Promoting tennis discussion.
|
|
tennis-forum.net Promoting tennis discussion. |
40 years ago... how many aces were there per 5-set game? maybe 1 or 2? whereas nowadays... a roddick can serve up 50 aces in a 5-setter... serving 154 mph w/ wodden racket is just BS... "Dan White" <dwhite1@erols.com > wrote in message news:bl3aq6$52l$1@bob.news.rcn.net... > Hi all...I haven't posted here in a looong time. Anyway, I open my Snapple > today and read the cap. It says that the fastest serve ever recorded was > 154 mph and was set in 1963. I was surprised to see this since I thought > Rusedski had the top speed. So, I did a little googling and found this: > > "In June, 1963, in Britain, the British tennis player Michael Sangster > served a ball that was clocked at 154 miles per hour. This is the fastest > tennis serve ever recorded." > > So what's the story? How did they clock speeds back then, and did that > disqualify it in light of today's speed guns? > > thanks, > dwhite > > |
"Lava Plays" <denlin@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:Weadb.29478$I36.16707@pd7tw3no... > that's completely BS i think... > 40 years ago... how many aces were there per 5-set game? > maybe 1 or 2? A lot more. In fact, almost as much as today. Sometimes even more. Example: 1932 Wimbledon final, Vines vs Austin: 6-2 6-2 6-0. Vines served 30 aces. That's 2.5 aces per service game. Doubtful Roddick is going to do that anytime soon. And some people want bring back the wood...? > whereas nowadays... a roddick can serve up 50 aces in a 5-setter... > serving 154 mph w/ wodden racket is just BS... IIRC, fastest "officially recorded" serve is about 180mph, from '20s or '30s. It's recorder with a modified stopwatch. Needless to say pre-radar measured service speeds are not considered reliable (in fact, even radars are not viewed as 100% reliable). |
speed gun ever, Agassi clocked 130 for goodness sake. Rusedski is the true fastest open era server with a true 149mph. "Yama" <tjamaNOSPAM@paju.oulu.fi > wrote in message news:bl3es7$3jl$1@ousrvr3.oulu.fi... > > "Lava Plays" <denlin@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:Weadb.29478$I36.16707@pd7tw3no... > > that's completely BS i think... > > 40 years ago... how many aces were there per 5-set game? > > maybe 1 or 2? > > A lot more. In fact, almost as much as today. Sometimes even more. > > Example: 1932 Wimbledon final, Vines vs Austin: 6-2 6-2 6-0. Vines served > 30 aces. That's 2.5 aces per service game. Doubtful Roddick is going to do > that anytime soon. > > And some people want bring back the wood...? > > > whereas nowadays... a roddick can serve up 50 aces in a 5-setter... > > serving 154 mph w/ wodden racket is just BS... > > IIRC, fastest "officially recorded" serve is about 180mph, from '20s or > '30s. It's recorder with a modified stopwatch. Needless to say pre-radar > measured service speeds are not considered reliable (in fact, even radars > are not viewed as 100% reliable). > > |
> Roddick was clocked at 149mph at Queens, with probably the most dubious > speed gun ever, Agassi clocked 130 for goodness sake. Rusedski is the true > fastest open era server with a true 149mph. > Hi, I think that I agree that Rudeski has a faster serve than Roddick but I believe that Rusedki's 149 MPH serve was also dubious as it was served in Indian Wells at altitude and according to Courier( who seems to be rather anti-Rusesdki)everyone was setting personal speed records that year because the gun was fast as well. |
So, what is the second fastest (true fastest?) serve speed ever and where was that served? "David" <goran30@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:363e64ab.0309280825.7a829322@posting.google.com... > "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceberg@tenretnitb.moc> wrote in message news:<tkedb.1518$zV7.14514364@news-text.cableinet.net >... > > Roddick was clocked at 149mph at Queens, with probably the most dubious > > speed gun ever, Agassi clocked 130 for goodness sake. Rusedski is the true > > fastest open era server with a true 149mph. > > > Hi, > > I think that I agree that Rudeski has a faster serve than Roddick but > I believe that Rusedki's 149 MPH serve was also dubious as it was > served in Indian Wells at altitude and according to Courier( who seems > to be rather anti-Rusesdki)everyone was setting personal speed records > that year because the gun was fast as well. |
> "Lava Plays" <denlin@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:Weadb.29478$I36.16707@pd7tw3no... > > that's completely BS i think... > > 40 years ago... how many aces were there per 5-set game? > > maybe 1 or 2? > > A lot more. In fact, almost as much as today. Sometimes even more. > > Example: 1932 Wimbledon final, Vines vs Austin: 6-2 6-2 6-0. Vines served > 30 aces. That's 2.5 aces per service game. Doubtful Roddick is going to do > that anytime soon. > > And some people want bring back the wood...? People want to bring back wood because it would weaken the return. Which the above supports. (Note that Navratilova said that modern racquets hurt serve-and-volleyers, because they help only the S&V player's serve, but they help every groundstroke.) There may be some people who want to bring back wood for purposes of weakening the serve. But the *real* reason to bring back wood is to weaken the power of the return. In hindsight, the improvement in serves which people attributed solely to metal racquets is probably at least partly due to improved conditioning. -- True liberty can only come when all people choose to love their neighbors as themselves. -- source unknown, probably paraphrased |
news:waltzmn-492CEF.08173027092003@corp.supernews.com... > "Yama" <tjamaNOSPAM@paju.oulu.fi> wrote: > > In hindsight, the improvement in serves which people attributed > solely to metal racquets is probably at least partly due to > improved conditioning. > Don't forget that it used to be illegal to leave the ground during the serve. I don't know when the rule was changed (I know it was long before metal racquets), but this had to be the single biggest cause of faster and faster serves. Didn't LaCoste design a metal racquet many years ago? dwhite |
"Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@skypoint.com > wrote in message news:waltzmn- > > Example: 1932 Wimbledon final, Vines vs Austin: 6-2 6-2 6-0. Vines served > > 30 aces. That's 2.5 aces per service game. Doubtful Roddick is going to do > > that anytime soon. > > > > And some people want bring back the wood...? > > People want to bring back wood because it would weaken the return. > Which the above supports. (Note that Navratilova said that modern > racquets hurt serve-and-volleyers, because they help only the > S&V player's serve, but they help every groundstroke.) > > There may be some people who want to bring back wood for purposes > of weakening the serve. But the *real* reason to bring back wood > is to weaken the power of the return. > > In hindsight, the improvement in serves which people attributed > solely to metal racquets is probably at least partly due to > improved conditioning. O my god! - I'm stunned. I was about to post 'excellent post' when I realised it's Waltz - took a few yrs, but just goes to show anyone can make sense sometimes.... |
news:3f76904d@dnews.tpgi.com.au... > > "Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@skypoint.com> wrote in message news:waltzmn- > > > > Example: 1932 Wimbledon final, Vines vs Austin: 6-2 6-2 6-0. Vines > served > > > 30 aces. That's 2.5 aces per service game. Doubtful Roddick is going to > do > > > that anytime soon. > > > > > > And some people want bring back the wood...? > > > > People want to bring back wood because it would weaken the return. > > Which the above supports. (Note that Navratilova said that modern > > racquets hurt serve-and-volleyers, because they help only the > > S&V player's serve, but they help every groundstroke.) > > > > There may be some people who want to bring back wood for purposes > > of weakening the serve. But the *real* reason to bring back wood > > is to weaken the power of the return. > > > > In hindsight, the improvement in serves which people attributed > > solely to metal racquets is probably at least partly due to > > improved conditioning. > > > O my god! - I'm stunned. I was about to post 'excellent post' when I > realised it's Waltz - took a few yrs, but just goes to show anyone can make > sense sometimes.... i recall in the 70s, very early 80s (with wood or small frame aluminum) that some big servers had mph not far off today's top big hitters..and hit corners very well also (i remember tanner's serve for ex, when "on" being completely unreturnable)..but i also remember many more rallies during your average match.. there have been discussions in the NBA that the players are too big, too good -- to raise the net from 10' to 12' to take away the "big man's advantage", i.e. no dunks..no way to know the effect til it's tried out..in tennis, this would be equivalent to moving some lines or net dimensions, no way to know the effect..my only opinion on the subject is that servers win too high a % of their serves in the men's game..if something ( i'm not sure what) could be done to make the server's advantage slightly less, it'd improve the game..suggestions? bob |
> my only opinion on the subject is that servers win > too high a % of their serves in the men's game..if something ( i'm not sure > what) could be done to make the server's advantage In other words, Whisper and Waltz are wrong - with the modern rackets the server has the advantage compared to wood. This should be empirically determinable, i.e., do we have data on the % of games won by the server in 1976 (holding surfaces constant) compared to 1999, or say the average # of aces hit at Wimbledon then compared to now? |
news:JGDdb.23040$sp2.13538@lakeread04... > > > my only opinion on the subject is that servers win > > too high a % of their serves in the men's game..if something ( i'm not > sure > > what) could be done to make the server's advantage > > In other words, Whisper and Waltz are wrong - with the modern rackets the > server has the advantage compared to wood. no, i'm not sure whisper/waltz are wrong..what i said and you snipped is that i'm not sure what the result would be w/out implementing it.. > This should be empirically determinable, i.e., do we have data on the % of > games won by the server in 1976 (holding surfaces constant) compared to > 1999, or say the average # of aces hit at Wimbledon then compared to now? can't be empiracally determinable..# aces doesn't prove shit..only implementing it will tell us. bob |
"bob" <rstein5@NOSPAMcfl.rr.com > wrote in message news:jxJdb.14649$Of2.1144251@twister.tampabay.rr.com... > "Steve Jaros" <sjaros5@balk.net> wrote in message > news:JGDdb.23040$sp2.13538@lakeread04... > > > > > my only opinion on the subject is that servers win > > > too high a % of their serves in the men's game..if something ( i'm not > > sure > > > what) could be done to make the server's advantage > > > > In other words, Whisper and Waltz are wrong - with the modern rackets the > > server has the advantage compared to wood. > > no, i'm not sure whisper/waltz are wrong..what i said and you snipped is > that i'm not sure what the result would be w/out implementing it.. What else did you say that was relevant to this particular point other than that the "servers win too high a % of their serves"...? |
