[HN Gopher] The one-handed backhand is on the way to extinction
___________________________________________________________________
The one-handed backhand is on the way to extinction
Author : bookofjoe
Score : 42 points
Date : 2023-09-04 00:45 UTC (22 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| ndr wrote:
| > [...] experts say, is mostly a function of the increasing role
| of power and velocity in the sport. Even clay courts,
| historically the slowest surface, play hard and fast these days.
| Players, who spend more and more time in the gym, keep getting
| bigger and stronger, and now hit forehands at more than 100 miles
| per hour. Rackets and strings allow for so much topspin that
| rally balls from even average players are bouncing up to eye
| level, making it hard for even the 6-foot-7 Eubanks to get on top
| of the ball on some backhands. David Nainkin, who leads player
| development for men for the United States Tennis Association, has
| advice for any young talent he sees wielding a one-handed
| backhand -- get rid of it. The two-handed backhand is far more
| stable, he said, and the motion is shorter and simpler. "It's
| almost impossible to make it with a one-handed backhand now," he
| said. "I think you'll see less of it maybe in the next 10 years."
| smogcutter wrote:
| >Players, who spend more and more time in the gym, keep getting
| bigger and stronger, and now hit forehands at more than 100
| miles per hour.
|
| Sounds a little like baseball in the late 90s...
| ndr wrote:
| For those of us not into baseball, how did it evolve 30 years
| in?
| ls612 wrote:
| There was a major drugs/doping scandal, several people went
| to jail, and somewhat more effective anti-doping measures
| were put in place.
| maverick2007 wrote:
| So the parent comment was referencing the steroid era in
| the 90s like the sibling comment mentions but you also do
| still see that in the (presumably) cleaner game today.
| While upper 90s fastballs used to be rare, they're pretty
| common now. More and more pitchers are throwing pitches
| with more and more spin. Personally, I think the game is in
| a good place especially with the pace of play changes but
| many (most?) also believe that this arms race, so to speak,
| is really driving the prevalence of arm injuries. I'm a
| Rays fan, it's a sore subject this year.
| bookofjoe wrote:
| I find it remarkable that Kyrgios's name doesn't appear anywhere
| in these comments. (With the exception of this one). His backhand
| is a thrilling jolt of lightning.
| nyjah wrote:
| One handed power might be less common. But 1 handed backhand
| slice is very common for players with 2 handed topspin/flat
| backhands.
|
| This is a common trope that gets thrown around in tennis. Anytime
| Federer struggled, analysts would have this great hot take, "We
| will never have 1 handed backhand mens grand slam champion ever
| again."
|
| Then, Stan Wawrinka wins 3, Dominik Thiem wins 1, and Federer's
| dominance would continue..
|
| The one handed backhand has always been less popular, which is
| why I think 'analysts' say its dying. But there are plenty of
| players crushing 1 handers on the tour right now and there will
| continue to be in the future.
| xrd wrote:
| Really fascinating that Pete Sampras was coached out of the two
| handed backhand and that is widely regarded as the catalyst to
| his ascension to dominance for a decade.
|
| "He was spotted by Dr. Peter Fischer, a pediatrician and tennis
| enthusiast, who coached Sampras until 1989. Fischer was
| responsible for converting Sampras's double-handed backhand to
| single-hand with the goal of being better prepared to win
| Wimbledon"
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Sampras
|
| Sampras really changed tennis, making baseline players almost
| obsolete, and I always rooted for Agassi because his game seemed
| so much more interesting, more about precision than raw power.
|
| My how times change.
| lapcat wrote:
| It worked in that Sampras won Wimbledon seven times, but he
| never won the French Open. And Federer only won the French
| once, when he didn't have to face Nadal in the tournament. Most
| impressive IMO was Wawrinka's win in the French over Djokovic.
| (And I should note that Wawrinka appears to have a lot of brute
| strength in his right arm.)
|
| The backhand was IMO the weak part of Pete's game. Of course
| his serve was monstrous, overhead was monstrous, net game was
| good, court movement was off the charts, running forehand
| incredible. His running forehand provided a lot of cover for
| the backhand. And as a serve and volley player, he didn't need
| the backhand as much as other players.
| notacoward wrote:
| Maybe, in addition to that, different things work for different
| people. Some people rely on power, some people rely on reach
| and mobility, some people rely on technique and smart shot-
| making. It seems entirely possible that a one-hander suited
| Sampras _specifically_ even if the two-hander is better for
| most people. I know there are some insecure people here who
| want to believe there 's only One True Racket Sport and One
| True Way to play it, but personally I believe in (literal)
| different strokes for different folks.
