What is the ideal height of a tennis player?

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
I agree.

Expanding the list...5 or more grand slam winners in the open era:

Federer : 6'1"
Nadal : 6"1"
Sampras : 6'1"
Djokovic : 6'2"
Borg : 5'11"
Connors : 5'10"
Lendl : 6'2"
Agassi : 5'11"
Mcenroe : 5'11"
Wilander : 6'0"
Edberg : 6'2"
Becker : 6'3"
Laver : 5'8"
Newcombe: 6'0"

The other two from the recent Big 5 list:

Murray : 6'3"
Wawrinka : 6'0"

The other 3 from the career grand slam list:

Fred Perry : 6'0"
Don Budge : 6'1"
Roy Emerson: 6'0"
Several serious omissions, most important:

Pancho Gonzalez, Jack Kramer.
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
Murray isn't 6 3 he's not even really 6 2. Djokovic is around 6 1.5 and Murray is just a hair taller. Nads is a little over 6 foot but def shorter than 6 1 Fed.
 

Sudacafan

Bionic Poster
Current top ten players by height (with cm this time). All straight from the ATP website.

1. Fed 6'1 185
2. Nadal 6'1 185
3. Cilic 6'6 198
4. Dimitrov 6'3 191
5. Zverev 6'6 198
6. Thiem 6'1 185
7. Goffin 5'11 180
8. Sock 6'3 191
9. Anderson 6'8 203
10. Del Potro 6'6 198

Feet and inches are not very good to translate to cm. The errors when going from ft/in to cm can be up to 2 or 3 cm.
 

EloQuent

Legend
Feet and inches are not very good to translate to cm. The errors when going from ft/in to cm can be up to 2 or 3 cm.
All of these are within 1 cm.

here's the exact math
6'1 = 185.42
6'2 = 187.96
6'3 = 190.5
6'6 = 198.12

source: trusty google
 

EloQuent

Legend
@Gary Duane, Tilden, Kramer and Pancho were all 6'2. 6'1-6'2 seems indeed to be ideal. But prior to the modern era, you could get away with less (Laver, Rosewall 5'8 and 5'7). I wonder how they would do today.
I'd say 1,84-1,90 is pretty ideal today.
given that average height in those days was much shorter than today, these 6'1-2 (or 185-90) players from way back when were pretty tall for their day. It's hard to judge if being taller would have helped, considering how few players were so tall to begin with
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
given that average height in those days was much shorter than today, these 6'1-2 (or 185-90) players from way back when were pretty tall for their day. It's hard to judge if being taller would have helped, considering how few players were so tall to begin with
In my country, the mean height for men hasn't changed more than an inch for men born in 1960 and men born in 1996. Before that, there was a difference. I guess what I'm saying is that from Lendl onwards or so, I don't think the height has gone up by much in developed countries.
 

EloQuent

Legend
In my country, the mean height for men hasn't changed more than an inch for men born in 1960 and men born in 1996. Before that, there was a difference. I guess what I'm saying is that from Lendl onwards or so, I don't think the height has gone up by much in developed countries.
Yeah, I mean Tilden and Kramer etc.
 

Red Rick

Bionic Poster
The information that's really missing here is what movement do players with the same build have at different heights. And we can't know.

And I'm wondering to what degree movement and power are mutually exclusive.
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
The information that's really missing here is what movement do players with the same build have at different heights. And we can't know.

And I'm wondering to what degree movement and power are mutually exclusive.
Safin was an excellent mover for his height (6'4) and had power in spades. But yeah - good points.
 

EloQuent

Legend
Def. tall for their age. Don't know that much about Kramer, but I know Tilden has an amazing serve. Pancho too.

I don't think any decent players were much taller so we don't have much to compare as far as really tall guys.

The information that's really missing here is what movement do players with the same build have at different heights. And we can't know.

And I'm wondering to what degree movement and power are mutually exclusive.
That is the question.
 

EloQuent

Legend
Another thing I was thinking is people point to like Ivo Karlovic as a lousy mover, but really without his serve he's a mediocre player. So if he was shorter, he'd suck anyway. We don't really have a good all around giant player, because how many 6'10ers are there? The only players we know can only compete due to their serve.

But in a lab, if you made a 7 foot player, would it be possible to have enough movement?
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
I don't think any decent players were much taller so we don't have much to compare as far as really tall guys.
Is Becker at 6'3 the most successful guy above 6'2? I think he just might be. Which leads us to 6'1-6'2 being the ideal height.
 

EloQuent

Legend
Is Becker at 6'3 the most successful guy above 6'2? I think he just might be. Which leads us to 6'1-6'2 being the ideal height.
But again, this could just be that there aren't as many people that tall or they chose not play tennis.
 

