Tweet
Let's discuss Tom LeCompte's latest article, "Bobby Riggs and Jack Kramer: Part 1"
-
-
Good article....
It's amazing the money that was around for the very top players of that era. That $100,000 Budge and Riggs play for would be the equivalent of $1,326,549 today. And that's just for one winner-take-all match. Not bad.
I think Kramer became a giant in men's tennis. Most sources have Kramer leading Riggs 69- 20 in head-to-heads. Kramer was smart too. He knew when his time was up and bailed out 100 to 40 up in head-to-heads against Gonzales. He knew Gonzales, who had turned pro at just 21, was getting significantly better and becoming a serious rival. Kramer was the link to the past and the future in so may ways. He witnessed Tilden play many times and also trained with Tilden as a junior. Kramer also, some years later, played Gonzales. Kramer spanned a significant era. He also presided over men's pro tennis for many years. Kramer saw and witnessed so, so much. The downside of this, however, is he seemed to be riddled with bias and prejudice, which means his accounts may not be completely reliable, at least not in my view.
I think the tennis in those days repeatedly highlighted where a player's weaknesses lay. The patterns of play must have become like a kind of check-mate in many rivalries when you consider players were playing each other over a 100 times. Little wonder Hoad took 6 months out to retool on his backhand wing in order be able to combat stronger opponents.
I had a friend who watched many of those pro tour matches and he told me many of the points got opened up and played out in exactly the same way, same pattern. It could be repetitive in that sense. But when a player repeatedly lost over and over, he had to change something. That's what you do. You change something if you keep losing to the same guy over and over again.
Can someone please tell Nishikori he has to change that serve if he wants to get any further....
Last edited by stotty; 04-11-2017, 02:29 PM.Stotty -
Not sure which is better, This article on Riggs and Kramer (which is excellent) or this post by Stotty. Good stuff.Originally posted by stotty View PostGood article....
It's amazing the money that was around for the very top players of that era. That $100,000 Budge and Riggs play for would be the equivalent of $1,326,549 today. And that's just for one winner-take-all match. Not bad.
I think Kramer became a giant in men's tennis. Most sources have Kramer leading Riggs 69- 20 in head-to-heads. Kramer was smart too. He knew when his time was up and bailed out 100 to 40 up in head-to-heads against Gonzales. He knew Gonzales, who had turned pro at just 21, was getting significantly better and becoming a serious rival. Kramer was the link to the past and the future in so may ways. He witnessed Tilden play many times and also trained with Tilden as a junior. Kramer also, some years later, played Gonzales. Kramer spanned a significant era. He also presided over men's pro tennis for many years. Kramer saw and witnessed so, so much. The downside of this, however, is he seemed to be riddled with bias and prejudice, which means his accounts may not be completely reliable, at least not in my view.
I think the tennis in those days repeatedly highlighted where a player's weaknesses lay. The patterns of play must have become like a kind of check-mate in many rivalries when you consider players were playing each other over a 100 times. Little wonder Hoad took 6 months out to retool on his backhand wing in order be able to combat stronger opponents.
I had a friend who watched many of those pro tour matches and he told me many of the points got opened up and played out in exactly the same way, same pattern. It could be repetitive in that sense. But when a player repeatedly lost over and over, he had to change something. That's what you do. You change something if you keep losing to the same guy over and over again.
Can someone please tell Nishikori he has to change that serve if he wants to get any further....
I find this Riggs/Kramer era so fascinating. Few ever write or discuss this era. The frame of mind that the world was in at the time and the style of play that was executed to near perfection over and over again. Wish I had a time machine.
Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca RatonComment
-
The Duel of The Decade. Riggs vs. Kramer
"Of 16,052 tickets sold, only 938 people failed to show up. Columnist Jimmy Powers of the New York Post called it "the greatest tribute to an indoor athletic event in the history of sport." The $55,730 in gross receipts was second only to $58,120 taken in at the opening of the Ellsworth Vines and Fred Perry tour in 1937."
Pretty cool to think about people's dedication to seeing these two great players.
Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca RatonComment
-
Originally posted by stotty View PostGood article....
It's amazing the money that was around for the very top players of that era. That $100,000 Budge and Riggs play for would be the equivalent of $1,326,549 today. And that's just for one winner-take-all match. Not bad.
