Why are the Big3 still dominant? The HEIGHT is probably the decisive factor.

[UnderratedSlam]

Correlation doesn't mean causation.

No, you're right. Obvious numerical trends should be fully ignored, because... denial.

Seriously, I don't understand how anyone can dismiss these numbers. If you feel they are an "accident" then explain the numbers. You'll struggle to do so i.e. to invent st because the sample is rather large.

 

[aldeayeah]

Wait Wawa is shorter than Rafa? No way

 

[UnderratedSlam]

What's the explanation for height interfering in Bo5, but not in Bo3? Zverev can beat the world #1 in Bo3, but cannot, for his life, beat any top10 in Bo5. Is that height related? I understand that it can play a role and that there can be a sweet spot regarding height. But I highly doubt it's so deterministic. Especially when nowadays tall players have such great mobility.

Possible explanations:

1. Perhaps fitness is easier to achieve at medium heights.

2. Big 3 are routinely skipping M1000 events now. How many times do NextGen M1000 champs have to actually beat any of the Big 3 to lift a trophy?

3. M1000 are now used by Big 3 more than ever before primarily as warm-up events for slams. They don't go into them playing in full form nearly as often. Being older, Big 3 now need longer to reach top form.

4. Perhaps NextGen crumble under the larger slam pressure.

5. Perhaps NextGen are less fit. More "lazy". Work less hard.

6. Ideal-range NextGen struggle too.

As for mobility, some NextGenners move phenomenally well for their height, this is true.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Height could certainly be a factor, but I think there are more obvious reasons why they are still dominant. If you get what I mean.

Nobody said height was the ONLY factor - otherwise ALL ideal-range pros would be slam material.

It's just that ideal-range players are more likely to win slams, to dominate. Much more likely.

Medvedev might break the mold. But then again, we expect there to be a Height Shift, simply coz the kids are taller than ever before.

Or will Sinner start winning everything?

 

[MadariKatu]

Possible explanations:

1. Perhaps fitness is easier to achieve at medium heights.

2. Big 3 are routinely skipping M1000 events now. How many times do NextGen M1000 champs have to actually beat any of the Big 3 to lift a trophy?

3. M1000 are now used by Big 3 more than ever before primarily as warm-up events for slams. They don't go into them playing in full form nearly as often. Being older, Big 3 now need longer to reach top form.

4. Perhaps NextGen crumble under the larger slam pressure.

5. Perhaps NextGen are less fit. More "lazy". Work less hard.

6. Ideal-range NextGen struggle too.

As for mobility, some NextGenners move phenomenally well for their height, this is true.

This is my point. Of those things you mention, only the first one is height related, and it's a very big if. There are many other factors, one of the most important ones being mental. Like I said, there probably is a sweet spot regarding height. Especially more back in the day, where it was very rare to see a tall player that's also a good mover.
But saying it is the decisive factor, is in my opinion, an exaggeration, more so when we see tall players that move incredibly well (mobility generally being the drawback of being very tall)

 

[Jokervich]

Nobody said height was the ONLY factor - otherwise ALL ideal-range pros would be slam material.

It's just that ideal-range players are more likely to win slams, to dominate. Much more likely.

Medvedev might break the mold. But then again, we expect there to be a Height Shift, simply coz the kids are taller than ever before.

Or will Sinner start winning everything?

I'm not talking about that. I mean a different obvious reason.

 

[DSH]

Possible explanations:

1. Perhaps fitness is easier to achieve at medium heights.

2. Big 3 are routinely skipping M1000 events now. How many times do NextGen M1000 champs have to actually beat any of the Big 3 to lift a trophy?

3. M1000 are now used by Big 3 more than ever before primarily as warm-up events for slams. They don't go into them playing in full form nearly as often. Being older, Big 3 now need longer to reach top form.

4. Perhaps NextGen crumble under the larger slam pressure.

5. Perhaps NextGen are less fit. More "lazy". Work less hard.

6. Ideal-range NextGen struggle too.

As for mobility, some NextGenners move phenomenally well for their height, this is true.

In agreement.
And I may add that Nadal's generation was almost the last to play additional best-of-five-set matches that were not Grand Slam events from the beginning of their tennis careers.
Until 2006 some Masters 1000 finals were played with this format, until 2007, the same for the ATP Finals, the final of the Olympic Games was played this way until 2016, and of course, the Davis Cup that was played in the traditional way until 2018.
Now only best-of-five-set matches are played for eight weeks a year.
Even players like Zverev have lost the habit of long-winded encounters and when the moment of truth arrives, the German player reels under the pressure.
Although his case could be considered paradigmatic, seeing the disparity in results when he plays ATP tournaments and then when he disputes ITF events, which are the Grand Slams.
We will see if the younger generation, the FAA, the Sinner and the Alcaraz, have the same success in both formats and if they do, they will confirm that the great champions of this sport can be in any circumstance and time.

 

[Mustard]

A 19-year-old Djokovic won his first Masters title in a best of 5 sets final, beating Canas in 3 straight sets in the final of 2007 Miami. That was the last Masters final to have a best of 5 sets format.

 

[Mustard]

Wait Wawa is shorter than Rafa? No way

Wawrinka is bigger girth wise, not height wise. Petr Korda was the opposite, i.e. seemed shorter than he actually was because he was skinny.

 

[onefineday]

Sinner has the height but he doesn't have the range.

 

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

I fear to tread into dinosaur eras, or else I may find out that champs from 100 years ago were 128 cm!!!

