Tennis Random, Random (On Court)

[meganfernandez]

Last story. I promise.

^ I hope not.
Keep them coming...

Same, I love these stories. Loved yours, too, Deuce. I love that the other guys said, "So have I." You're lucky to even get a chance to return a pro player's ball, see what it's like. I think the athleticism is also hard to appreciate until you're on the court with it. I've interviewed Rajeev Ram a few times, and once he explained why the it's hard to appreciate the athleticism of tennis players - that other than serve speed, it's hard to measure. He pointed out that in football, the average person knows they can't throw for 50 yards. But the dimensions of a tennis court makes it seem like rec players can do what they do. It's not until you're on the court with a player that you really see the difference. I've seen it a little bit with UIndy players I've been on the court with. Some of them are nationally ranked in their European countries. The ball-on-a-string thing is a good analogy. And the athleticism stands out.

[Deuce]

Last story. I promise.

^ I hope not.
Keep them coming...

Same, I love these stories. Loved yours, too, Deuce. I love that the other guys said, "So have I." You're lucky to even get a chance to return a pro player's ball, see what it's like. I think the athleticism is also hard to appreciate until you're on the court with it. I've interviewed Rajeev Ram a few times, and once he explained why the it's hard to appreciate the athleticism of tennis players - that other than serve speed, it's hard to measure. He pointed out that in football, the average person knows they can't throw for 50 yards. But the dimensions of a tennis court makes it seem like rec players can do what they do. It's not until you're on the court with a player that you really see the difference. I've seen it a little bit with UIndy players I've been on the court with. Some of them are nationally ranked in their European countries. The ball-on-a-string thing is a good analogy. And the athleticism stands out.

Thanks, Megan. I enjoy reading any story about tennis.
Interesting what Ram said about it being more difficult to measure ourselves against the pro game in tennis than in other sports.

Tennis can also be a great equalizer when it comes to pro athletes... Many years ago, I took 2 major league baseball players out to a tennis court (they were friends of mine). Although good enough to play at the top level of baseball, these two guys were horrible at tennis. I mean really, really bad. This seems strange, as hitting a tennis ball is at least somewhat similar to hitting a baseball. But that’s where the similarities end, of course. After about 15 minutes - and several balls lost over the fence - I pulled them off the court.
I’ve seen other pro athletes trying to play tennis (on TV) - with a similar result. Tennis is just... different.

The Haitian Davis Cup player still asks me to play when I see him at tournaments. I say "No, thanks. I'm not in your league." Apparently, he enjoys running me around the court more than I enjoy it .
When I got on the court with Shamasdin, it was just a ‘I’ll ask him for the hell of it’ thing. He was nice enough to say ok. Now, he and I always say ‘hi’ when we see each other at tournaments, and talk a bit. At a tournament in 2019, I wanted him to try out an old standard sized fibreglass racquet that I had - because it’s got the best feel of any racquet I’ve ever hit with. I went onto the practice court with him and gave him the racquet to try. He was hitting with his doubles partner, so I didn’t hit with him... but he hit with my old racquet for a few minutes, and quite liked the feel, he said. Then I gave the racquet to his doubles partner to try.
It’s fun to do uncommon things like that, and talk with them to get insights into the pro game. To me, that’s much more interesting than asking for them to scribble their name on something, or to pose for a photo.

[ponchi101]

Don't get me started on tennis athleticism. We are the most underrated sport of all, when in reality we have had some of the best athletes in the history of sports. Borg had a resting heartbeat of 36 (only bested by Miguel Indurrain's 30), Jim Courier had a body fat measure of 4% (I bet Novak is around there). Laver and Vilas were famous for being able to do 150 ONE ARM push ups on one go.
Courier would do 1,500 sit-ups a day, in sets of 100. The catch? He would do the sets in between his other exercises, so his sit-up was his recovery time.
And let's not even talk about Martina. Or Steffi, who once the national coach for the German 4x400 relay team tried to recruit (she was still not totally known in Germany).
I have said it before: The NBA/WNBA and the ATP/WTA. In overall skills and athleticism, no one can beat those.

[Suliso]

Some people say swimmers are the best all around athletes.

[ponchi101]

It would be a fun debate. How to measure that? But in tennis and basketball, the eye-hand coordination comes into play too. It is not only how strong you are, it is the delicate balance between hitting that 125MPH forehand winner inside the court and decapitating a spectator in the third row.
Sure, swimmers are incredible, but it is a repetitive skill; actually, the best swimmers are the ones that can repeat one single motion over and over, not losing power. The men and women running the 100 Mts dash are physical freaks, and it requires skills, but I do not think in the same fashion than Steph Curry shooting a three with an opponent covering him.
But my main point is that we are not the country club vision of a Sunday player. We are better athletes that we are given credit for.
BTW. Ages ago, Tennis magazine published a study, showing that people that play tennis have a longer lifespan. Something about the combination of remaining active on court (the sport for a lifetime) and the fun part of it. There were also some indications that it was good for your mental hygiene and health. You know, keeping score, figuring out a strategy, etc.

