The physique of a modern pro tennis player

[rosewall4ever]

What are your OPININONS about the athletic physiques of the modern pro tennis players compared to those 15+yrs ago. My sumrise is that they looked 'fitter' back then compared todays physiques which are so varied. Could it just be because there hidden in all that baggy clothing hidding their figures( for the guys...the women i'll leave that up to you ) or that equipment has largely to do in compensating a persons strength and or doesn't require them to be as 'built' to 'hold' their racquet. Or you think i'm off my rocker and see nothing different or that its too subjective

Laver and Martina Navratilova it me are the ideal..

Who do you think are the ideal athletic tennis physiques for men and women(come on Nadal fans and those going for the 10 hotest female players http://www.armchairgm.com/10_Hottest_Foreign_Female_Tennis_Players )

 

[Venetian]

The men look much more fit to me. The women too I guess.

 

[TNT16]

What are your OPININONS about the athletic physiques of the modern pro tennis players compared to those 15+yrs ago. My sumrise is that they looked 'fitter' back then compared todays physiques which are so varied. Could it just be because there hidden in all that baggy clothing hidding their figures( for the guys...the women i'll leave that up to you ) or that equipment has largely to do in compensating a persons strength and or doesn't require them to be as 'built' to 'hold' their racquet. Or you think i'm off my rocker and see nothing different or that its too subjective

Men's clothing - interesting comments in MacEnroe's book; I think the baggy clothing is definitely a huge factor in concealing the athleticism of current male pro tennis players as compared with the 70s and 80s (for female pros the opposite may be the case).

 

[stormholloway]

True about the clothes, but to me, Bjorn Borg was fitter than Nalbandian is, and he does fine on the tour.

 

[TNT16]

True about the clothes, but to me, Bjorn Borg was fitter than Nalbandian is, and he does fine on the tour.

Agreed re Borg, but at his time he was one of the fittest players on tour if not *the* fittest.

IMO Nalbandian's fitness has always been suspect (except perhaps in Madrid and Paris late last year) - hopefully being addressed and resolved by his new team and commitment now . . . but either way there are many players on tour who are clearly fitter than Nalbandian it is just that he can compensate to some extent with his skills.

I wonder if the question posed was aimed at the "average" player on tour if there is such a thing . . . and if so Borg was way above and beyond average in many ways, certainly in his fitness.

 

[superstition]

There are a lot of young fat women going deep in tournaments.

 

[JackSkellington]

what the heck--that's not Daniela in the second pic

 

[daddy]

There are a lot of young fat women going deep in tournaments.

Although sometimes these oneliners you put in on the forum seem out of place, I got to hand it out on this one. I mean there were ( Arantxa Sanchez, Monica Seles, even Martinez ) a lot of ladies back then who were not fit, and there are quite a few now, with Ivanovic carrying some extra pounds, notably S Williams, maybe even Vaidisova, and bartoli,winby finalist is everything but what you can consider fit.

So you got this right on with womens game, graf was fitter than 99% of the ladies out there now. As for the men, I think there is some change to their phisique but I am not sure that much. Clothing is a factor but male pros are generally very fit now and they used to be. Slim and 6 feet and couple of inches tall or there about is still the formula for the very top.

 

[iradical18]

Why in gods name is Dementieva on that list?

 

[tintin]

Dementieva,Mauresmo,Henin;V.Williams have THE best bodies in the WTA

 

[slice bh compliment]

what the heck--that's not Daniela in the second pic

Yeah, it looks more like Maria Sanchez Lorenzo.

 

[TNT16]

There are a lot of young fat women going deep in tournaments.

Ouch!!! Politically correct not part of your game? LOL!!!

 

[superstition]

with Ivanovic carrying some extra pounds, notably S Williams, maybe even Vaidisova, and bartoli,winby finalist is everything but what you can consider fit.

