PDA

View Full Version : On overweight players


Volcana
Feb 6th, 2010, 07:42 PM
This is not a 'WTA are all fat' thread. ather, I'm wondering about the variety of success some have whe carrying what would seem to be excess weight. Serena is, of course, the prefect example. When she's seemingly thirty pounds ligher that she was when she won OZ this year,she wins slams mor easily. But of course, she wins them either way.

Lindsay Davenport seemed to have the game for years. And in fact, actually won her slams at a pretty high weight. Later in her career, she lost weight, spent weeks at #1 and made slam finals. In this case, losing weiht did not mean greater success, but that can, to an extent, be attributed to the competition. That weight loss coincided with Jennifer Capriati, the Williams sisters, and then Justine Henin coming into their own.

Monica Seles did win one slam at a much higher weight. But she was never the force at that weight she was in 1990, when she was relatively slender.

Svetlana Kuznetsovanever looks truly in shape to me. But she's won two slams, she doesn't seem to get fatigued in matches, and I don;t really see losing 15 pounds having a great effect on her game.

On the other hand, Bartoli, Kleybanova, Alexa Stevenson, back in the day. You'd think all those players would take the next obvious step, and drop some serious body weight.

Of course, losing weight is no cure-all. Daniel Hantuchova seemingly took a top ten career and pitch it by deciding that being model thin was better carrying the weight required to be successful. And when Venus Williams shows up looking thinner than ususal, bad things always happen.

Whereas, the new muscular definition on Maria Kirilenko seems to be paying dividends. She's never gonna be Sam Stosur, but look at her two years ago and look at her now. She's clearly put in the weight lifting time, and added the right kind of weight.

above

pov
Feb 6th, 2010, 07:55 PM
First of all it's not about weight. It's about muscle/fat ratio. You can't tell that by how much some one weighs. So it's not an issue of "losing weight" its about getting in better shape. Two completely different things. E.g. Hantuchova would likely be in better shape if she gained some weight - most from muscle mass but a bit of fat as well. "Likely" because while there are general guidelines, individuals differ on what works best for them.

Steffica Greles
Feb 6th, 2010, 07:59 PM
I'm not normally one to comment on these matters, being as sensitive as they are.


However, I do think people who say some players are 'better when they're fat' or 'they might be fat, but they're not unfit' are just making excuses for players who need their arses kicking. We heard all that chorus when both Serena and Seles were enormous, and then years later they admitted to bingeing. They were fat, and it was affecting their tennis to a greater or lesser extent. Yeah, we can all put on weight, it's not a crime in the grand scheme of things, so say it.


If a player can win slams or still last 3 set matches in appalling condition, then great, but they'd do even better if they were in shape. I think the idea that some players hit the ball harder when they're fat is also a lot of nonsense. I know my brother says it is, anyway, and he's into all that sports/fitness stuff. He says more muscle and less fat enables swifter arm movements and the muscles are stronger for faster reactions.


I think if Davenport won slams at a slightly heavier weight in 1998-2000 (and let's not forget, she was still in good shape by that time, only a few pounds more than later on) whereas she didn't thereafter at a lower weight, that's probably because of other factors, like the Williams sisters, even though she was potentially, or maybe even actually a better player in 2005.


Any player who waddles around the court is not going to get the best out of themselves. To my mind, it's ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

Volcana
Feb 6th, 2010, 08:01 PM
First of all it's not about weight. It's about muscle/fat ratio. You can't tell that by how much some one weighs. So it's not an issue of "losing weight" its about getting in better shape. Two completely different things. E.g. Hantuchova would likely be in better shape if she gained some weight - most from muscle mass but a bit of fat as well. "Likely" because while there are general guidelines, individuals differ on what works best for them.I basically agree with you. But watching Kleybanova fade in match after match, for example, you can't help wondering what she'd be if she were 10 or 15 kilos lighter. Because that just doesn't look like all muscle.

But Kuznetsova, never exactly svelt, does seem to be a case of muscle mass.

Six Feet Under
Feb 6th, 2010, 08:03 PM
Bartoli isn't even that big anymore, she lost weight during the 08-09 off season, and as a consequence had a solid season. I don't think her weight will change much more than it is now. Her defense has improved a lot. As for Alisa i think she needs to lose a couple kilos but nothing drastic.

Ferg
Feb 6th, 2010, 08:04 PM
While there is no doubt some players might carry a little extra, for some of them is just their body shape, they cant do anything about it.

Steffica Greles
Feb 6th, 2010, 08:09 PM
While there is no doubt some players might carry a little extra, for some of them is just their body shape, they cant do anything about it.

That's another point which isn't a point.


Look, anybody knows Serena is never going to look like Hantuchova. Kuznetsova will never be Justine Henin. Their greater strength advantages them if anything.


Being in shape means players being the best they can be. There have been times when, frankly, Serena Williams and Svetlana Kuznetsova have not been in their optimum condition for top level sport.

Volcana
Feb 6th, 2010, 08:12 PM
Any player who waddles around the court is not going to get the best out of themselves. To my mind, it's ludicrous to suggest otherwise.'Waddles' is a bit much, but I have a good counter-example.

2002 OZ. Capriati hadn't won a tournaments after RG '01, and came into that tournament loking fat. Not ridiculous, but a good twenty pounds heavier than the year before. And having lost to Stevenson in the first round at Sydney.

And of course, it was insanely hot that year. Mauresmo in the QFs, three sets against Clijsters in the semis, and then the final. Where it looked like Hingis' body was eating it's own muslce out there. (Actually, Hingis' body WAS eating it's own muscle out there,but thats for bio class.)

Anyway, by the time that tournament was over, Capriati looked like she was in tremendous condition. And not an extra pound on her.

Luck? Maybe. Good planning on what it would take to ge through the fortnight? Maybe. We'll never know. But coming into THAT tournament, THAT year, beng visibly overweight paid dividends. And give that Serena had won it five times, at last furof thm with people questioning her fitness, maybe there's a message there. Maybe.

SO why doesn't it wok like that for the US Open. End of the season, everybody's nicked, vs beginning of the season, everybody's fine-tuned. Maybe.

dsanders06
Feb 6th, 2010, 08:13 PM
I really do think that, for players who just aren't naturally athletic (Bartoli, Kleybanova), carrying extra weight actually helps them. The extra weight, even if it is fat, allows them to generate more power that their natural athletic bodies aren't capable of producing. And it's a myth that extra weight affects a player's raw footspeed - it really doesn't. It's true that extra weight does affect a player's stamina, but in epic matches, mental strength is more of a factor than stamina anyway, so I guess unathletic players feel that the plusses outweigh the minusses. I mean, Bartoli has got in much better shape since her Wimbledon run, but that hasn't resulted in a big upswing in results.

