When actually was 'The Golden Era' ?

[JAY1]

I think it was from January 1974 when Connors won the Australian Open and finished July 1985 when McEnroe and Connors were both thrashed at Wimbledon by Curren.
What do we all think?
Months, Years & tournaments please.
You can have more than one Golden Era if you wish....
I can't wait to bear Borg number one and Kiki's opinion....

 

[kiki]

Jay
I opened a thread on it days ago here
My Golden Era has three divisions
Pregolden from 68 to 73
Maingolden from 74 to 89
Postgoldem from 90 to 95
Centrañ year being 81
Borg,Connors,Mac,Lendl,Vilas,Gerulaitis,Tanner,Clerc,Mayer,Kriek,Pecci,Noah and. ...
But I guess 1930 pro and 1950 pro can be also GE even if less global, popular and competitive
I always say it is a 25 year slot similar to modern music
The jazz and blues (delta) of the 30 and 50 can be similar in terms of quality and spur as 1930 and 1950 pros, very talented and creative yet very minoritary and no mass media and industry support and same for early rock with Berry,Pressley,Domino and so om
It changed for tennis in the late 60 with the sudden rise of popularity supported by corporations as well as mass media
And, of course it also happened for modern music, in this case a 30 yrs span from early 60 till early 90
This support took so much creativity, ambition, freshness and it limited the talent
That happened in the mid 90 for both, music and tennis becoming owned by boring and creativuty killing technology
Of course it took different ways in both cases but the basics, the trends and the deep causes are very similar or have many in common
Excuse me for this long post

 

[kiki]

To explain it shortly here is my analogy
Tilden and Bobby Johnson in the 30
Kramer and Davis in early 50
Pancho and Elvis in late 50
Laver and Beatles in early 60 PREGOLDEN
LZ and Borg in 70 MAINGOLDEN
Sampras and Nirvana in mid 90 POSTGOLDEN

Rhinana and Nadal, Beyonce and Djoker or Bieber and Fed
See what I mean?

 

[forzamilan90]

Why are you mixing up women musicians with tennis men? Biased much??????

 

[kiki]

Why are you mixing up women musicians with tennis men? Biased much??????

Right
I wanted to place that rap singer instead but I cannot recall name

 

[forzamilan90]

Right
I wanted to place that rap singer instead but I cannot recall name

Say what you want about today's music, but there's never been so many genres before as right now. While I do prefer classic rock to many contemporary rock acts, certain genres are just great today
P.s. rap also existed in the "Golden Era" you know. Just fyi.

 

[kiki]

Say what you want about today's music, but there's never been so many genres before as right now. While I do prefer classic rock to many contemporary rock acts, certain genres are just great today
P.s. rap also existed in the "Golden Era" you know. Just fyi.

Oh yeah compyters mix everything but no class or originality at all
Music for robots
Now DJ have replaced true musicians
Sorry but it is a vomitive

 

[kiki]

Say what you want about today's music, but there's never been so many genres before as right now. While I do prefer classic rock to many contemporary rock acts, certain genres are just great today
P.s. rap also existed in the "Golden Era" you know. Just fyi.

Rap was for slangs
Now it is the benchmark for millions
Easy as that
Yes " progress" with music vampirized by technology a 5 yrs old can sing a nice fart and look a genious

 

[forzamilan90]

Oh yeah compyters mix everything but no class or originality at all
Music for robots
Now DJ have replaced true musicians
Sorry but it is a vomitive

Wasn't necessarily talking about electronica (even there you have numerous genres from the calming ambient and down tempo to trance, house and trip hop). There are still great "musicians" putting on good stuff. Jack white, john mayer, gary clark jr., alter bridge, etc.).

Older generations always dismiss the new culture or music or style. You know it's true. Elvis wasn't exactly "accepted" by parents, too vulgar, too different, etc. Older generations always do that, gotta be more open minded. If you still hate it, do what you got to do.

