Video: Dimitrov with wooden racket vs. Rublev with 80's style racket

[RaulRamirez]

Fun video, from which I wouldn't draw too many conclusions.
Of course, racket technology has improved quite a bit, and this was a fun illustration of that, but if you gave them a full season (actually, much less time than that) to adjust to it -- if that's how the game is being played professionally - they would play much better than that.

Kudos to two of the more fan-friendly (from what I can tell), good guys for giving it a go.

 

[RaulRamirez]

Ah yes, one of the most popular Fed fan fantasies

I should reply to who you replied to.
How did this fun video become ammunition for one of Fed's fans to advance that propaganda,.

Each of the Big 3 is incredibly talented -- amazing racket skills, athleticism, burning desire to compete, etc. They would excel in any era.

 

[mahatma]

Fun video. Agree to one of the comments in YT - ATP should atleast have 1 tournament in the calendar for old racquets. A good interesting change.

 

[Ubersteve888]

I loved how Grigor geeked out when he saw the classic stick “it’s beautiful” true purest.

 

[Holmes]

A smaller sweet spot leads to the development of a different overall strategy. One that is much more centered around rushing the net and putting away volleys, than the baseline heavy game of today. This requires a different skill set than today's game, but it does not necessarily mean it requires more skill. I would in fact argue that this game style - rushing the net and putting away volleys - has a lower skill ceiling than today's game.

The more important factor that can't be ignored though, of course, is that you're playing against peers using the same technology. So while it may be "easier" for you to consistently pound groundstrokes from the baseline, you are doing it against another guy who enjoys the same "advantage." In other words, you have no advantage at all. It's not like Djokovic is going out there with a graphite racquet playing against a McEnroe sporting a Maxply with gut strings.

Consistency on every shot, including the serve which is critical to the volley game, skyrockets with a bigger sweetspot and poly. There's really no point arguing the obvious.

 

[jm1980]

Consistency on every shot, including the serve which is critical to the volley game, skyrockets with a bigger sweetspot and poly. There's really no point arguing the obvious.

There is no shot in tennis where you are completely in control like your serve. You don't need a giant sweet spot to hit serves consistently.

Every other shot is reactive in nature. The bigger sweet spot gives reactive shots a bigger advantage; and since you have much better control when you are on the run, net rushing becomes a much less viable strategy overall

 

[Spencer Gore]

Consistency on every shot, including the serve which is critical to the volley game, skyrockets with a bigger sweetspot and poly. There's really no point arguing the obvious.

It's so obvious I can only assume the poster has no experience of playing with wooden racquets. The larger sweetspot on the early/mid 80s graphites I owned/borrowed meant that shots that would have been horrible mishits on my Dunlop Maxply were suddenly landing in the court.

I know it's not a popular opinion but that was the moment the sport fundamentally changed for the worse. Even though we've had incredible champions and matches since then the true artistry of the game has been all but destroyed. To be replaced by something far more brutal and basic in execution.

 

[Holmes]

There is no shot in tennis where you are completely in control like your serve. You don't need a giant sweet spot to hit serves consistently.

Every other shot is reactive in nature. That means the advantage of a bigger sweet spot in the serve is completely dwarfed by the advantage the returner gains with a bigger sweet spot

This similarly applies to other reactive shots; meaning you have much better control when you are on the run, making net rushing a much less viable strategy overall

You absolutely need a big sweet spot and poly to generate the heavy spin that will get you hitting 125mph+ serves with consistency.
With all due respect, playing a single match at a high-level will show you that the rest of what you're saying is wrong. The returner is still at a massive disadvantage because they have to react to a shot whose placement they have no idea of. Additionally, you are almost never in better control when running than when standing with a stable base. Players like Sampras, Federer and Nadal who are extraordinary on the run are exceptions, and even they are not better on the run than when they can plant and hit.

 

[Holmes]

It's so obvious I can only assume the poster has no experience of playing with wooden racquets. The larger sweetspot on the early/mid 80s graphites I owned/borrowed meant that shots that would have been horrible mishits on my Dunlop Maxply were suddenly landing in the court.

I know it's not a popular opinion but that was the moment the sport fundamentally changed for the worse. Even though we've had incredible champions and matches since then the true artistry of the game has been all but destroyed. To be replaced by something far more brutal and basic in execution.

