Thoughts about Tennis Tradition...

[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

[stotty]

Marshall Jon Fisher...again touches a subject that I have broached in the past. As to the real reason that Bjorn Borg quit....

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

"In April of 1991 Bjorn Borg reappeared on the professional tennis circuit after a mysterious nine-year absence--mysterious because when he retired, at the end of 1981, he was twenty-six years old, in the best physical shape a human being can be in, and had won five of the past six Wimbledons, not to mention the past four French Opens.

Borg had said he was simply sick of tennis. But perhaps he was also sick of what he saw tennis becoming. Although he and McEnroe fought their historic battles with wood in their hands, big-head Huns were visible on the horizon. How were these aging touch-and-speed players supposed to hold their ground?"

Borg was sick of what he saw coming...I have speculated this before. I asked Mats Wilander this question in front of over a hundred Swedish tennis trainers. He sort of side stepped the subject.

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.

[don_budge]

The Spin Doctor...a lesson in spin (to a student)

it's ok...you are only being impatient. remember what i told you...let the game come to you. it does no good to try and force things...on the tennis court or off. if you are trying to force things then you are probably in a more or less desperate situation. you never want to let on to your lover or your opponent that you are desperate.

what is power i ask my students...control is power. control yourself in order to control the ball and then you can control your opponent. control your emotional reactions in love and then you control your lover.

[don_budge]

Marshall Jon Fisher...again

Marshall Jon Fisher...again touches a subject that I have broached in the past. As to the real reason that Bjorn Borg quit....

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

"In April of 1991 Bjorn Borg reappeared on the professional tennis circuit after a mysterious nine-year absence--mysterious because when he retired, at the end of 1981, he was twenty-six years old, in the best physical shape a human being can be in, and had won five of the past six Wimbledons, not to mention the past four French Opens.

Borg had said he was simply sick of tennis. But perhaps he was also sick of what he saw tennis becoming. Although he and McEnroe fought their historic battles with wood in their hands, big-head Huns were visible on the horizon. How were these aging touch-and-speed players supposed to hold their ground?"

Borg was sick of what he saw coming...I have speculated this before. I asked Mats Wilander this question in front of over a hundred Swedish tennis trainers. He sort of side stepped the subject.

[gzhpcu]

Don't get me wrong: I enjoy watching the old matches and Ashe-Nastase is a classic. However, nothing lasts forever, and we have to move on and accept that the environment has changed. Can't go on living in the past forever. Sure, I miss the old days in Malibu and L.A., but life goes on...

P.S. I have the book "Terrible Splendor" in my library and find it exceptional as well.

[don_budge]

Marshall Jon Fisher...

...is the author of "A Terrible Splendor: Three Extraordinary Men, a World poised for War, and the Greatest Tennis Match Ever Played". Just in case you didn't know.

Perhaps the finest piece of tennis literature ever written. Don Budge himself told me the story of his match with Gottried von Cramm one night over a champagne dinner with the rest of the staff at the Don Budge Tennis Camp in 1972 or 1973. I cannot remember which year...it was a long time ago. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen...just because it is ancient history.

[don_budge]

The First Post of "Traditional Thoughts..."

Well Don...I thought nobody would ever ask. Let's see where this leads us.

You are a little late there, Don. Where were you when the Prince was making her debut? I remember going to war with every player that used it against me in tournaments. I was on my way up. The racquets derailed me. I was livid. I thought they were cheating...not only me but the game herself. And she was my great love. I loved her with all my heart and soul. I wanted to kill them. All of them. In defense of her Tradition. There were too many. There was only me...but it made no difference, I didn't care. I stood up. To the machine!

Tradition? Forget about it. You are too late to be concerned with such trivia. In fact if you speak of such things you will have people calling you a "prisoner of your generation" and looking at you cross eyed. I hear the snickering. To which I say...phooey.

One of my last memories in competitive tennis was going three sets with three opponents with Princess racquets in one day, me and my Kramers...lost the third. I tried to scrape myself off the bed the next day. I lost toenails. I went down fighting. I realized a long time ago...the gig was up. Nobody cared. Not like I do...to this very day. They still don't. That was the day the music died. That was the day that Don Quixote died...again.

Only in modern tennis...or modern day politics

Well, you would probably also need more skill to play with a coke bottle as well, so what is the point? Do we need equipment which makes playing the game more difficult?

Nobody wants to make your life more difficult...certainly not I. The professional game however should have maintained some semblance of professional standards.

