@JB - well I agree with you if the oldies have access to modern science in that regard - for sure they would very possibly be competitive - I do hesitate though with Laver because he was only 5'7 in height - I think he would be very vertically challenged in the modern game (like I would be in the pool today where, like tennis, having some height seems to be increasingly necessary).

Comparing competitive swimming to top-level tennis, as does Hoi Ha, is highly questionable.

If bananas floated and chimps had the correct body types, one could train chimps to be champion swimmers.

The same argument probably fails with respect to chimps and tennis--altho Verdasco came close to proving me wrong at AO 2009. (In defense of chimps, one should also note that no record exists of a chimp ever choking on a banana, which can not be said for Rafa.)

The skill sets necessary for top-level tennis are much more varied than going back and forth in a pool and calculating when best to push hardest without inducing a heart attack.

In fact, tennis skill sets are closer to those of boxing and baseball--sports/activities concerning which experts don't make ludicrous arguments that the greats of the past would be wiped out by the best current practitioners.

Many, if not most boxing experts consider Sugar Ray Robinson--a prizefighter who retired over forty years ago--to be the greatest boxer of all time. Many experts would put Joe Louis in their top ten lists of heavyweights, despite the fact that Joe Louis retired over fifty years ago. Plenty of other similar examples exist.

Likewise, in baseball, experts believe that top players of long-gone eras--such as Willie Mays, Sandy Koufax, Juan Marichal, Tom Seaver, and Mickey Mantle--would have been All-Stars in today's game.

Furthermore, even with respect to horseracing, a sport whose intellectual demands are much more comparable to swimming, numerous champions from long ago--such as Secretariat and Affirmed--would have been champions in today's top-level races. (One might argue that I am insulting the intellect of these great equine champs by comparing them to swimmers, in light of the fact that Secretariat, et al. were able to engage widespread promiscuity without negative societal repercussions--something that cannot be said of most top swimmers, or even Tiger Woods, for that matter.)

Steve,

When it comes down to it, I wonder if one of the beautiful things about sports, and the downside of sports commentary is that we can project our own dreams/fantasies/biases, etc. onto the players and teams that we watch. Perhaps, the reason that we are drawn to some and put off by others says more about ourselves than it does about the players.

I know that my favorite tennis players tend to compete, play, look, act and even speak the way that I would want to, if I was in their position. Somehow, even in team sports, I (perhaps "we") try to assign some general personality for the whole team that I can either love or despise (think, "Yankees", "Cowboys", etc.).

Interestingly, the players themselves seem to get along much better than their fans, despite the stare-downs and gamesmanship that occurs during matches.

As a fan long-time fan of tennis, I know that eventually all of my favorites will eventually move on. So, while preferring some, I always keep my eyes open to see who else is coming into their own, and who may become someone that I'll appreciate and follow in the coming years.

I don't much agree with Wertheim, but I give him credit for piquing my interest, about 7 or 8 years ago, in a teenaged, not fully on tour, Rafael Nadal. Wertheim said something like "keep an eye out for this kid", after seeing him compete in a smaller clay court event. Similar comments were made about Federer in his youth, especially after beating Sampras at Wimbledon. If you really love the sport, you have to admire its greatest exponents, even if they are not your favorites, for whatever reason.

Davis Cup, the Olympics and to some degree WTT ask us to think of an individual sport as a team sport. I've been turned off at some Davis Cup matches, because the jingoism often trumps the tennis. Don't get me wrong...I'm a patriot, but if Federal, Nadal or any other foreign player does something extraordinary on the court, despite playing against my team, I want to clap. Thats the way that it used to be, but as the sport's fan base spreads globally--due the the excellence of players from smaller countries, fans seem to be becoming more devoted to individual players than to the sport itself.

@work. @ 9:53

its still the same principle. you can insult someone, or say you don't like them, list the reasons in terms that someone who doesn't agree with you finds objection to, and it still makes NO difference to your ability to respect someone's work.

whether that work be artistic output, running a business or being a champion on the tennis court. there are plenty of incredibly talented, [self-edited] outthere.

my point is the 2 are simply not dependent upon each other. though some people do NOT like a player and do NOT respect a player, the two are not always linked.

Hoi ha - good point about laver being 5'7" that would / could be a problem for him.

Though thinking of david ferrer - @ 5' 9" he's managed to carve quite a good niche for himself, so Laver could still be a force.

That is definately part of the drawback of generational comparison, the fact that people just seem to be getting bigger!

i die every time i see clothes worn even a hundred years ago in an exhibit - they look like they're made for children!

JB: 9:15 a.m.

The expression "you can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig" was in reference to dressing up an insult with praise, but it's still an insult. There's a difference between "not liking" certain things about someone but still respecting them, and "despising" things about someone but still saying you respect them. It's just my own personal opinion, but I find it very disingenuous to say you respect someone as a great champion and in the same breath go on about how everything else about them basically makes you sick to your stomach.

Again, that's just my own opinion.

@work: 9:45 a.m.

Thank you. That's exactly what I was trying to say. :)

@work: 9:45 a.m.

Thank you. That's exactly what I was trying to say. :)

manualsantanfan - i think you missed the point. hoi ha wasn't making a comparison of swimming and tennis as sports per se. (But lovely slap down of swimming as a mindless sport there - i take it you're not a fan.)

the comparison was made in the context of previous generation / new generation being competive, given new racket technology etc. Not any sort of direct comparison of swimming and tennis per se.

Hai Ho's point was its NOT just the tennis racket that has changed, that training and technology are also a factor. Swimming was a example of something they had first hand knowledge of that illustrated that nicely, at least imo.