Red Rick

Bionic Poster
Another thing I was thinking is people point to like Ivo Karlovic as a lousy mover, but really without his serve he's a mediocre player. So if he was shorter, he'd suck anyway. We don't really have a good all around giant player, because how many 6'10ers are there? The only players we know can only compete due to their serve.

But in a lab, if you made a 7 foot player, would it be possible to have enough movement?
Karlovic is bad, even for his height. Opelka for example moves a lot better, but still below average.
 

EloQuent

Legend
Karlovic is bad, even for his height. Opelka for example moves a lot better, but still below average.
yeah, Karlovic can only compete by relying on his serve. So it's not "tall guy can't move" it's "crappy player uses height to stay in the game"

Opelka is young and hasn't done much yet, curious to see how he pans out
 

Red Rick

Bionic Poster
Just imagine what Murray could have done with a more aggressive mindset and a better serve.
For me the crazy thing about Murray is the return at his height. His reaction speed and first step are ridiculous, especially considering he's quite bulky and heavy.

Ultimately height has 3 benefits

- Power
- Reach
- Serve angle

And it has 2 main disadvantages

- Movement
- Accuracy, due larger degree of freedom on shots.

Now, reach and serve angle don't only depend on height, but also on arm length, and I'm pretty sure that correlates with leg length as well, and longer legs are terrible for movement on a tennis court.
 
Current top ten players by height (with cm this time). All straight from the ATP website.

1. Fed 6'1 185
2. Nadal 6'1 185
3. Cilic 6'6 198
4. Dimitrov 6'3 191
5. Zverev 6'6 198
6. Thiem 6'1 185
7. Goffin 5'11 180
8. Sock 6'3 191
9. Anderson 6'8 203
10. Del Potro 6'6 198

This is a very underrated post. Most are saying 6'1 simply because the 3 best of all-time (Fed, Sampras, Nadal) were all 6'1. That's a big shortsighted in my opinion. They're simply 3 elite tennis players. If they were, instead, 6'2, would they have won less? I think the answer is no.

Ideal height has continued to increase, and in my opinion, it's probably around 6'3 - 6'4. Why do we not see more grand slam winners at that height?

1. Fed, Nadal, and Djokovic continue to win everything, and they happen to not be taller than 6'2.
2. There simply aren't a lot of people on this earth who are > 6/2. Also, if you are > 6'2, other sports become open to you that aren't open to the rest of the population.
 

Red Rick

Bionic Poster
What I'm actually more interested is specific build of the torso. I'd like to know if there's some decent notions as to what are good things to look at. Obviously shoulder width is pretty important (see Roublette), but maybe also hip width and stuff like that. Then there's a lot of body composition with how easily players bulk and what not where I suppose @Hitman knows a truckload about.

Lastly, there's obviously muscular components. Fast and slow twitch fibers, muscle and joint stiffness and all that junk.

There's a general things I've seen that I want to note here. I think there's a tradeoff between power and movement, but that depends on where the power comes from. I think there's something to be said about players like Wawrinka and Fernando Gonzalez, dudes who are brutally strong in the upper body but not among the fastest in their height group. I'd consider Del Potro and Soderling in this caterory too, though they're taller. Most of these also don't have that much of a lasso on their forehand, which is something other players heavily rely on to generate racket head speed.

There are generally 2 ways players move well. Either they have huge and explosive legs, or they're pretty scrawny and have to accelerate less mass. Even a dude like Federer (or is that blasphemous?) has huge legs. The Big 4 are all elite movers, but Djoko is the only one who doesn't have tremendously bulky legs, but I'd say they're still the most muscular part of his body.

Then there's a few dudes who basically always looked bigger than seemed useful. Roddick never seemed particularly ripped and he wasn't an elite mover, and more recently a dude like Jack Sock always seems almost too damn fat for a top 10 guy. I'm sure they're not the only ones though.

I think one thing we could do is at least grab some data and see how height correlates with serving speed, though I'm not sure where to grab the serve speed data from. Power on ground shots is just really hard to measure and that's where **** gets really murky and complicated.
 

Red Rick

Bionic Poster
2. There simply aren't a lot of people on this earth who are > 6/2. Also, if you are > 6'2, other sports become open to you that aren't open to the rest of the population.
This is a very important point indeed. The population size between 6/0 and 6/1 is gonna be quite a lot larger than the population between 6/1 and 6/2. I don't know the exact differences, but we're definitely already pretty far to the right of the height distribution.

And in the case of some countries specifically I don't think sports like basketball taking away talent disproportionally makes it easier either.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
What I'm actually more interested is specific build of the torso. I'd like to know if there's some decent notions as to what are good things to look at. Obviously shoulder width is pretty important (see Roublette), but maybe also hip width and stuff like that. Then there's a lot of body composition with how easily players bulk and what not where I suppose @Hitman knows a truckload about.

Lastly, there's obviously muscular components. Fast and slow twitch fibers, muscle and joint stiffness and all that junk.

