Why did tennis players peak so early in the past?

[Hyde]

Many ATG‘s in the past won their first slams as teenagers and peaked in their early 20‘s (Becker, Wilander, Edberg, McEnroe, Courier, Borg who retired at age 25) and were finished at the latest when they were around 30 (Sampras, Lendl). Even Connors won his last slam aged 30.
Same goes for women’s tennis in the past.
This generation (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Serena Williams) is the first generation who stayed at the top well into their 30‘s.

Meanwhile, in other sports (e.g. Basketball, football/soccer, Baseball, track and field, cycling, etc) we always had players who still were at the top level in their 30‘s, while teenagers usually never were at top level in these sports. Not nowadays and not in the past.

So it seems like Tennis adjusted to those sports in the last couple years. Things that were normal in other sports (teenagers don‘t win big, players are still strong in their 30‘s) are now normal in Tennis, too.

Why did Tennis change that much? compared to other sports?
And why did Tennis players peak so early in the past?

 

[Permitlady]

Agassi and Sampras gained weight in their early 30s like every other athlete at the time. Athletes don't gain weight anymore... Hmmm...

No idea.

 

[game..set..match]

wasn't the barrier to entry back in those days much higher than today? i think the truly talented players excelled early because there wasn't alot of competition back then due to tennis being more of a niche sport rather than a universal one. it seems that as the talent pool grew, it became much more difficult for young players to win early.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Many ATG‘s in the past won their first slams as teenagers and peaked in their early 20‘s (Becker, Wilander, Edberg, McEnroe, Courier, Borg who retired at age 25) and were finished at the latest when they were around 30 (Sampras, Lendl). Even Connors won his last slam aged 30.
Same goes for women’s tennis in the past.
This generation (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Serena Williams) is the first generation who stayed at the top well into their 30‘s.

Meanwhile, in other sports (e.g. Basketball, football/soccer, Baseball, track and field, cycling, etc) we always had players who still were at the top level in their 30‘s, while teenagers usually never were at top level in these sports. Not nowadays and not in the past.

So it seems like Tennis adjusted to those sports in the last couple years. Things that were normal in other sports (teenagers don‘t win big, players are still strong in their 30‘s) are now normal in Tennis, too.

Why did Tennis change that much? compared to other sports?
And why did Tennis players peak so early in the past?

They were good.

 

[Robert F]

Tennis is an interesting sport in that it is very technique driven. If you don't have the strokes you can't compete. On today's tour tons of guys have the strokes, so to be competitive you also have to have tennis wisdom and tennis fitness. You have to cover more of the court repeatedly.

Pre Fed years, fitness wasn't as essential to win compared to technique. So you could have teens with great strokes who are a little more mature physically beating out older players, since there was less of a fitness need/edge for the 20 something players. Also some of the top players in the past had more glaring weaknesses/technique flaws compared to today. So if you had a teen with better overall technique they could take out a journeyman with less technique. Agassis clean groundies and Sampras' serve were hard to handle from an early age.

As fitness has become more important in the sport, and fitness peaks post teens, it is harder for the teens to compete with the 20 somethings. Hence less teen phenoms.

I'd then argue, fitness technology/nutrition tech and probably enhancing substances have helped the top tier guys remain their longer. Also keep in mind they do seem to be a level or 2 above everyone else, so if they drop a level, they are still competitive.

 

[Jonesy]

Tennis evolved, like other sports.

 

[Madinolf]

They didn't decline, young players were more talented than them and made them retire.

As tennis got more popular (just check the prize money) more and more kids started playing tennis so the talent pool got bigger and the level of tennis got higher.

 

[Vanilla Slice]

Tennis is an interesting sport in that it is very technique driven. If you don't have the strokes you can't compete. On today's tour tons of guys have the strokes, so to be competitive you also have to have tennis wisdom and tennis fitness. You have to cover more of the court repeatedly.

Pre Fed years, fitness wasn't as essential to win compared to technique. So you could have teens with great strokes who are a little more mature physically beating out older players, since there was less of a fitness need/edge for the 20 something players. Also some of the top players in the past had more glaring weaknesses/technique flaws compared to today. So if you had a teen with better overall technique they could take out a journeyman with less technique. Agassis clean groundies and Sampras' serve were hard to handle from an early age.

As fitness has become more important in the sport, and fitness peaks post teens, it is harder for the teens to compete with the 20 somethings. Hence less teen phenoms.

I'd then argue, fitness technology/nutrition tech and probably enhancing substances have helped the top tier guys remain their longer. Also keep in mind they do seem to be a level or 2 above everyone else, so if they drop a level, they are still competitive.

Could not have said it any better myself

 

[Permitlady]

The naivete here is astounding.

"Why is Serena still competitive at 50?"

"Well her drive is greater than that of Sampras and her great technique too, can't forget that"

 

[PilotPete]

Money
/end thread

 

[daphne]

Tennis is an interesting sport in that it is very technique driven. If you don't have the strokes you can't compete. On today's tour tons of guys have the strokes, so to be competitive you also have to have tennis wisdom and tennis fitness. You have to cover more of the court repeatedly.

Pre Fed years, fitness wasn't as essential to win compared to technique. So you could have teens with great strokes who are a little more mature physically beating out older players, since there was less of a fitness need/edge for the 20 something players. Also some of the top players in the past had more glaring weaknesses/technique flaws compared to today. So if you had a teen with better overall technique they could take out a journeyman with less technique. Agassis clean groundies and Sampras' serve were hard to handle from an early age.

As fitness has become more important in the sport, and fitness peaks post teens, it is harder for the teens to compete with the 20 somethings. Hence less teen phenoms.