I think Kramer became a giant in men's tennis. Most sources have Kramer leading Riggs 69- 20 in head-to-heads. Kramer was smart too. He knew when his time was up and bailed out 100 to 40 up in head-to-heads against Gonzales. He knew Gonzales, who had turned pro at just 21, was getting significantly better and becoming a serious rival. Kramer was the link to the past and the future in so may ways. He witnessed Tilden play many times and also trained with Tilden as a junior. Kramer also, some years later, played Gonzales. Kramer spanned a significant era. He also presided over men's pro tennis for many years. Kramer saw and witnessed so, so much. The downside of this, however, is he seemed to be riddled with bias and prejudice, which means his accounts may not be completely reliable, at least not in my view.
I think the tennis in those days repeatedly highlighted where a player's weaknesses lay. The patterns of play must have become like a kind of check-mate in many rivalries when you consider players were playing each other over a 100 times. Little wonder Hoad took 6 months out to retool on his backhand wing in order be able to combat stronger opponents.
I had a friend who watched many of those pro tour matches and he told me many of the points got opened up and played out in exactly the same way, same pattern. It could be repetitive in that sense. But when a player repeatedly lost over and over, he had to change something. That's what you do. You change something if you keep losing to the same guy over and over again.
Can someone please tell Nishikori he has to change that serve if he wants to get any further....Originally posted by klacr View Post
Good article...Riggs has his limitations as far as being interesting in a sense. He's like a character out of the old "Bowery Boys" circa 1943. "The Dead End Kids". Mugs Mugginess. The Boys in the hood. But the program and characters were so good that they still were playing it regularly on television well into the '60s and '70s. I can see Riggs as one of the boys. He's interesting alright.
Like the old "Bowery Boys" the saga of old time tennis is brought to us in black and white. The characters come out of the story like the ghosts of tennis past. I love this stuff. My dear old tennis coach always emphasized being a student of the game and that included studying the history as well as the playing styles of all the great players. Luckily for me...first hand knowledge began for me as a young man having Don Budge himself as a friend for a couple of summers. They broke the mold with guys like him. Players of these eras perhaps did not completely understand the "significance" of the money. Their roots were in amateur tennis. Sure...they played for the money. But there was something else that prevailed in those days. Call it what you will.
Tilden...Budge...Riggs and on to Jack Kramer. So on and so forth. Connect the dots...that includes the Gonzales' and Hoad's. Laver to McEnroe and Borg. Then it ends...in a new beginning. Classic Tennis morphs into Modern Tennis. "Bowery Boys" morph into "2 1/2 Men". No contest. Know your history coaches. Stotty was lucky to have a friend familiar with the old pro tour. What a rich nugget of knowledge that is.
I attended one pro tour match in Detroit around 1964. Years before I actually started to play tennis. It was at the old Olympia in Detroit. The old hockey arena. They moved the furniture around to make it into the scene of one of the old pro tour stops. They rolled out the court and presto...instant tennis. Tennis in a box. They were all there. The names were too many to remember. I was just a boy and now it seems like a dream. A dream out of one of those old black and whites. Ghosts from the past.
Stotty's old friend. Passing it forwards. It's one of the things I like about tennisplayer.net. There is still a certain reverence for the past. Traditionally speaking.
Comment
-
Comment
-
These are the best dots....the only true dots.Originally posted by don_budge View Post
Within reason - don't forget even wooden rackets underwent improvement - you can compare players on a like for like basis throughout the classic era (by classic I mean strictly wood and crude, small metal rackets). The courts, however, did undergo changes over the classic period. From predominantly grass to, by the 70's, more hard courts and clay courts. I suspect this is why the best volleyers were in the 50's, when the Big game was at its' height and most major tournament were played on grass.
After Borg and McEnroe the game altered significantly. Not all at once, however, as it took players a while to exploit what modern technology could do for them. I think Agassi was the first player the really maximise modern technology, using his large headed racket to take the ball on the rise over and over again. You could never do that with wood. It was perhaps the biggest game-changer.
It is unfathomable, however, that players today cannot volley as well as Sedgman did despite having rackets that make volleying a cinch compared to wood. It's like having a rifle instead of a peashooter yet it's no good to you if don't know how to pull the trigger.Last edited by stotty; 04-14-2017, 02:08 PM.StottyComment
-
Speaking of Jack Kramer...all things Kramer. Connecting the dots...the three little dots.
Kramer ranked the best possessors of tennis shots as of 1979:[11]
Kramer with two rackets- First Serve: Ellsworth Vines had the finest serve, along with Pancho Gonzales 13 5~
- Second Serve: John Newcombe by far
- Backhand: Donald Budge, Frank Kovacs, and Ken Rosewall were the best
- Return of Serve: Don Budge the best
- Forehand Volley: Wilmer Allison and Budge Patty.