 

[forzamilan90]

Rap was for slangs
Now it is the benchmark for millions
Easy as that
Yes " progress" with music vampirized by technology a 5 yrs old can sing a nice fart and look a genious

Just cause technology has made it easier that doesn't mean music created by modern technology is crap. You know...i bet if you my age right mow and actually gave this stuff (let's say Electronic Dance Music) a chance attended a concert, had a great time with your buddies, hooked up with some chicks, all around had a good time and danced to the music, you'd change your tune fast. I am not expecting you to understand it, it is different than what you grew up with, I admit. Every generation has its thing and in its own little way it's great for what it is.

 

[borg number one]

Jay1, I do think things picked up steam with Jimmy Connors on the scene in 1973. At that time, you also had a young Chris Evert and also Billie Jean King. Meanwhile, you also had charismatic players such as Newcombe, Laver, Ashe and Rosewall at the top of the rankings. In 1974, Jimmy Connors started ushering in a new guard along with a young prodigy named Bjorn Rune Borg. The Connors-Borg rivalry then really captured the tennis world as tennis started really booming about 5 years into the Open Era. It was a brave new world for professional tennis. Then, things went up yet another level as John McEnroe broke onto the scene and Guillermo Vilas doing some major damage in the late 1970's, as well as young Ivan Lendl by 1979. Tennis was becoming truly global, but the traditional tennis powerhouse countries such as the U.S., Great Britain, Australia, and France had tennis booming as well. Then came 1980 and we saw the apex of that Golden Era reached in the 1980 Wimbledon final. After 1981, tennis popularity waned a bit, but it was still off the charts well into the 1980's. It even took a while into the Agassi-Sampras rivalry until tennis was quite the same in terms of impact on both the tennis world and general population. After that rivalry, it wasn't until the Federer-Nadal rivalry really heated up in 2007 before tennis really found firm footing once again. There were other very special eras, but the 1974-1981 was very special. You could include say 1969-1985 or so if you want a broader range, but within that range of years, 1974-1981 was something very special and it may never be replicated. I think 2008 was as close as we've come since then to replicating it in tennis, but Nadal and Federer aren't done just yet either.

 

[newpball]

Tilden and Bobby Johnson in the 30

Out of curiosity how many of those golden matches of Tilden and Johnson have you actually enjoyed watching?

All I have seen is some vague videos from Tilden (and Bobby Johnson is there even one single video available?) where you can hardly even see the ball.

How is that golden to you?

With respect to the question:

To me tennis is far bigger than the players. Players come and go, old rackets, new rackets, new strings, a change of rules, it is the game not the players that is golden.

 

[jean pierre]

1974-1984 : the big four (Borg, Connors, Vilas, McEnroe) + other great players like Gerulaitis, Panatta, Tanner, Pecci, Noah ...

 

[Phoenix1983]

Rhinana and Nadal, Beyonce and Djoker or Bieber and Fed
See what I mean?

Your analogies were good up until here. Why compare Fed to Bieber, and Rafa to Rihanna?

It should be more something like:

Federer - Eminem
Nadal - Radiohead
Djoker - Coldplay

Sloane Stephens - Lana Del Rey

 

[kiki]

Just cause technology has made it easier that doesn't mean music created by modern technology is crap. You know...i bet if you my age right mow and actually gave this stuff (let's say Electronic Dance Music) a chance attended a concert, had a great time with your buddies, hooked up with some chicks, all around had a good time and danced to the music, you'd change your tune fast. I am not expecting you to understand it, it is different than what you grew up with, I admit. Every generation has its thing and in its own little way it's great for what it is.

I agree with you.I just think that, even if there is talent now, of course there must be it since it is a big industry, it is what we understand by music, composition, lirics, sensitivity, exploring, ambition in terms of creativity yet simple, fresh, pure.I certainly listen very little of current music, but still what I get is just so far, so much vampirized, stereotyped and so on, it is not that I just don´t like it, just that what I understand for true music and true musucians is just not there.

 

[kiki]

Your analogies were good up until here. Why compare Fed to Bieber, and Rafa to Rihanna?