| onehandonlyplz wrote:
| [flagged]
| gumby wrote:
| I was a HS & college player in the 80s, back when we still used
| wooden rackets. Frankly I find modern tennis boring. The players
| mostly hang out along the baseline and there are fewer (IMHO)
| exciting shots.
|
| I prefer to play with other players who haven't adopted "power
| supremacy". The games are simply more fun.
| bookofjoe wrote:
| https://archive.ph/YfptC
| m3kw9 wrote:
| I always equated 2 handed back hand as cheating
| procinct wrote:
| Why is that?
| Telemakhos wrote:
| I haven't played tennis since my childhood, but, even way back
| then, I was taught that there were two basic strokes: the
| forehand and the two-handed backhand. The coach had us believe
| that the one-handed backhand did not exist.
| olddustytrail wrote:
| Since this is behind a paywall, I'll assume it's about how to
| deal with hysterical women in old movies.
|
| It's a good thing this is on its way to extinction I reckon.
| matthewfelgate wrote:
| How is "extinction" accurately used in this context?
|
| And why are players expected to remain "loyal" to a stroke?
|
| This headline is oddly phrased.
|
| It appears to be a misuse of language, possibly for clickbait
| purposes.
| Ensorceled wrote:
| Extinct: gone out of use : superseded
|
| Extinction: the act of making extinct or causing to be
| extinguished
|
| How is this NOT an accurate use in this context? Seriously: did
| this perfectly valid, dictionary acceptable usage actually
| confuse you?
| matthewfelgate wrote:
| Because it's not extinction.
|
| It's not like nobody is ever going to be able to hit a
| backhand tennis shot 1 handed ever again.
|
| Therefore it's not extinction.
| Ensorceled wrote:
| So, pedantry? Not confusing, but the hyperbole offended
| your sense of exactitude?
| matthewfelgate wrote:
| This is how we end up with alternative facts, fake news.
| ghaff wrote:
| It seems like perfectly reasonable succinct shorthand for "a
| technique that isn't taught and rarely used any longer." People
| really need to stop calling anything that isn't a detailed
| abstract "clickbait."
| matthewfelgate wrote:
| That's not the definition of the word extinction.
| cowpig wrote:
| This comes across as pedantic to me
| matthewfelgate wrote:
| Well it depends if words have meanings any more or we
| just abuse them.
|
| But if you want to believe 2+2=5 carry on.
| ghaff wrote:
| Personally I'll go with Merriam-Webster which has the
| broader definition _above_ the species extinction one.
| But what do they know?
| braza wrote:
| Not the publication but giving a bit more context: Since the
| learning of 1/2HB is established most of the time during the
| player development, the issue is if someone does not learn and
| stick with a particular way of backhand it's quite unlikely or
| almost impossible to switch when you're a high performance
| athlete.
|
| Let's say that this is not a "stroke" (for the lack of a better
| comparison) ask a player to switch from 1HB to 2HB it's more or
| less hard (I think it's harder) as change your swing as a Golf
| player.
| bombcar wrote:
| It can indicate a change in the way games are being played.
| Something happens similar in baseball where the game can become
| nothing but home run bombs and strikeouts - which is boring to
| watch for some (others want nothing but).
| braza wrote:
| I do not know exactly what a baseball bat for tennis is. I
| have some assumptions as an amateur player and following
| television over the years about why 1HB is not a thought
| anymore.
|
| No one is teaching 1HB anymore. Along the way, I went to
| several tennis schools, and it's quite hard to find a coach
| that offers training as a 1HB, most of the time because the
| person is a 2HB himself or herself or does not know what it
| takes to train a 1HB.
|
| The training itself is tougher. I had a coach who said that
| for every person that chose 1HB, he demanded at least 600
| shots in the tennis wall in comparison with 200 of the 2HB,
| and with the game being as complex as it is in several other
| disciplines (footwork, volley, baseline, physical training),
| the least thing that you can do is to have almost 1 hour
| extra of training for a single shot.
|
| With the game becoming slower, 1HB became a honeypot for
| lefty players who could explore it a lot and baseline players
| who would return every single stroke. When people used to
| play on the carpet, one average player serving an American
| twist or a flat on the line made it very hard for a 2BH to
| return due to the speed and anticipation needed. Today we
| have 2HB returning 150 MPH serves.
