Thoughts about Tennis Tradition...

[stotty]

Roger could be the deal breaker....

To see the best players in the world trying to navigate some slicked up grass with some standard-sized wooden racquets would be an all-time Classic in dreams as well. Should that happen I just might rest my case. That would be a real spectacle in futility. What a wonderful spectacle it would be to watch all of those great ATP forehands swatting futilely at balls down around their shoelaces. What kind of percentage play might that be?

Apparently Novak Djokovic took an old wooden racquet for a test drive and he was seen shaking his head wondering what became of his forehand.

The Borg interview was interesting. He felt the first two matches at Wimbledon we're critical to him being able to progress to win the tournament. The early rounds produced the lowest, shooting bounces you can imagine. I was there so I know this to be true. And when you think Borg used what would these days to be considered to be nothing other than a strong eastern grip, you have to wonder how strong semi-western gripped players would fair on truly fast grass. Borg was on the cusp of trouble himself back then but just had enough margin to squeeze through the early rounds. I doubt Nadal and Djokovic would stand a chance. The biggest part of their game would be removed.

But that's the game these days. Volleys and mild grips have been extracted out of the game never to be seen again. It can of course be reversed, but I doubt there is the will amongst the players or the organisers.

Another factor is players played in drizzle or light rain back then. Players couldn't run for cover at the first drop of rain as they do these days. Players had continue playing while the courts simply became ever slicker and slippery. But that was how it was, players simply had to find a way to cope. Tricky conditions like these greatly influenced matches and players had to use great guile to win. Borg had to defeat Victor Amaya in drizzle. How dreadfully difficult must that have been.

I cannot remember how these changes crept in over the years. When did it become unacceptable to play in drizzle? Many old enough will remember photos of Nastase playing with an umbrella at Queen's Club. Yes it was raining quite hard. I was there!
Someone how these things crept in...no play in drizzle...slave boys holding towels...trainers taping up minor grazes...trainers coming on for no reason....toilet breaks...nappy changes...entourages and hangers on. All this stuff got by me yet I cannot remember how and when.

I think if Federer remains in the game in some capacity after he retires then he might be able to influence playing surfaces. Once he no longer has a vested interest he may have the power to change things. In fact, he is probably the only one who can.

[don_budge]

The Modern Player in Classic Conditions...

What wonderful interviews, both of them. Interesting about the closing down of net and how much better players were at low volleys. Both players know how to "camp" over the net and make life difficult for opponents. While fundamentally Borg was a baseliner, he was no mug at the net either.

McEnroe's volleys were just incredible as Matts rightly points out. Craig O'Shannessy also states a fundamental reason why. McEnroe uses the shoulder more, as did most players back then. Today it's more about the elbow joint doing too much work....very dicey.

I liked the interview with Borg. He's a safe interview, isn't he? He's impeccably polite and friendly. And he's certainly far more talkative than in his youth.

I'd love to turn Wimbledon into a wooden racket event for just one year. I want to see how today's players would fair playing for the greatest title of all with wooden rackets. I guess my wish will never happen but it's fun to think about it.

It's great to have a real Wimbledon aficionado on the forum. A voice of reality. The reality is quite obvious…the players of yesterday would have a much easier time of it transitioning from the Classic Era conditions than vice versa. The Johnny Come Lately's would be like fish out of water trying to make heads or tails out of the all court game…because they never play in regions of the court other than the baseline unless they are forced to.

On the other hand the players in the Classic Era were more or less trained to play anywhere on the court. Even the classic serve and volleyer was expected to alter his tactics and game to play on the red clay at Rolland Garros.

To see the best players in the world trying to navigate some slicked up grass with some standard-sized wooden racquets would be an all-time Classic in dreams as well. Should that happen I just might rest my case. That would be a real spectacle in futility. What a wonderful spectacle it would be to watch all of those great ATP forehands swatting futilely at balls down around their shoelaces. What kind of percentage play might that be?

Apparently Novak Djokovic took an old wooden racquet for a test drive and he was seen shaking his head wondering what became of his forehand.

[don_budge]

One question remains…1989 Ivan Lendl

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMULAeGo5nI

This isn't necessarily "Traditional Thoughts" but the question posed to Ivan Lendl at 1:20 of this video in 1989 is an existential one. Existential, that is, with regards to Classic Tennis. Listen to the questing and enjoy some tennis with Ivan Lendl and Thomas Muster. It's Mister Muster's comeback after a car accident.

