Would Stosur be nearly as good without all the technology?
- Thread starter BreakPoint
- Start date
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Thanks for helping me prove my point. Because everyone knows that auto racing is as much or more about how good your car is as how good of a driver you are. Tennis should be about the "driver", not the "car".
clover
Rookie
Listen carefully.
Tennis is about the "driver" and not the "car." Everyone on this board is saying that it's NOT Stosur's racquet, it was HER ability that makes her an exceptional player to be able to beat Henin on her surface of choice. YOU are the ONLY one arguing the other side.
I guarantee, even if you give Stosur a wood racquet, she would be able to stomp all over you because.......... she is a talented athlete. Deal with it.
hahaha....no. Stosur has immense upper body strength. That wide shoulder, muscular arms, she looks more like a male athlete. Giving her the body to an average female athlete, there's no way she can drive that ball with such pace, flat and penetrating as she did against Henin. If the racquet was the sole reason, then there's plenty of players out there can do the same. But there isn't, not even Serena can drive that ball with so much action.
I'm looking forward to see how Serena react to Stosur's power. Serena is playing well too, but she hasn't face a player like Stosur. If Stosur camp around on her bh side and is able to hit 70% of her shot from the fh, watch out Serena!
Don't Let It Bounce
Hall of Fame
The implication, intended or not, that modern equipment gives Sam Stosur a unique advantage is unfortunate; it has distracted from what could be an interesting discussion about whether the current equipment limitations (which, incidentally, are quite specific) are restrictive enough for the good of the game.
Though I don't think it's obvious that the days of wood weren't better days, I'm still going to go the other way because of a few considerations that have not come up yet in this thread:
Despite the length of the post, these are just a few initial thoughts; I'm prepared to be wrong on any of them.
Though I don't think it's obvious that the days of wood weren't better days, I'm still going to go the other way because of a few considerations that have not come up yet in this thread:
- The recreational player: Tennis's long decline from its height of popularity has more to do with fewer players than with top players being less famous. If tennis is doomed to be a niche sport, it will be due to lack of players, not lack of viewers, and tennis's learning curve is one of the main obstacles to increasing the number of players. The introduction of more forgiving, more powerful, easier-to-use racquets has helped slow the decline in new players, and outlawing them would be a step back in that regard.
- Playing styles: As has been noted, a return to wood would not affect every stroke equally. However, there's more going on than just making S&V viable again. Big servers would lose little with small wooden racquets; returners would lose much more. Remember the complaints of the 90's about unreturnable serves making the game boring–the complaints that resulted in slower courts and slower balls? We'd be back to square one.
- Genies and bottles (a lesser consideration, I think, than the other two): The baseball analogy is a fair one. It is appropriate to look at a major sport that set up a different restriction at its highest level than at its recreational level, see what it did for that sport, and ask if it would benefit tennis. However, it matters that baseball never had a period that corresponds to tennis's allowance at the highest level of at least three major equipment jumps (graphite frames like Trabert and Ultra, mega-powerful frames like Profile and Secret, and co-poly strings). It is likely that the majority of the audience tennis needs–which is not the same demographic as the audience at this forum–would see that kind of change as a regression. Baseball's audience, AFAIK, never saw what the best players could do with metal or legally-corked bats.
Despite the length of the post, these are just a few initial thoughts; I'm prepared to be wrong on any of them.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
But if you gave both Stosur and Henin wood racquets with gut strings, I think Henin would win. Why? Because Stosur wouldn't be able to generate obscene amounts of spin, which is what caused Henin all the trouble.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
However, there were more recreational tennis players in the U.S. back in the 70's during the wood era than there are today with all the modern equipment, which also happens to cause a lot of arm injuries that can force people to quit the game.
J
Justdoit10
Guest
Take away the strings from Federer and he would never win 16 grandslams.