DOUBLEFIST
Feb 6th, 2010, 08:21 PM
First of all it's not about weight. It's about muscle/fat ratio. You can't tell that by how much some one weighs. So it's not an issue of "losing weight" its about getting in better shape. Two completely different things. E.g. Hantuchova would likely be in better shape if she gained some weight - most from muscle mass but a bit of fat as well. "Likely" because while there are general guidelines, individuals differ on what works best for them.
Agreed, basically, but you can't de-emphasize cardio fitness.

I'm not normally one to comment on these matters, being as sensitive as they are.
*DEAD* :spit:

I basically agree with you. But watching Kleybanova fade in match after match, for example, you can't help wondering what she'd be if she were 10 or 15 kilos lighter. Because that just doesn't look like all muscle.
10 or 15 kilos lighter doesn't mean she'd be in any better CARDIO shape. This is what I've been to say for a while. Yes physically, it would seem, she wouldn't have to work as hard, because she'd be carrying less, however if she's lost muscle mass too, it simply becomes a wash. It's a balancing act. You can't just go Hantuchova style and expect that your level of play is going to sky rocket. Look at your example of Kirilenko. She increased her strength as well and it SEEMS (the jury's still out on that for me, because beating a husk of her former self Sharapova isn't that impressive, imo) that it's working out for her. In Kleybanova's case, she definitely looks too heavy. It doesn't look like "strength" it just looks like extra fat - baby fat, if you will.

As for Serena. I don't care what you do, you're not gonna get 30lbs off that frame. You're just not - not and have be healthy. Serena's body has changed. Everything is bigger on her since '99. It's she has her grown woman body now. She is a powerfully built woman and Serena is in excellent cardio vascular shape.

Venus is another question. Venus is not in shape. She clearly looked spent in many of her matches in Oz - especially against Li. To my eyes, she looked heavier then I've ever seen her, but not any stronger (eg. Kirilenko). Personally, I don't think Vee's weight is a problem. It's her cardio fitness.

DOUBLEFIST
Feb 6th, 2010, 08:23 PM
I really do think that, for players who just aren't naturally athletic (Bartoli, Kleybanova), carrying extra weight actually helps them. The extra weight, even if it is fat, allows them to generate more power that their natural athletic bodies aren't capable of producing. And it's a myth that extra weight affects a player's raw footspeed - it really doesn't. It's true that extra weight does affect a player's stamina, but in epic matches, mental strength is more of a factor than stamina anyway, so I guess unathletic players feel that the plusses outweigh the minusses. I mean, Bartoli has got in much better shape since her Wimbledon run, but that hasn't resulted in a big upswing in results.
Extra weight can and DOES effect "raw foot speed." Go pick up a 15lbs weight vest and and see if you run the 40 yard dash faster with or without it on.

watchdogfish
Feb 6th, 2010, 08:32 PM
I think it's more of a fitness issue, which doesn't have much to do with weight it's more to do with the cardio-vascular system. So someone who looks/is "overweight" could have exceptional fitness and someone who looks in good shape could actually be unfit.

Dominic
Feb 6th, 2010, 08:33 PM
I'm not normally one to comment on these matters, being as sensitive as they are.


However, I do think people who say some players are 'better when they're fat' or 'they might be fat, but they're not unfit' are just making excuses for players who need their arses kicking. We heard all that chorus when both Serena and Seles were enormous, and then years later they admitted to bingeing. They were fat, and it was affecting their tennis to a greater or lesser extent. Yeah, we can all put on weight, it's not a crime in the grand scheme of things, so say it.


If a player can win slams or still last 3 set matches in appalling condition, then great, but they'd do even better if they were in shape. I think the idea that some players hit the ball harder when they're fat is also a lot of nonsense. I know my brother says it is, anyway, and he's into all that sports/fitness stuff. He says more muscle and less fat enables swifter arm movements and the muscles are stronger for faster reactions.


I think if Davenport won slams at a slightly heavier weight in 1998-2000 (and let's not forget, she was still in good shape by that time, only a few pounds more than later on) whereas she didn't thereafter at a lower weight, that's probably because of other factors, like the Williams sisters, even though she was potentially, or maybe even actually a better player in 2005.


Any player who waddles around the court is not going to get the best out of themselves. To my mind, it's ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

:worship::worship::worship: AMAZING post.

dsanders06
Feb 6th, 2010, 08:34 PM
Extra weight can and DOES effect "raw foot speed." Go pick up a 15lbs weight vest and and see if you run the 40 yard dash faster with or without it on.

If I didn't know I had that 15lbs vest on, I would be able to run as fast. Some overweight players might slow down, but that would only be because they were telling themselves that the weight will slow them down; it's not the weight itself that's slowing them down.

DOUBLEFIST
Feb 6th, 2010, 08:39 PM
I think it's more of a fitness issue, which doesn't have much to do with weight it's more to do with the cardio-vascular system. So someone who looks/is "overweight" could have exceptional fitness and someone who looks in good shape could actually be unfit.
To a certain degree. Obviously, if your obese, your cardio shape is likely poor as well.

For me, the biggest issue with weight on some of these women - Serena included - is not "fitness" but, rather, INJURY. That is where I think losing weight, especially for someone like Serena, who is already in very good cardiovascular shape - would pay dividends. I think it would take serious stress off her joints and, perhaps, extend her career. But, of course, for all these girls it's a balancing act. If you lose mucscle mass in areas that aid ankles, knees, lower back, shoulders, you could be putting yourself at greater risk.

AcesHigh
Feb 6th, 2010, 08:41 PM
First of all it's not about weight. It's about muscle/fat ratio. You can't tell that by how much some one weighs. So it's not an issue of "losing weight" its about getting in better shape. Two completely different things. E.g. Hantuchova would likely be in better shape if she gained some weight - most from muscle mass but a bit of fat as well. "Likely" because while there are general guidelines, individuals differ on what works best for them.

Totally agree. I'm kind of tired of this entire "fat" issue. It's not that simple.

I basically agree with you. But watching Kleybanova fade in match after match, for example, you can't help wondering what she'd be if she were 10 or 15 kilos lighter. Because that just doesn't look like all muscle.

But Kuznetsova, never exactly svelt, does seem to be a case of muscle mass.

Didn't they post a stat at AO stating Kleybanova actually had a good 3set record?

DOUBLEFIST
Feb 6th, 2010, 08:43 PM
If I didn't know I had that 15lbs vest on, I would be able to run as fast. Some overweight players might slow down, but that would only be because they were telling themselves that the weight will slow them down; it's not the weight itself that's slowing them down.
:lol: that's crazy! Are you saying that weight as it relates to speed is "mind over matter?" :eek:

Dude, it's physics.

dsanders06
Feb 6th, 2010, 08:45 PM
Didn't they post a stat at AO stating Kleybanova actually had a good 3set record?

Yeah, like I said, mental strength is more of a factor than stamina in epic matches for the women these days.