[klacr]

Great Tennis!!!

I usually put the TV on mute when I watch. I supply my own commentary. My club members appreciate it.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[stotty]

More youtube stuff. An incredible interview with Björn Borg with fellow Swede Mats Wilander.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4j-RO7mMV3w

Listen to his thoughts. What a beautiful moment and wonderful opportunity for the tennis world to get to know him a bit.

Internet rabble. Discussing the greatest rivalry ever in the classic game. These guys are struggling to connect the dots between the mock tennis being played today and the classic game. Connecting the dots.

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

What wonderful interviews, both of them. Interesting about the closing down of net and how much better players were at low volleys. Both players know how to "camp" over the net and make life difficult for opponents. While fundamentally Borg was a baseliner, he was no mug at the net either.

McEnroe's volleys were just incredible as Matts rightly points out. Craig O'Shannessy also states a fundamental reason why. McEnroe uses the shoulder more, as did most players back then. Today it's more about the elbow joint doing too much work....very dicey.

I liked the interview with Borg. He's a safe interview, isn't he? He's impeccably polite and friendly. And he's certainly far more talkative than in his youth.

I'd love to turn Wimbledon into a wooden racket event for just one year. I want to see how today's players would fair playing for the greatest title of all with wooden rackets. I guess my wish will never happen but it's fun to think about it.

[don_budge]

From the Horses Mouth…Björn Borg

More youtube stuff. An incredible interview with Björn Borg with fellow Swede Mats Wilander.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4j-RO7mMV3w

Listen to his thoughts. What a beautiful moment and wonderful opportunity for the tennis world to get to know him a bit.

[don_budge]

Analysis Corner: Borg vs. McEnroe 1980

Internet rabble. Discussing the greatest rivalry ever in the classic game. These guys are struggling to connect the dots between the mock tennis being played today and the classic game. Connecting the dots.

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

[don_budge]

Being there…in the moment. Performing Arts.

Wonderful observations from two great commentators. I couldn't have put it better myself. I have watched a couple of sections of the match and have to say I much prefer the down to earth commentary of yesteryear. A couple of today's commentatoes need waterboarding for a least half a day to bring them to their senses. Commentatoes need to quit talking in superlatives about what are, or should be, bread and butter skills for a pro players.

You have to shoot an admiral from time to time to encourage the others - Voltaire.

I say shoot Mark Pecci...

Let's start with Pecci then. Waterboard, tar and feather, boiled in oil…then pickled in vinegar. He's such a loser (Trumpspeak for when you don't care for someone). But what you say absolutely resonates with me my good man. This is how far the whole sport of tennis has devolved into a rather dismal abyss of mediocre play and skills. Utter shit for commentary. It's tough to dress this one up in any other clothes. It's an imposter…an obvious imposter to anybody that knows any better.

"Commentatoes need to quit talking in superlatives about what are, or should be, bread and butter skills for a pro players."

Watching John McEnroe and Björn Borg perform with guys like Donald Dell and Barry Mackay is truly poetry in motion. The announcers just have to sit back and let the story unfold. And it is truly a story…a compelling three setter the equivalent of a spell binding three act play performed by brilliant actors. Just ask Dustin Hoffman.

Dustin just so happened to be in Tokyo at the time of this match and he was in the crowd. Barry Mackay is doing double duty now as an interviewer…he queries Dustin on the performing arts. What is it that tennis players do that actors do?

Interview with Barry Mackay and Dustin Hoffman at about 8:30 in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pVwMnYbVrY

BM...Well strangely enough i'm here with a fan of tennis who is a long way from home but…Dustin you've seen a lot of tennis, what did you think of that match that we just saw?

DH...Well it was interesting because Borg started tough but then he lost seven straight games…and then he got his composure back. It seems like it's timing…one player puts…McEnroe put his timing off and then Borg put McEnroe's timing off. What did you think?

BM...Well I though it was a pretty good match. I've seen them play a lot and it wasn't bad. How about acting and tennis Dustin…when you watch these two guys compete…any similarities between what you see them doing and what you do?

DH...I think in the sense that uh…the uh…the…the…what's the word? The uh…

BM...Concentration?

DH...The uh…uh…the line of being on and off is so thin. In other words…

BM...An on day…an off day?

