Tennis Forum banner

Margaret Court Picture Thread

23K views 131 replies 17 participants last post by  Rollo 
#1 · (Edited)
Margaret Court Photo Album

This thread is dedicated to photos of that great Australian, Margaret Court. Most of these photos also appear in AndrewTas' wonderful 'Margaret Smith Court' thread, where you can find an ever-expanding list of career match results for Margaret. Where possible in this thread, I'll give the year and event, and even sometimes the match that the picture was taken from, along with any other detail available. Feel free to correct me on any detail, and please make sure to add any photos you may have that do not appear here. For starters, my absolute favorite image of Margaret Court (nee' Smith), this most likely from the 1964 Wimbledon Final versus Maria Bueno.

Here then, is Margaret in full flight.

 
See less See more
1
#27 ·
In addition to her 1970 Grand Slam Margaret actually won 3 of the 4 majors in 4 other calendar years.
1962 Lost R2 Wimbledon to Billie Jean Moffitt
1965 Lost F French to Lesley Turner-so one match short of a Grand Slam
1969 Lost SF Wimbledon to Ann Jones
1973 Lost SF Wimbledon to Chris Evert

I think her standing in some people's eyes (not mine) possibly suffers because of her relative 'failure' at Wimbledon.Only 3 singles titles at the big one and on her strongest surface despite being seeed either no 1 or no 2 eleven times out of the twelve years she entered.
 
#28 ·
Ignatius said:
In addition to her 1970 Grand Slam Margaret actually won 3 of the 4 majors in 4 other calendar years.
1962 Lost R2 Wimbledon to Billie Jean Moffitt
1965 Lost F French to Lesley Turner-so one match short of a Grand Slam
1969 Lost SF Wimbledon to Ann Jones
1973 Lost SF Wimbledon to Chris Evert

I think her standing in some people's eyes (not mine) possibly suffers because of her relative 'failure' at Wimbledon.Only 3 singles titles at the big one and on her strongest surface despite being seeed either no 1 or no 2 eleven times out of the twelve years she entered.
Thanks for the correction. I don't know why, but I seem to have a habit of missing 1965 as a 3 out of the 4 in one year stat for Margaret, possibly because she actually did win Wimbledon that year- taking out none other than the great Maria Bueno in straight sets. The Bueno/Smith rivalry was the biggest of the 60s, and I actually have the 1964 final on tape, and stylistically, it's one of the best match-ups I've ever seen. Maria Bueno was such an incredible shot maker, and a little temperamental and firey on court- flying all over it and often times hitting the most outlandish winners. When she was on, she was one of the top three pure tennis players I've ever seen (the other two being Evonne Goolagong and Hana Mandlikova). The 1964 final against Margaret Smith was a study in contrasts. Margaret's game was very muscular and somewhat taut- very much like Ivan Lendl's, only Marge came into the net all the time. She had a big first serve, and a pretty good second one, and though she didn't volley with creative flourish (she was a natural lefty taught to play right-handed), she normally punched the ball away at the net and was very difficult to pass because of her reach. Maria on the other hand, could hit every shot in the book, and well, with her only drawback being her tendency to go for too much, and she also sometimes ran out of energy physically. Some of the passing shots she hit against Margaret in that 1964 Wimbledon final are right up there with the best ever, IMO- especially the backhands down the line. Oh wouldn't it be nice if a few more of their famous clashes were available on video!
 
  • Like
Reactions: FritzF
#30 ·
Ignatius said:
In addition to her 1970 Grand Slam Margaret actually won 3 of the 4 majors in 4 other calendar years.
1962 Lost R2 Wimbledon to Billie Jean Moffitt
1965 Lost F French to Lesley Turner-so one match short of a Grand Slam
1969 Lost SF Wimbledon to Ann Jones
1973 Lost SF Wimbledon to Chris Evert

I think her standing in some people's eyes (not mine) possibly suffers because of her relative 'failure' at Wimbledon.Only 3 singles titles at the big one and on her strongest surface despite being seeed either no 1 or no 2 eleven times out of the twelve years she entered.