news:FGJdb.23379$sp2.14682@lakeread04... > > "bob" <rstein5@NOSPAMcfl.rr.com> wrote in message > news:jxJdb.14649$Of2.1144251@twister.tampabay.rr.com... > > "Steve Jaros" <sjaros5@balk.net> wrote in message > > news:JGDdb.23040$sp2.13538@lakeread04... > > > > > > > my only opinion on the subject is that servers win > > > > too high a % of their serves in the men's game..if something ( i'm not > > > sure > > > > what) could be done to make the server's advantage > > > > > > In other words, Whisper and Waltz are wrong - with the modern rackets > the > > > server has the advantage compared to wood. > > > > no, i'm not sure whisper/waltz are wrong..what i said and you snipped is > > that i'm not sure what the result would be w/out implementing it.. > > What else did you say that was relevant to this particular point other than > that the "servers win too high a % of their serves"...? i said that i'm not sure what the fix would be..maybe wood, maybe court change,.maybe ball change, maybe none of those..what i'm saying is i have no clue what would happen with these changes w/out seeing them implemented in present time..on paper, i can't tell.. does anybody really disagree that servers win too high a % of their service games for tennis own good? if so, i'd like to hear their pt of view, maybe i can be swayed on this.... bob |
> change, ? A change to wood rackets would obviously defuse the big serves, but what if we kept modern rackets but went back to 90% of the events being played on grass? That would obviously make it far worse than it is now. The *surfaces* the tour plays most of its events on these days favors the returner far more than grass does... >.maybe ball change, The ball is the same... > maybe none of those..what i'm saying is i have no > clue what would happen with these changes w/out seeing them implemented in > present time..on paper, i can't tell.. Well of course we can't know for sure what would happen unless we actually tried them, but of the 3 things you mentioned - changing balls, changing rackets, changing surfaces - obviously the racket would have the biggest impact, unless we decided to make the whole tour a clay court tour, or make the balls weigh twice as much as they do now, etc. |
"bob" <rstein5@NOSPAMcfl.rr.com > wrote in message news:QVMdb.30666 > does anybody really disagree that servers win too high a % of their service > games for tennis own good? if so, i'd like to hear their pt of view, maybe i > can be swayed on this.... > > bob Yes, but restricting the serve in some way would kill serve-volley cold. The modern rackets give too much advantage to baseliners - they just get a racket to the ball & it's a great shot.... |
"Steve Jaros" <sjaros5@balk.net > wrote in message news:JGDdb.23040$sp2.13538@lakeread04... > > > my only opinion on the subject is that servers win > > too high a % of their serves in the men's game..if something ( i'm not > sure > > what) could be done to make the server's advantage > > In other words, Whisper and Waltz are wrong - with the modern rackets the > server has the advantage compared to wood. > > This should be empirically determinable, i.e., do we have data on the % of > games won by the server in 1976 (holding surfaces constant) compared to > 1999, or say the average # of aces hit at Wimbledon then compared to now? > Modern rackets have raised the level of ordinary servers, but big servers are big regardless what they use - it's technique dumbo... ; ) |
"Whisper" <beaver99@tpg.com.au > wrote in message news:3f7784de@dnews.tpgi.com.au... > > "Steve Jaros" <sjaros5@balk.net> wrote in message > news:JGDdb.23040$sp2.13538@lakeread04... > > > > > my only opinion on the subject is that servers win > > > too high a % of their serves in the men's game..if something ( i'm not > > sure > > > what) could be done to make the server's advantage > > > > In other words, Whisper and Waltz are wrong - with the modern rackets the > > server has the advantage compared to wood. > > > > This should be empirically determinable, i.e., do we have data on the % of > > games won by the server in 1976 (holding surfaces constant) compared to > > 1999, or say the average # of aces hit at Wimbledon then compared to now? > > > > > Modern rackets have raised the level of ordinary servers, but big servers > are big regardless what they use - it's technique dumbo... ; ) Think back to times when someone has compared flipper's serve to pete's, and they've claimed that flipper's was bigger because he hits it 135 mph and Pete hits it 130 mph. Following my lead, you've noted that the 5 mph gap matters little, because Pete's is "big enough", i.e., if he lands it with decent placement, it ain't going to be returned any more often than Flipper's 135 mph bomb is. For practical purposes, they are equal. And that's true. We know that as long as a serve is say 125 mph and reasonably well placed, it will be an ace/service almost all of the time versus any returner. And it really doesn't matter if the speed gun says 128 or 138. Because 128 or 138, it's still gonna go by the returner before he can get his racket on it. Human reflexes just can't react quickly enough to that speed. That's an example of what we call "diminishing returns". But below 125 mph and the returner starts to have a chance. And below 115-120, he can get most of them back even if they are reasonably well-placed. The modern racket technology allows guys like Sampras to bomb *lots* of serves in at 125 + mph, meaning they can hit *lots* of essentially unreturnable serves. Give Sampras a wood and suddenly he'll be hitting 110-115 mph on the serve, meaning that *lots* of those aces/service winners are now balls he has to make a second play on, because the returner has gotten it back over the net. It should be clear that wood would be disastrous for the big server. Why do you think Flipper has spoken out so forcefully against it? |
"Steve Jaros" <sjaros5@balk.net > wrote in message news:DHMdb.23421$sp2.17233@lakeread04... > > > Modern rackets have raised the level of ordinary servers, but big servers > > are big regardless what they use - it's technique dumbo... ; ) > > Think back to times when someone has compared flipper's serve to pete's, and > they've claimed that flipper's was bigger because he hits it 135 mph and > Pete hits it 130 mph. That's dumb. Pete's is far superior as he hits great spin & places it so much smarter than Flip.... Following my lead, you've noted that the 5 mph gap > matters little, because Pete's is "big enough", i.e., if he lands it with > decent placement, it ain't going to be returned any more often than > Flipper's 135 mph bomb is. For practical purposes, they are equal. They are not equal. If Pete is 10 out of 10, Flip's serve is about 7.... as you say the extra brute force is not really relevant... > > And that's true. We know that as long as a serve is say 125 mph and > reasonably well placed, it will be an ace/service almost all of the time > versus any returner. And it really doesn't matter if the speed gun says 128 > or 138. Because 128 or 138, it's still gonna go by the returner before he > can get his racket on it. Human reflexes just can't react quickly enough to > that speed. Yes, depending where it's placed..... > > That's an example of what we call "diminishing returns". > > But below 125 mph and the returner starts to have a chance. And below > 115-120, he can get most of them back even if they are reasonably > well-placed. > > The modern racket technology allows guys like Sampras There's no one like Sampras..... obviously. You're just not evolved enough to realise it yet - maybe in 10 yrs? to bomb *lots* of > serves in at 125 + mph, meaning they can hit *lots* of essentially > unreturnable serves. Give Sampras a wood and suddenly he'll be hitting > 110-115 mph on the serve, No, that's where you're going wrong.... the returners/baseliners get max benefit from modern rackets - Pete coulda won a few more slams if everyone used wood.... Agassi no way woulda had career slam... meaning that *lots* of those aces/service winners > are now balls he has to make a second play on, because the returner has > gotten it back over the net. ...very meekly, given they are using wood. > > It should be clear that wood would be disastrous for the big server. Why do > you think Flipper has spoken out so forcefully against it? You're amazing how consistently you draw the bizarrio conclusion after arguing so eloquently..... |
"Whisper" <beaver99@tpg.com.au > wrote in message news:3f77e8fb@dnews.tpgi.com.au... > > "Steve Jaros" <sjaros5@balk.net> wrote in message > news:DHMdb.23421$sp2.17233@lakeread04... > > > > > > Modern rackets have raised the level of ordinary servers, but big > servers > > > are big regardless what they use - it's technique dumbo... ; ) > > > > Think back to times when someone has compared flipper's serve to pete's, > and > > they've claimed that flipper's was bigger because he hits it 135 mph and > > Pete hits it 130 mph. > > That's dumb. Pete's is far superior as he hits great spin & places it so > much smarter than Flip.... Dumb to say Flipper's first serve is bigger? In case you misunderstood, "flipper" = "philipoussis".. the guy with one of the best first serves ever. > Following my lead, you've noted that the 5 mph gap > > matters little, because Pete's is "big enough", i.e., if he lands it with > > decent placement, it ain't going to be returned any more often than > > Flipper's 135 mph bomb is. For practical purposes, they are equal. > > They are not equal. If Pete is 10 out of 10, Flip's serve is about 7.... as > you say the extra brute force is not really relevant... You're clearly outside the mainstream on this. In fact, you're in the drainage ditch. > > That's an example of what we call "diminishing returns". > > > > But below 125 mph and the returner starts to have a chance. And below > > 115-120, he can get most of them back even if they are reasonably > > well-placed. > > > > The modern racket technology allows guys like Sampras > > There's no one like Sampras..... obviously. You're just not evolved enough > to realise it yet - maybe in 10 yrs? Let's not be stupid here. We're not talking about Sampras's whole game. Just his first serve. And obviously guys like Goran, Flipper, Krajicek, etc. have the same quality first serve that Pete has. > to bomb *lots* of > > serves in at 125 + mph, meaning they can hit *lots* of essentially > > unreturnable serves. Give Sampras a wood and suddenly he'll be hitting > > 110-115 mph on the serve, > > No, that's where you're going wrong.... Actually, i'm right. That's what wood would do to Pete's serve. Make it returnable. > the returners/baseliners get max > benefit from modern rackets - Pete coulda won a few more slams if everyone > used wood.... Agassi no way woulda had career slam... Think logically - wood takes the pace off of everyone's shots. It means *fewer winners* off the serve and from the baseline. Whose game was more dependent on winners - Andre's or Pete's? It's a no-brainer. Pete would have been hurt far more by wood than Andre. > meaning that *lots* of those aces/service winners > > are now balls he has to make a second play on, because the returner has > > gotten it back over the net. > > ...very meekly, given they are using wood. Some meekly, some not. But let's say he gets 10 back meekly and 10 back not-meekly. That's *20 points* that Sampras could now lose that with a modern racket he wins automatically. That's a huge advantage for the returner. > > It should be clear that wood would be disastrous for the big server. Why > do > > you think Flipper has spoken out so forcefully against it? > > > You're amazing how consistently you draw the bizarrio conclusion after > arguing so eloquently..... Let's see. When people in the tennis community suggest going back to wood, does Flipper say: 1) "that would be great, because as Whisper has noted on rst, while i'd lose some aces on my serve, the returner and baseline expert would be hurt far more than i would, so i would win alot more matches. Let's go to wood now!" Or, 2) "that would be totally unfair. For 15 years i've been working hard to develop as big a serve as is possible, and now they want to take that away from me. It would ruin my game". In case you don't realize it, (2) is a good paraphrase for what Flipper has said.... |