For someone like Kleybanova, it just doesn't make sense for her to lose weight. She's so patently so naturally unathletic that losing weight would probably be detrimental to her game. It would mean she would probably lose power, and additionally, because she's so unathletic, her defensive game would clearly never be up to scratch no matter what shape she was in.

dsanders06
Feb 6th, 2010, 08:47 PM
:lol: that's crazy! Are you saying that weight as it relates to speed is "mind over matter?" :eek:

Dude, it's physics.

Actually, movement on a tennis court is more about mentality and technique than anything else. Usain Bolt isn't going to be able to cover a tennis court as well as the Williams sisters if he'd never played before.

DOUBLEFIST
Feb 6th, 2010, 08:55 PM
I know my brother says it is, anyway, and he's into all that sports/fitness stuff. He says more muscle and less fat enables swifter arm movements and the muscles are stronger for faster reactions.
Your brother's not entirely correct.

This is crude, but I believe the simple equation is: Force = MASS * Speed(or acceleration :scratch: )

Anyway, my point is MASS is a large determinant of force. Obviously "speed" is too. The problem is that just because you become stronger doesn't mean that you become quicker. That is, to a large extent, genetic. You can of course develop your quick twitch muscle fiber to degrees, but (and this is by no means authoritative) you can't grow/develop MORE quick twitch fiber than you were blessed with at birth. So, in short, just making the muscles stronger is not going to necessarily increase speed.

If that was the case, we see a hell of a lot of bodybuilding champions leaving Usain Bolt in the dust in the 100 meter dash.

DOUBLEFIST
Feb 6th, 2010, 08:57 PM
Actually, movement on a tennis court is more about mentality and technique than anything else. Usain Bolt isn't going to be able to cover a tennis court as well as the Williams sisters if he'd never played before.
Usain Bolt runs straight ahead, silly.

You're simply wrong about weight as it relates to speed. Admit it and be done with it. :rolleyes:

Nicolás89
Feb 6th, 2010, 08:57 PM
I'm not normally one to comment on these matters, being as sensitive as they are.


Sarcasm right?

dsanders06
Feb 6th, 2010, 09:00 PM
Usain Bolt runs straight ahead, silly.

You're simply wrong about weight as it relates to speed. Admit it and be done with it. :rolleyes:

It's not wrong, there's been studies proving what I've said (and no I'm not going to bother searching for evidence online). Serena looked as big as she's ever done at the AO07, but she was able to move as well as ever in fits and starts there.

DOUBLEFIST
Feb 6th, 2010, 09:09 PM
It's not wrong, there's been studies proving what I've said (and no I'm not going to bother searching for evidence online). Serena looked as big as she's ever done at the AO07, but she was able to move as well as ever in fits and starts there.

Come on, man!


:lol: You are hysterical. You are flat, dead WRONG about this.

Anyway, whatever man. Just convince yourself that you can beat Usain Bolt in the 100 then go challenge him. Let me know what happens. :wavey:

dsanders06
Feb 6th, 2010, 09:11 PM
Anyway, whatever man. Just convince yourself that you can beat Usain Bolt in the 100 then go challenge him. Let me know what happens. :wavey:

You've lost me here, where have I implied I could beat Usain Bolt in the 100m? :confused:

woosey
Feb 6th, 2010, 09:19 PM
This is not a 'WTA are all fat' thread. ather, I'm wondering about the variety of success some have whe carrying what would seem to be excess weight. Serena is, of course, the prefect example. When she's seemingly thirty pounds ligher that she was when she won OZ this year,she wins slams mor easily. But of course, she wins them either way.

Lindsay Davenport seemed to have the game for years. And in fact, actually won her slams at a pretty high weight. Later in her career, she lost weight, spent weeks at #1 and made slam finals. In this case, losing weiht did not mean greater success, but that can, to an extent, be attributed to the competition. That weight loss coincided with Jennifer Capriati, the Williams sisters, and then Justine Henin coming into their own.

Monica Seles did win one slam at a much higher weight. But she was never the force at that weight she was in 1990, when she was relatively slender.

Svetlana Kuznetsovanever looks truly in shape to me. But she's won two slams, she doesn't seem to get fatigued in matches, and I don;t really see losing 15 pounds having a great effect on her game.

On the other hand, Bartoli, Kleybanova, Alexa Stevenson, back in the day. You'd think all those players would take the next obvious step, and drop some serious body weight.

Of course, losing weight is no cure-all. Daniel Hantuchova seemingly took a top ten career and pitch it by deciding that being model thin was better carrying the weight required to be successful. And when Venus Williams shows up looking thinner than ususal, bad things always happen.

Whereas, the new muscular definition on Maria Kirilenko seems to be paying dividends. She's never gonna be Sam Stosur, but look at her two years ago and look at her now. She's clearly put in the weight lifting time, and added the right kind of weight.

above


lol. you must have read that ny times story about slimness not equaling performance.

DOUBLEFIST
Feb 6th, 2010, 09:20 PM
You've lost me here, where have I implied I could beat Usain Bolt in the 100m? :confused:

If I didn't know I had that 15lbs vest on, I would be able to run as fast.

Hey, you said speed is basically mind over matter. If you actually BELIEVE hard enough - no matter what your weight is - then you'll be as fast as you need to be. :spit:

Dunlop1
Feb 6th, 2010, 09:25 PM
To fully understand physical attributes for tennis players, you have to fully understand the demands of the professional game.
Tennis is a game of constantly starting and stopping short movements. You are constantly 'launching' and 'braking' on predominantly hard surfaces. In addition to that, you have modern groundstrokes that involve a lot of core and hip rotation (double for 2handed backhand players)
Thus you tax your ankles, knees, hips and back a lot playing the pro game.

Flexibility, fitness and being at the optimum weight for your height are essential physical attributes for a tennis player.
Steffi Graf is the epitome of this for female players. She has the ideal tennis players body.
Federer has the ideal male tennis players body.

It goes without saying that an unfit player cannot lower their heart rate as quickly as a fit player can. Thus, once the unfit player reaches that threshold, (probably getting the heartrate to about 180bpm), you can be sure that their footwork will be compromised and it is all downhill from there.

The other aspect is being overweight. Being overweight, puts more pressure on your knees and ankles.
A naturally bigger player can work on the quadriceps to make them VERY strong such that it handles some of the work that would otherwise be transferred to the knees and downwards.
This however does not take away from the fact that they would still be better off losing some weight.

Overweight players in general are also less flexible.

Kleybanova needs to both lose weight and work on her fitness ASAP if she is interested in taking her game to the next level.

S williams is in good shape though she can still lose some pounds. Same goes for Kuzzy. I would say Kim as well but she is part time player these days so she should just live her life lol.

Dunlop1
Feb 6th, 2010, 09:36 PM
Actually, movement on a tennis court is more about mentality and technique than anything else. Usain Bolt isn't going to be able to cover a tennis court as well as the Williams sisters if he'd never played before.

Movement has nothing to do with mentality.
I agree with you that it has to do with technique. There is definitely footwork technique including shuffle steps, split-steps, which foot to start moving towards a ball depending on the kind of ball, which foot to plant off to enable recovery into the court etc.

watchdogfish
Feb 6th, 2010, 09:41 PM
To a certain degree. Obviously, if your obese, your cardio shape is likely poor as well.