J
Justdoit10
Guest
Nah Federer is just overall a far inferior clay court player than Nadal.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Federer uses natural gut in the mains, which provides more than 80% of the playability of the stringbed. The mains are what gives you all the spin. Poly mains will give you a ton more spin than gut mains, regardless of what you put in the crosses. Federer only puts poly in the crosses to reduce the trampoline effect of the gut mains since he strings at very low tensions. It probably also helps his mains not move around so much.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
True, due to all the gobs of spin Nadal is able to generate with his light, big Babolat racquet and full poly stringbed. Thanks for backing my point.
J
Justdoit10
Guest
Federer plays with massive amounts of spin as well so that is a poor excuse. Beside that, Nadals movement is far superior to Federers. He makes Federer look like a slug on clay.True, due to all the gobs of spin Nadal is able to generate with his light, big Babolat racquet and full poly stringbed. Thanks for backing my point.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
So are aluminum baseball bats, high-tech swimsuits, and spaghetti strings, yet none are allowed in competition. Why? Because then it becomes more about the technology and less about the athlete.
TennisNinja
Hall of Fame
Henin wouldn't be nearly as good either. Your post doesn't make sense. People can use whatever racket they want.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Yes he does, but not nearly as much as Nadal's spin. And Federer is able to generate his spin without the help of poly mains and a big-headed, lightweight racquet, unlike Nadal. Federer's spin is more natural talent, less aided by technology. I can't say the same for Nadal.
I'd bet Federer could generate the same amount of spin as he does now with Nadal's racquet and strings, but I doubt Nadal could do the same as he does now with Federer's racquet and strings.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
I'm not so sure about that. If all the pros were mandated to use only wood racquets, I'd bet a lot of recreational players would switch back to wood racquets, too. As you know, a lot of fans like to imitate their heroes.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Then why can't baseball players use any bat that they want, and why can't swimmers wear any swimsuit that they want?
Mick
Legend
i think i can handle stosur if she is using a table tennis paddle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axdhLBVlPA4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axdhLBVlPA4
Darth_Timmaayyy!!
Banned
Typical stupid post by Breakpoint...
Stosur is using the most player like frames in the Babolat range. Nadal is the one using the tweener, yet no one is giving him a hard time.. I think if you put the same frame in his hand that Federer plays, then Nadal would be a normal top 50 player and no more..
Stosur is a fellow Queenslander, and like Rafter, has been taught technique over power. And is only now starting to put it all together..
Break Point needs to realize that he is simply a bitter old man that cant play anymore, and wants everyone to go to wood, so that he can compete again..
You can pretty much say any semi-western player would also not be as good with a wood racquet. But they would still probably become superior with that equipment, and even so, that's just the way it is. With modern racquets and modern strings, the best modern players have become the top pros...
tlm
G.O.A.T.
Stosur won because of her modern forehand technique,not because of her racket.This is such a lame thread,breakpoint has no clue to what is going on.
Stosur uses the ww forehand with a lot of topspin,she has developed a great weapon.
Anyone can use the same equipment that she uses.But very few women have her strength+technique to hit the ball like she does.
The racket would not help her if she used the old school method of hitting.You know the old gate swing method that looks so weak by todays standards.
Stosur uses the ww forehand with a lot of topspin,she has developed a great weapon.
Anyone can use the same equipment that she uses.But very few women have her strength+technique to hit the ball like she does.
The racket would not help her if she used the old school method of hitting.You know the old gate swing method that looks so weak by todays standards.
D
decades
Guest
wow really poor analysis here. ALL the players benefit. Give her some credit. She deserves to win because she is a great player who works hard out there.
Walenty
Professional
A stick is only going to give you as much spin as you can put into it, regardless of whether its a old-fashion wooden racquet or a modern one. Sam Stosur has a better kick serve than most other players because she has more natural serving talent than most players, and has conditioned her upper body to generate more pace. Her racquet is just a means to achieve that serve.
Even if this is true, Nadal loses maneuverability with his big-headed racquet, losing some advantages to gain extra spin. That's why players pick racquets that suit their style of play. It's Federer's choice that he uses his particular Wilson racquet and setup.
No, if pros were mandated to use only wooden racquets, the entire tennis world would be laughed at for using outdated technology, unlike the modern one that allows players so access the maximum amount of pace and precision that is capable within their bodies. Which is kind of the point of sports anyway.
