"Issues Are Deeper Than Surfaces" [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

"Issues Are Deeper Than Surfaces"

lazybear
04-28-2009, 12:44 PM
http://www.tennisweek.com/news/fullstory.sps?inewsid=6631480

Is there already a thread about that? I didn't find any.

By Franklin L. Johnson
Monday, April 27, 2009

Victor Lamm's recent Tennis Week article, Does Surface Similarity Produce The Same Game?, was indeed very interesting and informative. Yet, his conclusion needs a bit of articulation. While there's little doubt the play on various surfaces has become more standardized, this result can't be completely blamed on surface similarity.

A cynical reader of the facts could say the homogenization of surfaces has returned. Mr. Lamm himself duly noted our sport, at one time, was largely played on grass and only occasionally on slow clay. This clear lack of variety benefited the English, Aussies and Americans. So, is it any wonder most of the winners of the majors, pre-Open Era, were from these three nations? The very fact tennis is played on so many different surfaces today, both in and outdoor, seems to require a different kind of athlete than the grass grazers of yesteryear.

Victor Lamm goes on to list some of the greats and their accomplishments through the decades without mentioning the fact the variety in playing styles expanded when the types of surfaces did. You could say an inverted "U" curve would correctly outline the progress of variety in tennis play from the classic style of the legendary players to the varied styles of the post-Open Era players to the ball-busting styles of today's super-athletes.

Further, surface standardization alone isn't responsible for much of the boring play on tour. Explosive power, produced by state-of-the-art training, diets and gear, place a greater emphasis on defensive skills and less on point production brilliance. Roger Federer is brutally beaten into submission by the younger, stronger Rafa Nadal. His exquisite game is never allowed to blossom on court. When Roger is forced by the sheer ferocity of Nadal's shots to abandon his skills for a defensive shell, it seems we should all be very alarmed. When a supreme dirt-baller starts winning Wimbledon, it's clear something isn't right in our sport.

Again, the problem isn't only the equalizing of surface speed. This writer has bitterly complained for decades about the factory farm system of tennis instruction. Modern tennis is often boring because the players are taught only the basic skills of the game. Why is it just a handful of pro players use slices, lobs and drop shots effectively? It can't be merely the result of the surface and gear. However, it can be successfully argued there's little subtleness in pro tennis today because the players aren't taught how to use it.

The rise of Rafa Nadal means the next generation of players will be bigger and stronger than ever. We already see them crowding into the Top Twenty. If we want to release the bash-ball stranglehold on pro tennis, we must make changes to the game which will encourage a greater variegation of play. Restoring wider variety to the surfaces would be a major first step. But, more important, the young players must be exposed to all the classic shots and they must be prompted to use them.

Unfortunately, it seems the Roger Federer era was more accident than evolution. While the facts bear this out with the return to gorilla-ball, an optimistic perspective envisions a more glorious than infamous future. Tennis is still a game for the agile and quick. Modern athletes stitched brute force onto the profile of the professional player. The unique Rafa Nadal era will soon close because his linebacker body will break down from all the years and pounding. The next generation of players will probably be a hybrid of Federer's utter genius and Nadal's physical gifts. Greater variety will return to the game with surface differentiation and comprehensive instruction. It all depends on which aspects of the game are emphasized.

miura
04-28-2009, 12:58 PM
Another article on how great Nadal is? Wow, that's new.

ossie
04-28-2009, 01:00 PM
summary: todays tennis sucks because nadal beats my favourite player

GlennMirnyi
04-28-2009, 04:15 PM
This guy doesn't seem to be anyone of importance, but he's got a very decent point.

CyBorg
04-28-2009, 04:21 PM
Roger Federer is brutally beaten into submission by the younger, stronger Rafa Nadal. His exquisite game is never allowed to blossom on court. When Roger is forced by the sheer ferocity of Nadal's shots to abandon his skills for a defensive shell, it seems we should all be very alarmed. When a supreme dirt-baller starts winning Wimbledon, it's clear something isn't right in our sport.

Loses all credibility right here.

Federer is losing because his mental game is out of whack, which directly affects his footwork and that affects the rest of his game - not because of Nadal's power game. Nadal's dominance over the rest of the field isn't that much different from Borg's. He's just that fast and that mentally strong.