Interesting quote by Leslay Turner in 1966:

"It's (Kooyong - where the Aussie Champs were played) the only place in the world where a grass championship is played on hard courts."

Margaret was, of course, a world beater on all surfaces and her fewer titles at Wimbledon are obviously relative. I have always thought that she was equally as good on any surface. Most players would eagerly grab at one victory at Wimby with both hands let alone three.

It's all part of the game but IMO Margaret was incredibly unlucky in a couple of years to come up against a player there playing the match of their life.

But Nancy Richey who by her own admission never had her best results on grass did relatively better at Forest Hills (even beating BJ there) which might suggest that the courts there were more akin to Kooyong than Wimbledon.

I've never thought about it before but it does raise an intriguing question. Given that Margaret did win more titles at the other Slams than Wimby is it just conceivable that she was slightly stronger on other surfaces than true grass? Relatively speaking, of course. Her overall record speaks for itself.
 
#31 ·
chris whiteside said:
Interesting quote by Leslay Turner in 1966:

"It's (Kooyong - where the Aussie Champs were played) the only place in the world where a grass championship is played on hard courts."

Margaret was, of course, a world beater on all surfaces and her fewer titles at Wimbledon are obviously relative. I have always thought that she was equally as good on any surface. Most players would eagerly grab at one victory at Wimby with both hands let alone three.

It's all part of the game but IMO Margaret was incredibly unlucky in a couple of years to come up against a player there playing the match of their life.

But Nancy Richey who by her own admission never had her best results on grass did relatively better at Forest Hills (even beating BJ there) which might suggest that the courts there were more akin to Kooyong than Wimbledon.

I've never thought about it before but it does raise an intriguing question. Given that Margaret did win more titles at the other Slams than Wimby is it just conceivable that she was slightly stronger on other surfaces than true grass? Relatively speaking, of course. Her overall record speaks for itself.
Not to butt in, but, well, I've never let that stop me before, so why start now, right? While I do think that the "Centre Court Nerves" circus has always been over-hyped, I at the same time think there is some merit to it. Margaret herself freely admits to suffering attacks of nervous and sometimes debilitating feelings when she was on the big stage at Wimbledon, and in later years she laments that she didn't have the peace that religion has brought her, else she would've won many more titles there. The difference in grass courts when comparing Kooyong, Wimbledon and Forest Hills has a little to do with her results, however, you also have to consider that beating Margaret Court on her home turf was one of the most difficult achievements for any opponent who dared travel there from overseas, and the match she lost to Billie Jean King at Forest Hills is the only time I can see her even remotely nervous there (granted, I've yet to see the bulk of her matches there). She, on the other hand, never felt a great deal of pressure at Forest Hills, and you can tell from watching her play there (yes, I have a couple matches from the mid-70s on tape). Her expressions at times toward officials and sometimes other players are such that she held an almost aloof disdain for the American experience, and thus, didn't feel the same pressure (quite the opposite) as when she was on centre stage in the capitol of all proper British manners. Australians are (especially back then) much more closely knit into the British fabric than we Americans. The surface at Forest Hills was a totally different type of grass (and markedly a more humid atmosphere than either Kooyong or Wimbledon), and they even spray-painted the horrible chewed-up brown patches for a more attractive television appearance. I can't imagine them ever having done such a thing at Kooyong, and certainly not Wimbledon.
 