There are a number of others who I have seen in Tennis Channel matches (their names I can't recall) who tend to be fatter than players like Vaidisova. One, who has a terrible slap serve (to the bottom of the net) played Henin in a semi-final and a profile shot showed a big stomach protruding. The 16 year old who nearly beat Jankovic at the AO also is quite heavy. Petrova and Kuznetsova have been heavy at times.

It seems that baseline play with power racquets allows players to be heavy and compete. Serena was out of shape last year when she won the AO, but did it with serves and big forehands. However, she was in better shape than a lot of these young players.

 

[zapvor]

i have to say the modern men are more fit, but noone compares to borg. he was obsessed with his body was what i read

 

[r2473]

What are your OPININONS about the athletic physiques of the modern pro tennis players compared to those 15+yrs ago. My sumrise is that they looked 'fitter' back then compared todays physiques which are so varied. Could it just be because there hidden in all that baggy clothing hidding their figures( for the guys...the women i'll leave that up to you ) or that equipment has largely to do in compensating a persons strength and or doesn't require them to be as 'built' to 'hold' their racquet. Or you think i'm off my rocker and see nothing different or that its too subjective

Laver and Martina Navratilova it me are the ideal..

Who do you think are the ideal athletic tennis physiques for men and women(come on Nadal fans and those going for the 10 hotest female players http://www.armchairgm.com/10_Hottest_Foreign_Female_Tennis_Players )

Let me get this straight, you (and everyone else) is saying that the general overall fitness level of players on both tours has DECLINED as compared to 15+ years ago (early 90's and before)?

And the proof is that there are some women on tour that are carrying extra weight? Serena doen't have the body of an athlete? Serena Williams, right? Not athletic, right?

By this logic, I assume that the 90 lb. models are the best athletes in the world, right?

And the men on tour are not fit? We are talking about the ATP tour, right?

Sure, Borg was quite fit, but there is a reason his fitness was talked about by the players of his era (and still talked about today). It is because he was more the exception than the rule.

 

[Grimjack]

Pros from days gone by were nowhere near as fit as todays. The difference is night and day.

Lots of people here giving Borg his props, and these people are either (a) confusing "fit" with "athletic", or (b) idiots. You need only check out google's photos to be able to see that Borg simply isn't in the same universe as the majority of today's pros in terms of musculature -- neither size nor striation, neither upper body nor lower. Yeah, he could run all day, but so can every modern claycourter.

What Borg had that these guys didn't (apart from a nearly infallible baseline game) is genuinely world-class athletic ability. Borg was light years ahead of his contemporaries because he was in the top percent fitness-wise, and in the top percent athletically. Today, he'd still be in that top percent athletically, but he wouldn't be in the top 50% in terms of overall fitness if he came on the scene today with that same body.

(All that said, even this analysis takes it too far for what the OP asked. In terms not of total "fitness", but only "physique," Borg would be in the bottom 1/4 today. You might justifiably ask, "so what?" But that was the question at hand. A guy like Monfils or Haas or Paradorn would practically make Borg look childlike.)

 

[Vision84]

Mauresmo,V.Williams have THE best bodies in the WTA

What?......

 

[shell]

What?......

Maybe you are talking about curves which these women don't have much of, but I think the poster was referring to fitness, or body fat ratio. Or, god forbid, actual muscles developed in the gym! Those three women are FIT, but have different body styles. Their work is evident, Venus probably being the less of the three.

 

[shell]

Maybe you are talking about curves which these women don't have much of, but I think the poster was referring to fitness, or body fat ratio. Or, god forbid, actual muscles developed in the gym! Those three women are FIT, but have different body styles. Their work is evident, Venus probably being the less of the three.

Opps, I threw Henin in there from a previous post - she is probably one of the best examples of fitness on the WTA tour.

 

[MEAC_ALLAMERICAN]

Maybe you are talking about curves which these women don't have much of, but I think the poster was referring to fitness, or body fat ratio. Or, god forbid, actual muscles developed in the gym! Those three women are FIT, but have different body styles. Their work is evident, Venus probably being the less of the three.

Why is she the less of the three?