[Suliso]

Longer compared to people who do some other sport or compared to couch potatoes?

[ponchi101]

Longer compared to the overall population. It was quite a study.
(People that subscribe to tennis boards, on the other hand, tend to live shorter lives. It seems their partners shoot them early...)

[ti-amie]

Longer compared to the overall population. It was quite a study.
(People that subscribe to tennis boards, on the other hand, tend to live shorter lives. It seems their partners shoot them early...)

[meganfernandez]

BTW. Ages ago, Tennis magazine published a study, showing that people that play tennis have a longer lifespan. Something about the combination of remaining active on court (the sport for a lifetime) and the fun part of it. There were also some indications that it was good for your mental hygiene and health. You know, keeping score, figuring out a strategy, etc.

Tennis is one of the few sports people can play when they're really old, which might skew the study. Former swimmmers might live longer, but they aren't swimming anymore by the time they're counted in a study like this. Just a guess!

There are USTA leagues for 90-year-olds!

[Suliso]

Why would they not be swimming? My parents, in their early 70-ties, still swim in the sea in the summer and neither was a competitive swimmer in their youth.

[atlpam]

Why would they not be swimming? My parents, in their early 70-ties, still swim in the sea in the summer and neither was a competitive swimmer in their youth.

I've also seen plenty of older swimmers (70's) regularly doing laps in the lake near our Vermont home.

[JazzNU]

Essentially back from maternity leave

[ponchi101]

Mothers playing in the WTA. No longer a rarity or even a conversation topic

[meganfernandez]

Had a little controversy in my USTA match yesterday. Curious what you guys think about this scenario:

Singles match (not that it would matter), my opponent hits a groundstroke that is going to be long. About 70-80% into its flight path, so shortly before it's about to bounce, a ball from the next court comes toward me in the air. I see it but don't call a let. My opponent doesn't know that I see it, so she calls a let about a second before her ball bounces (indeed out). She insists we replay the point and could not understand why I thought we shouldn't replay the point once she said "let."

USTA rules allow you to call a let on your opponent's court, but i think that's mostly for safety or maybe if it distracts your eye. (In college tennis, you can't do that.) I asked her if the other court's ball had distracted her before she hit the ball, and she said no, she was just making sure I saw it and didn't get hit. I thanked her for her consideration and pointed out that I actually did see it and didn't call a let because her ball was going to be out, and since it was out and the let ball/call didn't affect the play at all, the point should stand. She was flabbergasted and said once she says "let," we replay the point, no questions asked. (She called it in good faith, I'm sure. however, the ball was pretty obviously in my sightline and traveling very slowly. It wasn't like I was in danger of spraining my ankle or getting hit on the head.) But I disagreed. Even after you call a let, you can (should?) assess the circumstances and decide if one player deserves a re-do. The whole point of her "let" was to warn me, not correct an unfairness in the play. I don't know what the rule is technically for this gray area, but regardless, courtesy (and common sense) would dictate that she concede that point.

It was a pivotal point. I was serving at 4-5, 5-all in a very tough match. We replayed it (honestly I didn't care that much) and she won the point, the set and the match. Not because of that point, but still.

What would you have done if you were her or me?

[dave g]

Had a little controversy in my USTA match yesterday. Curious what you guys think about this scenario:

Singles match (not that it would matter), my opponent hits a groundstroke that is going to be long. About 70-80% into its flight path, so shortly before it's about to bounce, a ball from the next court comes toward me in the air. I see it but don't call a let. My opponent doesn't know that I see it, so she calls a let about a second before her ball bounces (indeed out). She insists we replay the point and could not understand why I thought we shouldn't replay the point once she said "let."

USTA rules allow you to call a let on your opponent's court, but i think that's mostly for safety or maybe if it distracts your eye. (In college tennis, you can't do that.) I asked her if the other court's ball distracted her before she hit the ball, and she said no, she was just making sure I saw it and didn't get hit. I thanked her for her consideration and pointed out that I actually did see it and didn't call a let because her ball was going to be out, and since it was out and the let ball/call didn't affect the play at all, the point should stand. She was flabbergasted and said once she says "let," we replay the point, no questions asked. She called it in good faith, I'm sure. But I disagreed. Even after you call a let, you can assess the circumstances and decide if one player deserves to have the point replayed. The whole point of her "let" was to make sure I was safe, not to right a wrong in regard to the play/point. I don't know what the rule is technically for this gray area, but regardless, courtesy would dictate that you concede take that point.

It was a pivotal point. I was serving at 4-5, 5-all in a very tough, tight match. We replayed it (honestly I didn't care that much) and she won the point, the set and the match. Not because of that point, but still.

What would you have done if you were her or me?

I'm with you.