[Fishnet]

Originally Posted by August

In contrast, I think it should be former, not active, players who'd have a say to rules. Active players want rules to favour them, former players want rules to favour the game.

I don't think this discussion should be about active or retired players. It should be about respecting tradition.

Some other sports have imposed rules to arrest the demolition of older records because of technology alone. Tennis has embraced this demolition of its history and tradition.

Racket and string development should've been stopped by 2003/2004.

[Time Violation]

Originally Posted by August

Active players want rules to favour them, former players want rules to favour the game.

Whoa, what a conclusion Since when the retired players have become some sort of high council of tennis elders?

[Fishnet]

Originally Posted by Time Violation

Whoa, what a conclusion Since when the retired players have become some sort of high council of tennis elders?

Like McEnroe and his weekly statements about a new best player ever.

[Time Violation]

I'm already looking forward to the future when Gulbis, Monfils, Dolgopolov, Troicki etc. are retired and directing the trends of men's tennis

[HKz]

Strings, not rackets

[August]

Originally Posted by Time Violation

Whoa, what a conclusion Since when the retired players have become some sort of high council of tennis elders?

Well, my point was that tennis shouldn't be developed at terms of active players, especially when it comes to the essence of the game, what racquet and string technology has changed.

Originally Posted by Time Violation

I'm already looking forward to the future when Gulbis, Monfils, Dolgopolov, Troicki etc. are retired and directing the trends of men's tennis

Had '70s players stopped racquet development, maybe those guys would've never got to ATP.

[Pratik]

Originally Posted by August

Racquet technology is sometimes mentioned in discussions about court speed and death of S&V. But what do you think, are modern racquets too good?

I really don't know too much about last century's tennis. But at least in '90s, fastest surfaces had turned into acefests. And I think a reason to that was improved racquets. They enabled faster and more accurate serving. On the other hand, better racquets have obviously also helped in defence. If you are just able to hit the ball, you can control the shot better than previously. A common explanation for the extinction of S&V is that with modern racquets, it's easier to hit a good return and pass the guy on net.

If the racquets were worse, it would favour more skilled players. It would be more difficult for ballbashers to blow their opponents off the court. But it would be more difficult also for grinders, it would be difficult to return shots from defending position. And who would win? The creative shotmakers. For example, only the most skilled players would be able to serve so well that they would be able to come to net. The opponent could return the serve, but it would be difficult for him to pass the guy on net.

So, if they could go the former racquets, I think tennis would be more about skills. Fastest surfaces wouldn't anymore be acefests but S&V-fests. Clay would still favour good defending, but it would be easier to beat a defence-only player with skillful playing. I'd love if they could go to '80s racquets but I guess that would be too radical a move. It would be too difficult for players to adapt to that and big crowd wouldn't necessarily understand going backwards. But at least I wouldn't like the racquets to improve anymore, better racquets mean hitting requires less skill. And I don't think regulating racquets wouldn't be against the spirit of sport. For example, they regulate skis in Alpine skiing, and sometimes make regulation changes. Why couldn't tennis also regulate racquets more? Of course, racquet manufacturers wouldn't like that. Nowadays racquets are sold by their quality, spec racquets would be sold e.g. by their paintjob.

I agree with practically everything you said there. But, that is not a strong enough reason to not let technology play its part. In any racquet sport(an argument could be made for any sport), with time the sport is going to be forced to evolve. As you said, better equipment facilitates better serving, better shot making, better defence etc. Better tennis, which is what everyone wants. Some of the hardcore tennis fans may want to see a technically better game and a more 'skillful' player(over defence and ball-bashing), but that is not what the average fan wants. The sport survives on the big crowd, not merely us hardcore fans. The average fan would not find the wooden racquet game very interesting. I don't really know anything about skiing, so I won't comment on that. But practically every sport evolves with time. The cricket bat, badminton/squash/table tennis racquet, football, etc. I would even go so far as to say that it would be foolish to not let technology take its due course.

The point you(and me for that matter) need to face is that the traditional definition of skill no longer holds. Good defence(a.k.a. grinding) is a skill now. Using the racquet technology to your advantage is a very important skill. If Nadal is able to use better strings to his advantage by generating more topspin than most players are used to, it is a skill which gives him an advantage over the others. It would be pointless to say that 'he couldn't do the same with a wooden racquet'.

If used in the right way, these better racquets actually expand the meaning of creative shot making. There are wider variety of shots possible now than with the wooden rackets.

While better racquets does mean hitting well requires lesser skill(in the traditional definition of skill), it does not mean the value of skill is lost. Most people would agree that Federer is a very 'skillful' player. From what I understand, the racquet he uses is of no where near the latest technology. So 'skill' is able to do well in todays game. In general, surely a more skillful player can outperform a less skillful player even today.

[Burrow]

Originally Posted by August

Racquet technology is sometimes mentioned in discussions about court speed and death of S&V. But what do you think, are modern racquets too good?

I really don't know too much about last century's tennis. But at least in '90s, fastest surfaces had turned into acefests. And I think a reason to that was improved racquets. They enabled faster and more accurate serving. On the other hand, better racquets have obviously also helped in defence. If you are just able to hit the ball, you can control the shot better than previously. A common explanation for the extinction of S&V is that with modern racquets, it's easier to hit a good return and pass the guy on net.