This whole "Nadal is nothing but a super-talented grinder" shtick is getting old. I like when it comes from GlennMirnyi, because he makes it entertaining. But this is just shit journalism.

prima donna
04-28-2009, 04:25 PM
Nadal is the artist behind the uglification of modern tennis. What's so novel about that observation ?

l_mac
04-28-2009, 04:28 PM
Another article on how great Nadal is? Wow, that's new.

:o

moon language
04-28-2009, 04:29 PM
As if Nadal is the first "supreme dirt-baller" to win Wimbledon.

GlennMirnyi
04-28-2009, 04:29 PM
As if Nadal is the first "supreme dirt-baller" to win Wimbledon.

Who was the first?

prima donna
04-28-2009, 04:35 PM
Who was the first?
Good question. Bjorn Borg was more than a mere "dirt-baller."

ORGASMATRON
04-28-2009, 04:46 PM
The next generation of players will probably be a hybrid of Federer's utter genius and Nadal's physical gifts.

You cant breed players like that. Rafa and Fed was born that way.

I do agree that there must be variety of surface though. Too few attacking players these days.

GlennMirnyi
04-28-2009, 04:50 PM
Good question. Bjorn Borg was more than a mere "dirt-baller."

Yep.

heya
04-28-2009, 05:24 PM
Ugly writers believe an exquisite game exists and belongs only to
an ugly player/person. The ugly one
who depends so much on Federer ads, fitness, hard running,
and blasting forehand and flat shots on the lines. 1 thing doesn't work and the world stops revolving around Federer. No one else is a real tennis player!! :inlove:

ORGASMATRON
04-28-2009, 05:27 PM
Ugly writers believe an exquisite game exists and belongs only to
an ugly player/person. The ugly one
who depends so much on Federer ads, fitness, hard running,
and blasting forehand and flat shots on the lines. 1 thing doesn't work and the world stops revolving around Federer. No one else is a real tennis player!! :inlove:

For once you said something that makes sense :cool:

nkhera1
04-28-2009, 06:34 PM
If this so called ball bashing beats the beautiful tennis of Federer, then why should anyone expect a change? After all the point of the game is to win not look good losing.

prima donna
04-28-2009, 06:42 PM
If this so called ball bashing beats the beautiful tennis of Federer, then why should anyone expect a change? After all the point of the game is to win not look good losing.
Name a single ball-basher that can boast of having triumphed over Federer.

Fiberlight1
04-28-2009, 07:39 PM
Name a single ball-basher that can boast of having triumphed over Federer.

Blake, Safin, Berdych.. just to name a few ;)

heya
04-28-2009, 07:41 PM
Roddick apologized and pouted his mouth after he hurt poor Federer a little. He acts as if he's a failed abortion.

prima donna
04-28-2009, 07:48 PM
Blake, Safin, Berdych.. just to name a few ;)
Safin was hardly what I'd call a ball-basher in 2005, sure his game was predicated on his ability to hit winners and serve efficiently but there was much more to his game than mere brainless ball-bashing. As to Berdych's Olympic victory in '04, well, that's been proven a fluke, likewise is the case with respect to Blake's Olympic victory.

Combined record against the above-mentioned players:
26-4
Grand Slam Record:
11-1

So, once again, I pose the question: Name a single ball-basher that can boast of having triumphed over Federer.

Rafael Nadal is not a ball-basher.

alfonsojose
04-28-2009, 07:49 PM
Loses all credibility right here.

Federer is losing because his mental game is out of whack, which directly affects his footwork and that affects the rest of his game - not because of Nadal's power game. Nadal's dominance over the rest of the field isn't that much different from Borg's. He's just that fast and that mentally strong.

This whole "Nadal is nothing but a super-talented grinder" shtick is getting old. I like when it comes from GlennMirnyi, because he makes it entertaining. But this is just shit journalism.

That part is wrong. But there are some good points. Today's players know nothing about subtlety.

moon language
04-28-2009, 09:05 PM
Good question. Bjorn Borg was more than a mere "dirt-baller."

In the same way Nadal is.

MalwareDie
04-28-2009, 09:09 PM
In the same way Nadal is.

No, Borg could actually serve and volley. He won Wimbledon five times by serve and volleying and not by grinding/pushing from the baseline.

moon language
04-28-2009, 09:18 PM
No, Borg could actually serve and volley. He won Wimbledon five times by serve and volleying and not by grinding/pushing from the baseline.