news:3f7784de@dnews.tpgi.com.au... > > "Steve Jaros" <sjaros5@balk.net> wrote in message > news:JGDdb.23040$sp2.13538@lakeread04... > > > > > my only opinion on the subject is that servers win > > > too high a % of their serves in the men's game..if something ( i'm not > > sure > > > what) could be done to make the server's advantage > > > > In other words, Whisper and Waltz are wrong - with the modern rackets the > > server has the advantage compared to wood. > > > > This should be empirically determinable, i.e., do we have data on the % of > > games won by the server in 1976 (holding surfaces constant) compared to > > 1999, or say the average # of aces hit at Wimbledon then compared to now? > > > > > Modern rackets have raised the level of ordinary servers, but big servers > are big regardless what they use - it's technique dumbo... ; ) i know i had a bigger serve with jack kramer than i do with prostaff graph. bob |
"bob" <rstein5@NOSPAMcfl.rr.com > wrote in message news:kWMdb.30667 > > > > > > Modern rackets have raised the level of ordinary servers, but big servers > > are big regardless what they use - it's technique dumbo... ; ) > > i know i had a bigger serve with jack kramer than i do with prostaff graph. > > bob Yes, I used to serve lots of aces with my maxflys. The advantage to server with modern rackets is nowhere near the boost baseliners get..... |
"Steve Jaros" <sjaros5@balk.net > wrote in message news:JGDdb.23040$sp2.13538@lakeread04... > > my only opinion on the subject is that servers win > > too high a % of their serves in the men's game..if something ( i'm not > sure > > what) could be done to make the server's advantage > > In other words, Whisper and Waltz are wrong - with the modern rackets the > server has the advantage compared to wood. Nope. While you might be able to raise service speed something like 10% with modern racquet, resulting to few more aces, you will also get far more return winners and forced errors from returns. In the past, even though you might get a serve back with a wooden racquet, result was much slower and shorter return which immediately put you at the disadvantage against the server who had an easy volley or putaway. |
"Yama" <tjamaNOSPAM@paju.oulu.fi > wrote in message news:blceen$5el$1@ousrvr3.oulu.fi... > > "Steve Jaros" <sjaros5@balk.net> wrote in message > news:JGDdb.23040$sp2.13538@lakeread04... > > > my only opinion on the subject is that servers win > > > too high a % of their serves in the men's game..if something ( i'm not > > sure > > > what) could be done to make the server's advantage > > > > In other words, Whisper and Waltz are wrong - with the modern rackets the > > server has the advantage compared to wood. > > Nope. While you might be able to raise service speed something like 10% with > modern racquet, Crucially, the reduction in speed hurts the server far more than the baseliner. Because that 10% reduction (actually, it's probably more like 15% but either way) takes the serve out of the "kill zone" - the 115+ or so mph range where if the serve is reasonably well placed it is literally unreturnable - and brings it back into the "return zone", i.e., the zone where the returner can actually make a play on the ball. > resulting to few more aces, Exactly - fewer aces, fewer service winners, and fewer serves that the returner can get back over the net, but so weakly that the server has an easy putaway, either at net or from the baseline (call these "winning serves"). Sure, the returner is hurt - he can't rip as many return winners, or very difficult returns (call these "winning returns"), as he can with the modern racket. But, against a big server like sampras, he only gets 1 winning return for every 5 winning serves anyway, so the reduction harms the server far more in total points. Bottom line is, the returner can get his racket on alot more balls and he gets lots more good cuts on the ball if they both switch to wood, and regardless of how badly that hurts his ability to rip return winners, he's much better off getting his racket on the ball and getting good cuts than he is watching the ball whizz by... > you will also get far more > return winners and forced errors from returns. The modern racket permits faster speed, more spin, and better placement on all shots. So let's compare: In the wood era, did we have successful s/v players? Of course - Mac for starters, and before the mid 1970s s/v was the dominant strategy in tennis. Did we have successful baseline players? Of course - Connors, Borg, Vilas all won multiple slams using the baseline strategy during the late 70s and into the 80s using wood or rudimentary-metal rackets. But, did we have successful "serve and sweep up the debris" players? That is, a strategy of booming in a huge serve, then sometimes following it up to the net for an easy putaway, or else staying back and watching to see if the ball was returned at all (often not), or else stepping into the court to putaway (from the baseline) the weak return? No - that strategy, the one created by Boris Becker and mastered by Pete Sampras - didn't exist until the modern rackets were introduced. Clearly, it is dependent on the modern racket moreso than the other strategies... > In the past, even though you might get a serve back with a wooden racquet, > result was much slower and shorter return which immediately put you at the > disadvantage against the server who had an easy volley or putaway. Don't confuse surfaces with rackets. S/V dominated in the wood era when the vast majority of events were on grass. S/V started to decline in the late 70s even though rackets were still rudimentary as the tour shifted away from grass. By 1980, how many great baseliners were around compared to great s/v players? Mac was pretty much alone, in the face of borg, connors, vilas, etc. |
> But, did we have successful "serve and sweep up the debris" players? That > is, a strategy of booming in a huge serve, then sometimes following it up to > the net for an easy putaway, or else staying back and watching to see if the > ball was returned at all (often not), or else stepping into the court to > putaway (from the baseline) the weak return? > > No - that strategy, the one created by Boris Becker and mastered by Pete > Sampras - didn't exist until the modern rackets were introduced. > > Clearly, it is dependent on the modern racket moreso than the other > strategies... ******************************** True, but I get from your analysis that because Sampras/Becker developed their games from the racket evolution, they would have been incapable of adapting to another game if wood rackets were still in place. One thing IMO doesn't immediately follow the other. Theo |
"tcaxel" <Tcaxel@SBCGlobal.net > wrote in message news:k2Deb.410$_r6.60963857@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com... > > > > But, did we have successful "serve and sweep up the debris" players? That > > is, a strategy of booming in a huge serve, then sometimes following it up > to > > the net for an easy putaway, or else staying back and watching to see if > the > > ball was returned at all (often not), or else stepping into the court to > > putaway (from the baseline) the weak return? > > > > No - that strategy, the one created by Boris Becker and mastered by Pete > > Sampras - didn't exist until the modern rackets were introduced. > > > > Clearly, it is dependent on the modern racket moreso than the other > > strategies... > ******************************** > True, but I get from your analysis that because Sampras/Becker developed > their games from the racket evolution, they would have been incapable of > adapting to another game if wood rackets were still in place. One thing > IMO doesn't immediately follow the other. You're absolutely right - we can't know for sure. For all we know, Sampras may adapted into being the greatest baseliner ever if forced to play with wood and on an all-clay tour, and Agassi may have adapted into being the greatest s/v player ever if forced to play with wood and on an all-grass tour. But we can speculate based on probabilities, etc. |
"Steve Jaros" <sjaros5@balk.net > wrote in message news:Lqjeb.27655$sp2.10425@lakeread04... > "Yama" <tjamaNOSPAM@paju.oulu.fi> wrote in message > news:blceen$5el$1@ousrvr3.oulu.fi... > > Nope. While you might be able to raise service speed something like 10% > with > > modern racquet, > > Crucially, the reduction in speed hurts the server far more than the > baseliner. Because that 10% reduction (actually, it's probably more like 15% > but either way) takes the serve out of the "kill zone" - the 115+ or so mph > range where if the serve is reasonably well placed it is literally > unreturnable - and brings it back into the "return zone", i.e., the zone > where the returner can actually make a play on the ball. True, but on balance there is vastly inferior return&passing shot capability. IMHO, the effect of wooden racquets on them is greater. Reason: serve is a fully controlled shot. Size of racquet's sweet spot is of minor concern (big advantage of modern racquets). By contrast, return more than any other shot is made in a rush, without time for proper adjusting. Guy like Agassi or Hewitt needs only to get their racquet somewhere in general vicinity of the ball to produce a return which clears the net, and if they get bit more time they will smash a return winner: fully knowing in both instances that even off-center hit will do the job. Borg with his wooden stick by contrast had to connect *exactly* with the ball, preferably with some sort of swing, otherwise his return would be completely powerless (or then he'd have to slice). > Sure, the returner is hurt - he can't rip as many return winners, or very > difficult returns (call these "winning returns"), as he can with the modern > racket. But, against a big server like sampras, he only gets 1 winning > return for every 5 winning serves anyway, so the reduction harms the server > far more in total points. I don't see how: see above. > Bottom line is, the returner can get his racket on alot more balls and he > gets lots more good cuts on the ball if they both switch to wood, and > regardless of how badly that hurts his ability to rip return winners, he's > much better off getting his racket on the ball and getting good cuts than he > is watching the ball whizz by... But _it doesn't help_. You'll still lose the points. > But, did we have successful "serve and sweep up the debris" players? That > is, a strategy of booming in a huge serve, then sometimes following it up to > the net for an easy putaway, or else staying back and watching to see if the > ball was returned at all (often not), or else stepping into the court to > putaway (from the baseline) the weak return? Roscoe Tanner? Now where are those "serve&speed up the debris" players today? I see only one player in top 10 fits to such descriptions. I thought we should have more of them in era of modern racquets? |