Well today's youth (including the next gen players) are a lot taller in general. 177-180cm would've been a good height for players born in the 1950s

Wilding was 187cm (6'1½"), Tilden was 187 (6'1½"), Borotra was 186 (6'1"), Vines was 189 (6'2½"), Crawford was 185 (6'1"), Perry was 183 (6'0") Budge was 185 (6'1"), Gonzales was 188 (6'2)", Kramer was 188 (6'2"), Falkenburg was 191 (6'3"), Savitt was 191 (6'3"), Seixas was 185 (6'1"), Sedgman was 180 (5'11"), Trabert was 185 (6'1"), Hoad was 179 (5'10½"), Fraser was 185 (6'1"), Emerson was 183 (6'0").

To be honest, I think the shortness of Rosewall and Laver has kind of distorted our view of the past. Both those Aussies were unusually diminutive compared to their contemporaries (although Cochet in the 1920s was even shorter), but by and large I think the height distribution was similar to more modern eras.

 

[Aabye5]

Try again...

 

[helterskelter]

No, you're right. Obvious numerical trends should be fully ignored, because... denial.

Seriously, I don't understand how anyone can dismiss these numbers. If you feel they are an "accident" then explain the numbers. You'll struggle to do so i.e. to invent st because the sample is rather large.

The poster was right, though. Correlation doesn't equal causation. Without a causal mechanism, all you have is a coincidence and an interesting data point, no strong reason to believe it will continue into the future.

If you don't believe that, take a look at all the threads from a few years ago that argued that all tennis players decline at 30 or at 28.5 or at 27 or at 21 or at four months old or while in the womb and that this decline was an immutable law of nature. Several of them were based on sets of numbers at least as extensive as the ones you present in the OP. They didn't hold up. (I use this example because I know it's one you've noticed).

Or take an everyday example. If, in late September, someone in the northern hemisphere were to comment that it's always really hot and were to prove it by pointing out that the last 120-150 days were really hot, they would have a good set of numbers to back up that point, but they would still be wrong.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

The poster was right, though. Correlation doesn't equal causation. Without a causal mechanism, all you have is a coincidence and an interesting data point, 1. no strong reason to believe it will continue into the future.

If you don't believe that, take a look at all the 2 threads from a few years ago that argued that all tennis players decline at 30 or at 28.5 or at 27 or at 21 or at four months old or while in the womb and that this decline was an immutable law of nature. Several of them were based on sets of numbers at least as extensive as the ones you present in the OP. They didn't hold up. (I use this example because I know it's one you've noticed).

Or take an everyday example. If, in late September, someone in the northern hemisphere were to comment that it's always really hot and were to prove it by pointing out that the last 120-150 days were really hot, they would have a good set of numbers to back up that point, but they would still be wrong.

1. I must have said this already 56 times.

Here goes, 57:

The average slam-win height will likely increase because NextGenners are taller.

2. Guess who posted several threads SEVERAL YEARS AGO that GAS (Great Age Shift) is taking place...

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...but-there-is-more-the-70s-to-80s-drop.683379/
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...-whove-been-longer-pros-than-non-pros.653846/
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...laining-the-great-age-shift-in-tennis.652511/

3. Several hundred slam champs (and their heights) taken over half-a-century are a very good sample, with a clear, obvious, logical trend. (Nobody said this would remain this way forever, but now I'd be going for 58 if I were to re-re-repeat myself...)

 

[Omega_7000]

I am discussing the Open Era only. More specifically, 1970 onwards.

Let's face it. 185-188 cm is pretty much the ideal height range to be a dominator. Or at least a multi-slam champ. Or even "just" a one-slam champ. If you're too short you may be very quick but you lack punch on the serve (which is unfortunately still the most important shot in tennis). If you're too tall you may be a servebot but your movement is weaker - and tennis is all about movement. And tall players are more susceptible to injuries.

172 and lower: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0 slams

173-176: Chang, Kodes, Kriek ***, Gaudio --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6 slams

177-180: McEnroe, Borg, Villas, Connors, Hewitt, Muster, Costa, Johansson, Agassi ------------------------------------------- 43 slams

181-184: Wawrinka, Newcombe, Cash, Wilander, Nastase, Panatta, Gerulaitis ***, Tanner ***, Ferrero ----------------------- 22 slams

185-188: Sampras, Courier, Rafter, Djokovic, Bruguera, Edberg, Ashe, Lendl, Nadal, Federer, Thiem, Roddick, Gimeno ------ 101 slams

189-192: Becker, Kafelnikov, Murray, Moya, Korda, Teacher ***, Kuerten ------------------------------------------------------- 17 slams

193-196: Smith, Gomez, Noah, Ivanisevic, Safin, Krajicek, Stich ------------------------------------------------------------------ 9 slams

197-198: Delpo, Cilic, Medvedev -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 slams

199 and higher: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0 slams

*** These players won only sub-par AO, before it was a proper slam

How tall are the NextGenners?

Short answer -------- Too tall.

Long answer ------------ Here are their heights.

Medvedev ----------- 198
The Great One ------ 198
Citybus --------------- 193
Hunchy The Ozz ----- 193
Rublev -------------- 188
Shapo ----------------- 185
Khachanov ------------ 198
FAA ------------------ 193
The Kokk ------------- 193
Berrettini -------------- 196
Sinner ----------------- 188

Analysis and conclusions:

McEnroe, Borg, Villas and Connors - who pretty much were all contemporaries and all of almost the same height - dominated in an era when players were shorter, hence why they are below the "ideal range". Agassi would have been perhaps a more complete player with 5 more cm to add punch to the serve. Just a guess though...