Even if this is true, Nadal loses maneuverability with his big-headed racquet, losing some advantages to gain extra spin. That's why players pick racquets that suit their style of play. It's Federer's choice that he uses his particular Wilson racquet and setup.
No, if pros were mandated to use only wooden racquets, the entire tennis world would be laughed at for using outdated technology, unlike the modern one that allows players so access the maximum amount of pace and precision that is capable within their bodies. Which is kind of the point of sports anyway.
jwbarrientos
Hall of Fame
Nice thread, but some time ago a friend of mine was told ... without newest technology you couldn't play like you play, you probably would be just another tree in the way.
Stosur remind me Rafa.
Stosur remind me Rafa.
T
TennisandMusic
Guest
Federer uses poly strings in the crosses. He couldn't play the way he does without them.
Sounds to me like BP is just bitter that he loses to players who use the best equipment money can buy, instead of clinging onto the past. The sport has moved on, better to just deal with it. It's certainly far more athletically demanding now than it used to be overall.
And are you saying the men are no longer marksmen? Totally absurd.
Sounds to me like BP is just bitter that he loses to players who use the best equipment money can buy, instead of clinging onto the past. The sport has moved on, better to just deal with it. It's certainly far more athletically demanding now than it used to be overall.
And are you saying the men are no longer marksmen? Totally absurd.
West Coast Ace
G.O.A.T.
Ouch. Maybe he's moved to San Diego and is battling with Suresh, Fedace, and Bud for the title... of course davey25 from Canada is making quite a name for himself in this area too...
Double ouch. But very possibly true.Break Point needs to realize that he is simply a bitter old man that cant play anymore, and wants everyone to go to wood, so that he can compete again..
Maybe he finally wore out his VHS tapes of Drysdale scrapping with Dick Stockton in the SF of the Podunk Open...
We can grouse about the new technology, but let's leave Stosur out of this - She's using the same technology as Henin - just to greater effect.
Ironically, the same technology that enables Stosur and others to hit nice kickers is the same technology that enables people to handle those same shots on the return. I think the return game has benefited more from the new tech than the serve overall.
Sammy deserved the win today.
Ironically, the same technology that enables Stosur and others to hit nice kickers is the same technology that enables people to handle those same shots on the return. I think the return game has benefited more from the new tech than the serve overall.
Sammy deserved the win today.
Autodidactic player
Professional
This is definitely true. I played a a bunch of points a couple of weeks ago with my old Davis Classic II for fun. My serve was maybe 10-20% worse (especially the second serve because spin was harder to generate) but returns were much more significantly impacted. The weight of the racket actually seemed to help with the serve once I got used to it but the weight really hurt my ability to get the racket around on the return. It was definitely hard to get much pace, depth or direction on the returns. My opponent - who used a modern racket - was even able to successfully serve and volley. That was a real blast from the past!
muzza123
Banned
Breakpoint - you omit one glaring factor - she is built like no other on the WTA. Perhaps if other players start bodybuilding they can also get that tremendous spin on her shots!
Donny0627
Professional
Sooo Wrong...
Lets use the following numbers just to define how equipment affects everyone evenly.
Say we are rating everyone on a scale of 1-100(100 being the best)
Lets say Federer is a 90
and Nadal is an 85
If "The Babolat and Poly Strings"(or anything, whatever a pro chooses because you know that they pick what works best for them) Increases someones skillz by say 10 points, then:
Federer is now a 100
and Nadal is a 95
So yes, modern equipment has increased the skill level of pros, but it increases all of them by an equal amount...
If you want to argue that some equipment helps people more than other equipment, then the players not using the best equipment are stupid...
Lets use the following numbers just to define how equipment affects everyone evenly.
Say we are rating everyone on a scale of 1-100(100 being the best)
Lets say Federer is a 90
and Nadal is an 85
If "The Babolat and Poly Strings"(or anything, whatever a pro chooses because you know that they pick what works best for them) Increases someones skillz by say 10 points, then:
Federer is now a 100
and Nadal is a 95
So yes, modern equipment has increased the skill level of pros, but it increases all of them by an equal amount...