I can't speak to the motivations of the poster, but you are correct that a simple hitting session with a wood racket versus a graphite versus a midsize graphite with poly would demonstrate the point aptly.

Another reasonable point. Even at the club you can see players with poor technique able to keep rallies going because of the easy spin and contact they make with the ball due to the current tech. This is one of the major reasons I don't think we can compare the ATGs across eras, beyond their placement within their era, for example Sampras being above Lendl because unlike Lendl he was the clear best of his era, etc.

 

[jm1980]

It's so obvious I can only assume the poster has no experience of playing with wooden racquets. The larger sweetspot on the early/mid 80s graphites I owned/borrowed meant that shots that would have been horrible mishits on my Dunlop Maxply were suddenly landing in the court.

Your would-be mishits were landing in the court, but so were your opponents' would-be mishits. When everyone has access to the same tech, there is no real advantage.

I know it's not a popular opinion but that was the moment the sport fundamentally changed for the worse. Even though we've had incredible champions and matches since then the true artistry of the game has been all but destroyed. To be replaced by something far more brutal and basic in execution.

Imagine if instead of a 65 sq. in. wooden racquet, players were only allowed to play with the Tennis Pointer, basically a wooden spoon with a tennis grip and with a head size smaller than 18 sq. in.

Would that result in better or more "artistic" tennis? If not, why not?

 

[Spencer Gore]

Your would-be mishits were landing in the court, but so were your opponents' would-be mishits. When everyone has access to the same tech, there is no real advantage.



Imagine if instead of a 65 sq. in. wooden racquet, players were only allowed to play with the Tennis Pointer, basically a wooden spoon with a tennis grip and with a head size smaller than 18 sq. in.

Would that result in better or more "artistic" tennis? If not, why not?

You appear to be trying to change the question. No one is debating the issue of two players using the same tech. The debate is about the skill level required when using wooden racquets against graphite.

 

[jm1980]

You absolutely need a big sweet spot and poly to generate the heavy spin that will get you hitting 125mph+ serves with consistency.
With all due respect, playing a single match at a high-level will show you that the rest of what you're saying is wrong. The returner is still at a massive disadvantage because they have to react to a shot whose placement they have no idea of. Additionally, you are almost never in better control when running than when standing with a stable base. Players like Sampras, Federer and Nadal who are extraordinary on the run are exceptions, and even they are not better on the run than when they can plant and hit.

You misunderstand me. Of course the returner is still at a massive disadvantage, and of course you can hit better shots with a stable base than when you are in the run.

What I'm saying is the bigger sweet spot closes that gap. It allows you to hit much better quality shots even when you're not fully stable. This tips the scale in favor of the baseliner over the net rusher

 

[Holmes]

You misunderstand me. Of course the returner is still at a massive disadvantage, and of course you can hit better shots with a stable base than when you are in the run.

What I'm saying is the bigger sweet spot closes that gap. It allows you to hit much better quality shots even when you're not fully stable. This tips the scale in favor of the baseliner over the net rusher

It sounds like you're agreeing that graphite rackets make the game easier.

 

[jm1980]

You appear to be trying to change the question. No one is debating the issue of two players using the same tech. The debate is about the skill level required when using wooden racquets against graphite.

It sounds like you're agreeing that graphite rackets make the game easier.

If the game is easier for you, but also easier for your opponent, you're right back where you started

 

[Holmes]

If the game is easier for you, but also easier for your opponent, you're right back where you started

Not necessarily. If we're both playing with wood and I'm able to beat you because of my superior consistency, and then we switch to graphite and you're suddenly beating me because consistency is no longer an issue due to the sweetspot and poly, now you have an advantage.

Btw you're still talking about match-ups, while Spencer and I are talking about skill to use the racket.

 

[jm1980]

You appear to be trying to change the question. No one is debating the issue of two players using the same tech. The debate is about the skill level required when using wooden racquets against graphite.

It sounds like you're agreeing that graphite rackets make the game easier.

My main point is that graphite has enabled true athleticism and skill to shine.

Another way to look at it is, the skill difference between an average recreational player and a world class pro in the wooden racquet era was big. That difference today with graphite racquets and poly strings is much bigger.