| jgalt212 wrote:
| It's very hard to hit a two handed backhand on the run and keep
| your balance. I play and would like to see more players hit two
| handers, but when on the run hit a one hander. Also, I find it
| easier to hit recovery slices one-handed. I was two-hander all
| the time, but a few years of squash helped me make my tennis one-
| hander workable.
| chadcmulligan wrote:
| you need strong wrists for the one handed back handed I've been
| told, and you can get a lot more spin on it then, particularly
| slice.
| sometimesweenie wrote:
| You need a strong wrist anyway for volleys. Also you can get
| just as much spin with a two hand
| sieste wrote:
| I'm wondering are there any truly ambidextrous tennis players who
| never use backhand at all?
| mym1990 wrote:
| I play recreationally and have a 1 OHBH. I started playing on my
| own and picked it up because of Federer. Now 10 years on and
| being a little better...I do wish I had a 2 hander. Once you
| start playing people with either big spin or big pace, the one
| hander becomes less stable, and there are a lot more things that
| can go wrong with the take back and forward motion.
|
| Whether we see it more or less on tour will be a reflection of
| coaching philosophy at the youth level. Sometimes a kid will show
| more affinity towards on or the other, or try to model a favorite
| pro...but most of the time they will go with what is taught.
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| I sucked at tennis but the best feeling of all shots was
| nailing a topspin one hander crosscourt.
| piva00 wrote:
| I used to play tennis competitively as a kid/teenager. I
| settled on 1H BH because I liked the style, thought the
| movement was beautiful. In my later years playing (around
| 2003-2004) I definitely suffered because of it, most players
| were using grippier strings with 2H BH. I didn't have much
| access to these niche strings, it wasn't easy to import them
| into my home country, they would get from relatives traveling
| abroad, I was quite poor and hence played with subpar gear. I
| tried to adapt by going to a 2H BH for more power but... It's
| really not my style.
|
| I still play sometimes and will never let go of my 1H BH,
| there's some part of my child still thinking the movement is
| absolutely beautiful. Even more when sliding on a clay court.
| [deleted]
| kazinator wrote:
| > _The two-handed backhand is far more stable, he said, and the
| motion is shorter and simpler._
|
| I never learned it; whenever I tried, I found the extra arm just
| feels like it's in the way. Not only that, but it's not available
| for helping to balance the body; it feels awkward, like running
| with your arms tucked to your body.
|
| If you're not a tennis pro, dealing with the power play, there is
| no point to the two-handed backhand.
|
| It also may be inapplicable to other racket or paddle sports.
| E.g. I think in badminton it might actually be considered
| inefficient to hold the racket with two hands.
|
| By the way, you can cheaply obtain power in tennis with looser
| strings, at the cost of some directional control.
| jrm4 wrote:
| I mean, counterpoint anecdata. I was a bulkier-than-most
| varsity high-school player and I loved going against skinny
| guys who did one-handed backhands. I took out a good number of
| guys who were better than me in every other way by just abusing
| that (and not being subtle about it. Like, I made it as open
| and obvious as I could without saying it out loud. They _knew_
| what I was doing.) With my, again, even more awkward with
| someone with my build, two-handed backhand.
| lapcat wrote:
| > I never learned it
|
| > there is no point to the two-handed backhand.
|
| No offense, but by your own admission, this is pure ignorance.
| Learners should consult an experienced tennis instructor.
|
| The best strokes for a player depend a lot on the individual's
| circumstances: age, physique, experience, talents, weaknesses,
| goals, etc. In fact, there are sometimes advantages to a two-
| handed forehand (usually not at the pro level, though of course
| Monica Seles was one of the all-time greats).
| kazinator wrote:
| Oh, I had good lessons as a youth. It's not "ignorance" that
| the two-handed backhand didn't click with me.
| lapcat wrote:
| It's perfectly fine and understandable if the two-handed
| backhanded didn't click with you personally.
|
| But to generalize your idiosyncratic experience to everyone
| and claim that there's no point to the two-handed backhand
| is absurd, obtuse, solipsistic.
|
| Moreover, "I never learned it" suggests that you didn't
| spend a lot of time on it, which does imply ignorance.
