McEnroe/Borg Fire & Ice...

[don_budge]

Watch it and weep. The death of Classic Tennis. John McEnroe and Bjorn Borg. The game was evolving and then there was the intervention and it was dead. The day that tennis died.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlfL7gYGoy0

[GeoffWilliams]

Mac was perhaps the biggest Ahole the game has ever seen, and Borg did not have the mental toughness to deal with losing to it. The game has legislated out that type of explosive temper, to the fans' detriment, to the manufacturers advantage.

[stotty]

Borg

and Borg did not have the mental toughness to deal with losing to it.

This is the typical reaction of many Americans over Borg's departure from the game: It was McEnroe that drove him out. McEnroe certainly believes it himself in the video, as does his brother. I think it likely McEnroe and his family still think it to this day.

Europeans have an easier time reconciling Borg's departure from the game. If you don't want to do something anymore, you stop...simple really.

I believe Borg 100% when he said he didn't quit because of his defeats to McEnroe. He says he's not that kind of person and he absolutely isn't. The two things don't marry up..."being as good as he was and walking away because you lost."...it doesn't stack up. You don't get to where Borg did without having to deal with an awful lot of set backs along the way, "dealing" with things is pretty much what it's all about.

My hunch is that he was/is stubborn and absolute. He decided one day never to lose his temper on court...he decided he wanted to be a great tennis player...he decided to walk away. There are no half measures with a man like that, he just does it.

I understand the point of view of many Americans I spoken to over Borg. I just think they are wrong.

It was a nice video. I enjoyed watching it. I really like to watch those two play more than any other rivalry. There is something so magical about it.

[don_budge]

John McEnroe vs. Bjorn Borg..."Magic"

I believe Borg 100% when he said he didn't quit because of his defeats to McEnroe. He says he's not that kind of person and he absolutely isn't.
I understand the point of view of many Americans I spoken to over Borg.

It was a nice video. I enjoyed watching it. I really like to watch those two play more than any other rivalry. There is something so magical about it.

When a real Swede like Bjorn Borg says something like..."I am not that kind of person"...you can bet your bottom dollar that he means it. McEnroe no more chased Bjorn from the game than any other player chased him out. It may very well have been the racquet issue that had more to do with it than any one will ever admit...American or European. I maintain his "insane" comeback attempt with the traditional wood frames as John McEnroe so eloquently put it in the video was a statement about his defiance of the tennis establishment. God bless his Norse soul.

You are so right...there was something so magical about the rivalry.

I wrote this in another post...about their magic. John McEnroe alludes to some magic as well when he describes the wood racquets that they were playing with as "magic wands."

Nice quote on wooden rackets and baseball bats. Much more intelligent than any ritual (and very tired) John McEnroe bashing.

From the thread entitled..."John McEnroe versus Bjorn Borg...1980 U. S. Open Finals

Every point in this epic was a masterpiece. That is not to say there weren't mistakes and mishits. But taken as a whole the match must nearly be described point by point. I had to watch the match several times to come up with the words to describe the action. The points were like single brushstrokes that make up a great masterpiece. It reminded me of the moment only a couple of months ago when I stood at the very top of the Eiffel Tower in Paris looking down at that classic and old traditional city in Europe. Each building from that height looked like a single brush stroke and put them all together you had the wonderful visual whole that makes up the city of Paris. Like a beautiful painting every single brush stroke adds up to make up the whole.

The individual buildings on the ground were masterpieces of architecture as well. You walk along the streets admiring the craftsmanship and beauty from the ground level in the micro view as opposed to the macro view from the top of the Eiffel tower.

The same as this match. Such an intricate tapestry of tennis and all of its nuances. The variety of strokes...the variety of tactics. The infinite number of possibilities...permutations and combinations. Then there is the complexity of the players and their emotions and their tactical acumen and their individual interpretation of THE GAME. THE GAME OF TENNIS as it was meant to be played.

In tennis, in art and in life there is a balance. Even the universe is somehow balanced although theoretically. Equal parts positive and negative. Perhaps the human race has an equal balance as well...the summation of all of our actions and intents equal parts good and evil. But one thing is very clear to me and there is absolutely no way around it because in this very case for once and for all I am right...the game of tennis has been compromised by the actions of the very human hands that invented it. That precious balance that the game had and endured for so many years was compromised by an overabundance of speed in the game. It's simple. What was lost was tennis that was played like on this September afternoon between the last of the great rivalries in tennis...John McEnroe and Bjorn Borg.

From the thread entitled..."John McEnroe versus Bjorn Borg...1980 U. S. Open Finals

ART...has left the stadium. Only the Great John McEnroe would have the balls to suggest something so outlandish as to do the right thing. The right thing to do by THE GAME.