> "Yama" <tjamaNOSPAM@paju.oulu.fi> wrote in message news:blhckv$hgp$1@ousrvr3.oulu.fi... > > "Steve Jaros" <sjaros5@balk.net> wrote in message > news:Lqjeb.27655$sp2.10425@lakeread04... > > "Yama" <tjamaNOSPAM@paju.oulu.fi> wrote in message > > news:blceen$5el$1@ousrvr3.oulu.fi... > > > Nope. While you might be able to raise service speed something like 10% > > with > > > modern racquet, > > > > Crucially, the reduction in speed hurts the server far more than the > > baseliner. Because that 10% reduction (actually, it's probably more like > 15% > > but either way) takes the serve out of the "kill zone" - the 115+ or so > mph > > range where if the serve is reasonably well placed it is literally > > unreturnable - and brings it back into the "return zone", i.e., the zone > > where the returner can actually make a play on the ball. > > True, but on balance there is vastly inferior return&passing shot > capability. IMHO, the effect of wooden racquets on them is greater. Reason: > serve is a fully controlled shot. Size of racquet's sweet spot is of minor > concern (big advantage of modern racquets). .. the control issue is cancelled out by the fact that serve is also a much more precise shot than the return. Margin for error is much smaller. If the serve doesn't paint the lines or jams the returner's body it ends up out or in the returner's wheel-house. The server has to hit a spot, and with wood he not only loses pace, he loses control as well. In contrast, the returner doesn't need the same precision. Sure, it's better if he paints the line with a low return, but if he gets it back low anywhere he's in pretty good shape. > > Sure, the returner is hurt - he can't rip as many return winners, or very > > difficult returns (call these "winning returns"), as he can with the > modern > > racket. But, against a big server like sampras, he only gets 1 winning > > return for every 5 winning serves anyway, so the reduction harms the > server > > far more in total points. > > I don't see how: see above. 1 to 5 or more... the server loses alot more... > > Bottom line is, the returner can get his racket on alot more balls and he > > gets lots more good cuts on the ball if they both switch to wood, and > > regardless of how badly that hurts his ability to rip return winners, he's > > much better off getting his racket on the ball and getting good cuts than > he > > is watching the ball whizz by... > > But _it doesn't help_. You'll still lose the points. That seems to be impossible. The returner will get more balls back. A ball gotten back gives him a chance. The ball whizzes by and he has no chance... > > But, did we have successful "serve and sweep up the debris" players? That > > is, a strategy of booming in a huge serve, then sometimes following it up > to > > the net for an easy putaway, or else staying back and watching to see if > the > > ball was returned at all (often not), or else stepping into the court to > > putaway (from the baseline) the weak return? > > Roscoe Tanner? ??? > Now where are those "serve&speed up the debris" players today? I see only > one player in top 10 fits to such descriptions. I thought we should have > more of them in era of modern racquets? The way i see it, the tour is divided between baseliners (who have proliferated thanks to clay and rubbery hard courts) and big servers who play "serve and sweep" (like Roddick). Don't get me wrong - i'm not saying it's easy to play serve/sweep. It arguably requires more skills than the grinding- baseline game does. You have to have a huge serve, and you have to back it up with ground weapons and the ability to play at least somewhat well at the net. But it is a style most-heavily dependent on the modern racket. |
"Yama" <tjamaNOSPAM@paju.oulu.fi > wrote in message news:blhckv$hgp$1@ousrvr3.oulu.fi... > > "Steve Jaros" <sjaros5@balk.net> wrote in message > news:Lqjeb.27655$sp2.10425@lakeread04... > > "Yama" <tjamaNOSPAM@paju.oulu.fi> wrote in message > > news:blceen$5el$1@ousrvr3.oulu.fi... > > > Nope. While you might be able to raise service speed something like 10% > > with > > > modern racquet, > > > > Crucially, the reduction in speed hurts the server far more than the > > baseliner. Because that 10% reduction (actually, it's probably more like > 15% > > but either way) takes the serve out of the "kill zone" - the 115+ or so > mph > > range where if the serve is reasonably well placed it is literally > > unreturnable - and brings it back into the "return zone", i.e., the zone > > where the returner can actually make a play on the ball. > > True, but on balance there is vastly inferior return&passing shot > capability. IMHO, the effect of wooden racquets on them is greater. Reason: > serve is a fully controlled shot. Size of racquet's sweet spot is of minor > concern (big advantage of modern racquets). By contrast, return more than > any other shot is made in a rush, without time for proper adjusting. Guy > like Agassi or Hewitt needs only to get their racquet somewhere in general > vicinity of the ball to produce a return which clears the net, and if they > get bit more time they will smash a return winner: fully knowing in both > instances that even off-center hit will do the job. > > Borg with his wooden stick by contrast had to connect *exactly* with the > ball, preferably with some sort of swing, otherwise his return would be > completely powerless (or then he'd have to slice). Don't waste your breath. About six people on this board have tried to explain it to Jaros, but evidently he never played with a wood racquet in his life. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
> Don't waste your breath. lol... that's right, zenyatta - try to invoke the # of sampras fans who agree with you to cover for the inadequacies of your arguments. |
Anybody who disagrees with your assesment you just label a Sampras fan who is biased, yet here you are arguing that Agassi is the one who would have it better with a wood racquet and everyone on this board knows your bias towards him. You talk about how modern racquets help out the server so much more that it has created a new type of player the one you label serve & sweep up the debris, yet when Yama asked you to name the top players who fit this category the only name you could come up with is Roddick. Geez if the modern racquets help out servers so much we should be seeing a lot more of these sweep up the debris players. Agassi, Ferrero, Federer, Hewitt, Coria, Grosjean, Nalbandian & Schuettler are all top ten players and none of them come close to your sweep up the debris style. Most would say Fed's game is pretty well balanced all around, but all of those other players are known for having a better return of serve than serve. Geez that doesn't seem right based on your logic that modern racquets help the server so much. "Steve Jaros" <sjaros5@balk.net > wrote in message news:7Z2fb.29964$sp2.1205@lakeread04... > > > Don't waste your breath. > > lol... that's right, zenyatta - try to invoke the # of sampras fans who > agree with you to cover for the inadequacies of your arguments. > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
> "Zenyatta" <abc@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3f7e0f3a_7@corp.newsgroups.com... > Since when has Yama been a huge Sampras fan? > > Anybody who disagrees with your assesment you just label > a Sampras fan who is biased, Usually, that's exactly what i'm dealing with. Plus, that's better than your specious claims about me never having swung a wood racket and the like. I at least have argued all the relevant points. If you have a decent argument, let's hear it. And dispense with the extraneous nonsense. > yet here you are arguing that > Agassi is the one who would have it better with a wood racquet > and everyone on this board knows your bias towards him. I argue the same point for Agassi vs. Becker, and Becker is my all-time favorite. > You talk about how modern racquets help out the server so > much more that it has created a new type of player the one > you label serve & sweep up the debris, yet when Yama asked > you to name the top players who fit this category the only > name you could come up with is Roddick. Geez if the modern > racquets help out servers so much we should be seeing a lot > more of these sweep up the debris players. That's absurd. The # of players successfully using a strategy and the degree to which the strategy depends on a certain kind of racket are two different things. I've already pretty convincingly shown that "serve and sweep" is very modern-racket dependent, moreso than the baseline/returner strategy. How many guys play it is a function of other factors, like the skills needed to do so and surfaces. The decline of carpet as a surface, such that much of the tour is now on clay and slower hard courts, which naturally favor the baseliner, might be having an effect on the # of baseliners compared to serve-and-sweepers. Faster (US Open-style) hard court events still abound, but that surface doesn't clearly favor the guy who is mostly dependent on the huge serve. It's more of a neutral surface vis-a-vis baseliners. Whereas clay and even the rebound-ace stuff seem to be clearly favorable to the baseliners... |
