In both sports over the past twenty years or so we’ve seen technology pretty much revolutionize both sports. High-tech rackets allow players to hit the ball much harder, and with more spin, than before. Souped-up golf clubs and state-of-the-art golf balls let male pros routinely blast 300+ yard drives (and the women aren’t any slouches either). Nobody uses wooden implements anymore.
This has had the result of
Tennis almost completely losing the serve-and-volley style of play, because the other player can impart sufficient velocity to blast passing shots by the volleyer enough times to not make it worthwhile, and
In golf many courses have either been made obsolete or been forced to lengthen and redesign their holes, often (tho not always) losing the original flavor of the course in question, in order to lessen the impact of stratospheric drives.
The obvious question is why the governing bodies of both sports have basically stood by and allowed technology to take over both games, greatly distorting both. We lose an alternate style of play which would add to the richness of both sports, allowing players utilizing these different styles to successfully compete (note how much less worn the center net portion of the Wimbledon courts are now from how they typically looked just 10 years ago-never mind 20). In golf the short straight hitter has suffered comparatively as drives overall have lengthened (and some club designs actually help keep the drives straighter). So why did the PTB’s let the manufacturers get away with it? I know in the case of the USGA/R & A that they use robots to test clubs with-why not say that a club with a coefficient of restitution exceeding X/intial velocity of the ball of the clubhead above Y MPH are illegal?
I don’t know where you got this idea from, but serve and volleying has hardly been lost. Pete Sampras was an almost prototypical serve-and-volley guy, and Federer plays a mostly serve-and-volley style on grass and hard courts.
Well, the obvious answer would be that neither sport has seen a dramatic decline in viewership or attendance. The “powers that be” are really only interested in whether the sport is making money, not on any sort of aesthetic purity.
It also helps that both sports have had transcendent stars (at least on the men’s side) over the last few years - that helps keep interest up.
Golf scores have not lowered. The best scores in tournies are often from quite a while ago. In some cases the courses have been toughened but in many they have not. Nor do I see a bunch of people breaking 60. There have been some improvements in clubs and balls. But it is mostly smoke and mirrors.
Because it’s true. There are essentially no serve-and-volley players left. Sampras did do it, especially later in his career, but Federer does not. Supposedly Sampras has quizzed him about why he doesn’t play that style when he has the skills to do so, and Federer’s response was “I don’t have to.” It’s a high-risk, high-reward style to begin with, and when racquet techology has made it that much easier to return serve, it’s harder and less of an advantage.
But to turn the OP around, why would the governing bodies reign in the technology? Do you think tennis fans are clamoring to watch games with metal or wooden racquets, John DiFool? Do you think the players are dying to use them, at either the professional or club level? I learned to play on a metal racquet and have played with different kinds of composites since then, and what I’ve got now (a version of Federer’s, although it’s a few years old) is by far the best and also the easiest to use. There’s not much point in deliberately making your sport less enjoyable. It’s true that serve and volley is fun to watch, but I think it’s mostly purists who are really hung up on this. The fans adjust to the game as it exists. And even modern fans complain about “serving contests,” which would probably increase if the technology was scaled back.
And lest we forget, serve-and-volley could get mighty monotonous in its own right, as any tactic can when it becomes over-powered. We went through a phase where serve was over-powered, and that was very boring indeed; similarly, a phase of “stand and deliver” baseline tactics weren’t particularly edifying. IMO we’re presently in a period when a decent all-round game is rewarded, which to my mind is a good thing. Occasionaly freaks like Karlovic prosper, but by and large to get to the top you need a multi-dimensional game these days.
Serve-and-volley may no longer be viable as a regular tactic, but it’s not as if we’re deprived of net play; it just requires a better approach technique. Tennis looks great at the moment, in my opinion.
John McEnroe has given his opinion that they should return to wooden racquets in tennis. However, he knows it won’t happen.
I actually half-agree with the idea. However, Roger and Rafael Nadal have shown just how entertaining players can be with the modern racqets, so I guess it is moot.
Yes serve and volley on grass got quite boring in the late 90’s; when you had Sampras playing Ivanisevic at Wimbledon for example. In general I don’t think a style where you follow the same tactic on every single serving point is necessarily that interesting compared to one where you mix it up according to the situation. Similarly the long,slow clay rallies of the 1980’s weren’t always that fun either. Sometimes greater power does make for more interesting tennis.
Not necessarily wooden rackets, but ones which don’t provide an excess of “oomph” to the ball. Yes the bigger heads have been a boon for the more casual player, making it easier for him (her) to enjoy the game, but the high technology frames and strings and such have made power the primary component of one’s game if you are a pro.