#32 ·
Another thing that gets overlooked most often regarding Margaret was that she was not (IMO) a natural tennis player. To borrow a descriptive from 'All About Eve', her tennis was never "full of fire and water". She was a natural lefty who learned to play tennis in the 50s when she had no option but to learn to play right-handed. Her world-class foot speed, great first serve, and powerful and muscular presence on court was enough to win against nearly any style of play on any surface. She didn't have a flowing, creative and instinctive repertoir to throw into the mix of a tight or competitive match the way Bueno, King, or Goolagong did, and as a result, when the stakes were high (they don't get any higher than Wimbledon), opponents could dig into a bag of tennis tricks to throw against her that Margaret never had. The problem for most opponents was staying with Court long enough to get to the point where the match became tight. She was very good at steamrolling, and in the words of Virginia Wade, she made you feel "like a canary in a cage with a bulldog".:lol:
 
#33 ·
Maybe Margaret suffered from nerves in 1961 and 62 although I would think it more inexperience in 61 but certainly from I first watched Wimbledon in 1965 I can't say that I ever thought they played a major part in her campaigns there.

I think what you have said would be a pretty reasonable and accurate analysis, Jeff. Just a random thought which occured to me when I saw Turner's quote.
 
#34 ·
chris whiteside said:
Maybe Margaret suffered from nerves in 1961 and 62 although I would think it more inexperience in 61 but certainly from I first watched Wimbledon in 1965 I can't say that I ever thought they played a major part in her campaigns there.

I think what you have said would be a pretty reasonable and accurate analysis, Jeff. Just a random thought which occured to me when I saw Turner's quote.
The match I do have from that period of time is the 1964 Wimbledon Final. After watching it several times (it's an Italian dub over the BBC coverage, which was fun and novel the first couple of times I watched it, but is now more annoying than anything as I'm constantly trying to listen through to hear what Dan Maskell is saying), it is apparent to me that Margaret did indeed choke a bit against Maria. She had several opportunities to put the match away, and lost in in the third as Maria throughout the match went through patches of brilliant shotmaking which you could see unnerved the steady game of Margaret. She also flat-out missed a couple of volleys and passing shots, and double-faulted at key moments that pretty much gave it away for Bueno to take the title. You can see she knew how to play and beat Maria on Wimbledon's grass, and the 1965 re-match is one that I would dearly love to see, as Madge obviously did come through in straights. What I'd like to find out is if the error-prone Bueno gave it back to Court a year later or not.

After 1966, her career was pretty much a roller-coaster of periods of retirement and success. Perhaps she should've won Wimbledon in 1969, and I've been told her match with Jones in the semis was the match of the tournament, and possibly the year. I guess I need to see Ann play first before making any assessments there, although the head-to-head between these two champions leads me to believe that Margaret just possibly got a little tight in that match. That, or Jones attacked the net and forced Margaret to pass enough to throw her game off. You've seen it Chris- what happened that prevented the much anticipated Court/King final in 1969?
 
#35 ·
Sorry but a senior moment. It was the 1964 not 1965 final that was the first I saw. I was enthralled by it especially the artistry of La Bueno but at that stage I wouldn't have known enough to pick up on tensions and nervousness in the players. In reading reports of the match in later years I do know that there were differences of opinion as to the quality. Some called it one of the best finals to date while others thought it was a nervy affair where neither player was at her best!

With regard to 1969 I think that to a great degree the old adage of being beaten by the better player on the day applies. Margaret herself said after the match that she actually played well and I doubt she has ever played as well and lost. Certainly, I have never seen Jones play better tennis, although I have not seen her semi victory over Bueno at RG 1966 which some commentators thought was even better and the chances of that ever appearing are zero.

Margaret would obviously have been expecting to win with a bit of resistance as she usaully did against Ann. For two of the top players of the sixties they actually played surprisingly few times. But she must have been stunned by the severity of Ann's attack. She would have learnt from their final at RG just a few weeks previously when she won 6-3 fs although she should have won easily when leading by a set and 4-1 and just relaxed that bit which Ann pounced on.

Playing with Billie Jean and Rosie in their professional group would have forced Ann to volley more in order to live with them. She still found it hard to beat BJ but their matches were certainly a lot closer. Ann probably thought she would lose against Margaret anyway so decided what the heck and went on all attack right from the start. Margaret could not have expected this and was soon 2-5 and 2 set points down but as usual when in danger she produced her best tennis and pulled it back to 5-5 brfore taking a long first set 11-9.