 

[shell]

Why is she the less of the three?

Just my humble opinion,Meac. Just from looking at them. Venus is tall and thin, so her body style probably is misleading. But they all are match fit! And Venus probably verges on the perfect tennis body, due to her height.

 

[MEAC_ALLAMERICAN]

Just my humble opinion,Meac. Just from looking at them. Venus is tall and thin, so her body style probably is misleading. But they all are match fit! And Venus probably verges on the perfect tennis body, due to her height.

That's true, the reason I asked about her, I think with Venus as you said she very tall and that could be rather misleading. No doubt about it that she is fit, but other lady that is fit out there would be Daniela Hantuchova, I think she won the most 3 set matches of any female in the top 20. Henin is most definitely up there, if not the class of it because what she doesn't make up in height she makes up for it in stamina, INSANE talent, and agility.


That's just my opinion of course..lol

 

[stormholloway]

Pros from days gone by were nowhere near as fit as todays. The difference is night and day.

Lots of people here giving Borg his props, and these people are either (a) confusing "fit" with "athletic", or (b) idiots. You need only check out google's photos to be able to see that Borg simply isn't in the same universe as the majority of today's pros in terms of musculature -- neither size nor striation, neither upper body nor lower. Yeah, he could run all day, but so can every modern claycourter.

I don't see a huge difference here.

What Borg had that these guys didn't (apart from a nearly infallible baseline game) is genuinely world-class athletic ability. Borg was light years ahead of his contemporaries because he was in the top percent fitness-wise, and in the top percent athletically. Today, he'd still be in that top percent athletically, but he wouldn't be in the top 50% in terms of overall fitness if he came on the scene today with that same body.

Apparently that body outran a gold medalist hurdler in its heyday. Borg was uber-athletic.

(All that said, even this analysis takes it too far for what the OP asked. In terms not of total "fitness", but only "physique," Borg would be in the bottom 1/4 today. You might justifiably ask, "so what?" But that was the question at hand. A guy like Monfils or Haas or Paradorn would practically make Borg look childlike.)

I've seen both Borg's legs and Federer's. They both look relatively the same to me. Borg wasn't a big guy by any means, but he was incredibly fast and fit. I really don't see anything of merit in your post.

 

[TNT16]

There are a number of others who I have seen in Tennis Channel matches (their names I can't recall) who tend to be fatter than players like Vaidisova. One, who has a terrible slap serve (to the bottom of the net) played Henin in a semi-final and a profile shot showed a big stomach protruding. The 16 year old who nearly beat Jankovic at the AO also is quite heavy. Petrova and Kuznetsova have been heavy at times.

It seems that baseline play with power racquets allows players to be heavy and compete. Serena was out of shape last year when she won the AO, but did it with serves and big forehands. However, she was in better shape than a lot of these young players.

Then again Navratilova was pretty successful early on in her career while she was quite chubby -- but she was certainly not another baseliner then . . . so i don't know about that theory.

 

[Noveson]

I don't see a huge difference here.

Apparently that body outran a gold medalist hurdler in its heyday. Borg was uber-athletic.



I've seen both Borg's legs and Federer's. They both look relatively the same to me. Borg wasn't a big guy by any means, but he was incredibly fast and fit. I really don't see anything of merit in your post.

I'm calling BS, wanna show some proof?

 

[Noveson]

NEW

OLD

 

[NamRanger]

NEW

OLD

Muscle definition and muscle strength are two completely different things.


Grimjack, Borg outran an Olympic Athlete, had a rediculously low heart rate, and was considered to be one of the strongest athletes of his time. He was literally a genetic freak.

 

[BeHappy]

NEW

OLD

wait a minute, you're saying robbie ginepri is a better athlete than Bjorn Borg.

seriously?

 

[stormholloway]

As for the pictures above, look at Borg's legs. Those are finely tuned tools. As far as arms go, I just don't see how they're that relevant to tennis. Federer's arms no certainly no larger than Borg's. I think the forearm is by far the most useful arm muscle in tennis and Laver and Vlias had massive forearms.