It is fascinating that the 177-180 group has twice as many slams as the 181-184 group, though this MAY be explained away to an extent by height stats relying on the inches/feet system, i.e. often heights get converted from feet to the metric system, which means that some 184s get treated as 185, some 181s get written in as 180. Proof would be that for example 189 is NEVER mentioned on Wikipedia. It's always either 188 or 190 which is impossible... Ditto 181: rarely or never shows up, but 180 and 182 instead...

In the 70s and early 80s, 180 cm seems to have been ideal. Then it shifted to 185-186 and has remained that way more than 30 years later. Will it shift further up? Perhaps after the Big 3 retire... Or will Sinner win everything?

The ideal height probably will increase, simply because most up-and-comers are above 190 cm, because kids are taller than ever before, but average player height can't increase forever. (We are not giraffes... except maybe the Great One.)

Here's the problem...

The most gifted NextGen players are 190plus. Rublev and Shapo are within the ideal range but they have less potential. Rublev is copy-paste Ferrer, Shapo seems to be unstable. Only Sinner is both highly talented and of ideal height. He is statistically a shoe-in for future ATG or even GOAT-like champ.

The height issue may also partially explain why LostGen was so unsuccessful. Raonic is too tall, Goffin and Schwartz are too short. Only Thiem and Dimitrov are within the best range. Thiem fulfilled part of his promise whereas Dimitrov obviously didn't and never will.

So while height does not explain everything, it does show that it does play an important role in predicting future champs and in understanding why certain players failed or succeeded. For example, while Schwartz has great shots and is very professional, his success will always be limited by his height. Ditto Anderson and other very tall players.

Where does Alcaraz fall?

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Where does Alcaraz fall?

Alcatraz is 185 cm.

Ideal height.

 

[JackieTreeh0rn]

The point of the thread is more along the lines of "with everything else being (roughly) equal, the 185 guy is far more likely to dominate than the 178 and the 195 guys".

Thiem does have a big game, but he seems to have developed a big finales complex. 2-7. Despite winning both of these in very tight conditions. He also lost several close ones, and a few he should/could have won.

If he had the confidence of Djokovic, just picture how many more slams he'd have by now.

So you’re saying the distribution of the height of elite tennis players is normally distributed. You don’t say!

 

[helterskelter]

Well, I'll make this time #2, then: A sample size is not indicative of much absent a causal mechanism. That is true even of a sample size of several hundred. Okay, great, you acknowledge that the height will likely increase, but you still say that the reason the Big Three are better is that they're medium height (in tennis terms) and that's the point about which the numbers aren't much help. It is of course true that medium height players are likely to have a height advantage over either very tall players or very short ones, but the best evidence for that is technical. The results don't do much to support the claim absent the causal mechanism that some analysis of technique would provide.

Yes, I know you know about the change in age. That's why I mentioned it to you - as I noted in the previous post. But there was a sample size of several hundred that pointed to younger ages being more successful, albeit with no clear causal mechanism. And so, over time, the results are changing.

1. I must have said this already 56 times.

Here goes, 57:

The average slam-win height will likely increase because NextGenners are taller.

2. Guess who posted several threads SEVERAL YEARS AGO that GAS (Great Age Shift) is taking place...

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...but-there-is-more-the-70s-to-80s-drop.683379/
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...-whove-been-longer-pros-than-non-pros.653846/
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...laining-the-great-age-shift-in-tennis.652511/

3. Several hundred slam champs (and their heights) taken over half-a-century are a very good sample, with a clear, obvious, logical trend. (Nobody said this would remain this way forever, but now I'd be going for 58 if I were to re-re-repeat myself...)

 

[puppybutts]

I am discussing the Open Era only. More specifically, 1970 onwards.

Let's face it. 185-188 cm is pretty much the ideal height range to be a dominator. Or at least a multi-slam champ. Or even "just" a one-slam champ. If you're too short you may be very quick but you lack punch on the serve (which is unfortunately still the most important shot in tennis). If you're too tall you may be a servebot but your movement is weaker - and tennis is all about movement. And tall players are more susceptible to injuries.

177-180: McEnroe, Borg, Villas, Connors, Hewitt, Muster, Costa, Johansson, Agassi ------------------------------------------- 43 slams

181-184: Wawrinka, Newcombe, Cash, Wilander, Nastase, Panatta, Gerulaitis ***, Tanner ***, Ferrero ----------------------- 22 slams

185-188: Sampras, Courier, Rafter, Djokovic, Bruguera, Edberg, Ashe, Lendl, Nadal, Federer, Thiem, Roddick, Gimeno ------ 101 slams

take out djoko, fed, and nadal, and you're left with 40 slams, which is less than the 177-180 category, despite having 10 players vs 9. considering how rare the big 3's accomplishments are to begin with, I think it's safe to say there's some leeway in height as a limitation. especially considering someone like Rafa, who's been out so often with injury, but has had the genes/medical staff/desire to overcome, which makes him even more rare. plus, when you add the longevity of the big 3 compared to the average player....I think it's safe to say the ideal height range is bigger than 3 centimeters lol considering how big of outliers their careers are, even for their height.

if you look at the women's side of things, both serena and steffi are 5'9", but they had very clearly different playstyles, with serena serving much bigger than her height which was unprecedented, and steffi moving as though she was shorter than her height.