- Backhand Volley: Close among Don Budge, Frank Sedgman, and Ken Rosewall, with Sedgman having the edge
- Overhead: Ted Schroeder, the best
- Lob: Bobby Riggs, of course
- Half-Volley: Pancho Gonzales and Ken Rosewall
- Forehand: Pancho Segura and Ellsworth Vines
Comment
-
Fascinating...isn't it? Jack Kramer was totally on top of the pro game in 1979 yet he doesn't rank any of the current players with the best tennis shots. Very interesting. It seems that in his judgement things were not getting any more superior than they were in the earlier years of the game. Surprising for instance that he ranks Don Budge with the best return of serve. Over Connors and Borg. Interesting that he ranks Gonzales with the best half-volley (with Ken Rosewall). With Gonzales' reputation of the power game ranked so high with such a touchy-feely shot. Pancho Segura with the best forehand...fabulous. Fascinating stuff.Originally posted by don_budge View PostSpeaking of Jack Kramer...all things Kramer. Connecting the dots...the three little dots.
Kramer ranked the best possessors of tennis shots as of 1979:[11]
Kramer with two rackets- First Serve: Ellsworth Vines had the finest serve, along with Pancho Gonzales 13 5~
- Second Serve: John Newcombe by far
- Backhand: Donald Budge, Frank Kovacs, and Ken Rosewall were the best
- Return of Serve: Don Budge the best
- Forehand Volley: Wilmer Allison and Budge Patty.
- Backhand Volley: Close among Don Budge, Frank Sedgman, and Ken Rosewall, with Sedgman having the edge
- Overhead: Ted Schroeder, the best
- Lob: Bobby Riggs, of course
- Half-Volley: Pancho Gonzales and Ken Rosewall
- Forehand: Pancho Segura and Ellsworth Vines
Comment
-
I think it's because the game hadn't changed that much by then. Borg was still using a wooden racket and players prior to him had had bigger forehands and backhands and better all round games. What Borg brought was greater topspin and with it a consistency the game hadn't yet seen. It's strange Kramer didn't rank Connors alongside Budge on return of serve as it was such a standout feature of the Connors game, and by 1979 Kramer had had enough time to digest that.Originally posted by don_budge View Post
Oddly enough I have been flipping through Man With a Racket, and it's amazing how badly Kramer treated Gonzales. No wonder Gonzales remained so bitter throughout his career. Imagine Roger Federer being paid less than all the opponents he played? It wouldn't stack up, would it? Gonzales thumped Rosewall over and over again yet got far less money because Kramer invested in the challenger rather than the champion...crazy, and downright unfair. Kramer's motive remains unclear. Was he racist? Or did he just fancy roping a young and naive Gonzales into a contract he couldn't get out of for business reasons? Maybe he just took a personal dislike to Gonzales? Either way my opinion is lower of Kramer than it otherwise have been.
Anyway, the era is fascinating. Read as much of it as you can...some of the books can be found free online.StottyComment
-
The Book is Bill Tilden. Richard Gonzales is the model with the Don Budge backhand. Harry Hopman is the coach. Roger Federer is the Living Proof.Originally posted by stotty View Post
That's right Stotty...read as much as you can and contemplate the black and white videos as objectively as possible. They say that the camera don't lie...but it does. The large racquets give the illusion of superior technique, more power...blah, blah, blah.
Jack Kramer KNEW...he didn't include himself in the rankings of great strokes even though his serve and forehand were arguably up there with the best. Kramer was acknowledged by many at various times to be the "Greatest Of All Time". At the time he was the consumate attacking tennis player. All out aggression with percentage play. That was his claim to fame. Great..great player.
As a human being you bring into a couple of questions that are probably left as skeletons in the closet. How can you judge a man? You can judge him by his times. Kramer was a man of his times. I know how Richard Gonzales felt...and I know that "Pancho" knew that the only revenge in life is success. Gonzales was some kind of underprivileged sort compared to the silver spoon fed boys that were playing tennis at the time. Although most of the champions came from less than privileged upbringing. I believe Kramer came from the working class.
Racist? What is a racist? Hmmm...every one has their bias. At least they should. I hope they do. Otherwise we are looking at such a brain washed blob of waste material it isn't going to be worth showing up at all. Sometimes you just don't like a guy. Lee Iacocca said this of Henry Ford II. Or was it vice versa? The Deuce...he axed Iacocca and then Lee went on to reassemble Chrysler into a more competitive company to compete with Ford. The only revenge in life...is success. It's dog eat dog. Maybe it should be that way.