That's beside the point. Borg overcame his stereotype to win there in the same way Nadal has.

Erica86
04-28-2009, 09:22 PM
The goal in tennis is getting in the last ball you hit in each point.
If it is serve and volley, an ace, a drop or after a three-minute rally, the main thing is getting the point. THIS IS WHAT REALLY MATTERS. And Nadal is the best in doing this. FULL STOP.

prima donna
04-28-2009, 09:37 PM
The goal in tennis is getting in the last ball you hit in each point.
If it is serve and volley, an ace, a drop or after a three-minute rally, the main thing is getting the point. THIS IS WHAT REALLY MATTERS. And Nadal is the best in doing this. FULL STOP.
The objective is to win, yes; however, that isn't to say that others (such as myself) should be forbidden to form judgments of certain playing styles, irrespective of winning percentage.

As I've said many times: Nadal has vulgarized modern tennis to an extent which would have been impossible had such an undertaking been pursued by mere ball-bashers.

GlennMirnyi
04-28-2009, 09:58 PM
Blake, Safin, Berdych.. just to name a few ;)

Nah.

Safin was hardly what I'd call a ball-basher in 2005, sure his game was predicated on his ability to hit winners and serve efficiently but there was much more to his game than mere brainless ball-bashing. As to Berdych's Olympic victory in '04, well, that's been proven a fluke, likewise is the case with respect to Blake's Olympic victory.

Combined record against the above-mentioned players:
26-4
Grand Slam Record:
11-1

So, once again, I pose the question: Name a single ball-basher that can boast of having triumphed over Federer.

Rafael Nadal is not a ball-basher.

Exactly.

In the same way Nadal is.

We can definitely say Nadull is not a "regular" sportsman. The sense in which that sentence was used wasn't probably the same you meant, but it's the only one possible.

That's beside the point. Borg overcame his stereotype to win there in the same way Nadal has.

No.

Borg changed his usual game to win Wimbledon. Nadull didn't change anything.

Har-Tru
04-28-2009, 10:10 PM
Borg changed his usual game to win Wimbledon. Nadull didn't change anything.

I suggest you watch the BBC's broadcast of the last Wimbledon final and pay attention to the bit where Goodall shows a graphic of Nadal's return hit point in the FO final a month before and that final, then come back and tell me Nadal didn't change anything.

Har-Tru
04-28-2009, 10:11 PM
No, Borg could actually serve and volley. He won Wimbledon five times by serve and volleying and not by grinding/pushing from the baseline.

:haha: :haha: :haha:

Fiberlight1
04-28-2009, 10:13 PM
Safin was hardly what I'd call a ball-basher in 2005, sure his game was predicated on his ability to hit winners and serve efficiently but there was much more to his game than mere brainless ball-bashing. As to Berdych's Olympic victory in '04, well, that's been proven a fluke, likewise is the case with respect to Blake's Olympic victory.

Combined record against the above-mentioned players:
26-4
Grand Slam Record:
11-1

So, once again, I pose the question: Name a single ball-basher that can boast of having triumphed over Federer.

Rafael Nadal is not a ball-basher.

No-one at all could triumph over Federer in his prime, besides Rafa..

That has nothing to do whether the aforementioned players ball-bash or not. But they have beaten Federer before.. even in his prime... well, with the exception of Blake.

GlennMirnyi
04-28-2009, 10:25 PM
I suggest you watch the BBC's broadcast of the last Wimbledon final and pay attention to the bit where Goodall shows a graphic of Nadal's return hit point in the FO final a month before and that final, then come back and tell me Nadal didn't change anything.

Stop the bullshit.

Stepping 20 centimeters ahead to return serve means absolute crap.

prima donna
04-28-2009, 10:27 PM
No-one at all could triumph over Federer in his prime, besides Rafa..

That has nothing to do whether the aforementioned players ball-bash or not. But they have beaten Federer before.. even in his prime... well, with the exception of Blake.
Federer vs Berdych sets: 22-5

At what point during Federer's reign/prime was Berdych ever a serious threat ? The Olympic victory was a fluke which led to nothing.

fast_clay
04-28-2009, 10:35 PM
yet another article portraying the hurt viewer, unhappy with the constant state of flux in the game... something that has always been there, yet, in fairness, the revolutions seem to be turning somewhat slower in recent years...

i do agree on the methods of coaching.... lost is knowledge of the amount of time it takes to build a style... the pursuit of fast money, the myth of a blueprint, the path of least resistance - all breeding something similar... the outbreeding of the holistic player in favour of the quick buck clone... the notion of total tennis... lost... tennis by numbers replacing depth and creativity, but, to the well educated, money has always corrupted to a certain degree...

but its not all lost really... the cycle has always turned in this fashion... what's old is new again... it will be this way...

