I think there's a lack of comprehension here. Height, and arm strength are not what I'm comparing, what I'm saying is that there are always exceptions, there are always individuals with just insane talent. Neither Bjorg or Federer are representative of the physique of players on the tour at their times, as Tricky has said.
The physique of a modern pro tennis player
- Thread starter rosewall4ever
- Start date
I think there's a lack of comprehension here. Height, and arm strength are not what I'm comparing, what I'm saying is that there are always exceptions, there are always individuals with just insane talent. Neither Bjorg or Federer are representative of the physique of players on the tour at their times, as Tricky has said.
J011yroger
Talk Tennis Guru
Noveson, dude, bro, my buddy, my friend, chill.
Don't you realize you are talking to Breakpoint2?
Some people refuse to believe that the now is better than the then.
Players were better and hit harder back then, wooden racquets let you hit harder, players were in better shape, tennis was better and more fun to watch.
Let them be.
Remember how well borg fared in his comeback with his wooden racquets at the tender age of 35? He almost won one single match. He took a set off a guy.
Remember how Agassi with his oversize graphite frame and sub 1970s fitness did?
Yea, #6 in the world right?
And what does the oldtimer say in reply?
Jimmy Connors played until he was 85.
Yea, that coke drinking 102mph serving Jimmy Connors.
You just can't convince old timers, let them be.
You are a young kid, live in the now, play in the now.
Let them live in the then, back when everything was great.
You embrace today, let them cling to yesterday.
J
Don't you realize you are talking to Breakpoint2?
Some people refuse to believe that the now is better than the then.
Players were better and hit harder back then, wooden racquets let you hit harder, players were in better shape, tennis was better and more fun to watch.
Let them be.
Remember how well borg fared in his comeback with his wooden racquets at the tender age of 35? He almost won one single match. He took a set off a guy.
Remember how Agassi with his oversize graphite frame and sub 1970s fitness did?
Yea, #6 in the world right?
And what does the oldtimer say in reply?
Jimmy Connors played until he was 85.
Yea, that coke drinking 102mph serving Jimmy Connors.
You just can't convince old timers, let them be.
You are a young kid, live in the now, play in the now.
Let them live in the then, back when everything was great.
You embrace today, let them cling to yesterday.
J
Enlightened Coelacanth
Rookie
A lot of atheletes today are better than Michael Jordan? Are you sure you want to stick with that opinion? And are you sure that Lebron James has more physical skills than Jordan? I don't see it.
There is no doubt that the bar has been set higher for today's tennis players in terms of physicality so in that respect, from your perspective, you are probably right (if being a better athlete is only a matter of conditioning).
Yes I think there are many better athletes than Jordan today. They jump higher, run faster, are quicker, ect. Nobody has ever had the combination of athletic ability, skills, and passion that Jordan had though. That's what made him so special. Yes I am sure, Lebron weighs 30 lbs more than Jordan did, is 2 inches taller, yet is as quick, and jumps as high as Jordan did. Not to mention how strong he is.
You keep switching terms on me, being an athlete and having a good physique are different things. Federer is a great athlete, but doesn't have a great physique.
True. I think a lot of this physique stuff is the same. Nadal says he doesn't lift weights, either. Federer could lift weights for 20 years and not have arms like Nadal's.
Lebron's truly a genetic specimen. He had close to a NBA-ready body by the time he was 13-14. THAT said, I think Jordan's vertical leap (among the best, though obviously not as good as Spudd Webb) is still higher than Lebron's, and LBJ's lateral speed still limits him as a lock-down defender.
Just wanted to point out that, I was speaking specifically of tennis athletes coming out of the American and Spanish academies. Obviously, tennis players like Federer and Davydenko didn't come out of those academies, and so their foundation was obviously different. Same with Blake, who kinda lacks tone even today.
Point being that, as a whole, the changes in pros physique largely reflect how tennis programs have evolved in terms of conditioning and teaching over the last 20 years. But there are also many top-25 players who didn't come out of those training hotbeds, and often they don't reflect the bigger and stronger role models.
Jordan's vertical, although very impressive, is somewhat commonplace now. His vertical was 44, and many players are getting up to 50 now. Vince Carter, Nate Robinson, and Lebron are just a few with verticals up over 45 inches.
Enlightened Coelacanth
Rookie
I disagree that Lebron is as quick as Jordan was(A) and (B) I think that Federer indeed has a great physique for his sport (tennis, of course). He is lean and highly flexible yet strong enough, obviously.
Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson has a great physique if you want to discuss physiques in the abstract. Based on what he does and how great he is at it Roger Federer has an ideal tennis physique. Based on his success you can't really argue the point. It's a fact.
I think Jordan's vertical was listed at 48 inches, and I think VC is about 44 inches. Or at least that's what's cited here and there.
Technically, Lebron probably isn't, if you don't consider height and power with it. For example, Allen Iverson is probably faster than both, as Spudd was faster than any of his peersin his prime. BUT, it's about combining speed and power or mass, and Lebron's just the freakiest basketball player ever. The body of a free safety at 6"7.