 

[socallefty]

I guess I was being simplistic by thinking that the fact that they all have amazing technique and footwork along with incredible self-confidence and mental strength might have had something to do with the dominance of the Big 3. Now I find that all it needs is the perfect height.

I am 6’1” - ready to win at least Indian Wells next month I hope.

 

[Chanwan]

I guess I was being simplistic by thinking that the fact that they all have amazing technique and footwork along with incredible self-confidence and mental strength might have had something to do with the dominance of the Big 3. Now I find that all it needs is the perfect height.

I am 6’1” - ready to win at least Indian Wells next month I hope.

Being 6'1-6'2 helps, but it's obviously not enough ;-).
@Red Rick - I vaguely remember you doing a height thread back in the day, where you factored in the relative height of the population.
I.e. more people are 1,85-1,88 than say 1,95-1,98 -> much bigger talent pool to pick from and comparatibely speaking, the giants are doing pretty well for themselves. Do you have a link?

 

[Red Rick]

Being 6'1-6'2 helps, but it's obviously not enough ;-).
@Red Rick - I vaguely remember you doing a height thread back in the day, where you factored in the relative height of the population.
I.e. more people are 1,85-1,88 than say 1,95-1,98 -> much bigger talent pool to pick from and comparatibely speaking, the giants are doing pretty well for themselves. Do you have a link?

I dont remember making a thread like that, but ive made that point quite often

 

[vanioMan]

Alcatraz is 185 cm.

Ideal height.

181 max, next to Rafa who is 183-4.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

So you’re saying the distribution of the height of elite tennis players is normally distributed. You don’t say!

Denial is a force.

Ignoring the OP numbers is your choice however...

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Well, I'll make this time #2, then: A sample size is not indicative of much absent a causal mechanism. That is true even of a sample size of several hundred. Okay, great, you acknowledge that the height will likely increase, but you still say that the reason the Big Three are better is that they're medium height (in tennis terms) and that's the point about which the numbers aren't much help. It is of course true that medium height players are likely to have a height advantage over either very tall players or very short ones, but the best evidence for that is technical. The results don't do much to support the claim absent the causal mechanism that some analysis of technique would provide.

Yes, I know you know about the change in age. That's why I mentioned it to you - as I noted in the previous post. But there was a sample size of several hundred that pointed to younger ages being more successful, albeit with no clear causal mechanism. And so, over time, the results are changing.

This thread isn't about the Big 3.

It covers the entire Open Era.

Which had existed 35 years before the Big 3 era started. Some younger tennis fans maybe believe pro tennis started in 2003, however that isn't really the case.

Anyway... I can't help you if you want to be in denial about certain blatantly obvious facts. If you want to keep arguing that 170 cm or 205 cm guys have the same statistical chance of winning slams, you go ahead and bet your money on them... It's your money, your loss...

 

[UnderratedSlam]

take out djoko, fed, and nadal, and you're left with 40 slams, which is less than the 177-180 category, despite having 10 players vs 9. considering how rare the big 3's accomplishments are to begin with, I think it's safe to say there's some leeway in height as a limitation. especially considering someone like Rafa, who's been out so often with injury, but has had the genes/medical staff/desire to overcome, which makes him even more rare. plus, when you add the longevity of the big 3 compared to the average player....I think it's safe to say the ideal height range is bigger than 3 centimeters lol considering how big of outliers their careers are, even for their height.

if you look at the women's side of things, both serena and steffi are 5'9", but they had very clearly different playstyles, with serena serving much bigger than her height which was unprecedented, and steffi moving as though she was shorter than her height.

That is the most pointless thing I've read in a very long time here.

"If we pretend WW1 and WW2 never happened then we have a fairly peaceful 20th century Europe."

This isn't one of your hypothetical threads. It's about WHAT HAPPENED not what MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED.

I could easily say TAKE OUT ALL THE 190+ wins and all THE 178-83 WINS, too, and then the 185-188 dominance is even higher. But why would I do that?

I hope you're joking... Removing stats that you dislike, pretending they don't exist - then trying to argue a different trend? Wut?

Besides, if you take away the Big 3 slams, you still get a dominant medium range...

As for women, this is an ATP thread, but if you wanna confuse men's and women's tennis, it's your right to do so. "If we pretend that apples and oranges are the same"...

 

[UnderratedSlam]

181 max, next to Rafa who is 183-4.

Wut?

You're gonna use one photo with two slightly hunched players as a measuring stick? You're serious?

Are you implying the ATP tour officials are liars? Use inept measuring methods? What?

 

[vanioMan]

Wut?

You're gonna use one photo with two slightly hunched players as a measuring stick? You're serious?

Are you implying the ATP tour officials are liars? Use inept measuring methods? What?

Lol, players lie about their height all the time. Here is Murray confirming he is 187,5 when ATP lists him as 190.

And Rafa with 181 Leonardo DiCaprio.

And Thiem listed 185, next to Rafa:

And Federer and Shapovalov, both listed 185:

So yeah, official heights are inflated.

 

[The Big Foe fan]

Wait Wawa is shorter than Rafa? No way

Yes he is

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Lol, players lie about their height all the time. Here is Murray confirming he is 187,5 when ATP lists him as 190.

And Rafa with 181 Leonardo DiCaprio.