Hoi Ha speaks of Laver being "vertically challenged in today's game."

And "horizontally"?

Many have made the argument that modern racket/string technology benefits today's larger players more than said technology would have benefitted smaller players like Laver and Rosewall, and that said discrepancy would not translate to the wooden rackets of the 1950s thru late 1970s.

There might be some validity to said argument. And Laver, himself, might buy into it when he said (as noted earlier) that he liked his chances against anybody using wood racket technology (but not mentioning current technology).

Some of my earlier comments about swimmers were somewhat tongue in cheek. I roomed next to some collegiate swimmers one year and would occasionally run into them subsequently. From what I could tell, most of these guys were doing well academically and went off to decent grad/professional schools.

"I'll see you Wednesday with a preview of the hard court season" - Is it just me or is anyone else starting to frazzle about starting with the frazzle in a couple of weeks? I hate frazzling. HATE it I tell you! Yet I cannot avoid it. That sick feeling in the stomach when you can only SB watch and it's 30-40 on Fed's serve at 4-5, first set. Time seems to slow down and that SB never changes in spite of innumerable cliks on the refresh button as you ponder, helpless, if the point in time you are dreading has already transpired or is still being played out far from your desparate eyes. You want to step away, yet your eyes are rooted to the monitor. Aarrghh...life was so "colm" the last few weeks...

"I hate frazzling. HATE it I tell you! Yet I cannot avoid it."

I sympathise with this. :) And no matter what you tell yourself or how irrational you're being, you just can't help it.

lilscot: I'm afraid I've never watched Seinfeld, so I'm not sure what exactly you meant there, but I hope we've otherwise understood each other. Eeh, serenity is good, I believe, so... :)
btw, your comment on pigs and lipstick was nicely put.

Insulting and respecting pretty much cancel each other out. If you respect a person you don't go around insulting them. Obviously it's not necessary to *like* to respect, but to respect is surely *not to insult*. Or is there a new definition for word "respect" that I've missed and is the old meaning obsolete?

TheMightyFunk - nope, note yet. The summer's great, and it's still holiday time! (...holidays from frazzling, that is, not work...)

NOT yet

I am not sure "insult" is really fair if people are talking about thooz's post, quoted by Tim above. It was just a personal opinion of Rafa's style and it's one I've heard before; didn't seem all that outlandish to me. I don't see why not liking Rafa's on-court persona means you automatically aren't respecting his game, skills, talent or greatness.

JB,
"its still the same principle. you can insult someone, or say you don't like them, list the reasons in terms that someone who doesn't agree with you finds objection to, and it still makes NO difference to your ability to respect someone's work"

We're just going to have to disagree on this one. I guess it's probably due to different definitions of 'respect' but no big deal.

Jewell,
I'm not sure who you are speaking of but in case it's me since I used the word 'insult' a couple of times, I was specifically referring to Tim who constantly insults Nadal and fans and in my personal opinion there is nothing 'respectful' about that.

I think it's fine that someone doesn't like a player yet respects the game. Happens quite a bit, doesn't it? I imagine Connors and Mac caused a few folks to hold those opinions. :)

Did Tim actually say he respects Rafa's game? I missed the post. I guess I would question Tim saying he respects Rafa's game though, considering the years of posts I've read. From backboard to moonball to winning only by opponents' errors, I've never sensed much respect for the game. Maybe he just meant he respects Rafa's results and his champion's mentality? That would make more sense.

Anyway, I'm not losing much sleep over it, as that would give Tim too much satisfaction. Hi, Tim! :)

@work - well, my guess is Tim was in a bit of a hurry and only meant to agree with the first bit, about Nadal's style turning him off. :) He is usually quite upfront about his opinions on Rafa's game, no?

People seemed to be referring to the content of thooz's post, which Tim quoted, as insulting. I really don't think it was.

And if Tim did mean to agree with the whole thing, well, hey, I'll take it as a compliment to Rafa and treasure it as a rare thing. ;-)

lol - i think he was respecting him as a champion and what he accomplishes with his game. results are undeniable - though he may hate to watch him.

Keep in mind Tim was greeing with another poster who came out with the original position of not liking rafa's game, demeanor etc but respecting him as a champion.

that was poo - poo'd - that you could dislike someone and still respect them. which i still think is entirely possible, as i just don't see them as being mutually exclusive, while others think they are.

*shrugs* like everything, just a different POV. which melds nicely with a discussion of favourites and how that colours one's perception. at least, imo its interesting. :)

"that you could dislike someone and still respect them. which i still think is entirely possible, as i just don't see them as being mutually exclusive, while others think they are"

Did someone say so? Maybe I missed it. Some people (incl. me) felt insults and respect are mutually exclusive. That's not the same thing at all.

He he, jb. As usual, you're right on. :)

tuulia - respect them as a champion, or respect them as good at their job. sorry - forgot a few words there, as i was continueing a previous thought.

insults are subjective; i can 'insult' a person by saying what i think about the things i dislike about them that may offend other people, but that in of itself has no bearing on how effective they can be at their job, nor does it impede my ability to recognize that effectiveness, nor my abilty to give them credit or respect for that job well done.

i'm surprised it seems such a foriegn concept, that personal dislike and respect for work done can co-exist. There are people i genuinely like, but am appalled at their work ethic. The converse is also true for me.

*yawn* i fear this is bordering on a comtose pony though - so think i'll go focus on muller's attempt to take down isner in his own backyard.

Do you often have these periods where you feel the need to explain yourself better?

I like it a lot better when you stick to writing about tennis than when you take us on one of your narcissistic balloon rides.