DH...Well when you are told you are over acting as opposed to be on and real, it's the same here. That moment of hitting the ball is a very thin line. You can be playing great tennis but if you are off that much...

I'm not surt Barry knew what Dustin was getting at but I am pretty certain I do. I've been to acting school in a past life. Dustin is talking about being there. Just like the old Peter Sellers movie from a novel by Jerzy Kosinski. Being there as an actor…you are pretending but by means of the arts of the craft you can actually project yourself into a role and you are really there. You are able to manipulate reality to the extent that your "pretending" becomes an actual reality. For the actor and the audience.

Dustin talks about that fine line that the actor is trying to feel. Once he's there its autopilot. It isn't pretending any longer. I guess he is saying that the tennis player reaches that measurement as well and he struggles to maintain that fine sense of balance…balancing on the razor's edge.

Good stuff. Come to think of it they don't make movies like they used to either…do they?

[stotty]

It is what is going on beneath the surface that is tying the whole thing together and giving it historical context. When you listen to these two you are getting verbal lesson in tennis. This is how it used to be in classic tennis. There was a whole myriad of commentators that were able to deliver like these two aficionados.

Donald Dell...

"Hey…let's have some fun. What makes Björn Borg such a great player? We are not going to see him too much more. What's his mark of greatness?"

Barry Mackay...

"I've always felt his biggest asset was his tremendous concentration Donald. The fact that he just doesn't vary at all throughout the match and when you are playing against a guy…if all of a sudden he makes three or four errors…you gotta think he's…jeez…gonna be unhappy with that…he's going to be emotional. But he's had just such a great consistency that as a player playing against him…that's got to wear you down mentally because he never gets upset."

Donald Dell asks what makes Borg so great…Barry Mackay delivers without hesitation. True tennis minds. Students of the game…as well as great players.

Donald Dell…

"But you mention the mental concentration…the mental toughness of Borg. I would have always talked in terms of physical talents…Barry. It was his quickness and his footwork. He was always in position. He has really a kind of disguised sense of anticipation and he is so fast on his feet he is always in position. Physically…his footwork is one of the understated elements of his greatness.

But you know Barry concentration and the mental toughness of Borg is really something.

I started to say that Borg's concentration and mental toughness…I don't know Barry…I think that you are born with that, I don't think you can learn that. I think that you can discipline yourself to get it more. But I think that you are born with that."

Barry Mackay…

"Well, it's an instinctive thing. Yet over the years he seems to have developed it to almost an absolute perfection out there. Because for years on end we have watched this guy for a long time…he just does not vary. He will smile a little bit on the rare occasion…but you just know that his mind is totally with the match at all times."

These guys work this conversation into the match as to not disturb the viewer concentration on the play. It's an art. Instinctive…as Barry says.

Wonderful observations from two great commentators. I couldn't have put it better myself. I have watched a couple of sections of the match and have to say I much prefer the down to earth commentary of yesteryear. A couple of today's commentatoes need waterboarding for a least half a day to bring them to their senses. Commentatoes need to quit talking in superlatives about what are, or should be, bread and butter skills for a pro players.

You have to shoot an admiral from time to time to encourage the others - Voltaire.

I say shoot Mark Pecci...

[don_budge]

Donald Dell…at 8:00 in video #5 of 9

They aren't finished with Borg's greatness…they further discuss.

Donald Dell…

"But you mention the mental concentration…the mental toughness of Borg. I would have always talked in terms of physical talents…Barry. It was his quickness and his footwork. He was always in position. He has really a kind of disguised sense of anticipation and he is so fast on his feet he is always in position. Physically…his footwork is one of the understated elements of his greatness.

But you know Barry concentration and the mental toughness of Borg is really something.

I started to say that Borg's concentration and mental toughness…I don't know Barry…I think that you are born with that, I don't think you can learn that. I think that you can discipline yourself to get it more. But I think that you are born with that."

Barry Mackay…

"Well, it's an instinctive thing. Yet over the years he seems to have developed it to almost an absolute perfection out there. Because for years on end we have watched this guy for a long time…he just does not vary. He will smile a little bit on the rare occasion…but you just know that his mind is totally with the match at all times."

These guys work this conversation into the match as to not disturb the viewer concentration on the play. It's an art. Instinctive…as Barry says.

