It’s fascinating how MMV. I see the long, high-powered but tactical rallies of today’s tennis as absolutely gripping, sensational entertainment. (If we were talking about women’s “moonball” tennis in the ‘70s, that might be different.)
I actually felt in the 1990s we seemed to be evolving toward a troubling trend of men’s tennis being dominated by tall, fast-serving Terminator types, with short points and service games rarely being broken. There are still vestiges of that today (John Isner being my least favorite player for precisely that reason), but I’m very thankful the pendulum switched back for the most part.
Although I still think tennis would benefit from a complete change in its scoring system so there are fewer points that don’t really matter (for instance, in a men’s tennis match the result of a rally at 40-0, or even 40-15 or 30-0, will have very little correlation with the ultimate outcome of the match).
You didn’t ask me, but I’ll still answer:
No. You cannot draw caricatures of nonwhite people without it coming across very badly. Which is actually, surprise surprise, a double standard I agree with. Although maybe we should dispense with the double standard by creating a new social norm that caricature is generally seen as bad form, even with white people as subjects.
It’s an appealing art form in some ways, and one that tells us something about human perception and psychology. But on the whole, it’s just not worth it.
ETA: Years ago, I coached a guy who played at the very bottom tier of the ATP Tour. One day he tried goofing around with a T-2000 I had picked up for five bucks at a yard sale. I could never do much with the tiny sweet spot, but he hit laser winners with the thing! It was incredible. He actually contemplated using it in serious competition.