For me, the biggest issue with weight on some of these women - Serena included - is not "fitness" but, rather, INJURY. That is where I think losing weight, especially for someone like Serena, who is already in very good cardiovascular shape - would pay dividends. I think it would take serious stress off her joints and, perhaps, extend her career. But, of course, for all these girls it's a balancing act. If you lose mucscle mass in areas that aid ankles, knees, lower back, shoulders, you could be putting yourself at greater risk.

That's an interesting perspective and I totally agree. I think there's no question that if a player isn't at/or close to peak physical fitness they'll be more prone to injury. I could be talking out of my backside here but isn't it muscle strength rather than muscle mass that's important in protecting joints? But yes I do agree it's a fine balancing act and every player is different. The thing that does puzzle me is how there are overweight tennis players in the first place as tennis is a very physical sport. Maybe it comes down to a poor metabolism or poor nutrition.

dsanders06
Feb 6th, 2010, 09:49 PM
Hey, you said speed is basically mind over matter. If you actually BELIEVE hard enough - no matter what your weight is - then you'll be as fast as you need to be. :spit:

That's not what I said. I said if you believe you can move well, then weight will have no effect on your raw footspeed. As in, a fat person would be able to move from A to B as fast as they could if they were "in shape". It comes down to natural athletic ability; I don't possess the natural athletic ability of Usain Bolt, hence I wouldn't be able to run as fast as him. But that doesn't change the fact that, if I put on 10lbs, I'd be able to sprint a short distance as fast as I can now, even if my stamina would be shot. If there's no muscular problem with the relevant "levers" (legs, knees), then there's no reason why someone should slow down. That's biology, so your physics doesn't tie into this.


Movement has nothing to do with mentality.

It does, in an indirect way. I've seen it myself in matches I play. If I'm playing a bad match and I'm not moving well, if I get myself more fired up then I'm able to retrieve balls that I wasn't reaching before.

dsanders06
Feb 6th, 2010, 10:02 PM
Jankovic dusted her 6-0 in the third set in FC just recently.

And Kleybanova beat Jankovic in an even longer match in, I think, Toronto last year.

DOUBLEFIST
Feb 6th, 2010, 10:09 PM
That's an interesting perspective and I totally agree. I think there's no question that if a player isn't at/or close to peak physical fitness they'll be more prone to injury. I could be talking out of my backside here but isn't it muscle strength rather than muscle mass that's important in protecting joints? But yes I do agree it's a fine balancing act and every player is different. The thing that does puzzle me is how there are overweight tennis players in the first place as tennis is a very physical sport. Maybe it comes down to a poor metabolism or poor nutrition.
You're right, my bad. It's just that often times when one loses muscle MASS in a particular area, they also lose STRENGTH, but I probably shouldn't have conflated the two.

I said if you believe you can move well, then weight will have no effect on your raw footspeed.

:lol: you've just made THE point again. WEIGHT effects SPEED, all other things being equal - strength, etc, etc. I'm sorry, but that's just FACT. I don't have time to explain it to you, but maybe Donny, or heaven forbid he have an unbias moment, LDV as well. Personally, I'm not a physics head, but that's simply highschool physics. So, sayBELIEVE or THINK what you want. You can't get around the physics of that. Professional sprinters know it, NASCAR knows it, CART knows it, NASA knows it, but for some reason you, Dsanders, do not.

Dunlop1
Feb 6th, 2010, 10:09 PM
I could be talking out of my backside here but isn't it muscle strength rather than muscle mass that's important in protecting joints?

Yes, this is correct.

The thing that does puzzle me is how there are overweight tennis players in the first place as tennis is a very physical sport.

The reason for this is tennis isn't a sport where you have to sustain a high heart rate for extended amounts of time. It is not like distance running.
There is a lot of opportunity to lower your heart rate when you consider time between points, time between change of service, time between change of ends and time between sets.
This is where the correlation between fitness and weight come into play.

In sports where you have to sustain a high heart rate level, you will not find overweight participants. This is because you have to be in amazing cardiovascular condition and to attain that level, you can't have excess weight on the body.

Tennis doesn't require sustaining a high level heart rate for long periods of time. What it requires is the ability to lower your heart quickly.
For an overweight and averagely fit player, the longer the physical activity, the more time it takes to lower his/her heart rate.
Thus an overweight, moderately fit player can achieve good results by tailoring his/her game to shorten games/matches by being aggressive.

dsanders06
Feb 6th, 2010, 10:14 PM
:lol: you've just made THE point again. WEIGHT effects SPEED, all other things being equal - strength, etc, etc. I'm sorry, but that's just FACT. I don't have time to explain it to you, but maybe Donny, or heaven forbid he have an unbias moment, LDV as well. Personally, I'm not a physics head, but that's simply highschool physics. So, sayBELIEVE or THINK what you want. You can't get around the physics of that. Professional sprinters know it, NASCAR knows it, CART knows it, NASA knows it, but for some reason you, Dsanders, do not.

Again, physics doesn't really come into this. Not in the way you think it does anyway.
And to clarify, I'm not denying weight impacts stamina. But it doesn't impact raw footspeed.

DOUBLEFIST
Feb 6th, 2010, 10:16 PM
Yes, this is correct.



The reason for this is tennis isn't a sport where you have to sustain a high heart rate for extended amounts of time. It is not like distance running.
There is a lot of opportunity to lower your heart rate when you consider time between points, time between change of service, time between change of ends and time between sets.
This is where the correlation between fitness and weight come into play.

In sports where you have to sustain a high heart rate level, you will not find overweight participants. This is because you have to be in amazing cardiovascular condition and to attain that level, you can't have excess weight on the body.

Tennis doesn't require sustaining a high level heart rate for long periods of time. What it requires is the ability to lower your heart quickly.
For an overweight and averagely fit player, the longer the physical activity, the more time it takes to lower his/her heart rate.
Thus an overweight, moderately fit player can achieve good results by tailoring his/her game to shorten games/matches by being aggressive.

Somewhat. What I think your trying to explain is the difference between athletes who sport demands high performance of their aerobic system v/s athletes who's sport demands high performance from their ANAEROBIC system.

Dunlop1
Feb 6th, 2010, 10:19 PM
Somewhat. What I think your trying to explain is the difference between athletes who sport demands high performance of their aerobic system v/s athletes who's sport demands high performance from their ANAEROBIC system.

It's not somewhat. It's the same thing.

DOUBLEFIST
Feb 6th, 2010, 10:20 PM
Again, physics doesn't really come into this. Not in the way you think it does anyway.
And to clarify, I'm not denying weight impacts stamina. But it doesn't impact raw footspeed.
I know what your denying. No clarification necessary. :lol: And the earth is flat, and the sun revolves around it, and we are at the center of the universe. :help: You're lucky this is a low traffic day around here. :lol:

Wannabeknowitall
Feb 6th, 2010, 10:20 PM
Extra weight can and DOES effect "raw foot speed." Go pick up a 15lbs weight vest and and see if you run the 40 yard dash faster with or without it on.