And it’s more the clash of contrasting styles that I find appealing. What made Borg vs. Mac, Pete vs. Andre, Chrissie vs. Martina so enjoyable was the baseliner vs. the volleyer, crashing the net at every opportunity vs. staying back and trying to pass. When everyone pretty much plays the same game, uses the same strategies, if there is only One True Path to Victory, a lot of the variety, and hence the appeal, of tennis gets lost (to me personally if not others).
Same thing in golf-yes some shorter hitters have managed to hang in there and win some, but you pretty much have to bomb it to be able to contend, and that can make for boring golf. I’ll admit that I haven’t seen any sort of study comparing then to now-I am about to see what the average drive of all PGA winners are this year, and get back here when I’m done.
I disagree. Of the current top three, not even Nadal could reasonably be described as a pure power player (although obviously it’s a huge attribute), while Federer is the embodiment of finesse and Murray thrives on taking all pace off the ball as much as possible. It’s hard to square their success with an insistence that power dominates the modern game (and still less with a claim that every top player is the same these days). Were power truly the overriding factor, limited but powerful players like Roddick wouldn’t have gone without a major win for six years.
Sure, current players can put an incredible amount of work on the ball, but isn’t that a skill in itself? Would you really have us forgo last year’s Wimbledon final in search of better? Is better than that even possible?
With regards to golf equipment, higher technology has actually reduced the advantage of the long hitters, by making everyone a long hitter. Driving 290 when the average is 260 is a greater advantage than driving 320 when the average is 290. Similarly, the new balls have allowed the combination of distance and control that people always thought was impossible (for the majority of players). This is a lesser advantage for the Tiger’s of this world, who were capable of combining the two already.
Dial the clock back to old technology, and you will see the game more dominated by a small number of individuals. I don’t know tennis technology well enough to comment.
I think this is an interesting topic. And I don’t know what the stats are, but I know that driving the ball 300+ yards is of little use unless it rolls down the fairway. If I were designing a course today, I think I would design its fairways to curve slightly — some draws and some fades. More trees. Wide areas that allow for conservative play, along with small sweet spots that reward risky play. More water. Undulating greens with holes on mounds. In other words, the point would be to minimize the importance of distance and increase the importance of accuracy. Players like Tiger often drive into the rough, or even into the trees, and then rescue themselves with “miracle” second shots. I’d like to see players have to change up their stances or grips more often on more holes. And sand traps? Useless. I’ve seen too many shots from the trap to the hole. I’d replace them with patches of rough or water. Maybe some sand traps on the fairway, but not around the green.
To a large extent, Liberal, that is how courses are designed.
As to the sand traps vs water issue, you have to remember as well that courses aren’t solely for PGA tournaments or PGA level players. They have to be attractive to lower level players as well. They can be made harder temporarily for the tournaments via shifting tee position, hole location, narrowing fairways etc, but making them “permanently” hard isn’t so much of an option. Sand traps can be a brutal obstacle, but also can reward good escape play. Give me that over water which negates the chance of recovery.
So you don’t mourn the death of the baseliner vs. volleyer matchup in the quarters on of a major? Look, I don’t deny that there can still be exciting tennis, and nor do I claim that “every player is the same.” Of course finesse and accuracy still are important skills, but I’d just like to see a little more diversity 'tis all, and I do bemoan the seeming death of the more or less pure volleyer, like Sampras or Rafter (or Novotna), whether you (sample size of one) consider this an significant development in the history of the game or not.
The PGA has a stats page, for those interested. There I’m more concerned with how all the extra power has caused many courses to become obsolete-they’re going back to Merion for the US Open in a few years, after being dropped from the (loose) rotation for close to 30 years, after it managed to find some room to expand some holes. Even Pebble Beach is having to make several holes longer, in preparation for their hosting of the tournament next year.
Several “short” hitters have indeed won this year, including Brian Gay twice, he of the 192nd rank in driving distance, 268.2 yards average. That distance would have been top 15 29 years ago, by the way. villa does make a good point about the spread (in percentage terms at least) being a bit smaller.
While I don’t know if you will ever see a pure volleyer again, I think the all power, all baseline game is already starting to fade. I think one of the reasons Federer was able to dominate for so long is because he does play more of an all court, finesse game. The other players are starting to work on developing more finesse in their games as well.
I noticed in both the French and Wimbledon, lots more slicing, lots more drop shots and a bit more net play. Baseline bashing topspin isn’t ever going to completely go away, its just fun to see some more all court play creeping back in.
There’s a lot of interesting stats on the PGA Tour page linked above, but consider this:
This year, the 37 longest drives are all 400 plus yards, and we’re only about 60% through the season. Five years ago, the 32 longest drives were 400 plus. Ten years ago, there was one drive over 400 yards… and there aren’t any recorded 400 yard drives from 1992 to 1997.