From John McEnroe's most excellent autobiography..."Serious"...his top ten recommendations for improving tennis in the 21st Century:

"A return to wooden racquets would be a huge improvement for professional tennis. The biggest change in the game in the last twenty five years...the replacement of wood by graphite...has been a bad one. I happen to think that wooden racquets are beautiful aesthetically and purer for the game.

Look at baseball. Kids start with aluminum bats in little league, then move on to Kevlar or whatever in college and then...and only then...if they make it to the majors do they get to use those beautiful wooden bats that require greater expertise for success.

Why not do the same thing in tennis? I think that it looks great to have a little wand in your hand, instead of some ultra thick club big enough to kill somebody with. Wood...to me...has glamour. You need strategy and technique. Tennis, these days, is sadly lacking in all these things.

It's all (as David Bowie says) wham, bam, thank you ma'am." ...the great John McEnroe.

Seconded by the not so great...don_budge.

Read it and weep...the death of Classic Tennis.

[klacr]

Watch it and weep. The death of Classic Tennis. John McEnroe and Bjorn Borg. The game was evolving and then there was the intervention and it was dead. The day that tennis died.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlfL7gYGoy0

Thanks for posting. Great Video. Both men are genius.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[don_budge]

John McEnroe...Myth and Legend

Mac was perhaps the biggest Ahole the game has ever seen, and Borg did not have the mental toughness to deal with losing to it. The game has legislated out that type of explosive temper, to the fans' detriment, to the manufacturers advantage.

John played during the most volatile period of tennis in the history of the game. His personality must be observed from a historical perspective. "Being John McEnroe" is a book written by Tim Adams that sort of explains the phenomena. Not that the small minded give a hoot...historically they are quite content with the limited perceptions as well. Not paying stringers...big deal. Stringers are notorious odd balls...how does a story like that get started and gain traction. Answer...it doesn't. I have never heard that in all of my life...except here.

The game of tennis has witnessed and continues to attract quite a few characters as GeoffWilliams suggests. While the sport of tennis can conceivably bring out the best in a person's character...sometimes it does quite the opposite. Even in the video "Fire and Ice" it is apparent that Borg is not all "Ice Bear" as he let's go with a couple of expletives as he expresses himself. He had a volcanic nature too...when he was young. Even as he got older these sorts of things manifest themselves in his behavior as he matured and evolved.

Not all of these characters make it to the professional ranks either. Some are relegated to lesser venues where they cast stones from their glass houses.

[don_budge]

Classic Tennis...Kyle LaCroix

Thanks for posting. Great Video. Both men are genius.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

I guess these guys were a little before your time. What a shame. You are obviously a classic at heart. Your buddy...Aaron Krickstein can relate to this era. He was coming through on the cusp. He played Bjorn Borg in a exhibition match at The Palace in Auburn Hills when he turned pro in 1983 I believe. He was a huge admirer of John McEnroe as well.

In 1980 at the time of the Wimbledon final Aaron was playing with the standard sized Wilson Graphite Ultra racquet. He could simply murder that forehand even at that young age. Too bad he never developed the perfect service motion. It could have been a whole different story with him.

[klacr]

Could have been a different story for Aaron. Sure. But please take my word for it, he's doing pretty well despite the serve issue. Pretty well indeed.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[don_budge]

Success...little things can make a big difference

Too bad he never developed the perfect service motion. It could have been a whole different story with him.

Could have been a different story for Aaron. Sure. But please take my word for it, he's doing pretty well despite the serve issue. Pretty well indeed.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

You have to be careful of what you say...it may just get taken out of context. Don't misinterpret what I say about Aaron. Of course he did "pretty well". Of course his success was the top .01% of the competitive tennis population with Borg and McEnroe being at perhaps .001%. Pretty well indeed...as you put it. I'll take your word for it.

The only thing that I was implying was that with a perfect service motion Aaron might just have had that kind of success. Also he might have also developed his all court game to a higher level. He certainly had the ability to do it. I think too that the racquet issues worked against him rather than for him. If things would have remained the same throughout his career with the equipment it may have been a different story.

What exactly do I mean by a different story? Only that for instance at one point when Aaron was very young Pancho Segura was saying stuff like he may be the next Bjorn Borg...and this may have been possible. What separates multiple Slam winners from the others that are contesting them? Little things...things that make the chain that much stronger. The chain being only as strong as the weakest link. Things that fortify the bonds.

[bottle]

God bless his Norse soul.

Love it. Along with the double-perspective description of Paris. I feel the same way about Paris but also about Budapest (and sadly haven't been to Prague).

