Tennis and the Revenge of Technological Revolution [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Tennis and the Revenge of Technological Revolution

markusensio
01-11-2006, 10:34 AM
A very interesting article (concerning reasons why tennis has lost its popularity):

http://www.primitivism.com/tennis.htm

Probably this could help:
http://www.1stserve.com/old/model3.htm

Eve83
01-11-2006, 12:05 PM
I guess the pic suits the topic

http://img395.imageshack.us/img395/6748/200401australianopen55nb.jpg

hitchhiker
01-11-2006, 12:07 PM
Did Myskina win a point against Federer?

SwissMister1
01-11-2006, 05:14 PM
I see you still haven't gotten anyone to buy into your idea of the tennis court with three service boxes :lol:

markusensio
01-12-2006, 06:08 AM
Nowadays there are 300-600 readers per month here:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~jpheikki/3malli

I and still less you don't know what is happening in their heads!

prima donna
01-12-2006, 05:22 PM
This is interesting.

Actually, a topic like this on any other forum would gather quite a crowd. Unfortunately, subject matters like " Post your favorite hotty " seems to be more of an attractive / appealing opportunity for the geniuses of this board to express themselves.

Anyway, with regard to the topic of technology and tennis in general, my take is this:

Tennis would be completely unpopular if it were being played under the conditions of old, wooden racquets and yada, yada, yada.

On the same token, technology like the Pro Staff racquets and the more control-oriented racquets would be interesting to see.

The fact of the matter is, in all fairness to players, many aren't using today's technology. They are actually using older models of racquets. It's been speculated that Roger is using the Pro Staff 88 (custom made for him by Wilson) and not the nSix, so if you went out and purchased it ... oh well.

There's something called a paint job, you know ? It's how companies continue to sell and manufacture their products. The game hasn't really changed, you have to think about it. These players have played with the same frame for 5-10 years, do you really want to switch ?

There is an English Proverb, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" and that applies here.

Maria Sharapova since winning 2004 Wimbledon has changed racquets 3 times (according to her frame design) - it was actually exposed that they were marketing 2 separate products to American and Japanese consumers. Interesting, huh ?

Real tennis fanatics are aware of such things.

Tennis would be much more interesting without that Babolat, that seems to have helped so many of the players out. Especially one that has a pretty big serve, I'd like to see him execute it using an older model of a "player's racquet" - but then again, don't hold your breath. :)

Lee
01-12-2006, 08:44 PM
This is interesting.

Actually, a topic like this on any other forum would gather quite a crowd. Unfortunately, subject matters like " Post your favorite hotty " seems to be more of an attractive / appealing opportunity for the geniuses of this board to express themselves.



Because this has been discussed here before you joined this forum. ;)

tennisvideos
01-13-2006, 02:30 AM
I think there is a VERY SIMPLE solution to one of the big problems that Tennis currently faces.

Eliminate the 2nd serve.

So simple I have no idea why authorities haven't considered it.

It will eliminate the big bash first serve and the multitude of boring aces and unplayable serves, and also speed up the game.

Tennis is the ONLY racket sport in the world that allows the luxury of 2 serves. Watching a serve fest is boring IMO and even more boring to play against. Sure the proposal will suit the players with good returns and groundies more, but at least we will get MORE RALLIES on all surfaces. Can only help the game.

The second idea I have is the one introduced in doubles. Sudden death points at deuce. It makes the games more exciting and saves games see-sawing backwards and forwards indefinately deuce, ad out, deuce, ad in, deuce and so on. It means there is an exciting sudden death point. It will also speed up the game and make for more excitement.

Anyway, they are my two personal preferences.

prima donna
01-13-2006, 02:54 AM
Because this has been discussed here before you joined this forum. ;)
Plenty of topics have been discussed before I joined this forum and for some reason, that doesn't stop them from being discussed over and over again. ";)"

nkhera1
01-13-2006, 03:32 AM
This is interesting.

Actually, a topic like this on any other forum would gather quite a crowd. Unfortunately, subject matters like " Post your favorite hotty " seems to be more of an attractive / appealing opportunity for the geniuses of this board to express themselves.

Anyway, with regard to the topic of technology and tennis in general, my take is this:

Tennis would be completely unpopular if it were being played under the conditions of old, wooden racquets and yada, yada, yada.

On the same token, technology like the Pro Staff racquets and the more control-oriented racquets would be interesting to see.

The fact of the matter is, in all fairness to players, many aren't using today's technology. They are actually using older models of racquets. It's been speculated that Roger is using the Pro Staff 88 (custom made for him by Wilson) and not the nSix, so if you went out and purchased it ... oh well.

There's something called a paint job, you know ? It's how companies continue to sell and manufacture their products. The game hasn't really changed, you have to think about it. These players have played with the same frame for 5-10 years, do you really want to switch ?

There is an English Proverb, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" and that applies here.

Maria Sharapova since winning 2004 Wimbledon has changed racquets 3 times (according to her frame design) - it was actually exposed that they were marketing 2 separate products to American and Japanese consumers. Interesting, huh ?

Real tennis fanatics are aware of such things.

Tennis would be much more interesting without that Babolat, that seems to have helped so many of the players out. Especially one that has a pretty big serve, I'd like to see him execute it using an older model of a "player's racquet" - but then again, don't hold your breath. :)

Actually on ESPN they asked one of the writers whether or not Roddick would be able to serve as hard with a wooden racket, and the answer was that he wouldn't lose much power. I can link the page to where the article was found, but unfortunately the exact page doesn't seem to be working, but I can assure you I'm not lieing.

Also I hope you are aware of this but not everyone is born with the ability to hit a big serve, and just how Federer has great groundstrokes, Roddick has a great serve, I don't see why there is so much of commotion about it. Would Federer be as good without his forehand? Of course not. Would Federer be as good with a wooden racket? Again the answer is probably not so I don't see why we just have to keep bashing Roddick just because he has a bigger serve than everyone except for maybe 3-5 people.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/index?archive=051129

tennisvideos
01-13-2006, 08:52 AM
I think the reason a big serve game is not a big seller with spectators is that often there is ONE SHOT in the point. How exciting is that? To me it rates about a 2/10 on the excitement scale if it happens regularly.

If there was only ONE SERVE, a player can still go for a bigger serve if they want, but they risk the point. Many players still have nice big second serves to make it interesting.

markusensio
01-13-2006, 09:32 AM
This is interesting.



Yes; a VERY common expression in this connection!
Only a couple of examples:

"That sounds like an excellent idea. Anyone who watched the Davis Cup tie between the USA and Croatia yesterday will undoubtedly agree that the court was specifically designed to enhance the potency of Ljubicic's serve and the match was totally dominated by service winners. I think this detracts from the enjoyment of the sport. Exciting rallies are much more fun than one second of a ball flying past an opponent untouched..."

"Your concept is an interesting one. Have you actually painted a court as beautifully diagrammed at your website and played like this? In lieu of that I'm going to try it with ropes and give it a whirl. It looks like it could be everything you say! Of course the reality is the powers that be in tennis are a tough nut to crack..."

"I've found your rules to be very, very interesting and would
be interested in working with you to develop this on a larger scale with
my company.
Feel free to email me and we can discuss it!"

mojo37_12
01-13-2006, 03:37 PM
I think this thread raises another argument: playing to win and playing to entertain. The reason players entertain technology more than anything is to win efficiently not and this doesn't necessarily make the game more interesting and exciting. The bottomline is: Players WANT to win, not to entertain... And so I guess I agree... technology is great for the players but actually BAD for the fans...