It should be more something like:

Federer - Eminem
Nadal - Radiohead
Djoker - Coldplay

Sloane Stephens - Lana Del Rey

Ok, I heard of that

 

[kiki]

Out of curiosity how many of those golden matches of Tilden and Johnson have you actually enjoyed watching?

All I have seen is some vague videos from Tilden (and Bobby Johnson is there even one single video available?) where you can hardly even see the ball.

How is that golden to you?

With respect to the question:

To me tennis is far bigger than the players. Players come and go, old rackets, new rackets, new strings, a change of rules, it is the game not the players that is golden.

I meant " Delta Blues" Johnson as being contemporary of Big Bill and having a great influence later on rock music same way Tilden for tennis.

 

[DMP]

Jay1, I do think things picked up steam with Jimmy Connors on the scene in 1973. At that time, you also had a young Chris Evert and also Billie Jean King. Meanwhile, you also had charismatic players such as Newcombe, Laver, Ashe and Rosewall at the top of the rankings. In 1974, Jimmy Connors started ushering in a new guard along with a young prodigy named Bjorn Rune Borg. The Connors-Borg rivalry then really captured the tennis world as tennis started really booming about 5 years into the Open Era. It was a brave new world for professional tennis. Then, things went up yet another level as John McEnroe broke onto the scene and Guillermo Vilas doing some major damage in the late 1970's, as well as young Ivan Lendl by 1979. Tennis was becoming truly global, but the traditional tennis powerhouse countries such as the U.S., Great Britain, Australia, and France had tennis booming as well. Then came 1980 and we saw the apex of that Golden Era reached in the 1980 Wimbledon final. After 1981, tennis popularity waned a bit, but it was still off the charts well into the 1980's. It even took a while into the Agassi-Sampras rivalry until tennis was quite the same in terms of impact on both the tennis world and general population. After that rivalry, it wasn't until the Federer-Nadal rivalry really heated up in 2007 before tennis really found firm footing once again. There were other very special eras, but the 1974-1981 was very special. You could include say 1969-1985 or so if you want a broader range, but within that range of years, 1974-1981 was something very special and it may never be replicated. I think 2008 was as close as we've come since then to replicating it in tennis, but Nadal and Federer aren't done just yet either.

Having lived through that period I would agree with all you have written, but I would add something else to reinforce 1973 as the real start of the golden period of interest in tennis, and that was the Riggs-BJK jamboree. Things had been bubbling away since the start of Open tennis because of all the politics and changes in tournaments, new money, etc. Then, as you say, along came Connors with his working class manner, the romance with Chris Evert, and the hoopla of the BJK-Riggs match. Things didn't look back after that, but when Borg arrived it was as if a tinderbox had been lit and it went stratospheric. He was the golden haired torch-bearer in ways that haven't been seen since. That is why I put him with Tilden and Lenglen as the three greatest players for taking tennis into the wider public consciousness.

The high point was 1980/81, and the decline started for one reason - Borg retired. I can remember the shock when the announcement came, and it being one of the top items on the main news channels. After that it was a bit like Hamlet without the prince. I would agree with Jay that by 1985 the overwhelming interest in tennis had run its course.

Although TV audience figures may be getting close to matching 1980, the world population (and the US population) have increased by 50% since then, so the relative impact of the 'Golden Era' was bigger than the raw numbers indicate.

 

[kiki]

Excelent posts
1974 was the year of revolution when two handed Bh stormed the world with Borg,Evert,Connors
When youth and not maturity were the wirds
When Vilas&Borg started top spin hegemony
When the mercenary style of Connors, barbie style of Evert and rock star Birg changed the name of the game
When aussie hegemony reached an end with Rosewall handling arms and Newk winning WCT
74 was the revolution and the real starting point for mass popularity and modern game
But never forget that before King&Riggs there was Laver vs Rosewall in Dallas 72
To me, in historic terms there is a before and an after this match

 

[andreh]

I agree with kiki. I would probably expand the main golden to 74 to 95 instead of calling 90-95 postgolden.