| kazinator wrote:
| The article claims that the one-handed backhand is "on
| the way to extinction" is because of "the increasing role
| of power and velocity in the sport. Even clay courts,
| historically the slowest surface, play hard and fast
| these days. Players, who spend more and more time in the
| gym, keep getting bigger and stronger, and now hit
| forehands at more than 100 miles per hour."
|
| So, taking that as the reason for wielding a two-handed
| backhand, I only posited that "If you're not a tennis
| pro, dealing with the power play, there is no point to
| the two-handed backhand" which makes sense in light of
| the article and doesn't "generalize my idiocyncratic
| experience to everyone". There is a condition attached in
| my statement which you omitted in your quote; that
| condition means it is not an absolute generalization.
|
| "Ignorance" can only be applied to intellectual matters,
| not to a backhand; not spending time on a tennis backhand
| doesn't constitute "ignorance", especially if I know that
| it exists and what it is for.
|
| "Solipsistic" means that I believe a world view in which
| only my consciousness is real. That is rather a huge leap
| from my statement about the two-handed backhand.
|
| Please, get a grip.
| lapcat wrote:
| > So, taking that as the reason for wielding a two-handed
| backhand
|
| That's your mistake. Here's another quote from the
| article: "The two-handed backhand is far more stable, he
| said, and the motion is shorter and simpler." There are a
| number of good reasons for amateur players to use a two-
| handed backhand, and that's indeed why countless amateur
| players do use a two-handed backhand. Are you seriously
| claiming that they're all wrong, and also all of the
| tennis instructors who teach them are wrong too?
|
| It's really quite simple: many players, amateur and pro,
| hit the ball better and play better with a two-hander
| than with a one-hander. So why wouldn't you use a stroke
| that makes you play better?
|
| > "Ignorance" can only be applied to intellectual
| matters, not to a backhand
|
| Disagreed. There are difference kinds of knowledge, e.g.,
| knowledge-that and knowledge-how.
|
| > "Solipsistic" means that I believe a world view in
| which only my consciousness is real.
|
| Check the dictionary. It also means "very self-centered",
| for example.
| [deleted]
| scyzoryk_xyz wrote:
| [flagged]
| kazinator wrote:
| > _So why wouldn 't you use a stroke that makes you play
| better?_
|
| Mainly due to the repulsive personalities in competitive
| tennis; but liking it well enough as a recreational
| activity.
| paganel wrote:
| Stan the Man Wawrinka is one of the most talented players in
| (relatively) recent tennis history, at his best he had moments of
| magic that were only approached by Federer. Glad that he got to
| win a few Grand Slams.
|
| Also, too bad that Dimitrov didn't peak higher, but he gave it a
| go, so there's that.
| potamic wrote:
| Wawrinka's single handed is arguably better than many double
| handers out there. It's combination of power and spin is
| unmatched. He can play the whole range of shots, gets
| incredible accuracy and appears to be repeatable enough to
| exchange rallies against the best forehand all day. Which makes
| me wonder why no one has been able to replicate it. Either he's
| a freak blessed with unique mechanics to be able to perform
| this shot or there's not enough people trying.
| nyjah wrote:
| Dimitrov has had an incredible career too. They hyped him,
| "Baby Fed" - and maybe he didn't live up to that (one of the
| greatest ever), but Grigor has been as high as 3 in the world
| and has been in the top 30 for over a decade. Every time he's
| dipped he's come back in better shape and got better results.
| He's won a Masters 1000 and while its not a grand slam, still
| an incredible achievement in the big 3 era.
|
| I got love for G, but you are right, I wish he peaked higher
| too. I always thought when he saw Thiem win the US Open he got
| motivated to try and get one himself. But now Alcaraz and a
| bunch of others that are just too strong. Definitely think he
| missed his window.
| mym1990 wrote:
| Dimitrovs game is beautiful, hence why he was called Baby Fed,
| but I think his mental game has never quite been there. Stan is
| a monster!
| kokofoo wrote:
| I always wonder why no one plays with forehands on both sides,
| i.e., a right-handed forehand and a left-handed forehand. I think
| that would be such an advantage.
| jrm4 wrote:
| Varsity high-school player, and I've seen little discussion of
| what I'm personally _certain_ is the big change causing all of
| this (including the surge in pickleball)
|
| It's the _rackets_ -- partly because they 're ultra-light, but
| mostly because of how ridiculously grippy the strings are,
| meaning you can put absurd spin on the ball.
|
| Meaning, a ton more control from the baseline. This effectively
| renders net-play most of the time dangerous and impossible.
| You'll notice, no one goes to the net anymore. It's basically
| full-scale ping-pong now.
|
| Hence, pickleball for regular people, because they'd like to do
| that.
| nsvd wrote:
| I'd be interested to see a tennis variant where rackets with
| LESS grip were used.