There's a general things I've seen that I want to note here. I think there's a tradeoff between power and movement, but that depends on where the power comes from. I think there's something to be said about players like Wawrinka and Fernando Gonzalez, dudes who are brutally strong in the upper body but not among the fastest in their height group. I'd consider Del Potro and Soderling in this caterory too, though they're taller. Most of these also don't have that much of a lasso on their forehand, which is something other players heavily rely on to generate racket head speed.

There are generally 2 ways players move well. Either they have huge and explosive legs, or they're pretty scrawny and have to accelerate less mass. Even a dude like Federer (or is that blasphemous?) has huge legs. The Big 4 are all elite movers, but Djoko is the only one who doesn't have tremendously bulky legs, but I'd say they're still the most muscular part of his body.

Then there's a few dudes who basically always looked bigger than seemed useful. Roddick never seemed particularly ripped and he wasn't an elite mover, and more recently a dude like Jack Sock always seems almost too damn fat for a top 10 guy. I'm sure they're not the only ones though.

I think one thing we could do is at least grab some data and see how height correlates with serving speed, though I'm not sure where to grab the serve speed data from. Power on ground shots is just really hard to measure and that's where **** gets really murky and complicated.

I have a masters degree in Exercise, Human Anatomy and Nutrition, I am also a certified personal trainer, and as you know, I have competed around the world myself. So, when it comes to muscle and the human body, that's just what I do. ;)
 

EloQuent

Legend
I have a masters degree in Exercise, Human Anatomy and Nutrition, I am also a certified personal trainer, and as you know, I have competed around the world myself. So, when it comes to muscle and the human body, that's just what I do. ;)
tell us o wise man, what is the ideal human specimen for to play tennis
 

Red Rick

Bionic Poster
You mean which tennis player?
I would say which physical traits would give the the best combination of strength and speed? I'm just trying to to find similarities between players who move exceptionally and those who don't, same thing for power.
 
This is a good point. I wonder how many American elite athletes who are around 6'6 whatever choose basketball.

This is a very important point indeed. The population size between 6/0 and 6/1 is gonna be quite a lot larger than the population between 6/1 and 6/2. I don't know the exact differences, but we're definitely already pretty far to the right of the height distribution.

And in the case of some countries specifically I don't think sports like basketball taking away talent disproportionally makes it easier either.

Exactly. We tennis fans watch Isner and Karlovic and think, "that's the way tall athletes move" which is completely false. Kevin Durant is 6'9. Look that guy up. If you put him on a tennis court, he would move better than basically everyone on the tour. Same with Lebron James who is 6'8. Basketball movement is similar to tennis movement in that you need a quick first step. Top basketball players have that in spades. They would move better than anyone on the ATP while also having the height advantages of Isner. They'd probably dominate. It makes sense though. Federer is making about 8 million a year from playing tennis (he obviously makes more for endorsements). Durant made 25 million last year and is slated to make > 26 million this year.
 

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
deducing that the currently ideal height for tennis is 185 (6'1") based on 2–3 active players or (worse yet) past players is way too simplistic, and it's too thin a basis to make generalizations from.

Across tour, height is positively associated with winning % also well past 6'1". Furthermore, players 6'4" and up are far over-represented in, say, the top 100 compared to how comparatively rare they are in the population at large. So it's obvious that it carries some special advantage even compared to the 6'1" crew, at least up to a certain point. As the guy above said, a huge confounder here is the fact that there are far far more 6'1" men in the world than 6'6" guys, so a Federer-type talent is also therefore far more likely to come along in the smaller package. There are even more guys standing 5'9"–5'10", and hence statistically there should be an abundance of talent in that range, but at that point the lack of height clearly becomes a big enough handicap that talent can't make up for it.

When the right 6'4+ guy imminently comes along, we'll change our tune.
 

Red Rick

Bionic Poster
Exactly. We tennis fans watch Isner and Karlovic and think, "that's the way tall athletes move" which is completely false. Kevin Durant is 6'9. Look that guy up. If you put him on a tennis court, he would move better than basically everyone on the tour. Same with Lebron James who is 6'8. Basketball movement is similar to tennis movement in that you need a quick first step. Top basketball players have that in spades. They would move better than anyone on the ATP while also having the height advantages of Isner. They'd probably dominate. It makes sense though. Federer is making about 8 million a year from playing tennis (he obviously makes more for endorsements). Durant made 25 million last year and is slated to make > 26 million this year.
While I definitely think that a guy like Lebron James would move better than a guy like Karlovic, I do think you're overstating it a lot here. In no way would people way over 2 meters and over a 100kg be the best movers on the ATP Tour.

Lebron James looks like such an insane mover cause in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king. Height and strength are incredibly strongly selected for, also because of the contact in basketball. That simply doesn't compare to tennis.
 

