Tennis Forum banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,014 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
if average club players from today's world could go back in time and play during the days of the 1920s, could they win? what do you think? ive been thinking about it.. we would play with our current aluminum, titanium, etc. racquets, while they play with their wooden racquets.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,837 Posts
I've a feeling they'd get smoked by newer technology regardless of the skill level. Plus, long trousers and full skirts aren't exactly conducive to good tennis :p
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,014 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
that really hurtz my feelings, DA BACKHAND!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,888 Posts
Technology, Coaching, Training Regimes, Athleticism, Pace and Speed have all improved significantly in Pro Tennis, even in Club Tennis, So I would think that if a relativly good player from a club played against a professional of the Golden Ages, I would expect a win out of it.
 

·
Plainclothes Division
Joined
·
6,350 Posts
Up through the 1920's, I think a good current club player would be able to beat most everyone, with one notable exception: Tilden. Following through into the 1930's, as per the title of the thread, I'd think Perry and Budge would have a decent shot. And that's with the technological advantage going to the modern player.

A lot would depend on which version of the rules were used. If it were an old version, requiring one foot to be kept on the ground while serving, I'd like Tilden against any club player, even with wood. Having played with wooden racquets, I can vouch that the efect they have on the serve is negligible. Philippoussis served about 2-3 MPH slower with wood than with his current stick.

One big advantage a modern player might have would be fitness. Player stamina wasn't so great in the 1920's. Old-timers make a big deal out of not having chairs during changeovers, but conveniently omit that they had 10-15 minute breaks during the matches, which allowed them to get a massage, shower, etc. And there were a lot of tanked sets back in the old days.

On the women's side, it would be hard to see the old players winning. There were two dominant players in the 1920's; Lenglen and Wills. Both had major physical deficiencies. Lenglen had no stamina, which is why she played the less demanding counterpunching style, and rarely came to net. It's also why she bombed so spectacularly in her one appearance in the US Nationals, played in the oppressive East Coast summer conditions. Wills, meanwhile, was very slow. She would make Davenport look almost like Coetzer by comparison. And her strength, her power, would be tame by today's standards.

If either of these women drew a modern player that was fit, and had fairly good control over her groundies, with the modern player having the added technological advantage, the old-timer would have no chance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,274 Posts
nope
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
25,876 Posts
Lenglen and Wills were as good as any women up until the start of the metal age-the technology didn't change all that much until the early 80s.

Of course someone decent with a bigger (by far) metal racquet would whoop up on a lot players if time warped.

But there are other things to consider. If they are going back in time they might not be allowed to go on court with skimpy clothing. Lets see how fast a modern woman can run with whale bone corsets that cut your boobs starched collars.

Then of course the balls would bounce differently.
And matches would be on grass-do club players know how to play on that?

Give the old broads credit folks. They did the best with what they had, just like we do today.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,189 Posts
Oh My Lord what a stupid half baked question of 'what if'?

What if Monica seles hadnt been stabed...would she have won a bazillion grand slams? -no

What i Martina Hingis had remained foot-problem free, would she still be dominating tennis as world #1?-HELL no

What if Jennifer Capriati meet John MacEnroe in a battle of the sexes...would John win?- highly doubt it

and ooooh yes WHAT IF say....Susan Lenglen meet...oooh lets say one Suzy Homemaker from 123 Smith Street in a "time warp battle on the courts' WHO WOULD WIN????

Well for any truely rational person with more than 2 brain cells knows this answer....Miss Homemaker would win in straight sets ....oooh lets just say 6-2 6-1 for convinients sake.

Now im basing this on the assumption that miss Suzy Homemaker here has a Wilson Pro Hammer 6.0 and she can Volley run and baseline slug at a very comfortable rate, shes not too good but can hang in there with a 200 year old bat from the era of Eisenhower. Lets face the hard and true facts here, woman in the early 1900's were not athelets....they werent born or breed to be, womans lib was a whisper and the gym was a place forbidin by woman as a mans world. Woman cooked and cleaned and Tennis was at best a rich womans passing hobby, a sence of style and leisure that made you 'one of those PEOPLE'. Woman back then, as well as the men, didnt play very good tennis, and the level that they performed at was very slow, and rather...bigginer actually. Any modern day woman would have an immediate advantage in every level imaginable and only through an act of god herself could a woman....even margeret court herself could pull of an upset over a fairly adequate Clubb level player.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,189 Posts
i rest my case here...theres nothing left to say, woman now are better in every level....nothing else to say. Period.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top