"Steve Jaros" <sjaros5@balk.net > wrote in message news:5sofb.30897$sp2.14063@lakeread04... > > > "Zenyatta" <abc@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:3f7e0f3a_7@corp.newsgroups.com... > > Since when has Yama been a huge Sampras fan? > > > > Anybody who disagrees with your assesment you just label > > a Sampras fan who is biased, > > Usually, that's exactly what i'm dealing with. Plus, that's better than your > specious claims about me never having swung a wood racket and the like. I at > least have argued all the relevant points. I have also argued the relevant points and have you ever used a wood racquet I don't believe you ever answered that one. > If you have a decent argument, let's hear it. And dispense with the > extraneous nonsense. I have and so have the people on the Sampras-Borg thread that called your theory wrong. > > The decline of carpet as a surface, such that much of the tour is now on > clay and slower hard courts, which naturally favor the baseliner, might be > having an effect on the # of baseliners compared to serve-and-sweepers. > Faster (US Open-style) hard court events still abound, but that surface > doesn't clearly favor the guy who is mostly dependent on the huge serve. > It's more of a neutral surface vis-a-vis baseliners. Whereas clay and even > the rebound-ace stuff seem to be clearly favorable to the baseliners... Clay? Ten years ago you had the French Open and three super 9's on clay MC, Rome, Hamburg. Start naming off all the additional big time clay tournaments. I'm sure that list will be as short as the list you came up for serve & sweep up the debris players. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
"Zenyatta" <abc@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:3f7e1ac5_7@corp.newsgroups.com... > > "Steve Jaros" <sjaros5@balk.net> wrote in message news:5sofb.30897$sp2.14063@lakeread04... > > > > > "Zenyatta" <abc@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:3f7e0f3a_7@corp.newsgroups.com... > > > Since when has Yama been a huge Sampras fan? > > > > > > Anybody who disagrees with your assesment you just label > > > a Sampras fan who is biased, > > > > Usually, that's exactly what i'm dealing with. Plus, that's better than your > > specious claims about me never having swung a wood racket and the like. I at > > least have argued all the relevant points. > > I have also argued the relevant points and have you ever used a wood racquet > I don't believe you ever answered that one. I used one 30 years ago. What about you? > > If you have a decent argument, let's hear it. And dispense with the > > extraneous nonsense. > > I have and so have the people on the Sampras-Borg thread > that called your theory wrong. But i refuted those arguments. Once that happened, you resorted to making snide comments about how other people agree with you. What was that all about? > > The decline of carpet as a surface, such that much of the tour is now on > > clay and slower hard courts, which naturally favor the baseliner, might be > > having an effect on the # of baseliners compared to serve-and-sweepers. > > Faster (US Open-style) hard court events still abound, but that surface > > doesn't clearly favor the guy who is mostly dependent on the huge serve. > > It's more of a neutral surface vis-a-vis baseliners. Whereas clay and even > > the rebound-ace stuff seem to be clearly favorable to the baseliners... > > Clay? Ten years ago you had the French Open and three super 9's on > clay MC, Rome, Hamburg. Start naming off all the additional big time > clay tournaments. I'm sure that list will be as short as the list you > came up for serve & sweep up the debris players. Clay is clearly a major surface these days. But again, this is no more relevant than the # of 'serve and sweep' players is. The issues are clearly separate. |
"Steve Jaros" <sjaros5@balk.net > wrote in message news:7mqfb.30988$sp2.9536@lakeread04... > > "Zenyatta" <abc@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:3f7e1ac5_7@corp.newsgroups.com... > > > > "Steve Jaros" <sjaros5@balk.net> wrote in message > news:5sofb.30897$sp2.14063@lakeread04... > > > > > > > "Zenyatta" <abc@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > news:3f7e0f3a_7@corp.newsgroups.com... > > > > Since when has Yama been a huge Sampras fan? > > > > > > > > Anybody who disagrees with your assesment you just label > > > > a Sampras fan who is biased, > > > > > > Usually, that's exactly what i'm dealing with. Plus, that's better than > your > > > specious claims about me never having swung a wood racket and the like. > I at > > > least have argued all the relevant points. > > > > I have also argued the relevant points and have you ever used a wood > racquet > > I don't believe you ever answered that one. > > I used one 30 years ago. What about you? Yes about 20-25 years ago. Still try it out every now and then today. > > > If you have a decent argument, let's hear it. And dispense with the > > > extraneous nonsense. > > > > I have and so have the people on the Sampras-Borg thread > > that called your theory wrong. > > But i refuted those arguments. Once that happened, you resorted to making > snide comments about how other people agree with you. What was that all > about? No more snide than you using a "Sampras fanatics" defense against everyone that disagreed with you. > > > The decline of carpet as a surface, such that much of the tour is now on > > > clay and slower hard courts, which naturally favor the baseliner, might > be > > > having an effect on the # of baseliners compared to serve-and-sweepers. > > > Faster (US Open-style) hard court events still abound, but that surface > > > doesn't clearly favor the guy who is mostly dependent on the huge serve. > > > It's more of a neutral surface vis-a-vis baseliners. Whereas clay and > even > > > the rebound-ace stuff seem to be clearly favorable to the baseliners... > > > > Clay? Ten years ago you had the French Open and three super 9's on > > clay MC, Rome, Hamburg. Start naming off all the additional big time > > clay tournaments. I'm sure that list will be as short as the list you > > came up for serve & sweep up the debris players. > > Clay is clearly a major surface these days. But again, this is no more > relevant than the # of 'serve and sweep' players is. The issues are clearly > separate. Sure it's a major surface, but no more than it was 10 years ago. 10 years ago you had 2 slams on hardcourt (one slower, one faster) and 4 super nines on hardcourts. Same today. You had the French on clay and also 3 super nines on clay. Same today. You had 2 super nines & the Masters indoors. Same today. And Wimby on grass. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
> > But i refuted those arguments. Once that happened, you resorted to making > > snide comments about how other people agree with you. What was that all > > about? > > No more snide than you using a "Sampras fanatics" defense against > everyone that disagreed with you. True, but in my exchange with you that came after your comments about what everyone agrees with. Before then, we'd been debating the points in a reasonable manner. BTW, in other threads my position has gotten at least as much support as the Sampras side has. Not that that matters in any way, but you seem to be impressed by stuff like that... > > Clay is clearly a major surface these days. But again, this is no more > > relevant than the # of 'serve and sweep' players is. The issues are clearly > > separate. > > Sure it's a major surface, but no more than it was 10 years ago. Is it just everyone's imagination that there are more "clay court specialists" in the upper echelons now than then? > 10 years ago you had 2 slams on hardcourt (one slower, one faster) and > 4 super nines on hardcourts. Same today. > You had the French on clay and also 3 super nines on clay. Same today. > You had 2 super nines & the Masters indoors. Same today. > And Wimby on grass. But you also had alot more carpet events back then. There was a spring carpet season (at least 3-4 events) that huge servers could play instead of slower HC stuff and clay stuff. And then the fall carpet season, with big events like the Paris Open and then the Grand Slam Cup and then the Masters on carpet. Now, even some of those indoors events (like the Masters and Stuttgart) have gone from carpet to indoor hard court, which isn't as favorable, and the GS Cup doesn't exist anymore... |
"Steve Jaros" <sjaros5@balk.net > wrote in message news:K2sfb.30992$sp2.22120@lakeread04... > > > Clay is clearly a major surface these days. But again, this is no more > > > relevant than the # of 'serve and sweep' players is. The issues are > clearly > > > separate. > > > > Sure it's a major surface, but no more than it was 10 years ago. > > Is it just everyone's imagination that there are more "clay court > specialists" in the upper echelons now than then? Right now there are 3 guys in the top 10 who would probably say their favorite surface is clay: Ferrero, Moya & Coria. And Ferrero and Moya are capable hard court players to boot. 10 years ago you had people like Bruguera and Berasategui who were definately clay court specialists and Muster who was much more close to being a clay court specialist than Moya or Ferrero are. > > 10 years ago you had 2 slams on hardcourt (one slower, one faster) and > > 4 super nines on hardcourts. Same today. > > You had the French on clay and also 3 super nines on clay. Same today. > > You had 2 super nines & the Masters indoors. Same today. > > And Wimby on grass. > > But you also had alot more carpet events back then. There was a spring > carpet season (at least 3-4 events) that huge servers could play instead of > slower HC stuff and clay stuff. And then the fall carpet season, with big > events like the Paris Open and then the Grand Slam Cup and then the Masters > on carpet. Now, even some of those indoors events (like the Masters and > Stuttgart) have gone from carpet to indoor hard court, which isn't as > favorable, and the GS Cup doesn't exist anymore... > First off the GS Cup didn't mean squat. You win it and you get a big paycheck, but a big fat zero for points toward your ranking. Carpet and hard court are both artificial surfaces and can be adjusted to play faster or slower. Look at who won the indoor tournaments after the Aussie. Guys like Verkerk, Dent & Mirnyi. All of these guys are known first and foremost for having big serves. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