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

From the article...The Feel of Wood by Marshall Jon Fisher (do you recognize that name tennis students of the game?)

"Revisionist proposals for improving the game have surfaced from time to time: make the balls heavier; make the court larger; take away the second serve. But this is like curing halitosis by distributing nose plugs."

"Is the solution too simple to see? Bring back wood. Major-league baseball requires wood bats for a similar reason--so that players don't start hitting a hundred homers a season, and 12-10 doesn't become a routine score. But tennis-racket companies are making too much money to let wood return without a fight: in 1975 the Dunlop Maxply--as good a wood racket as then existed--cost $25; by 1980 a decent oversized racket cost at least $100, and now many popular models cost more than $150. If the players and fans had made a stand in 1980, they could have persuaded the ITF to require conventional equipment for the pros, as in baseball. In fact, they could do it now without impinging on the racket companies' wealth, because most amateurs would still buy oversized rackets, just as softball players and amateur baseball players (even in the NCAA) use aluminum bats. But fifteen years' worth of big-head professional tennis will be difficult to overcome."

By the way...philosophically I feel quite intact. I have stuck to my guns. Never wavered. Think what you want...Model T's and coke bottles. Is that logical thought? Philosophically speaking? A broomstick with a tomato on it? As Slew Hester suggested in 1977?

I know that I am way far in the minority here...which only makes me feel more secure in my knowledge. The herd is going one way...I am going the other. Only in tennis and modern day politics does the truth make you a terrorist.

"In times of great deceit...telling the truth is a revolutionary act." George Orwell.

[tennis_chiro]

Love the clips

Roger Federer is the fourth seed in this years championships. He is slated to meet Rafael Nadal in the semifinals. I wonder what the odds are of that happening. Last year they both experienced difficulties in getting out of the blocks.

Come to think of it...how long has it been since Nadal has been a factor at Wimbledon? How many years does Federer have in him? Can he make a meaningful run this year?

With the waning of Roger's career we must look to the future of tennis. What are the prospects of restoring some of the traditional play back into the game? It appears that the powers that be are giving it considerable thought...judging from the public line of questioning in this interview with Mats Wilander. I wonder what they are saying in private.

https://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/video/0619-mats-point-itw-chris-192748331.html

At the trainers symposium in Stockholm that I attended in March Mats said that a player such as Nadal should not be winning Wimbledon with his style of play.

"Lots of the information is contradictory."...Chris Kermode.

Really love the clips. I catch Eurosport courtesy of LSHunter.com, but it is always a pain to get it and not as clear as your connections here.

don

[don_budge]

Thoughts about Tennis Tradition...

Roger Federer is the fourth seed in this years championships. He is slated to meet Rafael Nadal in the semifinals. I wonder what the odds are of that happening. Last year they both experienced difficulties in getting out of the blocks.

Come to think of it...how long has it been since Nadal has been a factor at Wimbledon? How many years does Federer have in him? Can he make a meaningful run this year?

With the waning of Roger's career we must look to the future of tennis. What are the prospects of restoring some of the traditional play back into the game? It appears that the powers that be are giving it considerable thought...judging from the public line of questioning in this interview with Mats Wilander. I wonder what they are saying in private.

https://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/video/0619-mats-point-itw-chris-192748331.html

At the trainers symposium in Stockholm that I attended in March Mats said that a player such as Nadal should not be winning Wimbledon with his style of play.

"Lots of the information is contradictory."...Chris Kermode.

[don_budge]

The Mission...Robert DeNiro and Jeremy Irons

Speaking of Ennio Morricone...this from "The Mission"...starring Robert DeNiro and Jeremy Irons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oag1Dfa1e_E

This is a movie about the "settling" and "civilizing" of the Americas. Before the times political correctness.

http://www.veoh.com/watch/v19975805P...+Mission+(1986)

You know how I love to draw parallels between tennis and life. The current game of tennis sort of a fictitious account of the reality of the game. The fictitious accounts of history have played some rather funny games with our concept of the past as well. Traditionally speaking...this post is in line with the thread.

A little taste of reality...Real Tennis...with Mats Wilander.

https://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/video/mats-point-tennis-history-193456943.html

The account of the native peoples of this continent and their plight is largely a myth. The truth is much harder to swallow although it gets easier as time goes by. The same cannot be said for tennis. Tennis' connection with the reality of the game as it was played for over a hundred years has become distorted and unrecognizable. Hmmm...another "history" lesson.