Fiberlight1
04-28-2009, 10:43 PM
Federer vs Berdych sets: 22-5

At what point during Federer's reign/prime was Berdych ever a serious threat ? The Olympic victory was a fluke which led to nothing.

It seems like your on a different standard here...

What I'm saying is NO-ONE dominated Federer from the span of 2004-2007 besides Nadal..

No ballbasher, counter-puncher, aggressive-baseliner, serve and vollier, whatever had any sort of success against Federer because he was the most dominant. But the truth is, when a ballbasher is on they can beat anyone. Berdych beat Federer in 2004 in Athens and you can call that a fluke or whatever but Berydch did beat him. As did Blake, as did Safin who, in my eyes is a very aggressive baseliner..

In your original post you said "triumphed" in which I thought you meant beat. And if you meant what I think you meant then Berydch and Blake have both defeated Federer.

moon language
04-28-2009, 10:48 PM
yet another article portraying the hurt viewer, unhappy with the constant state of flux in the game... something that has always been there, yet, in fairness, the revolutions seem to be turning somewhat slower in recent years...

i do agree on the methods of coaching.... lost is knowledge of the amount of time it takes to build a style... the pursuit of fast money, the myth of a blueprint, the path of least resistance - all breeding something similar... the outbreeding of the holistic player in favour of the quick buck clone... the notion of total tennis... lost... tennis by numbers replacing depth and creativity, but, to the well educated, money has always corrupted to a certain degree...

but its not all lost really... the cycle has always turned in this fashion... what's old is new again... it will be this way...

Yes lots of flashbacks to complaints about Lendl, Agassi, Sampras, Hewitt, and on and on reading this thread. Where did it all start? I guess when someone decided it was ok to tinker extensively with the racquets. What surprises me is that these folks keep watching if they dislike the state of the game so much. Perhaps they are simply addicted to the grind of defending their minority opinions over and over on this forum? An entertaining irony exists in their grinding of course. I would just give up following the sport as I have done with the NBA.

prima donna
04-28-2009, 10:58 PM
It seems like your on a different standard here...

What I'm saying is NO-ONE dominated Federer from the span of 2004-2007 besides Nadal..

No ballbasher, counter-puncher, aggressive-baseliner, serve and vollier, whatever had any sort of success against Federer because he was the most dominant. But the truth is, when a ballbasher is on they can beat anyone. Berdych beat Federer in 2004 in Athens and you can call that a fluke or whatever but Berydch did beat him. As did Blake, as did Safin who, in my eyes is a very aggressive baseliner..

In your original post you said "triumphed" in which I thought you meant beat. And if you meant what I think you meant then Berydch and Blake have both defeated Federer.
Andy Roddick beat Federer during his ball-bashing days, too. (See Montreal '03)

My comment was a retort to nkhera's post which suggested that Federer had been dethroned by mere ball-bashers, which couldn't be any farther from the truth. I didn't realize that we'd disregard his utter dominance against such players, notwithstanding the occasional fluke victory here and there.

I was attempting to emphasize a greater point, which obviously got lost in semantics.

Getting back on path: Rafael Nadal is not a ball-basher, hence the problem is not ball-bashing.

Fiberlight1
04-28-2009, 11:02 PM
Andy Roddick beat Federer during his ball-bashing days, too (Montreal '03).

My comment was a retort to nkhera's post which suggested that Federer had been dethroned by mere ball-bashers, which couldn't be any farther from the truth. I didn't realize that we'd disregard his utter dominance against such players, notwithstanding the occasional fluke victory here and there.

I was attempting to emphasize a greater point, which obviously got lost in semantics.

Getting back on path: Rafael Nadal is not a ball-basher, hence the problem is not ball-bashing.

Understood, and I agree with you 100% that Federer was not dethroned by ball-bashers, but more by the opposite..