Last edited:
Enlightened Coelacanth
Rookie
And yet Lebron couldn't hold Jordan's jock as a player. Jordan was not only the game's greatest offensive force but he was it's best defender too (arguably). Yes James is an impressive physical package but greatness is about more than just physical tools. In the clutch Jordan excelled. So far James has been M.I.A. when his team needs him the most.
Right, but remember that Jordan played 3 years under Dean Smith when he entered the league. Dean emphasized hard-nosed defensive play, so Jordan knew how to trap well and steal when he arrived in the league
In terms of offensive skill set (i.e. post moves) and body control, Lebron's probably never going to be in Jordan or Kobe's level. He doesn't need to be. Neither player could physically dominate quite like Lebron can.
Jordan also played off the wing in the triangle motion offense, which let him direct forwards to screen, or leverage for spacing. Lebron doesn't really have the coaching staff or offensive minds around him to really take advantage of his game. And I'd imagine LBJ would resist anyway -- motion offenses limit your game before it frees your game.
Last edited:
Enlightened Coelacanth
Rookie
I don't under rate him at all. I put him in the proper perspective vis a vis Michael Jordan.
Since I don't follow pro basketball slavishly I may be wrong about his playoff performances but I really don't recall him standing out so much against the Pistons in the finals.
Since I don't follow pro basketball slavishly I may be wrong about his playoff performances but I really don't recall him standing out so much against the Pistons in the finals.
Enlightened Coelacanth
Rookie
Right, I mean the Spurs. My mistake. At any rate he wasn't exactly scintilating. It's all subjective, who one prefers, but I don't think anyone will ever mistake James for Michael Jordan.
i think the athletes of today are better than the athletes of any other period. better nutrition, sport science, equipment, training techniques etc. along with more opportunity all equate to a higher average standard of athletes today than ever before.
and the proof is in the pudding. sports that are tangible, timed against the clock such as swimming, running clearly show that the standard of todays athletes are better than ever before.
since jordan reached his peak in the early 90's, and there arent too many swimming or athletics records that still stand from that time, statistically speaking i would say that bryant or james (or whoever you think is the best going around atm) is probably as good as jordan... how about that
and the proof is in the pudding. sports that are tangible, timed against the clock such as swimming, running clearly show that the standard of todays athletes are better than ever before.
since jordan reached his peak in the early 90's, and there arent too many swimming or athletics records that still stand from that time, statistically speaking i would say that bryant or james (or whoever you think is the best going around atm) is probably as good as jordan... how about that
Enlightened Coelacanth
Rookie
That's your privilege to think that way.
I don't. There isn't any more I can say or care to on the subject.
I don't. There isn't any more I can say or care to on the subject.
I was with you until that last sentence. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY is as good as Michael Jordan. LeBron shouldn't even be in that competition, the only other players that should be are players like Wilt Chamberlin(who like LeBron dominated physically), Jerry West, Larry Bird, and Magic Johnson. Maybe Oscar Robinson also.
superstition
Hall of Fame
Tsonga was too heavy until recently. I remember seeing him play a year ago or so and his movement wasn't good from too many pounds. He was much fitter at this AO.
D
Deleted member 22147
Guest
People make me chuckle when discussing David Nalbandian's fitness.
The usual sequence of words pops into the equation "Except Madrid and Paris" or something similar. He was no fitter their than he was the few tournaments beforehand, and if he was it was fractional.
The guy is infact a fit man, for a tennis player who was in the top 5 then maybe you could see he could cut some fat. He looks around 11-12% to me. But their is no doubting, he has good cardio. He seems to be genetically gifted.
I don't see much wrong with him, he is strong, gets easy power and is cardio vascularly sound.
The usual sequence of words pops into the equation "Except Madrid and Paris" or something similar. He was no fitter their than he was the few tournaments beforehand, and if he was it was fractional.
The guy is infact a fit man, for a tennis player who was in the top 5 then maybe you could see he could cut some fat. He looks around 11-12% to me. But their is no doubting, he has good cardio. He seems to be genetically gifted.
I don't see much wrong with him, he is strong, gets easy power and is cardio vascularly sound.
southernboy
New User
I think the physique of the more current players has changed a lot. There are so many more players who are over 6 feet and close to or over 200lbs (Roddick, Haas, Tsonga, Ljubicic, Safin, etc). Federer and Borg may look similar in physique when you compare the,, but if you look at their stats, you'll see the difference. Federer is 6'1" and about in the 190 lb range (check Fed's website) while borg is like 160. It shows how much the physique has change when a guy like Federer can weigh close to 200 lbs but still looks lean and limber enough to be compared to a guy like Borg
slice bh compliment
G.O.A.T.
I absolutely see your point about the trend, but....w0w, RF is close to 200 lbs? I'm thinkin' that's a stretch. Like Agassi and Hewitt being 5'11".
Similar threads