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| Pickelball
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| > You'll notice, no one goes to the net anymore.
|
| Except the current world number one, Alcaraz, who goes to the
| net a huge lot, including when he's returning serves (!). Or
| the future number one, Djokovic (guaranteed to be number one
| again by the 11th of September): in the Cincinatti final vs
| Alcaraz, Djokovic even saved a matchpoint by doing a serve and
| volley. Followed, the very next ball, by another serve and
| volley from Djokovic.
|
| I mean: I see plenty of volleying from the two best players of
| the moment.
| notacoward wrote:
| > pickleball for regular people, because they'd like to do
| that.
|
| It's not just regular people (try getting on the court with
| either Collin Johns or Anna Leigh Waters) but it is because
| they'd like to do that. Men's pro tennis got pretty stale
| during the period of the Big Three's dominance, and hasn't
| recovered yet (though there are signs of hope). Women's pro
| tennis was and is more interesting, but still shows signs of
| being dominated by a single style and not even the most
| interesting one to watch. A lot of people _like_ a faster paced
| at-the-net game, with more speed variation and sharper angles
| instead of "hoo-ah" _thwack_ "hoo-ah" _thwack_ from the
| baseline. If something about how the game has developed is
| causing so many players to defect, and grippy strings are as
| good an explanation as any, then it seems like that should at
| least be _acknowledged_ even if people are OK with it. It 's
| not like tennis is the first sport to go through this, either
| accepting it or adopting rule/equipment changes to keep the
| game more appealing.
| notacoward wrote:
| It's on its way to extinction _in tennis_. In other racket
| /paddle sports, notably pickleball, it's very much alive and
| well. If you add up the numbers for all such sports, there might
| be as many one-handed backhanders as ever. Competitive tennis is
| becoming more about strength and height (the article even alludes
| to the former) than anything else. This is rarely good for any
| sport, and is likely why interest in alternatives is growing.
| lapcat wrote:
| This is a strange comment. The article is specifically about
| _professional_ tennis. Does professional pickleball even exist,
| and is there any public interest in it? The US Open is
| currently all over TV and the news; what about pickleball
| tournaments?
|
| Of course there's plenty of interest in _amateur_ pickleball,
| but there 's no evidence that amateur tennis is becoming more
| about strength and height.
| dgfitz wrote:
| https://www.ppatour.com/
|
| Looks like there is pro pickle ball. Other pro athletes have
| been buying teams even
| boomskats wrote:
| It has had a ton of money thrown into it to make it a
| thing, due to the sheer size of the addressable market in
| the US and the disposable income that's up for grabs (due
| to being primarily played by older / less mobile people).
| Jack Sock is a good example of this.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| I'm not sure if it's due to the size of the TAM, but
| there are a lot of pickleball players with a lot of
| money, and some of them are investing that money into
| making their hobby into a bigger sport. This sort of
| dynamic is keeping competitive bridge alive right now.
| notacoward wrote:
| As I said on Mastodon recently: if it's good enough for
| Venus Williams and Carlos Alcaraz, no lesser player has
| much excuse for dismissing it.
| [deleted]
| echelon wrote:
| If I had a choice between watching tennis and watching
| pickleball, I'd choose tennis.
|
| Not only is tennis far more athletic - almost like
| fencing with a ball - it sounds and looks so much better.
| In tennis, the audible whack at the point of contact with
| the ball is so satisfying. Pickleball sounds, by
| contrast, are squeaky and annoying.
|
| Pickleball is more accessible to new and older players,
| though. And that counts for something.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| Venus Williams is in her 40's, after a long career as a
| tennis pro. I assure you that if she could still play
| high-level tennis, she would, but she is well past
| retirement age (and the associated physical condition) in
| that sport. Pickleball is the sport she can still play.
| xpe wrote:
| I suggest the following edits:
|
| 1. change: "high-level" -> "the highest professional
| levels". I'd wager Venus could play well easily until her
| 60s if not longer. There are _many_ levels in tennis.
| There is are a range of competitive club levels. How
| often and how intensely she plays is another question.
|
| 2. Change: "the" -> "one" (w.r.t. "Pickleball is the
| sport she can still play.)