Well in this case the weight is on just the upper half of the body.

This is how I see it.
In the case of Capriati, it is true what some commentators said about her weight lost, that being able to move quicker to the ball made her appear smarter because she had more time to react in rallies and go from defensive to offensive.
But in others that's clearly not the case.

Capriati had the ability to change the direction of the ball better than most but she wasn't a great anticipator of where the ball would go at times so she needed to be that much fitter.

A player like Bartoli relies on her anticipation to the point where a quicker player like Kim can sometimes have trouble getting the ball away from her.
Even Kleybanova did a good job of anticipating against Justine at the AO.

The thing Bartoli's dad has made sure that Marion does at all times is stay on her toes.
Because of that she's able to have incredible timing on her groundstrokes to hit early and find angles.
So regardless of Bartoli's size she's able to hit with depth and angles the majority of the time.

dsanders06
Feb 6th, 2010, 10:22 PM
I know what your denying. No clarification necessary. :lol: And the earth is flat, and the sun revolves around it, and we are at the center of the universe. :help: You're lucky this is a low traffic day around here. :lol:

LOL, deny it all you want. You showed your level of expertise in this topic by structuring arguments around physics.

ArturoAce.
Feb 6th, 2010, 10:25 PM
From what I remember from physics (not much):

Hantuchova and Bartoli could virtually run the same speed & have the same acceleration. as double fist said, f=ma so A=f/m, that would mean force and mass are dependent on each other. Hantuchova (less mass) would need less force where Bartoli (more mass) would need more force, so they could have the same acceleration, Bartoli just needs to apply more force.

which would make dsanders right too because force is a psychological thing in humans; they decide how much for they want to put in.

and there's other things like shoe friction, footwork, blah blah

:shrug:

DOUBLEFIST
Feb 6th, 2010, 10:30 PM
It's not somewhat. It's the same thing.
:lol: Okay...,

the reason I said "somewhat" is because you made no distinction between LEVELS of heart rate. You're right, tennis is not like distance running, but not solely for the reason you were saying. Ideally, in distance running, you're going to performing at a lower cardio theshold than tennis but for an extremely longer period of time. You'll likely be working your aerobic system. When you work your aerobic system you burn more FAT then someone like a tennis player - who's cardio threshold shoots higher during perfomance (though not sustained) - who works more often in their ANAEROBIC system, which doesn't draw on FAT to burn as an energy source. Which is why certain tennis players, while able to sustain extremely high cardio levels for brief periods of time, often carry MORE FAT.

So..., I said "somewhat."

DOUBLEFIST
Feb 6th, 2010, 10:43 PM
Well in this case the weight is on just the upper half of the body.
You could put the weight anywhere (remember ankle weights? :lol: ) it would still illustrate my point.

LOL, deny it all you want. You showed your level of expertise in this topic by structuring arguments around physics.

Tennis tennis largley IS physics as is every thing else.

Dsanders, I HONESTLY thought you were smarter than this. Honestly. :shrug:

From what I remember from physics (not much):

Hantuchova and Bartoli could virtually run the same speed & have the same acceleration. as double fist said, f=ma so A=f/m, that would mean force and mass are dependent on each other. Hantuchova (less mass) would need less force where Bartoli (more mass) would need more force, so they could have the same acceleration, Bartoli just needs to apply more force.

which would make dsanders right too because force is a psychological thing in humans; they decide how much for they want to put in.

and there's other things like shoe friction, footwork, blah blah

:shrug:
Which is exactly why I said in a previous post "all other things being equal, strength... etc" Because if Bartoli, in this example, isn't strong enough to generate the requisite "force" she is STILL SLOWER. Her strength/weight ratio is too low. That strength, biologically speaking, largely comes from quick twitch muscle fiber which you either have a great deal of or not. SO, if your not blessed with the speed generating (quick twitch) muscles of someone else, the best thing you can do is try to tilt the strength/weight ratio in your favor. Which brings us right back to square one and my point. :shrug:

AcesHigh
Feb 6th, 2010, 10:57 PM
Why the big argument? These really have no paralells in tennis anyway b/c the "all other things being equal" situation never exists.

It's a lot more complicated than people like Steffica Greles try to reduce it to. Being "fat" really doesnt matter. It's about how fit you are. And then you have to factor in a lot of other things.. so many that making these generalizatinos based on weight really don't make much sense.

So let's take things on a case by case basis and give these players the credit they deserve instead of labeling them as "fat".

Dunlop1
Feb 6th, 2010, 11:01 PM
From what I remember from physics (not much):

Hantuchova and Bartoli could virtually run the same speed & have the same acceleration. as double fist said, f=ma so A=f/m, that would mean force and mass are dependent on each other. Hantuchova (less mass) would need less force where Bartoli (more mass) would need more force, so they could have the same acceleration, Bartoli just needs to apply more force.

which would make dsanders right too because force is a psychological thing in humans; they decide how much for they want to put in.

and there's other things like shoe friction, footwork, blah blah

:shrug:

Sounds like you are confusing force and work.
Work = force over a distance or force * distance.
FOrce = m * a

So Work = mass * acclrtn * distance.

Assume a constantly increasing velocity giving a constant acceleration over an equal distance for 2 players;
The player with more mass will end up doing more work than a lighter player.

Weight has bearing on movement.

DOUBLEFIST
Feb 6th, 2010, 11:04 PM
Why the big argument? These really have no paralells in tennis anyway b/c the "all other things being equal" situation never exists.

It's a lot more complicated than people like Steffica Greles try to reduce it to. Being "fat" really doesnt matter. It's about how fit you are. And then you have to factor in a lot of other things.. so many that making these generalizatinos based on weight really don't make much sense.

So let's take things on a case by case basis and give these players the credit they deserve instead of labeling them as "fat".
Since you quoted me, I'll assume you were addressing me, no?

First, wth areyou talking about? We're talking about WEIGHT as it relates to speed. That issue is born out of the "fat player" conversation. Then their's the conversation of why certain tennis players carry more fat. So, there's two trains runnin' on this track.

Being "fat" really doesnt matter.

It can matter when it relates to speed and quickness and injury potential.

EDIT: And, as Dunlop effectively just pointed out, can ultimately effect a player physically over the course of a match if that player isn't strong enough or fit enough to compensate for the extra WORK they have to do because of their excess weight.

That's the point.

AcesHigh
Feb 6th, 2010, 11:05 PM
Since you quoted me, I'll assume you were addressing me, no?

No I wasnt ;)

DOUBLEFIST
Feb 6th, 2010, 11:11 PM
No I wasnt ;)
:lol: :o well, you did quote me, after all.