At this stage I'm sure she felt she would only receive token resistance in the second set and maybe relaxed just slightly which allowed Ann to get ahead in it. The commentators reckoned that no-one had ever volleyed as much in a match against Margaret ever before.

All players get a day when everything seems to go right for them. The backand which was often a source of easy points for Ann's opponents was strong. Billie Jean had that down to a fine art, a hard serve to this wing and then be waiting at the net to volley the high return away cross-court. BJ said that very often in practice Ann would blast her off court. But as with so many Brits there was some gremlin which meant she couldn't produce this same form in matches. She often hit a rolled topspin backhand which she never had the courage to try in a match until this one and she just let fly with it on a number of key points. It must have knocked Margaret back to see passing shots from the "weak" Jones' backhand fly past her.

Then there was another strength in Ann's game - the lob - which was working to perfection that day. She needed this to have any chance against the serve volleyers and they were all going within inches of the sideline and baseline. Obviously this would just have unsettled Margaret that bit more and made her not just as eager to get right on top of the net.

We all know that scorelines in tennis matches can be misleading and the 6-2 fs was much closer than it looks. Even at 5-2 down Madge was still in the match. One of her great strengths was that in adversity she kept attacking and very often came through in matches she might have lost (e.g she had been 2-5 down fs against Nancy Richey in RG semi). But it was just meant to be Jones' year. In getting to that position Lady Luck decided to side with Ann.

Ann began the final set as she had ended the second and led 2-0 with points for 3-0. She looked abit wery as she lost these (one of them on a double fault) and when Margaret caught up to 2-2 it looked like the old story. But then in the next game at 30-30 came the point which could very well have decided the match. Margaret seemed to be in control of the point when Ann at the net and off-balance just got her racquet on a severe attempted pass. The ball crashed into the tape on the net and hopped over mid-way up the service box which Margaret couldn't reach.

There could also have been some effect from Madge's Heldman quarter. Jones had a relatively easy passage against Richey although she had to fight when caught at 5-5 in the second set after leading 6-2 5-1 and 2 match points but Margaret was pushed hard by Julie Heldman and kept on court a considerable time. Heldman played a blinder in winnning the first set and although after that Margaret never looked like losing she certainly had to expound a lot of energy.

Serving at 2-4 in fs against Ann, Margaret began to rub her thigh a little bit as if she was starting to cramp. On one point Ann was defending hectically on the baseline when she hoisted another lob. Margaret was on the ball but just didn't have the spring in her legs to quite get up and the ball shot over Ann's baseline to help her to a second vital break.

In some ways the final point epitomised the match. Margaret serving and pushing to the net, Jones turning defence into attack by hoisting a forehand lob which landed plum in the junction of the base and side line and racing to the net. Margaret reached the ball on her backhand to hit down the line, Jones waiting to pounce, instead of trying to do too much and fluffing her shot, she hit the ball firmly cross-court three quarters way across the service box and midway up the court which meant Margaret had to run desparately forwards as well as sideways to reach the ball on her "weaker" forehand wing, which was the shot which could sometimes break down under pressure. She could just about get there and try to hoist a lob but was too late to control it and it ballooned out over Jones' baseline.

There were very few unforced errors and really just a few points either way. Had she won those Margaret could have won the match, had Jones' won some the other way she might have won more easily. It was just Maragret's bad luck to run into a player of Ann's capabilities playing superb tennis on the day. Had it been anyone else, Ann would probably have been in the locker room in double quick time.

I felt Margaret suffered the same fate in 1968. Admittedly she wasn't firing on her usual cylanders through that season but she was still good enough to beat Judy Tegart. Judy chose that time to play the tournament of her life and with a bit of luck and more experience at that level could have pulled off the final against BJ.
 