|
| Stepping back, in my view, some of the most interesting
| questions are psychological and personal. If you were to
| talk to a hundred former tennis pros about aging, what
| would they say? How much do they play? How does it feel?
| How do they shift their mindset as their bodies age? To
| what degree is tennis still _fun_ for them?
| rectang wrote:
| Venus Williams just crashed out of the first round of the
| U.S. Open, but she was ranked 407 in the world prior to
| that. She's plagued by injuries, beset by problems from
| the autoimmune disorder Sjogrens Syndrome and a shadow of
| what she once was, but she's still playing "high-level
| tennis".
| [deleted]
| notacoward wrote:
| [flagged]
| lapcat wrote:
| > As a few seconds of googling would have shown.
|
| If I have to google to discover whether professional
| pickleball exists, then it's not anywhere near the
| popularity of other professional sports. I would have heard
| about the results of pickleball matches in the sports
| headlines.
|
| > Your reply is just a low-effort attempt to dismiss an
| idea that makes you uncomfortable, or maybe just to pour
| derision on something for fun. Show more curiosity.
|
| Please refrain from personal attacks, which are against the
| HN guidelines.
|
| I don't even understand what you think is supposed to be
| making me "uncomfortable". I'm perfectly comfortable,
| thanks.
|
| I was simply disputing this:
|
| > This is rarely good for any sport, and is likely why
| interest in alternatives is growing.
|
| 1) Basically every professional sports is becoming more
| about strength and height over time, because athletes are
| getting better over time. Even professional golf, for
| example, is becoming much more athletic.
|
| 2) I don't think there's any evidence or plausibility to
| the idea that changes in professional tennis explain why
| pickleball has become popular among amateurs. I'm not
| disputing the amateur popularity of pickleball. And any
| growing popularity there may be in professional pickleball
| is the _result_ rather than the _cause_ of the amateur
| popularity of pickleball.
| [deleted]
| xpe wrote:
| > This is a strange comment.
|
| Is this a backhanded remark? (pun intended) In conversation,
| generalization and cross-comparisons happen. Our brains do
| these things, and it makes for interesting discussion.
| xpe wrote:
| > ... but there's no evidence that amateur tennis is becoming
| more about strength and height.
|
| There's an implied quantitative model in this comment, but
| what is being claimed is rather unclear. Until that model
| gets specified, we could talk in circles about it.
|
| Most would expect that strength matters, but how much? / And
| how much _for what_? For winning? For being competitive
| enough for it to be satisfying and fun? For overall
| participation levels? / I don't assume a linear effect
| across age, ability, nor skill. / And how much relative to
| other qualities? And how much are the factors intertwined?
| xpe wrote:
| The comment I responded to claims there is no evidence,
| without offering support for itself. My goal here is to
| offer constructive criticism and invite the commenter to
| clarify.
|
| Here on HN, like most forums, there is a write vs. read
| imbalance: "write once, read many". If you take a broad
| view, the implications are clear: it is better when writers
| put in the effort to be clear, particularly when asked.
|
| There is a common conversational pattern:
|
| (a) One person makes a comment which is somewhat vague.
|
| (b) The next person reads, and despite the ambiguity,
| responds without asking clarification questions.
|
| (c) Repeat.
|
| Is it a surprise that such conversations have so many
| failure modes? Some include: (1) talking past each other;
| (2) not really learning; (3) not getting to know each
| other; (4) missing an opportunity to connect and build
| bridges.
|
| I attempted to break the pattern by pointing out the
| ambiguity and asking clarification questions. This is the
| _norm_ for sites like Stack Overflow, for good reason.
|
| I have a hypothesis: the above dysfunctional pattern is not
| widely recognized here on HN. It isn't part of people's
| awareness; we fall into counterproductive conversational
| styles without recognizing it.
|
| Sure, there are styles of debate where people try to score
| points. That's a zero-sum mentality; a waste of our
| collective effort.
|
| I encourage us to reflect on this question: Given how much
| time people spend on HN, how many durable _personal_
| connections are formed?
| lapcat wrote:
| Wow, you are vastly, vastly overthinking this. My point
| was simply that amateur tennis is played by ordinary
| people--of all ages, shapes, sizes, and experience levels
| --in large part for fun, exercise, and recreation, so
| there's no reason to think that amateur tennis is somehow
| becoming more about strength and height. Ordinary people
| aren't changing, and thus amateur tennis isn't changing.