Dunlop1
Feb 6th, 2010, 11:15 PM
:lol: Okay...,

the reason I said "somewhat" is because you made no distinction between LEVELS of heart rate. You're right, tennis is not like distance running, but not solely for the reason you were saying. Ideally, in distance running, you're going to performing at a lower cardio theshold than tennis but for an extremely longer period of time. You'll likely be working your aerobic system. When you work your aerobic system you burn more FAT then someone like a tennis player - who's cardio threshold shoots higher during perfomance (though not sustained) - who works more often in their ANAEROBIC system, which doesn't draw on FAT to burn as an energy source. Which is why certain tennis players, while able to sustain extremely high cardio levels for brief periods of time, often carry MORE FAT.

So..., I said "somewhat."

Ok reading your explanation makes me realise we are talking about different things.
I'll take it to PM rather than bog down the thread.

AcesHigh
Feb 6th, 2010, 11:23 PM
:lol: :o well, you did quote me, after all.

It was a phrase that struck me as interesting.

I dont know. I just think there's no way to measure these things across the board. Concerning the "fat" issue.. I put fat in quotations b/c a lot of the players called fat on this board really aren't fat. We may perceive them as being fat but a lot of these players are actually fairly fit and conditioned well.
I'm slim, toned, fairly athletic, and you would never know it watching me play initially but I get winded very easily. I've played against guys that are definitely bigger and don't appear to be in as good shape as I'm in, but they didn't seem to break much of a sweat.. and outlasted me with ease.
It's all about knowing your body and its limits and tuning your game to those limits.
Davenport was not a great athlete, but her footwork and anticipation were outstanding. Her technique and smooth strokes also allowed her to not waste much energy.

If this were a sport like basketball, I could understand this debate.. but b/c of the limited space of a tennis court(so quickness and general court savy are much more important than speed), and the constant breaks and stops and starts that tennis involves, I think weight plays a different role here than other sports.. and it's still a case by case basis. There are definitely benefits and costs to being both heavy and light.. and it takes a lot of adjustment when you change your body. One winter I gained a lot of muscle and it was really difficult to make simple adjustments. It's really not simple.

Just my 2 cents

DOUBLEFIST
Feb 6th, 2010, 11:24 PM
Ok reading your explanation makes me realise we are talking about different things.
I'll take it to PM rather than bog down the thread.
:yeah:

ArturoAce.
Feb 6th, 2010, 11:33 PM
Sounds like you are confusing force and work.
Work = force over a distance or force * distance.
FOrce = m * a

So Work = mass * acclrtn * distance.

Assume a constantly increasing velocity giving a constant acceleration over an equal distance for 2 players;
The player with more mass will end up doing more work than a lighter player.

Weight has bearing on movement.

yeah yeah...

so basically you came up with the same conclusion as me.

I just isolated acceleration independent of distance, since we weren't really talking about stamina.

Volcana
Feb 7th, 2010, 12:30 AM
Didn't they post a stat at AO stating Kleybanova actually had a good 3set record?Against who?

Third set when Dementieva is on the other side of the net is different than when its Oudin.

Still cardio fitness vs sheer weight is a good point. There are heavy people who complete the Ironman Triathlon every year. And slender people who can't run a lick.

AcesHigh
Feb 7th, 2010, 12:40 AM
Against who?

You said she would fade time after time... what are you basing that on?
B/c her 3rd set record seemed impressive from what I remember.

Volcana
Feb 7th, 2010, 01:00 AM
But that doesn't change the fact that, if I put on 10lbs, I'd be able to sprint a short distance as fast as I can now, even if my stamina would be shot.This was not my experience when I ran sprints. When I lost weight, my times were lower, indicating I was actually running faster.

dsanders06
Feb 7th, 2010, 01:09 AM
This was not my experience when I ran sprints. When I lost weight, my times were lower, indicating I was actually running faster.

Again, that may well have been a 'placebo effect' - you thought it would make you faster, hence you were faster.

DOUBLEFIST
Feb 7th, 2010, 01:37 AM
Again, that may well have been a 'placebo effect' - you thought it would make you faster, hence you were faster.

:spit: Yeah, Volcana, just THINK fast.

Volcana
Feb 7th, 2010, 01:50 AM
You said she would fade time after time... what are you basing that on?Kleybanova in three setters, 2009-2010

************************************************** ********
2009 ************************************************** ***
************************************************** ********
BRISBANE ...... R16 [54] GARBIN ............ L 4-6 6-4 6-2
AUS OPEN ...... R64 [106] COHEN-ALORO ...... W 6-1 3-6 6-2
AUS OPEN ...... R32 [05] IVANOVIC .......... W 7-5 6-7 6-2
AUS OPEN ...... R16 [187] DOKIC ............ L 7-5 5-7 8-6
PARIS ......... R16 [10] RADWANSKA ......... L 6-7 6-4 6-2
DUBAI ......... R64 [123] LAPUSHCHENKOVA ... W 3-6 6-3 6-2
MIAMI ......... R32 [84] YAKIMOVA .......... W 6-3 3-6 6-4
MADRID ........ R32 [03] VENUS ............. W 6-3 3-6 7-5
FRENCH OPEN ... 128 [167] HERCOG ........... L 6-2 4-6 6-1
WIMBLEDON ..... R64 [191] KULIKOVA ......... L 0-6 6-4 6-1
BUDAPEST ...... R16 [72] BONDARENKO, K ..... W 4-6 6-4 6-4
BUDAPEST ...... QTR [21] SCHNYDER .......... L 5-7 7-5 6-2
LOS ANGELES ... R32 [54] CHAKVETADZE ....... L 6-3 3-6 6-1
CINCINNATI .... R32 [07] ZVONAREVA ......... L 6-4 1-6 7-5
TORONTO ....... R32 [15] CIBULKOVA ......... W 6-1 4-6 7-6
TORONTO ....... QTR [04] JANKOVIC .......... W 6-7 7-6 6-2
TORONTO ....... SMI [49] SHARAPOVA ......... L 6-2 4-6 6-4
NEW HAVEN ..... R32 [53] WICKMAYER ......... L 3-6 6-1 6-4
US OPEN ....... 128 [72] KVITOVA ........... L 6-7 6-3 6-2
SEOUL ......... R16 [155] DATE KRUMM ....... L 4-6 7-6 6-3
TOKYO ......... R32 [07] ZVONAREVA ......... W 3-6 6-4 6-2
TOKYO ......... R16 [25] SHARAPOVA ......... L 2-6 6-2 6-2
BEIJING ....... R64 [25] WICKMAYER ......... W 5-7 6-3 6-3
************************************************** ********
2010 ************************************************** ***
************************************************** ********
Brisbane ...... R32 [40] PAVLYUCHENKOVA .... L 6-4 2-6 6-2
Sydney ........ R32 [03] KUZNETSOVA ........ L 6-2 6-7 7-5
Aus Open ...... R32 [un] HENIN ............. L 3-6 6-4 6-2
Fed Cup ....... ... [10] Jankovic .......... L 4-6 6-4 6-0

Overall record 10-18. (Two of the wins to players outside top hundred. Another two to players outside top fifty.)