And Thiem listed 185, next to Rafa:

And Federer and Shapovalov, both listed 185:

So yeah, official heights are inflated.

Shapo is literally bending sideways, almost falling over. RF is slightly hunched.

In fact, Shapo might even be sitting on a chair. Or about to sit on one...

Shapo appears to not be 188, I've noticed this too. But I doubt he's 182... We have the idiotic non-metric feet/inches system to blame for some of the inaccuracies coz it rounds off numbers, which is why 187 is often listed as 188, for example.

As for Leo DiCrapio, Hollywood stars REALLY lie about their heights (as they lie about nearly everything). How do you know he's 181? Richard Gere is listed as 180 yet I personally passed by him in NYC many years ago and he was almost a head shorter than I am, and I am 185. He wasn't sitting, no, he was standing as tall as he possibly could...

 

[helterskelter]

You simply keep ignoring my points and responding with ones that are either irrelevant or ad hominem or both. It seems that you can't understand what I'm trying to say, so I will just leave you to your "arguments".

This thread isn't about the Big 3.

It covers the entire Open Era.

Which had existed 35 years before the Big 3 era started. Some younger tennis fans maybe believe pro tennis started in 2003, however that isn't really the case.

Anyway... I can't help you if you want to be in denial about certain blatantly obvious facts. If you want to keep arguing that 170 cm or 205 cm guys have the same statistical chance of winning slams, you go ahead and bet your money on them... It's your money, your loss...

 

[UnderratedSlam]

You simply keep ignoring my points and responding with ones that are either irrelevant or ad hominem or both. It seems that you can't understand what I'm trying to say, so I will just leave you to your "arguments".

I didn't ignore your points. I merely don't know how to respond to such mish-mash of jumbled confusion.

I am baffled that you constantly ignore all these numbers is what I'm saying. Or how they very logically fit in with COMMON KNOWLEDGE that short players are at a disadvantage as well as overly tall players. (I can't be bothered to repeat myself why that is, if you haven't realized by now then you haven't been following tennis much.) You are trying so hard to intellectualize st that is very very very simple. A common affliction in this era. Like trying to refute the fact that Africa is hotter than the Arctic.

Why you choose to ignore these numbers, basically claiming they are irrelevant, I have no clue. Maybe they don't fit your fan agenda (the most common occurrence here), maybe it's st else.

This is not one of those opinion threads, or a hypothetical guessing-game thread. It is rooted in facts. Nor did I cherry-pick anything - because I have no agenda. I laid out all the data as best as I could. You know this, hence why you can't counter any of these facts - with facts.

Why would I care which height was ideal for pro tennis? Or whether/if/when that will/might change? What would be my vested interest in manipulating this thread?

Or yours, for that matter...

Sorry, can't help you.

 

[helterskelter]

I engaged with the topic because I agree with another poster (@MadariKatu) who told you the correlation doesn't prove causation. We didn't make this claim up: it is a foundational principle of modern social science and of statistics (and of logic). Here is the Wikipedia page on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation.

You don't seem to understand what it means. It means that you can present all the numbers you want, but they don't prove anything unless you can explain why they are occurring. That's why I pointed out the question of aging. Five years ago, the numbers on aging also seemed to suggest that players declined pretty early - certainly by 30, probably before. Many posters said things about aging akin to what you say to me in this post: that they are baffled that anyone could ignore the numbers, that the numbers fit with COMMON KNOWLEDGE that older players are at at a disadvantage, that others are trying too hard to intellectualize a simply topic, not fitting a fan agenda, and that their own arguments are opinions or hypotheticals. A classic example of such a thread is Fiji's one about no male player winning more than five slams after turning 27. But there are many such threads.

And yet, there was no clear causal mechanism to explain why tennis players must decline at 27 or 28, and sure enough we now know that they don't have to do so.

Yes, I agree that players who are either very tall or very short are at a disadvantage. You don't need the data to argue that. But to prove that the big three are still dominant because of their height - as you assert in the title of this thread - you need a very different type of argument to the one your present here. The truth is, there are myriad reasons why two of them are still dominant. Reducing it to just one involves inevitable simplification.

I didn't ignore your points. I merely don't know how to respond to such mish-mash of jumbled confusion.

I am baffled that you constantly ignore all these numbers is what I'm saying. Or how they very logically fit in with COMMON KNOWLEDGE that short players are at a disadvantage as well as overly tall players. (I can't be bothered to repeat myself why that is, if you haven't realized by now then you haven't been following tennis much.) You are trying so hard to intellectualize st that is very very very simple. A common affliction in this era.

Why you choose to ignore these numbers, basically claiming they are irrelevant, I have no clue. Maybe they don't fit your fan agenda (the most common occurrence here), maybe it's st else.

This is not one of those opinion threads, or a hypothetical guessing-game thread. It is rooted in facts. Nor did I cherry-pick anything - because I have no agenda. I laid out all the data as best as I could. You know this, hence why you can't counter any of these facts - with facts.

Why would I care which height was ideal for pro tennis? Or whether/if/when that will/might change? What would be my vested interest?

Or yours, for that matter...

Sorry, can't help you.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

I engaged with the topic because I agree with another poster (@MadariKatu) who told you the correlation doesn't prove causation. We didn't make this claim up: it is a foundational principle of modern social science and of statistics (and of logic). Here is the Wikipedia page on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation.