I'd then argue, fitness technology/nutrition tech and probably enhancing substances have helped the top tier guys remain their longer. Also keep in mind they do seem to be a level or 2 above everyone else, so if they drop a level, they are still competitive.

All of the above plus knowledge!

 

[Arak]

I started a thread about this a while ago. My opinion is that tennis requires talent, fitness and experience.
Teens: talent, fitness, no experience.
Mature: talent, fitness, experience.
Old: talent, no fitness, more experience.
Big3: talent, fitness, more experience.
So obviously the old guys have more advantage nowadays because they still got the fitness, but don’t ask me how.

 

[Shangri La]

It's not player in the past peak early. It's they didn't age as well.

 

[Oval_Solid]

because the surface was faster

 

[beltsman]

Many ATG‘s in the past won their first slams as teenagers and peaked in their early 20‘s (Becker, Wilander, Edberg, McEnroe, Courier, Borg who retired at age 25) and were finished at the latest when they were around 30 (Sampras, Lendl). Even Connors won his last slam aged 30.
Same goes for women’s tennis in the past.
This generation (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Serena Williams) is the first generation who stayed at the top well into their 30‘s.

Meanwhile, in other sports (e.g. Basketball, football/soccer, Baseball, track and field, cycling, etc) we always had players who still were at the top level in their 30‘s, while teenagers usually never were at top level in these sports. Not nowadays and not in the past.

So it seems like Tennis adjusted to those sports in the last couple years. Things that were normal in other sports (teenagers don‘t win big, players are still strong in their 30‘s) are now normal in Tennis, too.

Why did Tennis change that much? compared to other sports?
And why did Tennis players peak so early in the past?

1) past tennis requires less fitness, which is gained in the 20s.
2) it more rewarded fearless shotmaking, which favors the blank slate young.

 

[Fedforever]

Players in the past would also be ground down by the lifestyle - the constant travel, separation from family etc, off court temptations. Now top players exist in a bubble and have much less temptation to go out on the lash.

We shouldn't discount that the Big 3 are just a bit freakish though. Murray, Stan, Cilic, Nishikori - these players aren't still going strong are they?

 

[duaneeo]

Serena last won a slam at 2017 AO, and since then five players 21-and-under have won slams. It seems women's tennis has reverted back to the normal order.

 

[Russeljones]

You have to understand that tennis player peaks in the Roman Empire were at around 11-12 year old. This is because of the life expectancy.

 

[mahesh69a]

You have to understand that tennis player peaks in the Roman Empire were at around 11-12 year old. This is because of the life expectancy.

What about the Egyptian civilization? Is there any documentation in the hieroglyphics?

 

[Arak]

What about the Egyptian civilization? Is there any documentation in the hieroglyphics?

They were exhausted from building the pyramids and aged very fast. Peak was 8 years old.

 

[Jonas78]

Misleading title. Their peak and prime are more or less the same, Big 3 won their first slam at 19,20, 22. Feds prime started around 22/23, Djokovic 23/24, Nadal 22.

Prolonged careers is something else and have several reasons
- arthroscopic surgery. Big3 all had it. Could have been career ending earlier.
- Better nutrition
- Treatment like PRP (Nadal)
- Weak competition from younger Gen
- Big3 pushing each other for records.

 

[ChrisRF]

Mainly because racquet technology changed very often those days. Then players who started with a certain technology had advantages in their early years over players who had to adapt. That’s the main reason for young players “pushing out” the older ones.

Now we don’t have much differences to the technology from like 15 years ago and the Big 3 are the best players ever. That’s a much more realistic explanation than something like “young players now are weaker than ever”.

 

[Jonas78]

Mainly because racquet technology changed very often those days. Then players who started with a certain technology had advantages in their early years over players who had to adapt. That’s the main reason for young players “pushing out” the older ones.

Now we don’t have much differences to the technology from like 15 years ago and the Big 3 are the best players ever. That’s a much more realistic explanation than something like “young players now are weaker than ever”.

I dont agree. I might would if someone was consistently beating the field but only lost to Djokovic. But noone younger than Djokovic at 34y can show any sign of consistency vs the field and that is, in fact, unprecedented

 

[reaper]

When did the current greats peak? Federer 22, Nadal 22, Djokovic 24? I don't know if that's when they peaked but they were certainly great at those ages.

 

[Spencer Gore]

Ken Rosewall? Pancho Gonzales? Andres Gimeno?

 

[mental midget]

because the surface was faster

1) past tennis requires less fitness, which is gained in the 20s.
2) it more rewarded fearless shotmaking, which favors the blank slate young.

agree. as usual i think it's reasons, not reason. faster grass and hc did mean less grinding and repetition, more reward for aggressive play and the 'puncher's chance.' racket and string technology also made it harder to turn defense into offense, again favoring risk-taking.

on clay, i think it's more complicated and you have to look at the individual cases. borg was simply incredible from an early age–more stamina and an incredibly effective technique. chang's win was sort of a right game, right time moment–just had a great two weeks with a solid game and incredible speed. wilander...strategically precocious and rock-solid.

 

[Jonas78]

1) past tennis requires less fitness, which is gained in the 20s.
2) it more rewarded fearless shotmaking, which favors the blank slate young.

Thats why Tadej Pogacar won Tour De France last year 21y old?

Players didnt peak earlier in the past, Nadal won FO at 19 and Djokovic AO at 20. Human nature hasnt changed the last 50 years. The reason no younger player wins today is that they arent good enough.

Talented athletes dont choose tennis, and the coaching/training is bad. Being tall is too much an advantage as a junior, which then becomes a disadvantage as a senior.