Thoughts about Tennis Tradition...

[gzhpcu]

John McEnroe took advantage of the timidity and infamous blindness of tennis umpires and line judges. He epitomized the tennis tantrum, rocking a sport known for its polite spectators. Umpires didn’t stand a chance against his scathing tongue. Neither did his first wife.

“It was on the line. Answer my question! The question, jerk!”

“I wasn’t talking to you, umpire. I was talking to myself. What did I say, umpire, tell me. Please tell me! You are pathetic, do you know that? You are the worst umpire that I’ve ever seen in my life. You’re never going to work another match.”

“You cannot be serious! Everyone in this whole stadium knows it was in, and you call it out. Explain this to me. You’re the pits of the world.”

from the article "John McEnroe made me quit tennis"...
http://www.flipcollective.com/2010/0...-tara-goedjen/

Is this tennis tradition?

Now, now, temper, temper OP...

[gzhpcu]

At least the net could be calibrated easily. I propose that effective immediately we do just as you have mentioned...return to the 36" standard for Davis Cup and Grand Slams. Just for funzies.

And you seriously think that if it does not apply to all other tournaments, serve and volley will reappear? Not likely. All or none.

[don_budge]

36 inches...

but just think if the ITF had made it the rule for just for Davis Cup and Grand Slams in the mid 70's that the width plus the length of a tennis racket had to equal 36"?? Serve and volley would still be viable today.

don

At least the net could be calibrated easily. I propose that effective immediately we do just as you have mentioned...return to the 36" standard for Davis Cup and Grand Slams. Just for funzies.

[klacr]

I find the old days had too much serve and volley. Nowadays we have too much baseline bashing.

I would like to see something in between, but it isn't easy to fine tune equipment, courts etc to achieve this.

Variety is the spice of life. I personally don't want to see everyone sere and volley, but I also can't stand the boring baseline game. It is the contrasts of the styles. The point and counterpoint. The dance between two players. I'm glad you posted the Agassi-Rafter video, that's a great example.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[gzhpcu]

I find the old days had too much serve and volley. Nowadays we have too much baseline bashing.

I would like to see something in between, but it isn't easy to fine tune equipment, courts etc to achieve this.

[tennis_chiro]

I didn't promise!

but just think if the ITF had made it the rule for just for Davis Cup and Grand Slams in the mid 70's that the width plus the length of a tennis racket had to equal 36"?? Serve and volley would still be viable today.

don

[lobndropshot]

http://youtu.be/TxefPeKn_Rs

Charles says it best at 1:15

This made my weekend.

[10splayer]

http://youtu.be/TxefPeKn_Rs

Charles says it best at 1:15

[lobndropshot]

http://m.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar...f-wood/304281/

Isn't this more evidence that the way that tennis is being played today is inferior to the classic era? The devolution of the doubles.

Is it that the magnitude of the mistake to allow the bigger equipment was so stupid that people no longer want to admit that it was a mistake? It has been a long time and perhaps those that are not old enough to know any better do not fully understand the difference. Is it like those that are used to a world with cell phones and computers cannot envision a world without them? Has technology become the trump card in human existence?

Has the human race evolved or is it devolving as it becomes more and more reliant on technology? Is the human race becoming "lazier" as a result in all of the "improvements" due to technology? Is that evolution?

Is tennis metaphoring life as much as it appears to be to me? The last I checked "evolution" has to with the survival of the fittest as in the origin of the species or something along that lines. What is this talk when we use the word that tennis is evolving?

Or was the game just reinvented...or reengineered to make it more convenient for us to play it better? Just so that we could feel superior to those that came before us. Or is it how it was sold to us and we just bought into it? When I say we...I don't mean me.

don_budge I am very sorry for your loss. One day you get to see you beloved game again.

[gzhpcu]

This is what Rod Cross has to say:

http://www.tennisindustrymag.com/art..._tennis_f.html


"The inch that changed tennis forever...."

The real reason for the change is more subtle. It’s because racquets got wider.