"Zenyatta" <abc@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:3f7ed353_5@corp.newsgroups.com... > > "Steve Jaros" <sjaros5@balk.net> wrote in message news:K2sfb.30992$sp2.22120@lakeread04... > > > > Clay is clearly a major surface these days. But again, this is no more > > > > relevant than the # of 'serve and sweep' players is. The issues are > > clearly > > > > separate. > > > > > > Sure it's a major surface, but no more than it was 10 years ago. > > > > Is it just everyone's imagination that there are more "clay court > > specialists" in the upper echelons now than then? > > Right now there are 3 guys in the top 10 who would probably say > their favorite surface is clay: Ferrero, Moya & Coria. And Ferrero > and Moya are capable hard court players to boot. 10 years ago you > had people like Bruguera and Berasategui who were definately clay > court specialists and Muster who was much more close to being > a clay court specialist than Moya or Ferrero are. I don't know, Zenyatta, i've never heard anyone argue that clay specialists don't have a stronger presence on tour than they've ever have. The whole clay circuit seems as strong as ever. Here's the top 15 for the farthest back date i could find, 8/22/94: 1 Sampras, Pete 1 0 5405 5405 0 1277 147 2 Ivanisevic, Goran 2 0 3182 3182 0 996 498 3 Bruguera, Sergi 3 0 2860 2860 0 270 157 4 Stich, Michael 5 1 2853 2770 83 -592 -195 5 Edberg, Stefan 4 -1 2798 2790 8 227 -7 6 Chang, Michael 6 0 2579 2579 0 425 142 7 Becker, Boris 8 1 2442 2269 173 484 247 8 Medvedev, Andrei 7 -1 2229 2458 -229 -186 -335 9 Martin, Todd 9 0 2201 2201 0 506 -22 10 Berasategui, Alberto 11 1 2037 2107 -70 1111 239 11 Courier, Jim 10 -1 1867 2135 -268 -1523 -576 12 Ferreira, Wayne 15 3 1832 1538 294 554 438 13 Muster, Thomas 12 -1 1819 1819 0 -214 -272 14 Kafelnikov, Yevgeny 14 0 1759 1676 83 1321 357 15 Rosset, Marc Doesn't seem to be dominated by clay courters - we've got brugera at 3, berasatagui at 10 and muster at 13. In contrast, some big servers are up there - Sampras at 1, Ivo at 2, Stich at 4, Becker at 7, Martin at 9, Rosset at 15... Of course, this week may note be representative of the era, but still... > > > 10 years ago you had 2 slams on hardcourt (one slower, one faster) and > > > 4 super nines on hardcourts. Same today. > > > You had the French on clay and also 3 super nines on clay. Same today. > > > You had 2 super nines & the Masters indoors. Same today. > > > And Wimby on grass. > > > > But you also had alot more carpet events back then. There was a spring > > carpet season (at least 3-4 events) that huge servers could play instead of > > slower HC stuff and clay stuff. And then the fall carpet season, with big > > events like the Paris Open and then the Grand Slam Cup and then the Masters > > on carpet. Now, even some of those indoors events (like the Masters and > > Stuttgart) have gone from carpet to indoor hard court, which isn't as > > favorable, and the GS Cup doesn't exist anymore... > > > > First off the GS Cup didn't mean squat. You win it and you get a big paycheck, > but a big fat zero for points toward your ranking. Still, money counts more for a lot of guys - big names like sampras, stich, agassi, and becker played and won it. > Carpet and hard court are > both artificial surfaces and can be adjusted to play faster or slower. Look at > who won the indoor tournaments after the Aussie. Guys like Verkerk, Dent & > Mirnyi. All of these guys are known first and foremost for having big serves. Sure, some adjustments can be made, but carpet is obviously a better surface for the big server than anything excepting grass. It's hard to maintain that the overall surface mix of the tour isn't more favorable to the baseliner than the big server compared with 10 years ago. |
"bob" <rstein5@NOSPAMcfl.rr.com > wrote in message news:QCBdb.40371$Ci5.1049873@twister.tampabay.rr.com... > "Whisper" <beaver99@tpg.com.au> wrote in message > news:3f76904d@dnews.tpgi.com.au... > > > > "Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@skypoint.com> wrote in message news:waltzmn- > > > > > > Example: 1932 Wimbledon final, Vines vs Austin: 6-2 6-2 6-0. Vines > > served > > > > 30 aces. That's 2.5 aces per service game. Doubtful Roddick is going > to > > do > > > > that anytime soon. > > > > > > > > And some people want bring back the wood...? > > > > > > People want to bring back wood because it would weaken the return. > > > Which the above supports. (Note that Navratilova said that modern > > > racquets hurt serve-and-volleyers, because they help only the > > > S&V player's serve, but they help every groundstroke.) > > > > > > There may be some people who want to bring back wood for purposes > > > of weakening the serve. But the *real* reason to bring back wood > > > is to weaken the power of the return. > > > > > > In hindsight, the improvement in serves which people attributed > > > solely to metal racquets is probably at least partly due to > > > improved conditioning. > > > > > > O my god! - I'm stunned. I was about to post 'excellent post' when I > > realised it's Waltz - took a few yrs, but just goes to show anyone can > make > > sense sometimes.... > > i recall in the 70s, very early 80s (with wood or small frame aluminum) that > some big servers had mph not far off today's top big hitters..and hit > corners very well also (i remember tanner's serve for ex, when "on" being > completely unreturnable)..but i also remember many more rallies during your > average match.. > > there have been discussions in the NBA that the players are too big, too > good -- to raise the net from 10' to 12' to take away the "big man's > advantage", i.e. no dunks..no way to know the effect til it's tried out..in > tennis, this would be equivalent to moving some lines or net dimensions, no > way to know the effect..my only opinion on the subject is that servers win > too high a % of their serves in the men's game..if something ( i'm not sure > what) could be done to make the server's advantage slightly less, it'd > improve the game..suggestions? > > bob It's a tough one because modern rackets really beef up returns/rallies too, so restricting the serve would mean no serve/volleying is possible at all...... If the returns/passing shots weren't so potent there would be more net play.... |
news:3f777e19@dnews.tpgi.com.au... > > "bob" <rstein5@NOSPAMcfl.rr.com> wrote in message > news:QCBdb.40371$Ci5.1049873@twister.tampabay.rr.com... > > "Whisper" <beaver99@tpg.com.au> wrote in message > > news:3f76904d@dnews.tpgi.com.au... > > > > > > "Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@skypoint.com> wrote in message news:waltzmn- > > > > > > > > Example: 1932 Wimbledon final, Vines vs Austin: 6-2 6-2 6-0. > Vines > > > served > > > > > 30 aces. That's 2.5 aces per service game. Doubtful Roddick is going > > to > > > do > > > > > that anytime soon. > > > > > > > > > > And some people want bring back the wood...? > > > > > > > > People want to bring back wood because it would weaken the return. > > > > Which the above supports. (Note that Navratilova said that modern > > > > racquets hurt serve-and-volleyers, because they help only the > > > > S&V player's serve, but they help every groundstroke.) > > > > > > > > There may be some people who want to bring back wood for purposes > > > > of weakening the serve. But the *real* reason to bring back wood > > > > is to weaken the power of the return. > > > > > > > > In hindsight, the improvement in serves which people attributed > > > > solely to metal racquets is probably at least partly due to > > > > improved conditioning. > > > > > > > > > O my god! - I'm stunned. I was about to post 'excellent post' when I > > > realised it's Waltz - took a few yrs, but just goes to show anyone can > > make > > > sense sometimes.... > > > > i recall in the 70s, very early 80s (with wood or small frame aluminum) > that > > some big servers had mph not far off today's top big hitters..and hit > > corners very well also (i remember tanner's serve for ex, when "on" being > > completely unreturnable)..but i also remember many more rallies during > your > > average match.. > > > > there have been discussions in the NBA that the players are too big, too > > good -- to raise the net from 10' to 12' to take away the "big man's > > advantage", i.e. no dunks..no way to know the effect til it's tried > out..in > > tennis, this would be equivalent to moving some lines or net dimensions, > no > > way to know the effect..my only opinion on the subject is that servers win > > too high a % of their serves in the men's game..if something ( i'm not > sure > > what) could be done to make the server's advantage slightly less, it'd > > improve the game..suggestions? > > > > bob > > > It's a tough one because modern rackets really beef up returns/rallies too, > so restricting the serve would mean no serve/volleying is possible at > all...... true, that's why i can't tell w/out seeing it happen if the service reduction would offset the return reduction, which would dominate..tough call. > If the returns/passing shots weren't so potent there would be more net > play.... agreed..i wouldn't mind seeing it -- somehow. bob |
"Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@skypoint.com > wrote in message news:waltzmn-492CEF.08173027092003@corp.supernews.com... > "Yama" <tjamaNOSPAM@paju.oulu.fi> wrote: > > And some people want bring back the wood...? > > People want to bring back wood because it would weaken the return. > Which the above supports. (Note that Navratilova said that modern > racquets hurt serve-and-volleyers, because they help only the > S&V player's serve, but they help every groundstroke.) Plenty of people want to bring back wood because it supposedly reduces the role of serve (in which they are completely wrong, of course). Some slightly less clueless people want to bring back the wood because it makes returns and passing shots less effective (ie. totally opposite than the other crowd). They are correct, but they are IMHO wrong in that it results in "better" tennis. Sure, you will see more S&V players, but you will also see serve&miss players, and can anyone imagine what wooden racquets will do to claycourt tennis? > In hindsight, the improvement in serves which people attributed > solely to metal racquets is probably at least partly due to > improved conditioning. Partly, perhaps, but I think it's more of a simply competition getting tougher. You can't afford anymore not to have at least some sort of serve. Today's player train more, and they train serve more, and they know that even relatively short players can have okay serves (Chang, Grosjean etc). |
[ ... ] > > In hindsight, the improvement in serves which people attributed > > solely to metal racquets is probably at least partly due to > > improved conditioning. > > Partly, perhaps, but I think it's more of a simply competition getting > tougher. You can't afford anymore not to have at least some sort of serve. > Today's player train more, and they train serve more, and they know that > even relatively short players can have okay serves (Chang, Grosjean etc). That's what I meant, really. The point is, people have better serves because they work on them much harder. -- True liberty can only come when all people choose to love their neighbors as themselves. -- source unknown, probably paraphrased |
"Yama" <tjamaNOSPAM@paju.oulu.fi > wrote in message news:bl7j7u$ook$1@ousrvr3.oulu.fi... > > "Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@skypoint.com> wrote in message > news:waltzmn-492CEF.08173027092003@corp.supernews.com... > > "Yama" <tjamaNOSPAM@paju.oulu.fi> wrote: > > > And some people want bring back the wood...? > > > > People want to bring back wood because it would weaken the return. > > Which the above supports. (Note that Navratilova said that modern > > racquets hurt serve-and-volleyers, because they help only the > > S&V player's serve, but they help every groundstroke.) > > Plenty of people want to bring back wood because it supposedly reduces the > role of serve (in which they are completely wrong, of course). > > Some slightly less clueless people want to bring back the wood because it > makes returns and passing shots less effective (ie. totally opposite than > the other crowd). They are correct, but they are IMHO wrong in that it > results in "better" tennis. Sure, you will see more S&V players, but you > will also see serve&miss players, and can anyone imagine what wooden > racquets will do to claycourt tennis? > I tend to agree, but thinking about it some more it may be the lesser of 2 evils? I think the quality of play would improve from the 70's (better nutrition/training/psychology etc). Cutting back on service power would mean everyone plays baseline tennis, & nobody coming to net except to shake hands. That would put the final nail in... |