 

[Holmes]

My main point is that graphite has enabled true athleticism and skill to shine.

Another way to look at it is, the skill difference between an average recreational player and a world class pro in the wooden racquet era was big. That difference today with graphite racquets and poly strings is much bigger.

I disagree. Athleticism is perhaps greater (and that for many reasons beyond graphite and poly), but actual racket handling skills are not.

 

[jm1980]

I disagree. Athleticism is perhaps greater (and that for many reasons beyond graphite and poly), but actual racket handling skills are not.

With wooden racquets, you could succeed at the elite level by hitting a mediocre slice approach shot and closing the net. In the modern game such a strategy is very quickly punished - your approach shot needs to be much, better

 

[Holmes]

With wooden racquets, you could succeed at the elite level by hitting a mediocre slice approach shot and closing the net for a putaway. In the modern game such a strategy is very quickly punished - your approach shot needs to be much, better

To even hit what you're calling a mediocre slice you had to have exceptional skill in the first place, otherwise your slice would have been a mishit, or gone into the net. The amount of skill it took for Lendl to hit the ball as hard as he did but keep it in without poly was far superior to that of what it takes for Nadal to do the same. He had to know exactly how fast to swing and control the motion and shape of his swing far more than Rafa has ever had to.

 

[Cage Rattler]

Take the topspin lob as an example. When I played as a teenager I held my own against many guys who turned pro - I followed academics instead. I still remember having a great topspin lob and I guess maybe 1 in 50 could actually also play it properly too. It took a lot of skill which very few had. These days hitting the same shot with modern tech is a piece of cake and many youngsters still struggle to hit it. The guys with natural hands will succeed with either technology but the modern tech certainly makes some shots a lot easier, in fact, some were impossible back then. Hence I reckon its easier to be a 'better' player with modern tech than that of yesteryear. Maybe difficult to grasp if one hasn't played at a pretty high level?

 

[Olli Jokinen]

I honestly think they were trying they just couldn't get used to it. I was most surprised by Rublev not being able to play better than this. The 80's wasn't that long ago, right? Have rackets changed that much?

That was a ****ty metal '70s racket. A graphite '80s racket would have been no problem for him.

 

[bluetrain4]

I just saw this on youtube by coincidence; didn't see it on TT first, so I thought I'd see if there was a thread. That was a lot of fun. A very small sample, but players could definitely adjust and play good tennis with older generation equipment. Not the same tennis, obviously, but good tennis. I don't think most of today's pros have problem with older racquet weight as much as the head size, smaller sweetspot and different strings. My park district had a small wood tournament years ago and it was a LOT of fun to adjust your game. Yes, there's things that you couldn't do that you could with your normal frame, but it was really fun to see what you COULD do with a wood racquet. For someone with a solid, fairly flat two-handed backhand with a short take back, the heavy wood racquet was glorious.

 

[bluetrain4]

What a beautiful court.

 

[nov]

They would destroy anyone from TTW with those racquets

 

[L4S10s]

They would destroy anyone from TTW with those racquets

They would destroy anyone from TTW with a frying pan

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

No, it's a fact stated by someone who played with wooden racquets for years whose game immediately improved the DAY he switched to a graphite racquet.

But that just means the actual output was 'better'. Did it actually take more skill to approach the 'output ceiling' as it were, than with modern racquets?

 

[Bambooman]

They would destroy anyone from TTW with a frying pan

I would crush either of them.

 

[heavyD]

this is why it’s foolish to compare eras , takes more skill to play with smaller racket head and not poly string

I agree about the first part or your quote but I don't think it takes more skill to hit with the old wood racquets. It's more that it takes different skills, as the skills of today's players would not transfer to the old equipment much like the skills required in older eras would not transfer to today's era using today's equipment. This makes it very difficult to compare players of different eras as player like Nadal would not have been able to play the way that brought him success over his career in the 70's and a player like McEnroe may not have been as dominant in today's era as despite being one of the most talented players to ever play the game his talents don't translate as well to today's power game as he was all about touch and finesse.

 

[Knife]

The Head racquet is actually from the 1970s. Rublev should have been given the Head Edge or Director.

Definitly more 1970:ish racquet. The 80s was all about graphite evolution and larger racquet heads.