McEnroe was a bit on the chubby side when he was young, mostly baby fat. What I think is funny about your pictures Noveson is that you show two players who wear sleeveless shirts in order to show up arm size, but does arm size really relate that much to tennis? I say no.

 

[superstition]

Then again Navratilova was pretty successful early on in her career while she was quite chubby -- but she was certainly not another baseliner then . . . so i don't know about that theory.

She lost in the first round of a major (Wimbledon I think) shortly after defecting when an article caption said "addicted to hamburgers".

She had a losing record against Evert, Googlagong, and others. She was an extremely talented up and coming player who was too heavy. There are a lot of less talented up and coming players in the WTA now who are too heavy. Such players don't have the luxury of Navratilova's gifts.

 

[superstition]

the general overall fitness level of players on both tours has DECLINED as compared to 15+ years ago (early 90's and before)? And the proof is that there are some women on tour that are carrying extra weight?

What I'm saying is that, if you watch early rounds and non-slam tournaments, you will see fat women doing well against seeded players. Some seeded players themselves has also been heavy, like Kuznetsova, Serena (at times), Molik, and Petrova. Bartoli even put on weight. I just saw her playing in 2005 on the Tennis Channel and she was slim.

Power racquets, hard courts, and poly make it easier to hit big shots and not have to move so much. Plus, when these women are really young, they have enough cardio to haul that weight around. Whatever the name of that 16 year old who almost beat Jankovic is, she is a great example. She can produce huge groundstrokes and doesn't have to run much.

 

[superstition]

does arm size really relate that much to tennis? I say no.

It depends upon one's strokes. Obviously arm size matters for Nadal because his tennis arm is much larger than the other. McEnroe's strokes, which are the opposite of Nadal's, didn't require massive muscles because of his method of production and style of play.

 

[zapvor]

ii just want to point out the pictures dont tell the whole story. fitness is a overall grand picture...to guess i would say the modern player is more fit because of science-such as nutrition that wasnt avaivlable back then.

 

[slice bh compliment]

On the top end, there's probably not a lot of difference between the pros of the past and the pros of the present. But you can bet that there are fewer lardasses and softbellies ranked 10 to 100 now than there were twenty years ago.

eg, Buster Mottram.

 

[Noveson]

As for the pictures above, look at Borg's legs. Those are finely tuned tools. As far as arms go, I just don't see how they're that relevant to tennis. Federer's arms no certainly no larger than Borg's. I think the forearm is by far the most useful arm muscle in tennis and Laver and Vlias had massive forearms.

McEnroe was a bit on the chubby side when he was young, mostly baby fat. What I think is funny about your pictures Noveson is that you show two players who wear sleeveless shirts in order to show up arm size, but does arm size really relate that much to tennis? I say no.

wait a minute, you're saying robbie ginepri is a better athlete than Bjorn Borg.

seriously?

The title says better physique, not better athlete. And yes I think Ginepri has a better physique than did Bjorg.

Yes arm strength definitely does relate to tennis. This wasn't meant to be a argument, I hadn't even read earlier posts, I just got some pictures of two buff guys, and the two of the greatest players from the older days. I don't see any reason why you guys would think earlier players were better athletes, the athletes in every sport get stronger, faster, more explosive, ect, every year. Why would tennis be different?

 

[herosol]

I love how people use purely Borg to justify the fitness of his entire era to the entire era we experience now.

 

[Enlightened Coelacanth]

Ginepri and Nadal have big muscles in their arms. So what?
Claiming the modern player has a better physique, which is exceedingly subjective, by the way, than preceeding genreations of tennis player is very specious indeed.
What is it about Ginepri's physique that's "better" than Borg's? Does it make him a better tennis player? Not likely since Ginepri couldn't hold Borg's jockstrap in terms of playing tennis.
Since when do big "guns" make for a better tennis physique?
Form follows function and large bulky muscles are counter productive in most cases. Otherwise why aren't more pros pumping up their biceps?