You don't seem to understand what it means. It means that you can present all the numbers you want, but they don't prove anything unless you can explain why they are occurring. That's why I pointed out the question of aging. Five years ago, the numbers on aging also seemed to suggest that players declined pretty early - certainly by 30, probably before. Many posters said things about aging akin to what you say to me in this post: that they are baffled that anyone could ignore the numbers, that the numbers fit with COMMON KNOWLEDGE that older players are at at a disadvantage, that others are trying too hard to intellectualize a simply topic, not fitting a fan agenda, and that their own arguments are opinions or hypotheticals. A classic example of such a thread is Fiji's one about no male player winning more than five slams after turning 27. But there are many such threads.

And yet, there was no clear causal mechanism to explain why tennis players must decline at 27 or 28, and sure enough we now know that they don't have to do so.

Yes, I agree that players who are either very tall or very short are at a disadvantage. You don't need the data to argue that. But to prove that the big three are still dominant because of their height - as you assert in the title of this thread - you need a very different type of argument to the one your present here. The truth is, there are myriad reasons why two of them are still dominant. Reducing it to just one involves inevitable simplification.

If you actually bothered to read OP, which you still didn't, at least not entirely, you'd know I included the entire Open Era stats. I may have titled the thread as I did but it's a thread about the entire Open Era. I even explain the OBVIOUS, that height gradually shifted upwards. Not obvious enough, for some people...

I also explained that taller players are far more injury prone. Delpo, Raonic, Anderson... These guys tend to have really bad injuries that keep them away for very long periods. If that's not related to slam counts and domination, dunno what is... (Not saying Anderson or Raonic are GOAT material, of course, just giving you examples...)

The Big 3 aren't 198 and that may have helped them avoid even worse injuries. Ever considered that?

Of course we don't know for sure, but summa summarum it is logical that the Big are all within this height range. The fact that this stat bothers you, for whatever reason, isn't anything I can be helpful with.

If you said you agree that short and tall players are at a disadvantage, then what is your issue here? To prove that mathematically speaking a sample of several hundred can be sometimes wrong?

Yeah, we know, Columbus... It can. But it isn't here.

Or are you telling me that this chart doesn't predict the future...? Well sure. Nothing does.

 

[DSH]

If you actually bothered to read OP, which you still didn't, at least not entirely, you'd know I included the entire Open Era stats. I may have titled the thread as I did but it's a thread about the entire Open Era. I even explain the OBVIOUS, that height gradually shifted upwards. Not obvious enough, for some people...

I also explained that taller players are far more injury prone. Delpo, Raonic, Anderson... These guys tend to have really bad injuries that keep them away for very long periods. If that's not related to slam counts and domination, dunno what is... (Not saying Anderson or Raonic are GOAT material, of course, just giving you examples...)

The Big 3 aren't 198 and that may have helped them avoid even worse injuries. Ever considered that?

Of course we don't know for sure, but summa summarum it is logical that the Big are all within this height range. The fact that this stat bothers you, for whatever reason, isn't anything I can be helpful with.

If you said you agree that short and tall players are at a disadvantage, then what is your issue here? To prove that mathematically speaking a sample of several hundred can be sometimes wrong?

Yeah, we know, Columbus... It can. But it isn't here.

Or are you telling me that this chart doesn't predict the future...? Well sure. Nothing does.

Of course, if the Big 3 had been on average two or three inches taller, they would have definitely won fewer GS titles.
Although it would have benefited Nadal to win the ATP Finals.

 

[mike danny]

Lol, players lie about their height all the time. Here is Murray confirming he is 187,5 when ATP lists him as 190.

And Rafa with 181 Leonardo DiCaprio.

And Thiem listed 185, next to Rafa:

And Federer and Shapovalov, both listed 185:

So yeah, official heights are inflated.

I expected Leo to be taller, don't know why.

 

[helterskelter]

None of your stats "bother" me; what bothers me is your casual and yet overconfident approach to argumentation. It's not about whether a sample is "right" or "wrong" - a sample is neither right nor wrong, it just is. The question is what we learn from the sample, and the answer is, "Not much without approaching it correctly."

The issue isn't just that the chart doesn't predict the future, but that it doesn't explain the past in the way that you think it does.

You included the open era stats to prove a point about the big three's superiority with regard to the younger players. In that sense, you are doing exactly what Fiji and others were doing in 2015 with regard to age. You are taking an interesting set of data points and over-interpreting it to support an argument that you want to make when the data do not in fact bear the burden that you want them to bear, not because they are "wrong" but because their import might not be what you think it is.

We know that players of the height of the big three (give or take) have been the most common winners. We don't know that they won because of their height. We know that they won and that they were a certain height. The causal role of their height in the wins is unknown.

After all, there are many people in the world in the 185-190 cm height range. Only three of those people are Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. Height alone is at best a small part of their success.

If you actually bothered to read OP, which you still didn't, at least not entirely, you'd know I included the entire Open Era stats. I may have titled the thread as I did but it's a thread about the entire Open Era. I even explain the OBVIOUS, that height gradually shifted upwards. Not obvious enough, for some people...

I also explained that taller players are far more injury prone. Delpo, Raonic, Anderson... These guys tend to have really bad injuries that keep them away for very long periods. If that's not related to slam counts and domination, dunno what is... (Not saying Anderson or Raonic are GOAT material, of course, just giving you examples...)

The Big 3 aren't 198 and that may have helped them avoid even worse injuries. Ever considered that?