EloQuent

Legend
Exactly. We tennis fans watch Isner and Karlovic and think, "that's the way tall athletes move" which is completely false. Kevin Durant is 6'9. Look that guy up. If you put him on a tennis court, he would move better than basically everyone on the tour. Same with Lebron James who is 6'8. Basketball movement is similar to tennis movement in that you need a quick first step. Top basketball players have that in spades. They would move better than anyone on the ATP while also having the height advantages of Isner. They'd probably dominate. It makes sense though. Federer is making about 8 million a year from playing tennis (he obviously makes more for endorsements). Durant made 25 million last year and is slated to make > 26 million this year.
I think overall Federer makes more. But there's no way for a 14 year old to know if he's going to be the next Fed. And you need to commit then, if not younger. Any NBA position is going to be better paying than being a top 20 tennis player.
 

Red Rick

Bionic Poster
deducing that the currently ideal height for tennis is 185 (6'1") based on 2–3 active players or (worse yet) past players is way too simplistic, and it's too thin a basis to make generalizations from.

Across tour, height is positively associated with winning % also well past 6'1". Furthermore, players 6'4" and up are far over-represented in, say, the top 100 compared to how comparatively rare they are in the population at large. So it's obvious that it carries some special advantage even compared to the 6'1" crew, at least up to a certain point. As the guy above said, a huge confounder here is the fact that there are far far more 6'1" men in the world than 6'6" guys, so a Federer-type talent is also therefore far more likely to come along in the smaller package. There are even more guys standing 5'9"–5'10", and hence statistically there should be an abundance of talent in that range, but at that point the lack of height clearly becomes a big enough handicap that talent can't make up for it.

When the right 6'4+ guy imminently comes along, we'll change our tune.
Probably.

Now we're mostly talking about how there's still elite movers as tall as 6' 3 while in reality a Federesque talent at 6' 5 might just bludgeon everyone off court all day every day. It does annoy me that Federer rarely bludgeons a ball flatly enough to have a decent idea of what speeds his groundies would max out at.

And I'm pretty sure that top speed of groundstrokes is less correlated with height than serve speed.
 

Red Rick

Bionic Poster
I think overall Federer makes more. But there's no way for a 14 year old to know if he's going to be the next Fed. And you need to commit then, if not younger. Any NBA position is going to be better paying than being a top 20 tennis player.
Top end earners are a dumb comparison when comparing a team sport with an individual sport.

In the wise words of Andy Roddick: "I'd rather have my son be a really mediocre NBA player than a tennis player" when talking about the pay in tennis.
 

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
Probably.

Now we're mostly talking about how there's still elite movers as tall as 6' 3 while in reality a Federesque talent at 6' 5 might just bludgeon everyone off court all day every day. It does annoy me that Federer rarely bludgeons a ball flatly enough to have a decent idea of what speeds his groundies would max out at.

And I'm pretty sure that top speed of groundstrokes is less correlated with height than serve speed.

I think this is probably true as well. One of the biggest advantages for tall guys re: serve speed isn't simply in sheer power generation, but the fact that their advantageous launch angle allows them to serve close to max speed and still keep a respectable 1st serve percentage. There are some guys at around 1.80m who can serve bombs, like Benny Becker, but their percentage suffers if they go for that. This matters less on groundies.

[edit: and another crucial difference is that a serve is a free swing, so to speak, which means that you get all the benefits of the extra degrees of freedom and not the downside, if that makes sense. When a rally ball is coming at you quickly, it also matters how quickly you're able to generate force, and I think extra degrees of freedom can also be a disadvantage there]

Here's a quick correlation between the fastest recorded tennis serve and heights, though. A pretty clear correlation:

https://www.wired.com/2011/03/does-the-fastest-tennis-serve-depend-on-height/
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
I would say which physical traits would give the the best combination of strength and speed? I'm just trying to to find similarities between players who move exceptionally and those who don't, same thing for power.

OK, let me come back to this one.
 

Red Rick

Bionic Poster
I think this is probably true as well. One of the biggest advantages for tall guys re: serve speed isn't simply in sheer power generation, but the fact that their advantageous launch angle allows them to serve close to max speed and still keep a respectable 1st serve percentage. There are some guys at around 1.80m who can serve bombs, like Benny Becker, but their percentage suffers if they go for that. This matters less on groundies.

Here's a quick correlation between the fastest recorded tennis serve and heights, though. A pretty clear correlation:

https://www.wired.com/2011/03/does-the-fastest-tennis-serve-depend-on-height/
The sample size in that correlation is so small that it bothers me. Not to mention that the correlation is obvious.

Generally players probably serve about their height in cm in km/h on average, and I think most players max out between 1.1 and 1.2 times their height. Pretty sure Roddick's the only one over 1.3 lol. And I think this is pretty linear. I don't really think racket head speed on ground strokes would be
 
Top