If the racquets were worse, it would favour more skilled players. It would be more difficult for ballbashers to blow their opponents off the court. But it would be more difficult also for grinders, it would be difficult to return shots from defending position. And who would win? The creative shotmakers. For example, only the most skilled players would be able to serve so well that they would be able to come to net. The opponent could return the serve, but it would be difficult for him to pass the guy on net.

So, if they could go the former racquets, I think tennis would be more about skills. Fastest surfaces wouldn't anymore be acefests but S&V-fests. Clay would still favour good defending, but it would be easier to beat a defence-only player with skillful playing. I'd love if they could go to '80s racquets but I guess that would be too radical a move. It would be too difficult for players to adapt to that and big crowd wouldn't necessarily understand going backwards. But at least I wouldn't like the racquets to improve anymore, better racquets mean hitting requires less skill. And I don't think regulating racquets wouldn't be against the spirit of sport. For example, they regulate skis in Alpine skiing, and sometimes make regulation changes. Why couldn't tennis also regulate racquets more? Of course, racquet manufacturers wouldn't like that. Nowadays racquets are sold by their quality, spec racquets would be sold e.g. by their paintjob.

Do a little bit of research. The vast majority of players are either using old rackets, spanning as old as 16-17 years old or are using pro-stock rackets based on older frames.

Stringers and those who have been able to get their hands on players rackets have been able to confirm the specifications of each racket if not by eye.

Have you ever seen anyone hit the ball as hard consistently as Marat Safin? He used a PC600 from the start to finish of his career and very briefly the tgk 237.1 which he said was a mistake.

[allpro]

racket technology hasn't changed much since the mid 80’s and early 90's. fed’s racket was introduced in 1983, and tons of pros who use head are basically playing with a painted variant of the prestige pro which came out in 1986. it's the polyester strings (luxilon) which have radically altered how the game is played, not the rackets.

[allpro]

Originally Posted by Fishnet

Sampras was very critical of new strings back in the early 2000s.

he referred to luxilon as "cheatilon".

[Bobby]

Jimmy Connors' legendary Wilson T2000 is where the development should have ended.

[August]

Originally Posted by Pratik

I agree with practically everything you said there. But, that is not a strong enough reason to not let technology play its part. In any racquet sport(an argument could be made for any sport), with time the sport is going to be forced to evolve. As you said, better equipment facilitates better serving, better shot making, better defence etc. Better tennis, which is what everyone wants. Some of the hardcore tennis fans may want to see a technically better game and a more 'skillful' player(over defence and ball-bashing), but that is not what the average fan wants. The sport survives on the big crowd, not merely us hardcore fans. The average fan would not find the wooden racquet game very interesting. I don't really know anything about skiing, so I won't comment on that. But practically every sport evolves with time. The cricket bat, badminton/squash/table tennis racquet, football, etc. I would even go so far as to say that it would be foolish to not let technology take its due course.

That's why I said "But at least I wouldn't like the racquets to improve anymore" in the OP. Going back to wooden racquets would really be not an option, it would change the modern game too much and big crowd wouldn't understand that. But freezing the racquet/string developent wouldn't have any affect to tennis' popularity. Tennis would remain just like it is, it wouldn't go backwards. And, maybe a careful regulating of racquets/strings would be possible without changing the modern tennis too much too fast. Courts were slowed down gradually, it happened by stealth for the big crowd. Similarly racquets/strings could be made worse over a longer period, and nobody would notice.

After all, I'm not sure grindfests are what the crowd wants most. Yeah, random fans prefer grindfests over acefests but I think they might equally like a "skillfest" without grinding and powerhitting but with some nice shots. But yeah, you can't change the racquets/strings and courts favouring that kind of tennis immediately, it would be a shock for the big crowd.

[Burrow]

Originally Posted by August

That's why I said "But at least I wouldn't like the racquets to improve anymore" in the OP. Going back to wooden racquets would really be not an option, it would change the modern game too much and big crowd wouldn't understand that. But freezing the racquet/string developent wouldn't have any affect to tennis' popularity. Tennis would remain just like it is, it wouldn't go backwards. And, maybe a careful regulating of racquets/strings would be possible without changing the modern tennis too much too fast. Courts were slowed down gradually, it happened by stealth for the big crowd. Similarly racquets/strings could be made worse over a longer period, and nobody would notice.

After all, I'm not sure grindfests are what the crowd wants most. Yeah, random fans prefer grindfests over acefests but I think they might equally like a "skillfest" without grinding and powerhitting but with some nice shots. But yeah, you can't change the racquets/strings and courts favouring that kind of tennis immediately, it would be a shock for the big crowd.

This is pointless. Courts should be varied, not one way or the other. Just like it was.

[cveks]

Originally Posted by Fishnet

So you think players today are better than Sampras, Agassi, Becker, McEnroe, etc?

they all said - that they are better.

Look at my signature.

Tennis evolved .

[Fed fordawin]

What's true is that a border must be defined. I mean, let's imagine they improve the racquets in the few decades to the point you can serve 300 kph serves, then the sport will be dead.