#36 ·
What a fantastic recounting of this classic match. It's definitely one of the matches I want to purchase, however, there are a few other Court classics (where she wins- shallow of me, I know, but who likes to see a favorite player of theirs lose?) that I must acquire before that one or the 1973 Wimbledon semi loss to Evert. I'd always read and heard that Ann Jones was pretty much a card-carrying baseliner with a loopy lefty forehand that she could put on a dime anywhere in her opponent's court. Did she have that same secret weapon that Rod Laver, Martina Navratilova, and John McEnroe could pull out of the bag on the big points with great effect- the sliced lefty hook out wide to the ad court?
 
#37 ·
alfajeffster said:
I'd always read and heard that Ann Jones was pretty much a card-carrying baseliner with a loopy lefty forehand that she could put on a dime anywhere in her opponent's court. Did she have that same secret weapon that Rod Laver, Martina Navratilova, and John McEnroe could pull out of the bag on the big points with great effect- the sliced lefty hook out wide to the ad court?
In a word - no. Along with most players of the era her serve was not simply strong enough.

In watching matches from the 60s you're struck by how pedestrian the pace is compared to today. It seems almost painful. Put players including Margaret up against today's top stars and they would get blasted off court. This is why I think it is unfair and almost impossible to judge the greatest except by what they achieved in their own era. A Margaret born 40 years later with access to the fitness regimes and tecnology of the age or a Serena 40 years earlier with a wooden racquet and the conditions of the time is a whole different story, of course.

Even being pulled out wide there would still be time to recover and be in place for your opponent's reply, less chance of course against a net rusher. Apart from Court and King ,Ann along with the others did not have an anyway powerful serve having to rely more on spin and placement than power. It did improve later in her career when she started using a steel racquet but prior to this her second service was little better than a dolly-dropper.

Her topspin forehand was probably a better shot and more powerful than most gave her credit for. Her great strength was in her tactical nous. Once she was in a rally she could give as good as she got and she was reckoned to be one of the best at giving opponents the shots they least liked to play.

You will already have forgotten more than I know about the technical aspect of the game, Jeff, but apparently the lefties natural serve is to the (mostly right-hander's) backhand. Surprisingly, in the 69 Wimby semi Ann served mostly to Margaret's "stronger" backhand wing. She said she took a calculated risk in this, reasoning that it was her best serve and having decided to volley from the word go she could anticipate Margaret's return on this wing much better and felt it gave her her best chance of victory. Obviously this tactic seemed to have worked.

Jones was of course, recognised mainly as a card-carrying baseliner. Strangely after 1961 and until 1968, she only played Margaret once, losing to her in the Queen's final of 1964. It would have been interesting to see some match-ups on clay between them in the early-mid 60s. Margaret would have always been favourite but I doubt there would have been much in it. Until 1965 the only player whom Jones could just not beat on clay no matter how far she got ahead was Lesley Turner who always seemed to stand in her path at RG and Foro Italico.

It's all the very murky what if scenario again and this is just gleaned from reading but in 1960 Ann had decided she would try to play a volleyer's game and overall had a successful season with it being 3-3 with Bueno and 6-2 up on Hard the world's then top two. However her three worst losses were where it hurt most to players she should have beaten Puzujova at RG, Kormoczy at Rome and Floyd at Forest Hills although there were certain other factirs invloved in these defeats. However, this caused Ann to then abandon a serve-volley approach and revert to the baseline. So who knows, but then maybe the RG titles in 1961 and 66 wouldn't have come her way.

Like Virginia Wade, Ann lost more matches than she should to lower ranked opponents although unlike Ginny rarely to journey-women, it would be a top 20 player. A very good player, tough to beat but a step behind Margaret, BJ or Maria. Had she maintained a volley based stategy rather than reverting to it in 1968 ............... It's been mentioned before and it's not meant facetiously but Ann was rather top heavy which certainly was NOT an advantage in volleying!

Apologies, I know this is Margaret's thread but you did ask.............
 
#38 ·
chris whiteside said:
In watching matches from the 60s you're struck by how pedestrian the pace is compared to today. It seems almost painful. Put players including Margaret up against today's top stars and they would get blasted off court. This is why I think it is unfair and almost impossible to judge the greatest except by what they achieved in their own era. A Margaret born 40 years later with access to the fitness regimes and tecnology of the age or a Serena 40 years earlier with a wooden racquet and the conditions of the time is a whole different story, of course.
Hi Chris

It's obviously all in the eye of the beholder but I have a completely different point of view when I watch some of the 60s classics.