And why don't you prove how superior arm strength makes for a better tennis player?
Yes, there must be minimal arm strength needed to swing a racquet over and over again for hours at a time. But beyond that extra muscle is not only useless but can be a detriment when you consider the extra weight that muscle tissue would cause a highly muscled player to lug around a court.

Look at Djokovich, Hewitt, Federer, Blake, ect. Being lean is a prerequisite for being a top tennis pro. Tennis is a sport of movement. Not posing at the beach.

 

[J011yroger]

Homework Project.

For someone with free time on their hands who gives a hoot.

Take the top 10 year end players in 1987, and 2007, and post a full body picture of each, we will compare head to head, #1 v. #1 #2 v. #2 etc. all the way down the line. The year with the most out of 10 points wins. 5-5 would be a tie.

J

 

[Enlightened Coelacanth]

I don't care that much but to claim that tennis players today have a "better" physique than players of say, the eighties, is just absurd. You can always point to one or two guys and say, look at them, they weren't fit. But then look at a Nalbandian or Taylor Dent or Phillipousis.
In matters of opinion it's stupid to claim any sort of superiority. Stupid and useless.

 

[Noveson]

I don't care that much but to claim that tennis players today have a "better" physique than players of say, the eighties, is just absurd. You can always point to one or two guys and say, look at them, they weren't fit. But then look at a Nalbandian or Taylor Dent or Phillipousis.
In matters of opinion it's stupid to claim any sort of superiority. Stupid and useless.

This is ridiculous. What do you think, that the game hasn't gotten any better at all? Athletes in general are getting fitter in every sport, we know more about fitness now. Would you want to argue that Pete Maravich was a better athlete than Michael Jordan, or we could even go lower and say Rodney Carney. No? Athletes in all sports are stronger, faster, and quicker than they were in the past.

 

[Enlightened Coelacanth]

Well, training techniques are certainly better today due to nutrition and science and such. But that's not the tone of the thread. Are physiques "better" now than before? No, not in my opinion, depending on how far you want to go back.

And you'd better be careful what you argue. If athletes are truly "better" today than in the past than that means that there are a lot of guys in the N.B.A. today that are better than Michael Jordan. You know, better athletes and all.

Unless you want to argue that some players transcend their times(like Borg or Navratilova, for instance?).

 

[stormholloway]

The title says better physique, not better athlete. And yes I think Ginepri has a better physique than did Bjorg.

Did it occur to you that a discussion can evolve beyond what the title says? I was responding to a particular statement.

Yes arm strength definitely does relate to tennis. This wasn't meant to be a argument, I hadn't even read earlier posts, I just got some pictures of two buff guys, and the two of the greatest players from the older days. I don't see any reason why you guys would think earlier players were better athletes, the athletes in every sport get stronger, faster, more explosive, ect, every year. Why would tennis be different?

Federer doesn't have large arms at all. He's a modern player, the best in the world.

 

[Noveson]

Did it occur to you that a discussion can evolve beyond what the title says? I was responding to a particular statement.



Federer doesn't have large arms at all. He's a modern player, the best in the world.

Did it occur to you that I wasn't replying to you? No? I didn't think so. Some other guy asked me if I thought Ginepri was a better athlete than Bjorg, that's what I was replying to.

 

[Noveson]

Did it occur to you that a discussion can evolve beyond what the title says? I was responding to a particular statement.



Federer doesn't have large arms at all. He's a modern player, the best in the world.

Are you being deliberately annoying today or what? Arm strength relates to tennis, get over it. So does speed, but it's not the only factor right? Same with arm strength. I said athletes today are physically better today than they were in past years. Where did you get the idea arm strength was the only factor?

 

[Noveson]

Well, training techniques are certainly better today due to nutrition and science and such. But that's not the tone of the thread. Are physiques "better" now than before? No, not in my opinion, depending on how far you want to go back.