| xpe wrote:
| Thanks for elaborating.
|
| > Wow, you are vastly, vastly overthinking this.
|
| This is your opinion. It also comes across as judgmental.
| Remember: people think differently.
|
| I suspected you had more to say. There is no plausible
| way one could read your mind and go from what you wrote
| before to what you wrote here.
|
| I'm here to learn and connect. It doesn't help when
| people have a dismissive tone in response to questions.
| deshpand wrote:
| Not sure why you were downvoted. Fitness, equipment (racket and
| strings) are the reason if not the height. For height, above a
| certain level, say 6 ft 2 inch, it starts becoming a liability
| in movement. Tennis used to have a lot of variety in the past.
| Big serve and volleyers on grass, long baseline rallies on
| clay, slice backhands, flat strokes. Now it's monotonous.. the
| surface doesn't matter. The game with the most payoff is to
| stand back at the baseline and hammer the ball.
|
| On a somewhat related topic, fitness has taken over many
| sports. In field hockey, dribbling used to be a skill. India
| was unbeaten for decades in Olympics, winning 8-9 gold medals.
| The introduction of artificial turf ushered in the era of
| strength and fitness, and the Western nations mostly took over.
| A_D_E_P_T wrote:
| > Competitive tennis is becoming more about strength and height
|
| Is that really the case? At present, the world's #1 and #2
| men's players are 6'1" and 6'2" respectively. And both well
| under 200 pounds. These are not giant musclemen by anybody's
| reckoning. Nadal and Federer were also both 6'1" and quite
| slim.
|
| It seems to me that tennis is about agility, coordination, and
| reaction time -- and that great height and remarkable muscle
| bulk are somewhat disfavored.
|
| The two-handed backhand is apparently a shorter and
| biomechanically more efficient movement than its single-handed
| equivalent, is all. And at the top levels of sport, with so
| much on the line, every small advantage counts.
| icegreentea2 wrote:
| I think you're right that other aspects of the sport impose
| upper limits of efficient sizes, but I don't think the
| article (or the original poster) was using 'giant musclemen'
| as benchmark for strength and height.
|
| Before I get too deep - I don't follow tennis. I'm just a
| sport nerd. I went and grabbed the 2007 and 2023 ATP men's
| ranking (cause that's whats on ESPN.com) and grabbed the
| heights of the top 10. Average height in 2007 was 71.8 inches
| (1.82m) and average height in 2023 was 74.5 inches (1.89m).
|
| Djokovic (who is in top 3 in both lists... absolutely
| amazing) went from being tied for tallest in the top 10, to
| being tied for 4th tallest.
| chilmers wrote:
| This article has some data on the historical height of
| Wimbledon champions:
| https://www.topendsports.com/sport/tennis/anthropometry-
| wimb...
|
| Height has risen over time, although the rise is far more
| pronounced for women than for men.
|
| Perhaps most interesting though is the apparent decrease in
| height variance from the 1990s onwards. Before that, you
| had a mix of relatively tall and relatively short
| champions. But from 1990 onwards, which would seem to
| coincide with the decline of wooden rackets and the rise of
| the modern power game, you stopped seeing any champions
| below 180cm.
|
| It's also worth considering that, even if height confers a
| significant advantage, its impact is limited by the normal
| distribution of height in the overall population. Assuming
| that A) you still need to have exceptional tennis playing
| ability to become a champion and B) exceptional tennis
| playing ability is very rare and not correlated with
| height, then you would expect rather more exceptional
| players of average height than exceptional players of
| significantly above average height.
|
| So even if height provided an advantage with no meaningful
| upper limit, you still might not expect champions of 7'0"
| because there are just no players with such an unlikely
| combination of extreme height and extreme ability. You
| might instead expect a statistical sweet spot where the
| populations of players with both attributes is large enough
| that the overlap is where most champions sit.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| Tennis, like fencing, is getting taller at the pro level.
| However, the athletes in both games are a lot more about
| agility than bulk. Above 2 meters in height, there aren't a
| lot of people (and many of the athletic ones end up playing
| for the NBA), so I would assume that there is room for
| "normal-sized" people in tennis for a while.
| mym1990 wrote:
| Almost nothing in tennis has to do with strength, quite the
| opposite. I can see definitely see more tall players become
| better with movement, ground strokes, and volleys(Medvedev,
| Zverev). Tall players still get injured a ton, but science is
| improving in the recovery department.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-04 23:01 UTC)