Just the other night I watched Bueno v Turner 64 Wimb SF and the pace of the shotmaking was very surprising. Bueno's shots had tremendous power and they truly darted across the net like arrows - groundies and volleys. Turner herself displayed glorious flat deep drives with pace. This was a thrilling match and it just reconfirmed my love of watching the 60s and 70s matches - far more than many of today's bash fests - except for Hingis :)

Of course the pace is a level below that of what you would see today, but considering they were playing with wooden rackets, I was very impressed with the venom of these gals shots. Same can be said when you watch a Bueno v Court match. Of course when you watch someone like Evert in the 70s or two baseliners like Durr v Heldman (which Tilden and I watched about a month ago) than that is a different story - and the pace does seem very slow indeed. But even still, I get more of a buzz out of those than most of today's matches as well. :)

I agree with you that you just can't compare the different eras. Racket technology has made such a huge difference. I still have about 60 wooden rackets in my little museum and when we have a muck around with them it is so incredibly difficult to play with them. And very tough to generate power with any consistency. IMO, after watching Court & Bueno in the 60s with wood, I think they would have hit almost as hard as today's girls do if they used wood. Court & Bueno had very powerful serves, power drives and Bueno in particular had razor like volleys. Put them up against today's girls with today's weapons and I could see both of them cranking it up to match the most powerful of them.

What do you think Alfa? I know you have watched the 64 Wimbledon Final.

Yes I admit it - I am trapped in a time warp! :)
 
#39 ·
Well, I've been thrust into that same time warp by worse people than you, TV! It is obvious to me from watching the few matches of Bueno I have that she was one of the best shotmakers ever, and with similar training and equipment, would be winning on a regular basis (and just as injured all the time) in today's game. Margaret goes without saying- she was a world-class athlete with a powerful game. I keep coming back to the possibility that if we really want to bring back to the future all the beauty and chess-match quality that the classic game of tennis affords, we have to stop talking semantics, and actually stop talking about wood, and focus on the size of the frame itself. A return to requiring a standard size frame for the top men and women in the world would do the trick very nicely. It's never going to happen because of "Open" tennis. Tennis as an industry has steadily and methodically marketed the classic game nearly out of existence. It can still be found at club level and league play, but even there, it's only a matter of time before enough people pass away.

Interestingly, an old salt that I play with and have had many lively conversations about the history and the players, last year remarked to me that he would "never go back to wood frames", reasoning that the older you get, the harder it is to go out there and swing that heft for 2 hours (or less), and that the new lighter, more maneuverable frames have made it possible for him to play longer. I couldn't argue with him, so you see, there is merit in exploring all the options.
 
#40 ·
Hi Alfa - even I couldn't handle going back to wood! Too heavy for this delicate number! And I agree wholeheartedly about the frame size. That is the key element. I don't know why manufacturers couldn't have a standard small frame for the pro circuit and more flexibility for anyone not playing the tour.

Anyone wanting to be serious about playing the pro ranks would of course train with the standard frame and the millions of hackers could still use the racket of choice.
 
#42 ·
daze11 said:
Come play on the grass courts in Philly this June, daze! You'll see a nice mix of people, all in white, moving across a tennis lawn, and not only will your eye be on the play, you'll notice quite a few players using wood and white balls. The Director of Tennis has a box of wood racquets (well strung) he'll loan out to anyone with an inkling toward experiencing the classic game. It's quite a site to see.

P.S.- I saw an old Chris Evert wood racquet at an antique show this past weekend, and I'm sure it'll be there next weekend. She only wants $5 for it, and it's in mint condition- one of those old light blue and white enamel frames with the 70s lettering across the throat that they mass produced when ChrisAmerica took off. What I never realized was how light the racquet was. It's markedly lighter than either of the other standard wood frames I own. I'm actually looking forward to hitting with it.
 
