slow down horses so big dudes aren't going to be riding in any races that you or I will ever see.

It is "evolution" of a sort.. evolution of the sport. And it's generated simply by a plethora of people to choose from. And the plethora of people to choose from comes from the fact that more people are trying to become pros. And the reason so many people are trying to become pros is due to the ever increasing prize money.

Suppose I invent a sport called Butt Ball. You hit a ball with your butt until it goes into a goal. At first there's no money so average dudes with mediocre talent and average butt-sizes will play.

50 years later it's a multi-billion-dollar industry and pros are making tens of millions a year and therefore it attracts people with enormous butts who can move them in all directions.

Those people were there all the time, it's only when the money went up that their parents trained them (or paid to train them) to become Buttballers. When there was no money their parents sent them to accounting school.

great post. and lol at "buttball" I would never be any good at that sport
 

okdude1992

Hall of Fame
That's because Isner's only "talent" is his height, and because of that, he's a poor mover.

But if you take two players of equal talent in everything and one is 5"4" and the other is 6"2", who's more likely to be the multiple Slam winner?

Straw man argument. I don't think anyone is contending that point. Of course the 6'2 player has a big advantage.

*I will say there is a range of optimal heights to be a good tennis player. There are lots of good players in the 5'9-6'5 range, and some outside of even that. However to me it seems like 6-6'3 is ideal, especially in the modern game. Too far from either end of that range and you are at a disadvantage. A player like Rochus has less reach, and the serve is limited. Meanwhile Karlovic for example gives up a lot in the way of movement/coordination.

The point: this thread is moronic. height =/= talent. If it did Karlovic would be #1, Isner #2. As I said before, talent has to do with movement, coordination, mental toughness ect. True greats have talent PLUS the right physique (not to tall or to short)
 

kimbahpnam

Hall of Fame
its an advantage until it effects movement. then its a disadvantage

you can say that about anything ("having long arms is an advantage until it affects balls that are close to the body then it's a disadvantage, having muscle is an advantage until it affects flexibility," etc etc), but generally speaking, "height = advantage." I'd much rather be taller than shorter.
lack of height is much more of a disadvantage. just compare the success rate of those who are below and above 6 feet tall.
 
Last edited:
6`1 is not the best height despite federer and nadal`s success. Also height is not talent but height is a massive advantage, massive!, i would say 6`3 is the best height.
 

Vcore89

Talk Tennis Guru
Right now, the trend points towards 6' 1'' just like Wilson calls it, rather calls their racquet swing index, 6.1.:) And oh, Wilson did follow the times closely, it used to be 6.0 for the swing index, coincidence or subliminally suggestive? :shock:
 
Top