Simon, Nadal, Murray.. All defense oriented players that have posted positive H2H's over Federer..
Maybe it's just a sign of the times and proof that today's game relies more on getting to to the ball and getting it back rather than just smacking the hell out of it.

Henry Chinaski
04-28-2009, 11:03 PM
yet another article portraying the hurt viewer, unhappy with the constant state of flux in the game... something that has always been there, yet, in fairness, the revolutions seem to be turning somewhat slower in recent years...

i do agree on the methods of coaching.... lost is knowledge of the amount of time it takes to build a style... the pursuit of fast money, the myth of a blueprint, the path of least resistance - all breeding something similar... the outbreeding of the holistic player in favour of the quick buck clone... the notion of total tennis... lost... tennis by numbers replacing depth and creativity, but, to the well educated, money has always corrupted to a certain degree...

but its not all lost really... the cycle has always turned in this fashion... what's old is new again... it will be this way...

How about the ITF and their attempts to introduce an International Tennis Number for all players?

I saw how the exam for the number works at some seminar in DCU and you're pretty much graded exclusively on ballbashing. The future quick fix for coaches to improve their youngsters official rating will be to get them to hit harder and deeper over and over again.

bobbynorwich
04-28-2009, 11:03 PM
Surfaces too homogenized? We could always add wood, glass, tile, and carpet.

Henry Chinaski
04-28-2009, 11:05 PM
the tour needs more artificial grass where even heavy top spin tries to skid along the surface.

Har-Tru
04-28-2009, 11:08 PM
Stop the bullshit.

Stepping 20 centimeters ahead to return serve means absolute crap.

:lol:

fast_clay
04-28-2009, 11:23 PM
How about the ITF and their attempts to introduce an International Tennis Number for all players?

I saw how the exam for the number works at some seminar in DCU and you're pretty much graded exclusively on ballbashing. The future quick fix for coaches to improve their youngsters official rating will be to get them to hit harder and deeper over and over again.

yes... it was in place where i am, though, i abandoned it as soon as i had the chance to abandon it... probably go down well in places where they spray dog shit with perfume and sell it to the public as furniture... a bullsh!t gimmick, and i cannot break it down any further than that...

the tour needs more artificial grass where even heavy top spin tries to skid along the surface.

Q: in 1986, a ballot was taken by the Directors inside Tennis Australia, to decide what would be the new surface of the Australian Open. The two choices were Rebound Ace and _____________?

A:

The tennis world could have been so much different. Of course, as youngster growing up on clay, i would have hated the idea... yet, today... i see it would have been a worthy addition to the Grand Slam surface club and indeed a gift to the tennis world... alas, like so much in my lifetime, we followed world's best practise, which is whatever the US is doing. No bold move. No statement...

And... for those foreign to that particular surface... in Australia, a properly sanded court allows the slide of green clay, medium to low bounce, while rewarding a creative and combative style of play.

I would be a supporter of such a move... if only to provide variety.

Har-Tru
04-28-2009, 11:28 PM
The tennis world could have been so much different. Of course, as youngster growing up on clay, i would have hated the idea... yet, today... i see it would have been a worthy addition to the Grand Slam surface club and indeed a gift to the tennis world... alas, like so much in my lifetime, we followed world's best practise, which is whatever the US is doing. No bold move. No statement...

And... for those foreign to that particular surface... in Australia, a properly sanded court allows the slide of green clay, medium to low bounce, while rewarding a creative and combative style of play.

I would be a supporter of such a move... if only to provide variety.

pardon me but I don't get it. are you talking about artificial grass somewhat like the one used in football and such, or that sort of artificial clay with granules? :confused:

Guy Haines
04-28-2009, 11:35 PM
Good question. Bjorn Borg was more than a mere "dirt-baller."

And so is Nadal. And on the subject of tennis, both are more accomplished than a mere MTF poster.

Henry Chinaski
04-28-2009, 11:36 PM
yes... it was in place where i am, though, i abandoned it as soon as i had the chance to abandon it... probably go down well in places where they spray dog shit with perfume and sell it to the public as furniture... a bullsh!t gimmick, and i cannot break it down any further than that...