Of course we don't know for sure, but summa summarum it is logical that the Big are all within this height range. The fact that this stat bothers you, for whatever reason, isn't anything I can be helpful with.

If you said you agree that short and tall players are at a disadvantage, then what is your issue here? To prove that mathematically speaking a sample of several hundred can be sometimes wrong?

Yeah, we know, Columbus... It can. But it isn't here.

Or are you telling me that this chart doesn't predict the future...? Well sure. Nothing does.

 

[MadariKatu]

None of your stats "bother" me; what bothers me is your casual and yet overconfident approach to argumentation. It's not about whether a sample is "right" or "wrong" - a sample is neither right nor wrong, it just is. The question is what we learn from the sample, and the answer is, "Not much without approaching it correctly."

The issue isn't just that the chart doesn't predict the future, but that it doesn't explain the past in the way that you think it does.

You included the open era stats to prove a point about the big three's superiority with regard to the younger players. In that sense, you are doing exactly what Fiji and others were doing in 2015 with regard to age. You are taking an interesting set of data points and over-interpreting it to support an argument that you want to make when the data do not in fact bear the burden that you want them to bear, not because they are "wrong" but because their import might not be what you think it is.

We know that players of the height of the big three (give or take) have been the most common winners. We don't know that they won because of their height. We know that they won and that they were a certain height. The causal role of their height in the wins is unknown.

After all, there are many people in the world in the 185-190 cm height range. Only three of those people are Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. Height alone is at best a small part of their success.

Are you a teacher? Man, you cannot explain this stuff any better!

 

[helterskelter]

@UnderratedSlam Returning from the realm of introductory statistics to the role of tennis analysis, my view is that injury proneness is a rather small part of what makes players of medium height (actually, to be more precise, it is "above-average height") more successful than either shorter or taller players. For one thing, shorter players are not more injury prone than them, so injury proneness can only explain why taller players are less successful, not why medium-height players are the most successful.

But for another, the primary reasons for the success of players of above-average height are technical, and not related to injury.

Taller players have significant problems with mobility that extend well beyond their susceptibility to injury. It is more difficult for a taller player to bend down to lower balls. Taller players expend more energy running and so tire more. Taller players are rarely as quick at changing direction. Taller players more often have to play shots that aren't in the hitting zone.

Shorter players are often very mobile, but they tend to lack power and reach. They often play shots that are above their hitting zone. It takes them more steps to cover the court.

And beyond mobility issues, there are questions of stroke production and tennis technique. In some respects, shorter players have an advantage in terms of technique, because a small swing means that there is less that can go wrong. (It's not for nothing that Diego Schwartzman has among the best set of groundstrokes on the tour in terms of pure technique; nor is it coincidental that women players used to tend to have much tidier technique than male players, and still do for the most part at amateur level). However, shorter players' advantage in terms of technique is more than overcome by their disadvantages in terms of power and reach. Above-average height players are in the sweet spot where they can both have good technique and mobility and also sufficient power.

 

[helterskelter]

Are you a teacher? Man, you cannot explain this stuff any better!

Thank you! I'm a professor - although my field is very much a non-empirical one and I don't teach correlation and causation. But I did learn about it in graduate school.

 

[Arjuntino]

I think there is sampling bias in the results. Sample size will be imbalanced for this evaluation just based on results.

At a younger age taller athletes might be drawn to other sports. In the US most notably Basketball/American football.

In Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers, he refers to aspects of this. Like if you compare average heights in various sports, there will significant differences.

Nadal said he made a decision to pick tennis over soccer/football. Like what if Ronaldo played tennis and Nadal played football?

Or if LeBron James or Rob Gronkowski played tennis how would that change things?

From an unscientific point of view, I agree it looks like as you get taller, aspects of the movement and groundstroke game seem to suffer, with diminishing return on serve benefits, but I'm not convinced.

 

[NonP]

I expected Leo to be taller, don't know why.

One of my classmates back in high school happened to run into Leo during a trip to LA, and while answering a bunch of Qs about the encounter he said they were about the same height. And I know this kid was a solid 6 ft cuz he and I were/are also about the same height. So 181 cm for Leo is probably accurate.

None of your stats "bother" me; what bothers me is your casual and yet overconfident approach to argumentation. It's not about whether a sample is "right" or "wrong" - a sample is neither right nor wrong, it just is. The question is what we learn from the sample, and the answer is, "Not much without approaching it correctly."

The issue isn't just that the chart doesn't predict the future, but that it doesn't explain the past in the way that you think it does.

You included the open era stats to prove a point about the big three's superiority with regard to the younger players. In that sense, you are doing exactly what Fiji and others were doing in 2015 with regard to age. You are taking an interesting set of data points and over-interpreting it to support an argument that you want to make when the data do not in fact bear the burden that you want them to bear, not because they are "wrong" but because their import might not be what you think it is.

We know that players of the height of the big three (give or take) have been the most common winners. We don't know that they won because of their height. We know that they won and that they were a certain height. The causal role of their height in the wins is unknown.

After all, there are many people in the world in the 185-190 cm height range. Only three of those people are Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. Height alone is at best a small part of their success.

The problem seems to be that you're arguing from your usual scholarly POV while our anti-Sampras pal is understandably making a more informal (if overconfident) connection. It's pretty obvious that extremes in height tend to be liabilities barring a truly rare set of (other) skills/attributes a la Rosewall and Laver - and perhaps Gonzales, who was closer to 6'3" per @pc1 from his convo with Gorgo's real-life relatives! - and that's enough "proof" for laypeople without an academic background in statistics. No need to get too anal with what that means, I think.