[lobndropshot]

http://m.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar...f-wood/304281/

Isn't this more evidence that the way that tennis is being played today is inferior to the classic era? The devolution of the doubles.

Is it that the magnitude of the mistake to allow the bigger equipment was so stupid that people no longer want to admit that it was a mistake? It has been a long time and perhaps those that are not old enough to know any better do not fully understand the difference. Is it like those that are used to a world with cell phones and computers cannot envision a world without them? Has technology become the trump card in human existence?

Has the human race evolved or is it devolving as it becomes more and more reliant on technology? Is the human race becoming "lazier" as a result in all of the "improvements" due to technology? Is that evolution?

Is tennis metaphoring life as much as it appears to be to me? The last I checked "evolution" has to with the survival of the fittest as in the origin of the species or something along that lines. What is this talk when we use the word that tennis is evolving?

Or was the game just reinvented...or reengineered to make it more convenient for us to play it better? Just so that we could feel superior to those that came before us. Or is it how it was sold to us and we just bought into it? When I say we...I don't mean me.

What racket do you use?

[don_budge]

Evolution? Traditional thoughts...

The doubles at Wimbledon these days is no longer doubles. I don't know what to call it...maybe a word that encapsulates all four players playing from the baseline. I doubt such a word exists but doubtless bottle could dream a wonderful one up.

The standard of doubles is really quite poor at Wimbledon comparative to the era you describe in Australia 1972.

I see no way back for doubles...none. Sorry to have nothing better to report.

Well Djokovic and Wawrinka in Toronto lost their doubles in the second round in two sets against Nestor/Zimonjic. Good singles players, but unable to volley well in doubles. This was not the case earlier with Laver and company...

http://m.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1995/07/the-feel-of-wood/304281/

Isn't this more evidence that the way that tennis is being played today is inferior to the classic era? The devolution of the doubles.

Is it that the magnitude of the mistake to allow the bigger equipment was so stupid that people no longer want to admit that it was a mistake? It has been a long time and perhaps those that are not old enough to know any better do not fully understand the difference. Is it like those that are used to a world with cell phones and computers cannot envision a world without them? Has technology become the trump card in human existence?

Has the human race evolved or is it devolving as it becomes more and more reliant on technology? Is the human race becoming "lazier" as a result in all of the "improvements" due to technology? Is that evolution?

Is tennis metaphoring life as much as it appears to be to me? The last I checked "evolution" has to with the survival of the fittest as in the origin of the species or something along that lines. What is this talk when we use the word that tennis is evolving?

Or was the game just reinvented...or reengineered to make it more convenient for us to play it better? Just so that we could feel superior to those that came before us. Or is it how it was sold to us and we just bought into it? When I say we...I don't mean me.

[stotty]

Another factor I read of, was that the ITF was pressuring him to play an additional 10 tournaments per year and he didn't want to...

Correct. And unless he did so he would have play the qualifying rounds of Wimbledon in 1982. Amazing...reach the final for six consecutive years and then be made to play qualifying for the seventh. If any tournament can stick it to you, it's Wimbledon.

There was a slim chance Borg might have continued if he could have reduced his schedule.

[gzhpcu]

Another factor I read of, was that the ITF was pressuring him to play an additional 10 tournaments per year and he didn't want to...

[tennis_chiro]

For me there are just two possible reasons for Borg's inexplicable decision the retire:

- he genuinely burnt out

- or he didn't like what was coming...and by this I mean McEnroe, who was improving all the time.

Two reasons...take your pick. I have never been able to decide.

It's a shame because I thought Borg was getting better too. He was serving better and his forehand seemed to be getting harder. I bet a friend of mine he would win the French 10 times before he retired...then he went and retired at 26.

An amazing thing that never gets mentioned is that Borg skipped one French Open at his zenith to play team tennis instead. He also only competed in one Aussie Open in 1974 aged 18.

I've heard there were some other demons in Borg's life and perhaps it became too much for him to fight those in the glare of the public eye that his rivalry with McEnroe created.

don