My personal favorite years are 85 to 92-ish, which largely coincides with the Lendl, Edberg, Becker Wilander era, before Courier/Sampras/Agassi. I grew up with these guys so they mean something special to me pesonally.

 

[kiki]

I agree with kiki. I would probably expand the main golden to 74 to 95 instead of calling 90-95 postgolden.

My personal favorite years are 85 to 92-ish, which largely coincides with the Lendl, Edberg, Becker Wilander era, before Courier/Sampras/Agassi. I grew up with these guys so they mean something special to me pesonally.

There are referential years, not necessary the best or thrilling but those that help build the mainstream
It is personal but I pick 1971 as middle Pregolden, 1981 as middlegoldem and 1992 or 1993 for midpostgolden
In 71 you had the old guard of Laver and Rosewall but also great peaking characters like the last great aussie in Newk, the dawn of reemergence of US tennis in Ashe&Smith and reemerging european tennis with Nastase and Kodes

It was also the year the most modern organization WCT ran its first tour
81 is last time of Borg and Mc and Lendl as natural refills of the great leaderd of GE Connors and Borg
93 is one of last good years from Becker &Edberg and the definitive crowning of Pete, with Agassi and Courier as main challenges

 

[Dan Lobb]

Jay
I opened a thread on it days ago here
My Golden Era has three divisions
Pregolden from 68 to 73
Maingolden from 74 to 89
Postgoldem from 90 to 95
Centrañ year being 81
Borg,Connors,Mac,Lendl,Vilas,Gerulaitis,Tanner,Clerc,Mayer,Kriek,Pecci,Noah and. ...
But I guess 1930 pro and 1950 pro can be also GE even if less global, popular and competitive
I always say it is a 25 year slot similar to modern music
The jazz and blues (delta) of the 30 and 50 can be similar in terms of quality and spur as 1930 and 1950 pros, very talented and creative yet very minoritary and no mass media and industry support and same for early rock with Berry,Pressley,Domino and so om
It changed for tennis in the late 60 with the sudden rise of popularity supported by corporations as well as mass media
And, of course it also happened for modern music, in this case a 30 yrs span from early 60 till early 90
This support took so much creativity, ambition, freshness and it limited the talent
That happened in the mid 90 for both, music and tennis becoming owned by boring and creativuty killing technology
Of course it took different ways in both cases but the basics, the trends and the deep causes are very similar or have many in common
Excuse me for this long post

I am more interested in the absolute heights, rather than audience size.
In Gonzales, Rosewall, Hoad, and Laver you have four of the all-time five greatest players, all in peak form between about 1958 to 1964.

Also 1958 to 1964 is the highpoint for classical music performance, with Karajan, Bernstein, Gould, Richter, Szell, Solti, Oistrakh, Kogan, Rostropovich at their peak.

In jazz you have the second wave of greats, Parker, Davis, Peterson, Vaughan, Fitzgerald, and others.

Take me back, please!

 

[Phoenix1983]

I am more interested in the absolute heights, rather than audience size.
In Gonzales, Rosewall, Hoad, and Laver you have four of the all-time five greatest players, all in peak form between about 1958 to 1964.

Gonzales, Rosewall and Laver are three of the all-time five greatest.

Hoad does not belong in such company.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Gonzales, Rosewall and Laver are three of the all-time five greatest.

Hoad does not belong in such company.

You're right.

He belongs at a higher level, as the other three all agreed.

 

[kiki]

I am more interested in the absolute heights, rather than audience size.
In Gonzales, Rosewall, Hoad, and Laver you have four of the all-time five greatest players, all in peak form between about 1958 to 1964.

Also 1958 to 1964 is the highpoint for classical music performance, with Karajan, Bernstein, Gould, Richter, Szell, Solti, Oistrakh, Kogan, Rostropovich at their peak.

In jazz you have the second wave of greats, Parker, Davis, Peterson, Vaughan, Fitzgerald, and others.

Take me back, please!

No doubt that the quator would have been nie to watch right now...