 

[Arjuntino]

I think there is sampling bias in the results. Sample size will be imbalanced for this evaluation just based on results.

At a younger age taller athletes might be drawn to other sports. In the US most notably Basketball/American football.

In Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers, he refers to aspects of this. Like if you compare average heights in various sports, there will significant differences.

Nadal said he made a decision to pick tennis over soccer/football. Like what if Ronaldo played tennis and Nadal played football?

Or if LeBron James or Rob Gronkowski played tennis how would that change things?

From an unscientific point of view, I agree it looks like as you get taller, aspects of the movement and groundstroke game seem to suffer, with diminishing return on serve benefits, but I'm not convinced.

Also have to take into account probability of making a living wage in a young athletes decision process. Tennis players outside the top ~100 likely supplement tennis income

On the contrary top soccer/football players will be making $$$.

There are many articles like this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/miguel...emanding-world-of-pro-tennis/?sh=12b4a59e4754

Some more data on heights by sport.

Anthropometry of Olympic Athletes 2016

 

[helterskelter]

The problem seems to be that you're arguing from your usual scholarly POV while our anti-Sampras pal is understandably making a more informal (if overconfident) connection. It's pretty obvious that extremes in height tend to be liabilities barring a truly rare set of (other) skills/attributes a la Rosewall and Laver - and perhaps Gonzales, who was closer to 6'3" per @pc1 from his convo with Gorgo's real-life relatives! - and that's enough "proof" for laypeople without an academic background in statistics. No need to get too anal with what that means, I think.

The issue is that lay "proof" is often wrong. I would have left it at one intervention (post #63), though, had he not wanted to continue the discussion. Also, I never denied that being above-average height but not too tall is an advantage. I denied that it is the reason why (two of) the big three are still beating younger but taller players. At most, it's a small part of it.

By the way, I do not have an academic background in statistics.

 

[helterskelter]

No need to get too anal with what that means, I think.

Also, if the expression "the pot calling the kettle black" didn't exist, it would have to be invented to cover this sentence.

 

[TennisLurker]

Lol, players lie about their height all the time. Here is Murray confirming he is 187,5 when ATP lists him as 190.

And Rafa with 181 Leonardo DiCaprio.

And Thiem listed 185, next to Rafa:

And Federer and Shapovalov, both listed 185:

So yeah, official heights are inflated.

These aren't good comparisons, search for pictures in which you can see their full bodies, including feet, shoes, leaning, camera angle, who is closer to the camera, all affect it

A 1,81 tall retired tennis player is Alex Corretja, Ive heard him recently say he is exactly that height in an interview with Horacio De la Peña

 

[vanioMan]

These aren't good comparisons, search for pictures in which you can see their full bodies, including feet, shoes, leaning, camera angle, who is closer to the camera, all affect it

A 1,81 tall retired tennis player is Alex Corretja, Ive heard him recently say he is exactly that height in an interview with Horacio De la Peña

TV makes people look taller and bigger than they really are. So many people here also think Rafa is some super-muscular guy, lol.

Truth is Rafa is no more than 183,5 which is still quite tall for a man.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

None of your stats "bother" me; what bothers me is your casual and yet overconfident approach to argumentation. It's not about whether a sample is "right" or "wrong" - a sample is neither right nor wrong, it just is. The question is what we learn from the sample, and the answer is, "Not much without approaching it correctly."

The issue isn't just that the chart doesn't predict the future, but that it doesn't explain the past in the way that you think it does.

You included the open era stats to prove a point about the big three's superiority with regard to the younger players. In that sense, you are doing exactly what Fiji and others were doing in 2015 with regard to age. You are taking an interesting set of data points and over-interpreting it to support an argument that you want to make when the data do not in fact bear the burden that you want them to bear, not because they are "wrong" but because their import might not be what you think it is.

We know that players of the height of the big three (give or take) have been the most common winners. We don't know that they won because of their height. We know that they won and that they were a certain height. The causal role of their height in the wins is unknown.

After all, there are many people in the world in the 185-190 cm height range. Only three of those people are Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. Height alone is at best a small part of their success.

Do you actually, really believe that my basic claim is that the Big 3 heights is the reason they won so many slams?

Damn...

Who the hell would claim HEIGHTS ALONE explain their success? In that case millions of others in this height range would be potential GOATs.

Damn...

And I mean...

Damn.

Heights IS one of the factors that influence success. It's as simple as that. And being within the ideal height range certainly helps.

Now, the fact that ideal range slightly shifts over the years is another matter, and a fact.

So eager to read your next response.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Thank you! I'm a professor - although my field is very much a non-empirical one and I don't teach correlation and causation. But I did learn about it in graduate school.

And then some people wonder why education ain't what it used to be...

How dare they.

 

[JackieTreeh0rn]

Another poster directly addressed a few issues with the original argument, that correlation != causation, and that of letting priors influence the interpretation of the data.
One issue the OP does not consider is that it may not be height that is at cause, but some other dynamic. Maybe, for example, because there are more elite players in the center of the distribution they training methods have been optimized for those body types simply as a function of sampling - this is not claiming this to be the case, only adding another dimension with which this data may be viewed.

a trend may be “obvious”, but hey - national GDP has been rising every year and so has my weight … put that in a chart and you’ll also have an OBVIOUS trend. Doesn’t lead to anything other than spurious correlation.