Of the 18 losses, 11 were by two breaks or greater in the third. (6-0, 6-1, or 6-2)

PlayByPlay
Feb 7th, 2010, 02:29 AM
A player will get tired easily and will suffer from shortness of breath if they are over weight. They wont be able to move as quickly and they will have a problems moving quickly when they need to.

AcesHigh
Feb 7th, 2010, 02:40 AM
Kleybanova in three setters, 2009-2010

************************************************** ********
2009 ************************************************** ***
************************************************** ********
BRISBANE ...... R16 [54] GARBIN ............ L 4-6 6-4 6-2
AUS OPEN ...... R64 [106] COHEN-ALORO ...... W 6-1 3-6 6-2
AUS OPEN ...... R32 [05] IVANOVIC .......... W 7-5 6-7 6-2
AUS OPEN ...... R16 [187] DOKIC ............ L 7-5 5-7 8-6
PARIS ......... R16 [10] RADWANSKA ......... L 6-7 6-4 6-2
DUBAI ......... R64 [123] LAPUSHCHENKOVA ... W 3-6 6-3 6-2
MIAMI ......... R32 [84] YAKIMOVA .......... W 6-3 3-6 6-4
MADRID ........ R32 [03] VENUS ............. W 6-3 3-6 7-5
FRENCH OPEN ... 128 [167] HERCOG ........... L 6-2 4-6 6-1
WIMBLEDON ..... R64 [191] KULIKOVA ......... L 0-6 6-4 6-1
BUDAPEST ...... R16 [72] BONDARENKO, K ..... W 4-6 6-4 6-4
BUDAPEST ...... QTR [21] SCHNYDER .......... L 5-7 7-5 6-2
LOS ANGELES ... R32 [54] CHAKVETADZE ....... L 6-3 3-6 6-1
CINCINNATI .... R32 [07] ZVONAREVA ......... L 6-4 1-6 7-5
TORONTO ....... R32 [15] CIBULKOVA ......... W 6-1 4-6 7-6
TORONTO ....... QTR [04] JANKOVIC .......... W 6-7 7-6 6-2
TORONTO ....... SMI [49] SHARAPOVA ......... L 6-2 4-6 6-4
NEW HAVEN ..... R32 [53] WICKMAYER ......... L 3-6 6-1 6-4
US OPEN ....... 128 [72] KVITOVA ........... L 6-7 6-3 6-2
SEOUL ......... R16 [155] DATE KRUMM ....... L 4-6 7-6 6-3
TOKYO ......... R32 [07] ZVONAREVA ......... W 3-6 6-4 6-2
TOKYO ......... R16 [25] SHARAPOVA ......... L 2-6 6-2 6-2
BEIJING ....... R64 [25] WICKMAYER ......... W 5-7 6-3 6-3
************************************************** ********
2010 ************************************************** ***
************************************************** ********
Brisbane ...... R32 [40] PAVLYUCHENKOVA .... L 6-4 2-6 6-2
Sydney ........ R32 [03] KUZNETSOVA ........ L 6-2 6-7 7-5
Aus Open ...... R32 [un] HENIN ............. L 3-6 6-4 6-2
Fed Cup ....... ... [10] Jankovic .......... L 4-6 6-4 6-0

Overall record 10-18. (Two of the wins to players outside top hundred. Another two to players outside top fifty.)

Of the 18 losses, 11 were by two breaks or greater in the third. (6-0, 6-1, or 6-2)

I see your point. I dont know though.. a lot of those 6-2, 6-1, 6-0 sets are to players well out of her league.

And I'm not sure how much to take from statistics. Dementieva is thought to be one of the better 3set players on tour and is clearly leagues above Kleybanova but Elena only had a 9-10 record last year with almost half of those losses being 6-2 or 6-1 in the third.

So I'm not sure how much to take from these statistics.

Volcana
Feb 7th, 2010, 04:58 AM
I see your point. I dont know though.. a lot of those 6-2, 6-1, 6-0 sets are to players well out of her league.

I'm not sure how much to take from these statistics.
Let's drop all the losses to demonstrably more accomplished, and at the time better players. To my mind, that leaves these. All outside the top fifty, no slam winners, no top players coming back from recent injury.


2009 ***************************************
BRISBANE ...... R16 [54] GARBIN ....... L 4-6 6-4 6-2
AUS OPEN ...... R16 [187] DOKIC ....... L 7-5 5-7 8-6
FRENCH OPEN ... 128 [167] HERCOG ...... L 6-2 4-6 6-1
WIMBLEDON ..... R64 [191] KULIKOVA .... L 0-6 6-4 6-1
LOS ANGELES ... R32 [54] CHAKVETADZE .. L 6-3 3-6 6-1
NEW HAVEN ..... R32 [53] WICKMAYER .... L 3-6 6-1 6-4
US OPEN ....... 128 [72] KVITOVA ...... L 6-7 6-3 6-2
SEOUL ......... R16 [155] DATE KRUMM .. L 4-6 7-6 6-3
*********************************************
2010 ****************************************
*********************************************
Brisbane ...... R32 [40] PAVLYUCHENKOVA L 6-4 2-6 6-2

So Disrespectful
Feb 7th, 2010, 05:19 AM
A player will get tired easily and will suffer from shortness of breath if they are over weight. They wont be able to move as quickly and they will have a problems moving quickly when they need to.

:worship: Well now I know everything.

WtaTour4Ever
Feb 7th, 2010, 05:20 AM
As a whole I am at times surprised at the number of "elite" players that are really overweight...its really odd to me.

tennnisfannn
Feb 7th, 2010, 05:53 AM
How about taking into consideration that no two women are the same shape and will carry weight differently. Look at all of last years slam winners- none is a 'skinny', Serena, Sveta and Kim are fit and look 'chubby', but it is just their body types.

DOUBLEFIST
Feb 7th, 2010, 08:11 AM
How about taking into consideration that no two women are the same shape and will carry weight differently. Look at all of last years slam winners- none is a 'skinny', Serena, Sveta and Kim are fit and look 'chubby', but it is just their body types. I agree, but that's exactly the thing that bothers the likes of Steffica. He thinks that women who have bodies like that SHOULDN'T be winning slams. At least, it seems that's what he thinks.

Steffica...?

Steffica Greles
Feb 7th, 2010, 11:23 AM
To me, this is an insane discussion.


Yes players who are fat can also be relatively fit. Yes they can still play great tennis. Yes their form is not just governed by their fitness, and it's far more complicated than that. Yes a player who is not in their best shape but confident has a very good chance against one who has spent all day in the gym but can't connect with their shots (although fitness and timing are often related). I get it!


But nonetheless, a player who is not in their own peak athletic condition is making the job harder for themselves over all. They are tearing and flailing all over the court, and they need to carry as little fat with them as possible and as much muscle as possible in order to make their task easier. Simple.