.

hehe, those were my thoughts exactly.

those who play competitively will grade themseleves based on results and the grannies who play doubles twice a week, well they're not going to give a fuck what number anyone decides to call them.

heya
04-28-2009, 11:42 PM
Safin, Berdych (who's more talented than Blake) and mindless flat-ball demolishers like Blake lose to #100-#200 players because they are not smart on court.
Roddick choked and lost countless matches because he refused to focus on tennis and losing weight in his heavy muscles. There's a reason why he didn't collapse out of the top 10 and played much better when he stopped mindless blasting against Federer and started serving and running like a tennis player.

Simon, Murray, and Djokovic are not dominant types of players even though they run and flex down for lower shots easier than Roddick. Del Potro's a ball basher but cannot win unless the top 10 players with hard serves choke and have bad fitness.

Guy Haines
04-28-2009, 11:44 PM
pardon me but I don't get it. are you talking about artificial grass somewhat like the one used in football and such, or that sort of artificial clay with granules? :confused:

Har-Tru, you're the perfect poster to pose this question. :D

What I can make of all of this thus far: fast_clay and Henry Chinaski should run the ATP.

I love the article's old canard about Federer being an unparalleled "genius" and Nadal possessing nothing but brute force. It's world-is-flat stuff.

Black Adam
04-28-2009, 11:47 PM
Piece of junk, a fdtard who doesn't like the way things are going these days (i.e. polls to see who takes out Fedy that week :lol: It can be very depressing :tape: )

If the writing were more eloquient, I would go with Prima Donna being the author.

I hear Roddick is a ballbasher and he beat Fey twice and on 2 occasions blew matchpoints.

fast_clay
04-29-2009, 12:29 AM
pardon me but I don't get it. are you talking about artificial grass somewhat like the one used in football and such, or that sort of artificial clay with granules? :confused:

no... not the artificial clay... sand filled synthetic pile... they tried to rig something up for the US Open when they were throwing it around in the 70's from Grass, to Clay... but finally to hard... this is what they had come up with by 1985 to target the Australian Open... unsuccessfully...
http://www.xsports.com/synth1.gif

here is one properly sanded...
http://images.google.co.uk/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://www.progreen.com/picts/Tennis-Court-Synthetic-Surface.jpg&usg=AFQjCNGS8-bTtp-k61h5hVQDwoUCFtYFpg

here is Sydney's proposed site for the Australian Open, 2016...

http://images.google.co.uk/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://www.syntheticgrass.com.au/gallery/images/Tennis.JPG&usg=AFQjCNEjTdQe7Oud8xmPD_3aQ2mN4nDjgQ

Har-Tru
04-29-2009, 12:37 AM
no... not the artificial clay... sand filled synthetic pile... they tried to rig something up for the US Open when they were throwing it around in the 70's from Grass, to Clay... but finally to hard... this is what they had come up with by 1985 to target the Australian Open... unsuccessfully...
http://www.xsports.com/synth1.gif

here is one properly sanded...
http://images.google.co.uk/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://www.progreen.com/picts/Tennis-Court-Synthetic-Surface.jpg&usg=AFQjCNGS8-bTtp-k61h5hVQDwoUCFtYFpg

here is Sydney's proposed site for the Australian Open, 2016...

http://images.google.co.uk/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://www.syntheticgrass.com.au/gallery/images/Tennis.JPG&usg=AFQjCNEjTdQe7Oud8xmPD_3aQ2mN4nDjgQ

cool. I wonder how that would play like exactly. Maybe a bit like Har-Tru? If so, let it be done!

nkhera1
04-29-2009, 12:37 AM
Name a single ball-basher that can boast of having triumphed over Federer.

If we want to release the bash-ball stranglehold on pro tennis, we must make changes to the game which will encourage a greater variegation of play.

This was a statement I read in the article and the only players mentioned in the article were Federer and Nadal so I'm assuming that they were referring to Nadal. While he isn't a ball basher in the traditional sense he is the one they were referring to with regards to the athleticism and explosion and its not like he powder puffs the ball over.

Har-Tru
04-29-2009, 12:39 AM
Har-Tru, you're the perfect poster to pose this question. :D

See? I knew he couldn't be talking about Har-Tru (the best, yet most snubbed surface ever). :)

fast_clay
04-29-2009, 12:56 AM
See? I knew he couldn't be talking about Har-Tru (the best, yet most snubbed surface ever). :)

yes... tennis is a sport that can seem to support a solid percentage of inexplicable conservatism at certain levels... or just plain blindness... there is a lot of education that is missed...