And you'd better be careful what you argue. If athletes are truly "better" today than in the past than that means that there are a lot of guys in the N.B.A. today that are better than Michael Jordan. You know, better athletes and all.

Unless you want to argue that some players transcend their times(like Borg or Navratilova, for instance?).

Yes there are a lot of athletes physically better than Michael Jordan today. They might not have the skills, but look at Lebron James. Michael Jordan didn't compare to him athletically.

I guess it depends on how you look at physique? As I said I haven't read the rest of the thread, but my take was physique just meaning physical shape, and I think players today are faster and stronger, that's all.

 

[tricky]

My impression is that athletes come out of American and Spanish academies carry more muscle mass and are physically stronger than tennis athletes coming of those academies 15-20 years ago. Protocols tailored for explosive performance and anaerobic-endurance fitness has improved as well.

But, then, the more appropriate question is how has the philosophy/methodology emphasized by American academies and Spanish academies compare to those from other countries in producing top-100 players, vs. say 10-20 years ago. And how much of it has to do with local culture. For example, most European and Latin American athletes play footie since a very young age -- running around all day, anticipating ball direction and thinking ahead with their feet are naturally part of their regimens. This has translated to a lot of European guards coming over here to play in the NBA, even though they don't necessarily fit "Combine Score" metrics of raw athleticism. Has the footwork/movement of American tennis players become noticeably better since Sampras's generation?

 

[christos_liaskos]

I am surprised this has caused so much debate. I thought it was a well known fact that players today were fitter than 20 years ago and earlier.

People mention Borg but the mistake they are making there is ignoring the fact that it was Borg's genetics that made him fit. He may have trained more than other players of his era too but he was naturally fit and fast. He is one player that everyone names who probably wouldnt be out of place in todays game iin term of fitness. I havent seen any other names mentioned (in the mens side). It was around 20 years ago that players realized fitness was a way to be a step above the other players. In Pat Cash's book he mentions how he was one of the first players to realize this. I also thought Lendl was a player who started to use train on fitness as a way to move ahead of the rest of the field? but noone seems to have mentioned him. I am sure that is right though?

Apart from Borg and a tiny minority of other players, players of 20 years ago and before, did not work on fitness as a way to be better than the rest. They relied on talent and just playing tennis. Nowadays players train as much off the court, on the physical training, as they do on court. Many players work more on fitness than actual work with the racket in their hand.

Another area where players have managed to improve their fitness today over players of the past is their diet. Nutrition in sport was not taken seriously by the majority of Borg's era and before. Even many of the top players of that era did not care too much about their diet. Nowadays almost all of the top100 has a physical training program and a strict diet to stick to. You cant say that the same number of players in the top100 used to take it seriously 20 and 30 years ago.

Borg was an exception (and still probably didnt train as hard as most of todays 'average' ranked players).

 

[stormholloway]

Are you being deliberately annoying today or what? Arm strength relates to tennis, get over it. So does speed, but it's not the only factor right? Same with arm strength. I said athletes today are physically better today than they were in past years. Where did you get the idea arm strength was the only factor?

Obviously it doesn't related that much because Federer doesn't have large arms at all, no larger than Borg's. That's obviously the point.

I don't remember saying it was the only factor.

I posted pics of Federer and Borg. Please illuminate me as to the great differences in physique.

 

[Noveson]

Obviously it doesn't related that much because Federer doesn't have large arms at all, no larger than Borg's. That's obviously the point.

I don't remember saying it was the only factor.

I posted pics of Federer and Borg. Please illuminate me as to the great differences in physique.

Allen Iverson is only 6'0". Yet hes perennially one of the NBA's top scorers. Now do you want to tell me that height isn't related that much in basketball? That's how ludicrous that statement is.

 

[stormholloway]

So you're comparing height in basketball to arm size in tennis? That's a stretch, speaking of ludicrous.

The physique of Borg is highly comparable to Federer's and these guys are 30 years apart. These are the two best players of their generations.

My point was to downplay the difference. I think I've effectively done this with the Borg/Federer comparison.