The more they carry, the slower they become, and the more strain they put on their bodies, which in turn leads to injuries. Which then leads to longer layoffs. And depression. And more girth.


No I'm not an expert in this field, but to me it really isn't a lot more complicated than that. Players should always be in the best condition they are capable of being in. Now I know Kuznetsova or Serena are not naturally slim, and carry a great deal of muscle, but there are still times when they've CLEARLY been carrying rolls of flubber about their waists and hips. Now that is not going to help them. Please, can people not see this? Christ.

wayitis
Feb 7th, 2010, 11:57 AM
No I'm not an expert in this field, but to me it really isn't a lot more complicated than that. Players should always be in the best condition they are capable of being in. Now I know Kuznetsova or Serena are not naturally slim, and carry a great deal of muscle, but there are still times when they've CLEARLY been carrying rolls of flubber about their waists and hips. Now that is not going to help them. Please, can people not see this? Christ.

I think most people can see your point but not a lot of them want to admit or consider to it! It bothers me that, Nabaldian and Baghdatis apart, the average WTA player is nowhere as fit or "in shape" as their male counterparts, and while fitness seems to play a huge role in the ATP circuit results, it's less prevalent or less determinant for the women. It's not because sportswomen cannot be "fit", volleyball, I think, is a sport very similar to tennis in a way that you have spurts of action and long moments of inertia, and most volleyball players are extremely "fit" (as in having low fat body content). We cannot forget either that during so many years tennis had a role of being the elite's game of choice, alongside golf and polo, and these are hardly aerobic sports where supreme fit athletes are the norm (unlike athletics, for example)... But even in very aerobic sports, like basketball for instance, where the constant physical activity would lead you to believe that there wouldn't be a place for the so called "unfit", players like Shaq, Byrd, Barkley, who are clinically overweight, managed to carve a niche among the greatest. Maybe speed and atheticism are overrated in professional tennis, maybe aerobic prowess is not a determinant factor and you can have "shot putter" kind of body shapes competing in equal terms with "fast track runner" ones, which just shows that tennis is not a completely aerobic kind of sports... :shrug:

bandabou
Feb 7th, 2010, 12:11 PM
;lol: But that's the funny thing...the period that Serena was most overweight was the period she won LESS..and the period she was at her best fitness, she was untouchable for the rest of the tour. So what's the big problem?

In the end the fit ones WILL overcome the unfit ones.

sammy01
Feb 7th, 2010, 12:13 PM
for me i always look at dementieva and think, yep she has it right, obvious muscle mass, but not to the point of it stopping her being flexible or quick.

the thing is it takes a heck of a lot of hard work to be in dementieva shape, i have no doubt if kleybanova had lena's muscle to fat ratio she would be both quicker and stronger, thus a better player.

Szavay #1
Feb 7th, 2010, 12:24 PM
in most cases on the tour weight's not really a factor. there are are size o, size two players who are "slow" as well. :shrug:

tennnisfannn
Feb 7th, 2010, 01:13 PM
I think most people can see your point but not a lot of them want to admit or consider to it! It bothers me that, Nabaldian and Baghdatis apart, the average WTA player is nowhere as fit or "in shape" as their male counterparts, and while fitness seems to play a huge role in the ATP circuit results, it's less prevalent or less determinant for the women. It's not because sportswomen cannot be "fit", volleyball, I think, is a sport very similar to tennis in a way that you have spurts of action and long moments of inertia, and most volleyball players are extremely "fit" (as in having low fat body content). We cannot forget either that during so many years tennis had a role of being the elite's game of choice, alongside golf and polo, and these are hardly aerobic sports where supreme fit athletes are the norm (unlike athletics, for example)... But even in very aerobic sports, like basketball for instance, where the constant physical activity would lead you to believe that there wouldn't be a place for the so called "unfit", players like Shaq, Byrd, Barkley, who are clinically overweight, managed to carve a niche among the greatest. Maybe speed and atheticism are overrated in professional tennis, maybe aerobic prowess is not a determinant factor and you can have "shot putter" kind of body shapes competing in equal terms with "fast track runner" ones, which just shows that tennis is not a completely aerobic kind of sports... :shrug:
That just sums it up- women and men carry weight differently and women carry it even more differently from woman to woman. The mistake people are making here is comparing women as we 'know' them on t.v and magazines (model skinny) and think that athletes should look like that. We are so brainwashed by the media potrayal of women that we have forgotten what real women look like. That being said you need the body for the right kind of sport. A sprinter -male or female- needs more muscle/weight tha a long distance runner.
At the end of the day, isn't the proof in the pudding. If a player can get to the balls she needs to get to, go the distance like her opponents, why woud it matter how much she weighs. If one player can comfortably carry 80kgs and another comfortably carry 60kgs, why should it matter. it is only when it stops them from achieving more that it becomes an issue.

bobcat
Feb 7th, 2010, 02:11 PM
I think a lot of it has to do with the recent revolving door at the top of the women's game. When there's a strong #1 player it forces everyone else on the tour to raise their own level in order to be competitive. When Navratilova was dominating a lot of other players, including Evert, decided to improve their own conditioning. You saw similar situations when Graf, Seles and the WS came along.

DOUBLEFIST
Feb 7th, 2010, 08:22 PM
To me, this is an insane discussion.


Yes players who are fat can also be relatively fit. Yes they can still play great tennis. Yes their form is not just governed by their fitness, and it's far more complicated than that. Yes a player who is not in their best shape but confident has a very good chance against one who has spent all day in the gym but can't connect with their shots (although fitness and timing are often related). I get it!


But nonetheless, a player who is not in their own peak athletic condition is making the job harder for themselves over all. They are tearing and flailing all over the court, and they need to carry as little fat with them as possible and as much muscle as possible in order to make their task easier. Simple.


The more they carry, the slower they become, and the more strain they put on their bodies, which in turn leads to injuries. Which then leads to longer layoffs. And depression. And more girth.


No I'm not an expert in this field, but to me it really isn't a lot more complicated than that. Players should always be in the best condition they are capable of being in. Now I know Kuznetsova or Serena are not naturally slim, and carry a great deal of muscle, but there are still times when they've CLEARLY been carrying rolls of flubber about their waists and hips. Now that is not going to help them. Please, can people not see this? Christ.
This is the CLEAREST you've been on this, and I completely agree with you. You made some interesting concessions here. For example, I've never heard you say or admit that Kuz' or Serena's body types are not naturally slim. You've always given the impression that all body types are created slim, so to speak, therefore why the hell is this one fat and the other is not, etc, etc.

I've never heard you admit 'til now that players who are "fat" can be relatively fit.

I've never heard you address a players fitness as being relative 'til now, to wit:

nonetheless, a player who is not in their own peak athletic condition is making the job harder for themselves over all.

So all in all, I think we've made some real progress here in addressing your "fat" issue.

Please stop by the receptionist on your way out to schedule our next session.

;)