[don_budge]

Barry Mackay…at 5:40 video #5 of 9

Well…there are commentatoes (as bottle coined the word) and there are commentators. Donald Dell and Barry Mackay work together to put together enough of a verbal background to illustrate to the viewer what is actually going on in front of there very eyes. They are working with and against each other to best capture the essence of the play and the player' mentality.

It is what is going on beneath the surface that is tying the whole thing together and giving it historical context. When you listen to these two you are getting verbal lesson in tennis. This is how it used to be in classic tennis. There was a whole myriad of commentators that were able to deliver like these two aficionados.

Donald Dell...

"Hey…let's have some fun. What makes Björn Borg such a great player? We are not going to see him too much more. What's his mark of greatness?"

Barry Mackay...

"I've always felt his biggest asset was his tremendous concentration Donald. The fact that he just doesn't vary at all throughout the match and when you are playing against a guy…if all of a sudden he makes three or four errors…you gotta think he's…jeez…gonna be unhappy with that…he's going to be emotional. But he's had just such a great consistency that as a player playing against him…that's got to wear you down mentally because he never gets upset."

Donald Dell asks what makes Borg so great…Barry Mackay delivers without hesitation. True tennis minds. Students of the game…as well as great players.

[don_budge]

Donald Dell…at 8:00 in video #3 of 9

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8m2pp-E8PY

"And it's just something different and electrifying when these two guys play…it's tennis at a different level. Different styles of play…different greatness."

Couldn't have said it better myself. Donald Dell and Barry Mackay. Two great commentators as well. Another aspect of the game in the past.

[don_budge]

Björn Borg versus John McEnroe…Semifinals Suntory Cup 1983

It's Björn Borg's final professional tournament. He is retiring. It's 1983. Björn using his beloved Donnay wooden racquet and John McEnroe using a wooden racquet designed by Dunlop especially for him. The rest of the world is going to oversized graphite and McEnroe opts for an even smaller head…the iconic Dunlop Maxply. Who would believe that McEnroe was actually a saint defending one of the most sacred's of sacred? The traditional wooden racquet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XZUStJeu2o

Look at the game as these two played it in 1983 and compare it to the modern game of 2016. Anyone that says that this game has evolved has drank some serious Kool-Aid. The game has devolved to a point where the most beautiful aspects are now extinct. Most are too young to actually know the difference. These can be forgiven. You don't believe me? I don't care.

John McEnroe on playing the net. It was an art. He had the backcourt game. He had the mid court game. He was the "decider" when he came to the net. Pushing the envelope. Pushing the agenda. Always pushing…pushing. Making it happen.

This was the end of the best of the best. The game had been evolving and this is what it had evolved to at this point. Borg versus McEnroe. This was the end of the classic era. It was the day that tennis died.

[don_budge]

It's a Brave New World…Aldous Huxley to don_budge

Well that's an interesting little B movie if ever there was one.

It's interesting alright. It's another sign for don_budge. Connecting the dots. Discerning…separating the wheat from the chaff. Some might call it crazy…it's all in a day's effort.

Particularly noteworthy is the cryptic reference to Henry Ford. I hail from his hometown of Dearborn, Michigan. My own father is named Henry Ford…after the original. He eventually went to work as a professor at the Henry Ford Community College off of Ford Road. Ford Country.

The manager of the department is referred to as "Your Fordship". The model T is given a shot in the beginning as an object of worship. The members of this dystopian society make the sign of the "T" to each other.

I worked for the Ford Motor Company for some twenty five years. It's a culture. I understand of what he speaks. Ferdinand Celine wrote of this culture in the greatest book ever written…"Journey to the End of the Night". Your Fordship…God forbid.

[stotty]

Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek5vse2_Aq0#t=1303

I think you're going to like this. But it is a brave new world…isn't it?

Well that's an interesting little B movie if ever there was one. Not sure it would have been what Aldous had in mind for his wonderful novel. He might have felt decidedly shortchanged had he been alive to witness the 1984 movie Orwell's book inspired.

I have to say, getting rid of monogamy is an interesting idea. In the 1960's when a leading politician here was caught out and exposed for cheating on his wife by using prostitutes for sex, he was some years later interviewed in a documentary. It was a riveting interview. When asked repeatedly why he had done it - shamed himself and cheated on his beautiful wife - he said, "to have variety"...and despite the fact his wife was beautiful, he craved variety.