#43 ·
tennisvideos said:
Hi Alfa - even I couldn't handle going back to wood! Too heavy for this delicate number! And I agree wholeheartedly about the frame size. That is the key element. I don't know why manufacturers couldn't have a standard small frame for the pro circuit and more flexibility for anyone not playing the tour.

Anyone wanting to be serious about playing the pro ranks would of course train with the standard frame and the millions of hackers could still use the racket of choice.
Of course, this would be ideal, but you and I know (me especially, living in the land of bilk and money) this would never hold water from a marketing standpoint. How are you going to get mom and pop to shell out $200 for a brand new Andy Roddick Babolat if he's hitting with something so much smaller, even if cosmetically identical? Incidentally, wouldn't it be interesting to see a little exhibition tourney with Roddick, Federer, Hewitt et. al. with standard size frames? I'd bet John McEnroe could get a wild card and do some damage there, and don't even get me started on the stalled career of Tim Henman! With the girls, I can't see anyone right now who would take off with a standard frame. Maybe Amelie Mauresmo, because she still uses the face of the racquet with longer, loopy one-handed swings, and that would make the transition back to a smaller frame easier for her, but the army of two-fisted western grip bashers? I think not.
 
#44 ·
alfajeffster said:
P.S.- I saw an old Chris Evert wood racquet - one of those old light blue and white enamel frames with the 70s lettering across the throat that they mass produced when ChrisAmerica took off. What I never realized was how light the racquet was. It's markedly lighter than either of the other standard wood frames I own.
thats because that model is from the 'chrissie junior' series, not adult pro-standard weight... its for little girls. :)

i may just visit you in pennsylvania this june. i love a good car drive. :kiss:
 
#45 ·
daze11 said:
thats because that model is from the 'chrissie junior' series, not adult pro-standard weight... its for little girls. :)

i may just visit you in pennsylvania this june. i love a good car drive. :kiss:
Is it the same length, or am I losing my once famous guage for width and length in my old age?
 
#46 ·
alfajeffster said:
Is it the same length, or am I losing my once famous guage for width and length in my old age?
its the same physical size, not like those modern racquets where they actually make a mini-handle etc. for the tots, but it was made very light and easy to swing. i dont think it would be too much more than a toy for an experienced player like you, alfa. i am sure you'd like to play with one of those adult rods that has a bit more WEIGHT. ;)
 
#47 ·
daze11 said:
its the same physical size, not like those modern racquets where they actually make a mini-handle etc. for the tots, but it was made very light and easy to swing. i dont think it would be too much more than a toy for an experienced player like you, alfa. i am sure you'd like to play with one of those adult rods that has a bit more WEIGHT. ;)
While I've always been known to be a size queen, I myself have always wielded a standard, middle of the chart piece of wood. Nothing so big so as to the point where my arm and wrist get tired of playing with it, but average, and very predicktable. And may I remind you that experienced players know exactly how to play with toys...;)

Seriously, I thought it was a standard size, and I liked the swing weight quite a bit, so I am going to look for it and see what happens. The biggest problem I have with the old wood frames is that it is very difficult (at least for me) to hit volleys with as much precision. I guess that goes for passing shots at the other end of the coin, but I think it affects touch volleying more than anything. I guess in the grand scheme of things- drop volleys and angled winners at the net were never supposed to be that easy, and if you can do it with wood, well, that's saying something (and nobody has said anything about my volleys with wood yet, but I'm working on it)!
 
#49 ·
And a cute pic of Margaret, the Catholic schoolgirl.
Quick side note- she was quite a rebellious little tomboy,
and was actually thrown out of the convent for arguing
with the nuns!

 
#51 · (Edited)
And finally, two of the greatest tennis players of all time-
this from the dedication of Rod Laver Arena. Margaret is
wearing that lovely expression on her face that has
endeared her to millions since her retirement...

 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top