In Budapest, the storefronts at ground level seem very "modern" but as you look up the architecture gets older and older in layers until the very top where there are gargoylish looking things.

I'd like to know how those huns and pests and budas did that.

[klacr]

I know what you meant don_budge.

What I'm saying is A bigger serve could have been a huge advantage for Aaron. Although, it could have been detrimental as well. We'll never know. Maybe Aaron's ground game was good because he had to rely on that and not so many free points on the serve. Sometimes the serve is so effective we tend to not get as many reps on the groundstrokes and that part of the game tends to weaken or get cast aside. Tough to say for Aaron. As this is all hypothetical but no doubt Aaron had a great game. My club's ball machine still yells mercy when Aaron uses it.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[stotty]

I know what you meant don_budge.

What I'm saying is A bigger serve could have been a huge advantage for Aaron. Although, it could have been detrimental as well. We'll never know. Maybe Aaron's ground game was good because he had to rely on that and not so many free points on the serve. Sometimes the serve is so effective we tend to not get as many reps on the groundstrokes and that part of the game tends to weaken or get cast aside. Tough to say for Aaron. As this is all hypothetical but no doubt Aaron had a great game. My club's ball machine still yells mercy when Aaron uses it.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

Players who have to compensate often have the most interesting games. Great shots would seem to emerge from having an achilles heel.

What's even harder to figure out is urgency. A soccer team losing a match with only five minutes remaining will start to play with an intensity that makes you wonder why they didn't play like that all along. Somehow things have to get urgent first...funny psychology when you think about it.

[klacr]

Players who have to compensate often have the most interesting games. Great shots would seem to emerge from having an achilles heel.

What's even harder to figure out is urgency. A soccer team losing a match with only five minutes remaining will start to play with an intensity that makes you wonder why they didn't play like that all along. Somehow things have to get urgent first...funny psychology when you think about it.

Very true post Stotty

I can only speak for myself and my history teaching and coaching players of all levels. When I was growing up playing juniors and even in college I got away with alot. I possessed a cannonball serve and didn't think too much about the rest of my game besides a few volleys. My forehand was a big flat shot but very erratic and would disappear for days and weeks on end. A huge liability. My backhand had easy power, versatility and naturally better than my forehand. My ground game was questionable if someone could penetrate the court or keep me off the net.

I never gave much thought to tactics or strategy or even consistency and working the point from the baseline. Quite frankly, points wouldn't last long enough for me to "grind" like so many of my smaller contemporaries had to. I'm ashmed to admit this but in college, on lightning fast indoor courts, my serve when I found a great rhythm would turn into a weapon of mass destruction, making games go by in under 60 seconds. Sounds fine, until I come clean and admit there would be points, games, sets and matches that went by in which I won comfortably but walked off without learning anything or improving any weaknesses. I simply got into a zone on serving but the rest of my game suffered. looking back, I actually felt that I played my "best" or at least "smartest" tennis when on the rare occasion I actually struggled on serve. If I was atrocious or in a funk and serving in the 30-50% range on 1st serve, I felt that i had to think, plan, strategize more. It made me think about the whole point, my opponents game and how i had to construct the point, as opposed to just "taking it" with one or two swings of my racquet. In fact, serving poorly made the rest of my game flourish. Even in losses, I'd walk off the court feeling like I somehow played a higher level of tennis that didn't quite show up on the scoreboard.

Nowadays, with competitive tennis far behind me and 9 months removed from a neck surgery that prevented me from serving all out, I never really need to "crank up" my serve to my students and club members. But I discovered that since I've just been hitting these easy serves, the rest of my game has improved all around. Defensive capabilities and point construction are light years beyond where they could have been in my younger days. I could chalk some of that improvement to my maturity, age and patience level. But much of it is due to my ability to embrace the whole game and not relying on a big serve to get me out of every jam I found myself in. Not that it was a bad thing back in the day

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[stotty]

My forehand was a big flat shot but very erratic and would disappear for days and weeks on end. A huge liability.

Your forehand was just like mine then...

It's only players like us who don't have forehands who can fully appreciate that a decent forehand is worth its weight in gold. If I had had a forehand, I would have won a lot, lot more matches.

Perhaps we should start a "No Forehand" club...members only. Anyone who can hit a forehand over on match point can't join. You can be President and I will be membership secretary. We will be a small club to start with but no doubt we will quickly swell in numbers. From what I have seen there are plenty of us.

[GeoffWilliams]

Aaron K. would have chosen a huge serve over his fh. The only man to come back from two sets down 10 times in slams, Fed next at 9 times. Count me into the no fh club. Also no serve club. No over head club. No movement club. No trophy club.