"Yama" <tjamaNOSPAM@paju.oulu.fi > wrote in message news:bl3es7 > Example: 1932 Wimbledon final, Vines vs Austin: 6-2 6-2 6-0. Actually 6-4 6-2 6-0. >Vines served 30 aces. That's 2.5 aces per service game. On matchpoint Vines's service ace was so fast spectators swore they didn't see the ball; just the chalk fly before the ball hit the backwall.......... More "impossible" feats from woodheads: Ashe served 37 aces and Newcombe 26 in their 1965 Australian Champs semi and Kevin Curren served 33 aces in four sets in beating Connors at Wimbledon 1983. At the time Curren used a Wilson wood. |
"Lloyd" <watiyinna@smartchat.net.au > wrote in message news:bl65sp$cm$1@yeppa.connect.com.au... > > "Yama" <tjamaNOSPAM@paju.oulu.fi> wrote in message news:bl3es7 > > > Example: 1932 Wimbledon final, Vines vs Austin: 6-2 6-2 6-0. > > Actually 6-4 6-2 6-0. > > >Vines served > 30 aces. That's 2.5 aces per service game. > > On matchpoint Vines's service ace was so fast spectators swore they didn't > see the ball; just the chalk fly before the ball hit the backwall.......... > > More "impossible" feats from woodheads: Ashe served 37 aces and Newcombe 26 > in their 1965 Australian Champs semi and Kevin Curren served 33 aces in four > sets in beating Connors at Wimbledon 1983. At the time Curren used a Wilson > wood. > > Couldn't have happened as Jaros says it's impossible. Or maybe Ashe woulda been serving 100 aces per match with modern technology....? |
"Whisper" <beaver99@tpg.com.au > wrote in message news:3f76e4ce@dnews.tpgi.com.au... > > "Lloyd" <watiyinna@smartchat.net.au> wrote in message > news:bl65sp$cm$1@yeppa.connect.com.au... > > > > "Yama" <tjamaNOSPAM@paju.oulu.fi> wrote in message news:bl3es7 > > > > > Example: 1932 Wimbledon final, Vines vs Austin: 6-2 6-2 6-0. > > > > Actually 6-4 6-2 6-0. > > > > >Vines served > > 30 aces. That's 2.5 aces per service game. > > > > On matchpoint Vines's service ace was so fast spectators swore they didn't > > see the ball; just the chalk fly before the ball hit the > backwall.......... > > > > More "impossible" feats from woodheads: Ashe served 37 aces and Newcombe > 26 > > in their 1965 Australian Champs semi and Kevin Curren served 33 aces in > four > > sets in beating Connors at Wimbledon 1983. At the time Curren used a > Wilson > > wood. > > > > > > Couldn't have happened as Jaros says it's impossible. Not so. This is anecdotal evidence, not evidence that is necessarily representative of the eras... |
news:bl65sp$cm$1@yeppa.connect.com.au... > > "Yama" <tjamaNOSPAM@paju.oulu.fi> wrote in message news:bl3es7 > > > Example: 1932 Wimbledon final, Vines vs Austin: 6-2 6-2 6-0. > > Actually 6-4 6-2 6-0. > > >Vines served > 30 aces. That's 2.5 aces per service game. > > On matchpoint Vines's service ace was so fast spectators swore they didn't > see the ball; just the chalk fly before the ball hit the backwall.......... well after all, Vines needed such a serve, it was a very deep draw.. :-) > More "impossible" feats from woodheads: Ashe served 37 aces and Newcombe 26 > in their 1965 Australian Champs semi and Kevin Curren served 33 aces in four > sets in beating Connors at Wimbledon 1983. At the time Curren used a Wilson > wood. i agree, there were unbelievable strong service performances with wood, but IMO (and i have no stats to show it) there were far more rallies on your avg pt in your avg match (even on grass) with wood. bob |
"bob" <rstein5@NOSPAMcfl.rr.com > wrote in message news:rEBdb.40372$Ci5.1049602@twister.tampabay.rr.com... > "Lloyd" <watiyinna@smartchat.net.au> wrote in message > news:bl65sp$cm$1@yeppa.connect.com.au... > > > > "Yama" <tjamaNOSPAM@paju.oulu.fi> wrote in message news:bl3es7 > > > > > Example: 1932 Wimbledon final, Vines vs Austin: 6-2 6-2 6-0. > > > > Actually 6-4 6-2 6-0. > > > > >Vines served > > 30 aces. That's 2.5 aces per service game. > > > > On matchpoint Vines's service ace was so fast spectators swore they didn't > > see the ball; just the chalk fly before the ball hit the > backwall.......... > > well after all, Vines needed such a serve, it was a very deep draw.. :-) > > > More "impossible" feats from woodheads: Ashe served 37 aces and Newcombe > 26 > > in their 1965 Australian Champs semi and Kevin Curren served 33 aces in > four > > sets in beating Connors at Wimbledon 1983. At the time Curren used a > Wilson > > wood. > > i agree, there were unbelievable strong service performances with wood, but > IMO (and i have no stats to show it) there were far more rallies on your avg > pt in your avg match (even on grass) with wood. > > bob There would be more rallies with wood as it's harder to hit clean winners. Maybe raising the net would slow down some big serves, & also make it harder to hit clean winners off the return. Might be worth experimenting...? |
news:3f777e99@dnews.tpgi.com.au... > > "bob" <rstein5@NOSPAMcfl.rr.com> wrote in message > news:rEBdb.40372$Ci5.1049602@twister.tampabay.rr.com... > > "Lloyd" <watiyinna@smartchat.net.au> wrote in message > > news:bl65sp$cm$1@yeppa.connect.com.au... > > > > > > "Yama" <tjamaNOSPAM@paju.oulu.fi> wrote in message news:bl3es7 > > > > > > > Example: 1932 Wimbledon final, Vines vs Austin: 6-2 6-2 6-0. > > > > > > Actually 6-4 6-2 6-0. > > > > > > >Vines served > > > 30 aces. That's 2.5 aces per service game. > > > > > > On matchpoint Vines's service ace was so fast spectators swore they > didn't > > > see the ball; just the chalk fly before the ball hit the > > backwall.......... > > > > well after all, Vines needed such a serve, it was a very deep draw.. :-) > > > > > More "impossible" feats from woodheads: Ashe served 37 aces and Newcombe > > 26 > > > in their 1965 Australian Champs semi and Kevin Curren served 33 aces in > > four > > > sets in beating Connors at Wimbledon 1983. At the time Curren used a > > Wilson > > > wood. > > > > i agree, there were unbelievable strong service performances with wood, > but > > IMO (and i have no stats to show it) there were far more rallies on your > avg > > pt in your avg match (even on grass) with wood. > > > > bob > > > There would be more rallies with wood as it's harder to hit clean winners. > > Maybe raising the net would slow down some big serves, & also make it harder > to hit clean winners off the return. Might be worth experimenting...? maybe a new thread..should tennis change (1) lines/dimensions (2) net height (3) racket composition (4) nothing? bob |
> > maybe a new thread..should tennis change (1) lines/dimensions (2) net height > (3) racket composition (4) nothing? > Maybe (4) nothing. US Open champions win $1 million each. I'd say tennis is pretty damned popular. I don't think it's realistic to expect tennis to be like football or baseball. I don't think making major changes to the game is really warranted. Maybe the most important thing to change is better marketing and/or a bigger push for pros to do clinics and exhibitions. dwhite |
"bob" <rstein5@NOSPAMcfl.rr.com > wrote in message news:a2Ndb.30671 > > > > There would be more rallies with wood as it's harder to hit clean winners. > > > > Maybe raising the net would slow down some big serves, & also make it > harder > > to hit clean winners off the return. Might be worth experimenting...? > > maybe a new thread..should tennis change (1) lines/dimensions (2) net height > (3) racket composition (4) nothing? > > bob Yes, but reducing to 1 serve eg is way off base...... need to restrict return advantage somehow... |
> There would be more rallies with wood as it's harder to hit clean winners. Well said, and this pretty much settles the agassi/sampras/wood issue. With wood, the net effect is that rallies are longer because the server can't hit as many aces/service winners, and the returner can't hit as many clean winners. And of course in baseline rallies, it would be much harder to hit clean winners from the baseline with wood so the rallies would be longer. Therefore, the only issue left to address is "whose game is more dependent on hitting winners off the serve and from the baseline, and whose game is better suited to winning longer, grind-it-out rallies"? Wood would hurt Andre, but it would be disastrous for Sampras. Thanks for proving the point... :) |
> i agree, there were unbelievable strong service performances with wood, but > IMO (and i have no stats to show it) there were far more rallies on your avg > pt in your avg match (even on grass) with wood. bob, what's the "net effect" of going to a wood racket from a modern one? The wood substance naturally provides less pace, and furthermore the hitter has to strike the ball with less force because it allows for less accuracy (65" head = very small sweet spot). So overall, the ball ends up flying through the air much more slowly on *all* shots - serves, returns, baseline strokes - than it does with the modern racket. That's why when we see tapes of mac and borg from 1980 it looks like 'slo motion' by comparison to today's game. Overall, that means fewer winners. Fewer aces, fewer service winners, fewer return winners, fewer baseline winners. If the ball is travelling more slowly, guys have a better chance to get their rackets on it. Thus, as you note, longer rallies, even on grass. Hmm.. sounds somewhat like *clay court tennis*. Because what does clay do? It dampens the pace on the ball. Not as much as a return to wood would, but it still dampens the pace on the ball. Now, applying this to Pete vs. Andre - who has the better record on clay? It shouldn't be too hard to connect the dots and realize that, given the surfaces the tour is played on now, a return to wood would be far more disastrous to Sampras than Andre. Because Sampras was far more winners-dependent, and totally unsuited to "grinding it out"... |
> > Thus, as you note, longer rallies, even on grass. A lot of short points in Wim '80 final, though... Versus, say, '02 W with Hewitt/Nalbandian. ;-) > > Hmm.. sounds somewhat like *clay court tennis*. Because what does clay do? > It dampens the pace on the ball. Not as much as a return to wood would, but > it still dampens the pace on the ball. > > Now, applying this to Pete vs. Andre - who has the better record on clay? > > It shouldn't be too hard to connect the dots and realize that, given the > surfaces the tour is played on now, a return to wood would be far more > disastrous to Sampras than Andre. > > Because Sampras was far more winners-dependent, and totally unsuited to > "grinding it out"... Are you saying fast-court specialists were at a disadvantage prior to graphite? Mac seemed to do fine, and he was dependent on serve and on winners too -- hardly a grinder who liked to stay in a point for 20 shots. |