If you want to argue that some equipment helps people more than other equipment, then the players not using the best equipment are stupid...
pyrokid
Hall of Fame
You're an idiot.
You're saying that we have the choices of either upping the court size to keep up with the new tech (which would obviously help the new tech players and their cheating rackets that let them hit ungodly hard.) or keeping it the same and getting rid of the new rackets because they cannot keep the ball in enough in a standard size court.
Not to mention, the point everyone else already made.
ANYONE CAN USE ANYTHING.
if the equipment made Henin substantially better, I'm sure she would have used it.
Plus, it would be like training you your whole life to be a chef, using only a spatula. And then outlawing the spatula. Obviously it would make you less efficient at what you do, especially compared to the people who didn't use spatulas in the first place. But just because it made you worse than it made them doesn't mean your any less of a chef. Terrible analogy, I know, but it functions enough to get the point across.
mindgrinder
New User
honestly this seems more of a hate thread, everybody uses tech, spin strings that string this string, Roddick uses a lot heavier frame, so you mean to say his serve would suck if he was using some other frame, what a lame reason. Stosur played well that all matters, if equipment was so important almost every player would have been a pro.
cork_screw
Hall of Fame
Are you kidding? This woman doesn't rely on her equipment to get her results. She has very good technical form and technique. Her volleys are good and she doesn't have that ugly side swinging overhead forehand that you see from Sharapova or a lot of the other European players.
I saw her live at the US Open '09 and her game stood out above every other female player I saw. She does hit a little big like a dude. She hits a good heavy ball with pace and spin and her timing is good as well. I would love to see more girls learn fundamentals like her. She's got a great doubles game as well.
I saw her live at the US Open '09 and her game stood out above every other female player I saw. She does hit a little big like a dude. She hits a good heavy ball with pace and spin and her timing is good as well. I would love to see more girls learn fundamentals like her. She's got a great doubles game as well.
cork_screw
Hall of Fame
BobFL
Hall of Fame
Actually it is very shallow....
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Stosur's "modern forehand technique" would not work with a 14 oz., 65 sq. in. wood racquet with its 18x20 ultra dense stringbed with gut strings. Not only would she mishit just about every ball, but her wrist would break off. She also wouldn't be able to produce anywhere near the same amount of topspin.
Last edited:
Breakpoint, we are never going back to wood. That horse left the barn 25 years ago.
JoelDali
Talk Tennis Guru
Neither would Nadal's or 100% of other modern players.
Dude, this is an enormous fail of a thread.
Spin-A-Lot
Rookie
Lol..I think it's a bit too late now
Anyway, I think this is just the case of the OP feeling really bad about her favorite being knocked out of the FO....I think everyone feels that way whenever their favorite players lose...some people just can't help but rant and rave about it
I wonder how the OP feels whenever she loses her matches...I bet with all the modern technology her opponent is using and she's using wood, she's more than likely be on the longest losing streak ever!
(this is purely according to her logic by the way..)
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Then why did major league baseball mandate that only wooden bats are allowed, which limits the amount of power and distance batters can hit a baseball? And why did the international swimming federation ban the high-tech swimsuits which maximize the speed which swimmers can swim?
Would you allow Olympic sprinters to use modern technology and attach rocket boosters to their shoes so that can can maximize the pace "that is capable within their bodies" so that can can run the 100M dash in only 3 seconds? If so, then when does it stop? Nuclear powered shoes next? This is what's been happening with tennis with these "turbo" racquets and strings.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
How much spin do poly crosses add versus a full poly stringbed? Very little, if any. Federer only uses the poly crosses to tame the trampoline effect of his loose natural gut mains, which he strings in the mid-40's lbs, not for generating additional spin.
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying they don't allow laser-guided rifles in the Olympic rifle competition, even though they are the latest technology, for a good reason. Tennis can learn something from that.
Last edited:
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Yes, if everyone on the ATP Tour used the same racquet and strings that Federer uses, he would probably have 30 Grand Slams by now.
Similar threads