Kramer wasn't such a bad sort. He was a man...that comes with its own inherent baggage. Don't be fooled in giving the human race too much credit. There is a sharp decline after the top ten percent and that is being incredibly liberal. Take a look at Kramer's first tour against Gonzales.
I liked reading through the scores and dates and places line by line trying to recreate the thing in my mind. The final tally sounds as if Kramer handed Gonzales his ass but closer scrutiny reveals that Gonzales was still wet behind the years at twenty one years old. His humble beginnings further set him back a couple of years as well. He may well have been only 18 or 19 in tennis years on account of his inexperience. It wasn't only Kramer that was holding him back in those days. It was the machine.
But night after night Gonzales showed up to play. Tough, tough matches. Look at some of those set scores. Long sets...pre tiebreaker days. Very few straight set matches for Kramer. They played in one city then on to the next. Was there a discrepancy in the lodgings and accommodations? Was Kramer receiving better treatment? Without a doubt. But this all just honed the competitive nature of the man with the Aztec eyes. He didn't back down an inch. Not at 21 years old against his wily and cagey WASP opponent who knew all of the in's and out's of getting the advantage in any given situation. Jack Kramer was in his prime at 29 years old and he was using all of his experience and weight to push young Richard Gonzales back into "his place".
More than judging Kramer we admire the will and tenacity of Gonzales. This is a large reason for his being the model in my teaching paradigm. It is the will that enables a mere man to look the machine in the eye and give it everything. Gonzales learned from this experience and all of the rest that life taught him. Much as I have. There is no sense in wasting energy in revenge...success has a much sweeter taste. It comes in different flavors as well.
Comment
-
True. But not even Kramer could get away with glorifying himself. Still when you are great you are great and there is no need to say anything. Federer could compile his own modern list and not include his forehand....but we all know it is one of the greatest ever.Originally posted by don_budge View Post
You are right, of course. Who am I to judge a man I have never known or met. All I have ever done is read the opinions of others, who doubtless flirt their own bias. I guess this is why historians only trust facts, events they know to be true, rather than writings and opinions of others of a given era. Historians can only surmise from collective opinions. It's hard for them to know what someone was really like.Originally posted by don_budge View Post
One thing that does repeatedly come across is that other players initially wanted to like and get on with Pancho, but Pancho had developed into a loner and seemed to reject advances for friendship. Another thing to consider is Pancho had a way with women. He could treat them mean but they would still be keen. I had a friend like that. Who needs male companions when you can have a beautiful woman to spend time with just by clicking your fingers.StottyComment
-
There is no doubt Kramer was a man of his day and the prevailing sentiments were racist. He didn't pay him fairly, often taunted Gonzales, and liked to give him a few cans of coke on the changeovers knowing Richard has a weakness for sugar...It was what it was. And yes Pancho had a chip on his shoulder. In the admiring words of John McEnroe, "when he walked on the court you got the feeling that something was really, really wrong..." Read Allen Fox's article on playing him--think it gives the picture...
Comment
-
Pancho (Gonzales) a film by Gino Tanasescu
A beautiful ode to a beautiful man. In all his anger...in all his histrionics. In all his fits...he found the decency to be a man. A thoughtful man. A family man. He displayed everything on the court. The injustice...the hurt. The pain. But when it was all said and done...he was only a man. He was also...a great tennis player. He somehow put it in perspective...to the point he could live with it. Manage it. God Bless him.
Racism? He was too proud to admit it. He was too stubborn to give in to it. He was too fucking wild to be defeated by it. He was above it because he never once shared those feelings himself about others. In this way he was an innocent. But the world? It works its magic on your soul and sometimes it is your destiny...to be the King of Pain. It ain't pretty. But you find a way.
There's a little black spot on the sun today
It's the same old thing as yesterday...
Comment
-
GREAT article!Originally posted by johnyandell View PostThere is no doubt Kramer was a man of his day and the prevailing sentiments were racist. He didn't pay him fairly, often taunted Gonzales, and liked to give him a few cans of coke on the changeovers knowing Richard has a weakness for sugar...It was what it was. And yes Pancho had a chip on his shoulder. In the admiring words of John McEnroe, "when he walked on the court you got the feeling that something was really, really wrong..." Read Allen Fox's article on playing him--think it gives the picture...
Comment
Comment