> Are you saying fast-court specialists were at a disadvantage prior to > graphite? Mac seemed to do fine, and he was dependent on serve and on > winners too -- hardly a grinder who liked to stay in a point for 20 > shots. Mac was a pure s/v player. Unlike Pete, he didn't depend on a huge serve to win points for him, he relied on the serve+volley combination. Plus, look at the surfaces Mac played on in 1980: carpet: 12 events grass: 3 events hard: 4 events clay: 5 events So Mac played 15 events on surfaces that clearly favor the big serving or s/v player, 5 on the surface that clearly favors the baseliner, and 4 events on hard courts, which favors the baseliner but not as much as clay does. Mac won 9 events that year, 8 of them were on carpet or grass. 1 (the USO) was on hard courts. 0 were on clay. Could Mac possibly play a schedule like that today? No way. There aren't nearly as many carpet events. Bouncy hard courts and clay have taken over. "Fast court specialists" had lots of options when Mac was playing. Yet even so, most of the top champs by that point in time - connors, borg, vilas - were baseliners. Mac was a dying bread... Then, the introduction of the modern rackets revived the serve-oriented game, though it didn't revive s/v. It created a new beast - huge serving... |
news:sHXdb.23773$sp2.976@lakeread04... > > > i agree, there were unbelievable strong service performances with wood, > but > > IMO (and i have no stats to show it) there were far more rallies on your > avg > > pt in your avg match (even on grass) with wood. > > bob, what's the "net effect" of going to a wood racket from a modern one? > The wood substance naturally provides less pace, and furthermore the hitter > has to strike the ball with less force because it allows for less accuracy > (65" head = very small sweet spot). you're thinking about flat shots steven..top players use HUGE spin today compared to wooden era..take that into account please, it's very important and you're ignoring it. > So overall, the ball ends up flying through the air much more slowly on > *all* shots - serves, returns, baseline strokes - than it does with the > modern racket. see above par. > That's why when we see tapes of mac and borg from 1980 it > looks like 'slo motion' by comparison to today's game. not cause of wood only..it's cause the players evolved today by starting younger, getting stronger earlier, practicing harder, being more fit. > Overall, that means fewer winners. Fewer aces, fewer service winners, fewer > return winners, fewer baseline winners. If the ball is travelling more > slowly, guys have a better chance to get their rackets on it. > Thus, as you note, longer rallies, even on grass. > Hmm.. sounds somewhat like *clay court tennis*. clay court tennis is huge topspin baseline tennis only..the racket head is swung VERY hard (probably HARDEST) on clay court matches, just at an angle for spin (both top and underspin). > Because what does clay do? > It dampens the pace on the ball. Not as much as a return to wood would, but > it still dampens the pace on the ball. > Now, applying this to Pete vs. Andre - who has the better record on clay? > It shouldn't be too hard to connect the dots and realize that, given the > surfaces the tour is played on now, a return to wood would be far more > disastrous to Sampras than Andre. > Because Sampras was far more winners-dependent, and totally unsuited to > "grinding it out"... you're oversimplifying.. bob |
>"bob" <rstein5@NOSPAMcfl.rr.com> wrote in message news:ub2eb.21837$Of2.1322585@twister.tampabay.rr.com... > "Steve Jaros" <sjaros5@balk.net> wrote in message > news:sHXdb.23773$sp2.976@lakeread04... > > > > > i agree, there were unbelievable strong service performances with wood, > > but > > > IMO (and i have no stats to show it) there were far more rallies on your > > avg > > > pt in your avg match (even on grass) with wood. > > > > bob, what's the "net effect" of going to a wood racket from a modern one? > > The wood substance naturally provides less pace, and furthermore the > hitter > > has to strike the ball with less force because it allows for less accuracy > > (65" head = very small sweet spot). > > you're thinking about flat shots steven..top players use HUGE spin today > compared to wooden era..take that into account please, it's very important > and you're ignoring it. Ok, take away lots of spin off the serves and off all other shots (baseline, return, etc.).... how does that affect my argument? > > So overall, the ball ends up flying through the air much more slowly on > > *all* shots - serves, returns, baseline strokes - than it does with the > > modern racket. > > see above par. ?? > > That's why when we see tapes of mac and borg from 1980 it > > looks like 'slo motion' by comparison to today's game. > > not cause of wood only..it's cause the players evolved today by starting > younger, getting stronger earlier, practicing harder, being more fit. ... surely today's players are on average bigger, stronger, fitter. no doubt. but when it comes to the issue of the speed of play, surely the racket issue matters most. look at guys like coria or chang - they weren't any stronger physically than mac or borg was - probably less so. but he can wallop the ball with good pace, doesn't get hit off the court, etc. At least not on clay. > > Overall, that means fewer winners. Fewer aces, fewer service winners, > fewer > > return winners, fewer baseline winners. If the ball is travelling more > > slowly, guys have a better chance to get their rackets on it. > > Thus, as you note, longer rallies, even on grass. > > Hmm.. sounds somewhat like *clay court tennis*. > > clay court tennis is huge topspin baseline tennis only..the racket head is > swung VERY hard (probably HARDEST) on clay court matches, just at an angle > for spin (both top and underspin). Yes.... your point? The reason they hit for spin is because the surface rewards that - it dampens pace. > > Because what does clay do? > > It dampens the pace on the ball. Not as much as a return to wood would, > but > > it still dampens the pace on the ball. > > Now, applying this to Pete vs. Andre - who has the better record on clay? > > It shouldn't be too hard to connect the dots and realize that, given the > > surfaces the tour is played on now, a return to wood would be far more > > disastrous to Sampras than Andre. > > Because Sampras was far more winners-dependent, and totally unsuited to > > "grinding it out"... > > you're oversimplifying.. of course. but the point is strong even if it isn't perfect. |
> "Dan White" <dwhite1@erols.com> wrote in message news:bl3aq6$52l$1@bob.news.rcn.net... > Hi all...I haven't posted here in a looong time. Anyway, I open my Snapple > today and read the cap. It says that the fastest serve ever recorded was > 154 mph and was set in 1963. I was surprised to see this since I thought > Rusedski had the top speed. So, I did a little googling and found this: > > "In June, 1963, in Britain, the British tennis player Michael Sangster > served a ball that was clocked at 154 miles per hour. This is the fastest > tennis serve ever recorded." > > So what's the story? How did they clock speeds back then, and did that > disqualify it in light of today's speed guns? > > thanks, > dwhite > > |
news:xrjdb.21456$sp2.17065@lakeread04... > serve-speed marks from before 1990 are very unreliable, pay them no heed. Do you know if this is the position of the men's tour? Do they discount serve speed records before 1990? thanks, dwhite > > > > "Dan White" <dwhite1@erols.com> wrote in message > news:bl3aq6$52l$1@bob.news.rcn.net... > > Hi all...I haven't posted here in a looong time. Anyway, I open my > Snapple > > today and read the cap. It says that the fastest serve ever recorded was > > 154 mph and was set in 1963. I was surprised to see this since I thought > > Rusedski had the top speed. So, I did a little googling and found this: > > > > "In June, 1963, in Britain, the British tennis player Michael Sangster > > served a ball that was clocked at 154 miles per hour. This is the fastest > > tennis serve ever recorded." > > > > So what's the story? How did they clock speeds back then, and did that > > disqualify it in light of today's speed guns? > > > > thanks, > > dwhite > > > > > > |
"Dan White" <dwhite1@erols.com > wrote in message news:bl5q94$336$1@bob.news.rcn.net... > "Steve Jaros" <sjaros5@balk.net> wrote in message > news:xrjdb.21456$sp2.17065@lakeread04... > > serve-speed marks from before 1990 are very unreliable, pay them no heed. > > Do you know if this is the position of the men's tour? Do they discount > serve speed records before 1990? They must, since the list roddick (2003) and Rusedski (1997) at 149 mph as the official fastest ever... |
> Hi all...I haven't posted here in a looong time. Anyway, I open my Snapple > today and read the cap. It says that the fastest serve ever recorded was > 154 mph and was set in 1963. I was surprised to see this since I thought > Rusedski had the top speed. So, I did a little googling and found this: > > "In June, 1963, in Britain, the British tennis player Michael Sangster > served a ball that was clocked at 154 miles per hour. This is the fastest > tennis serve ever recorded." > > So what's the story? How did they clock speeds back then, and did that > disqualify it in light of today's speed guns? > > thanks, > dwhite Wonder what was the slowest serve ever. Food for googling. |
news:a7f30570.0309290243.615bdd40@posting.google.com... > "Dan White" <dwhite1@erols.com> wrote in message news:<bl3aq6$52l$1@bob.news.rcn.net >... > > Hi all...I haven't posted here in a looong time. Anyway, I open my Snapple > > today and read the cap. It says that the fastest serve ever recorded was > > 154 mph and was set in 1963. I was surprised to see this since I thought > > Rusedski had the top speed. So, I did a little googling and found this: > > > > "In June, 1963, in Britain, the British tennis player Michael Sangster > > served a ball that was clocked at 154 miles per hour. This is the fastest > > tennis serve ever recorded." > > > > So what's the story? How did they clock speeds back then, and did that > > disqualify it in light of today's speed guns? > > > > thanks, > > dwhite > > Wonder what was the slowest serve ever. > Food for googling. I remember Agassi, I believe, had to serve underhanded once or twice due to an injury that was keeping from serving normally. dwhite |
wrote: > I remember Agassi, I believe, had to serve underhanded once or twice > due to > an injury that was keeping from serving normally. You might be thinking of Chang at the 1989 FO in the 4r against Lendl. Very famous incident. Chang had horrible cramps, and was doing anything he could to break up Lendl's rhythm. Served underarm on one point. TTBOMK Agassi has never done that. wg |
news:blbtt4$hdg$1@thorium.cix.co.uk... > In article <blavqo$j5f$1@bob.news.rcn.net>, dwhite1@erols.com (Dan White) > wrote: > > > I remember Agassi, I believe, had to serve underhanded once or twice > > due to > > an injury that was keeping from serving normally. > > You might be thinking of Chang at the 1989 FO in the 4r against Lendl. > Very famous incident. Chang had horrible cramps, and was doing anything > he could to break up Lendl's rhythm. Served underarm on one point. > > TTBOMK Agassi has never done that. > That must be it then. Thanks! dwhite |