# 4 tennis questions **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 27, 2001, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4-tennis-questions/70293 "2001-06-27T06:47:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![DKW](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dkw/32/3118_2.png) [@DKW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DKW)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2001, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4-tennis-questions/70293/1 "2001-06-27T06:47:21Z")
Now that Wimbledon’s underway, just thought I’d get a few questions off my chest. 1. What exactly constutes a “golden set”? I read somewhere that it was winning a set without giving up a single point, but 24 straight points? Even hopelessly overmatched players can manage a single point. Has there ever been an actual set of this kind in professional play? 2. One website…ESPN’s, I believe…claimed that Wimbledon’s surface is “antiquated” and produces “strange bounces”. Subjective matter, I suppose, but wouldn’t clay be even more so? It produces its share of unusual bounces, plus it’s the only surface that sticks to the ball. What would constitute an “up to date” surface, anyway? 3. I can understand having to win a set by two (or a tiebreak), but why does every game have to be won by at least two? IMHO, the most boring thing about this game is a deuce ware that just goes on and on. I suppose it’s to prevent bare or “fluke” games, but these should even out over the course of a match anyway. 4. Why is zero “love”? I don’t care about what the word actually means (I’ve heard several conflicting explanations), but I find it strange that a strictly regional custom (i.e. France) is being used in an international sport. A home run isn’t officially called a “dinger” and a spike that lands in isn’t a “rip”, so why should tennis have an exception? ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2001, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4-tennis-questions/70293/2 "2001-06-27T14:24:55Z")
The most common explanation for the origin of “love” is that a zero looks like an egg. Americans sometimes call a zero a “goose egg,” right?. Well, the French called a zero “l’oeuf,” which means “the egg.” As for why that French idiom should have become a standard phrase among tennis players all over the world, well, why not? Every sport in which there’s international competition adopts a certain standard set of phrases. Sergio Garcia is a Spaniard, Bernhard Langer is a German, Jesper PArnevik is a Swede, but they all use words like “bogey” and “birdie,” that don’t mean anything in their native tongues. Once a word or phrase becomes standard in a sport, it’s difficult to dislodge. ---
**Author:** ![Man\_from\_Mars](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Man\_from\_Mars](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Man_from_Mars)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2001, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4-tennis-questions/70293/3 "2001-06-27T18:08:47Z")
DKW, on your third point, I tend to agree. I guess it’s supposed to be exciting seeing two players going back and forth between ad and deuce but to me, it’s more often boring. There would be more excitement if, at deuce, the next point wins the game. Perhaps the win by two points rule could be used in the later games of a set whereas the first five or six games or determined by first to four. But on second thought, particularly nowadays with such powerful serves, perhaps that rule is necessary since too often a deuce could be nothing more than a prelude to a win for the server. Your second point is one person’s personal opinion (not unlike this post). Nothing concrete really. ---
**Author:** ![barbitu8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@barbitu8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barbitu8)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2001, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4-tennis-questions/70293/4 "2001-06-27T18:22:41Z")
(1) A golden set is what you said it is, and I believe that it has occurred at least once in professional play, but I don’t remember the combatants. (2) Yes, clay produces more bad bounces, but that doesn’t mean Wimbledon can’t produce a bad bounce. The grass is like a putting green. (3) “No ad” scoring has been widely adopted, but not professionally. It is used in colleges, I believe. We use no ad scoring when time is a factor. In no ad scoring, the progression is not 15, 30, 40, and game, but 1, 2, 3, and game with no possibility of deuces and advantages. If the score is 3-all, the receiving team (in doubles) has the option of which player can receive the serve. (4) Has already been answered. “L’oeuf” is French for the egg. A zero is a goose egg. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2001, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4-tennis-questions/70293/5 "2001-06-27T23:12:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DKW \* > **4. Why is zero "love?** The master wrote: > [@](#): > > There’s a common misconception that the equally puzzling “love,” or zero, derives from the French l’oeuf, “egg,” or, by extension, goose-egg or zero. Actually, it comes from the idea of playing for love, rather than money–the implication being that one who scores zero consistently can only be motivated by a true love the game. link: [http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1\_304a.html](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_304a.html) ---
**Author:** ![upperdeckfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/65b543/32.png) [@upperdeckfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/upperdeckfan)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2001, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4-tennis-questions/70293/6 "2001-06-27T23:56:10Z")
In regard to the comments about powerful serves, I’ve heard some talk that the USTA has considered allowing only 1 serve per point in match play for men’s tennis (instead of allowing a fault serve.) Is this more “lets go back to wooden rackets only” talk, or is there any substance to this? ---
**Author:** ![barbitu8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@barbitu8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barbitu8)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2001, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4-tennis-questions/70293/7 "2001-06-28T00:17:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by DKW \* > > **4. Why is zero "love?** > > The master wrote: > > > [@](#): > > > > There’s a common misconception that the equally puzzling “love,” or zero, derives from the French l’oeuf, “egg,” or, by extension, goose-egg or zero. Actually, it comes from the idea of playing for love, rather than money–the implication being that one who scores zero consistently can only be motivated by a true love the game. > > link: [http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1\_304a.html](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_304a.html) \*\* That’s bullshit. It derives from l’oeuf. ---
**Author:** ![barbitu8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@barbitu8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barbitu8)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2001, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4-tennis-questions/70293/8 "2001-06-28T00:38:27Z")
[url=“[http://web.ukonline.co.uk/james.masters/TraditionalGames/Tennis.htm](http://web.ukonline.co.uk/james.masters/TraditionalGames/Tennis.htm)” This site gives a good history of the game and gives a third etiology: for the honor of the game. ---
**Author:** ![barbitu8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@barbitu8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barbitu8)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2001, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4-tennis-questions/70293/9 "2001-06-28T00:40:05Z")
Well, that didn’t work. Click on this: [http://web.ukonline.co.uk/james.masters/TraditionalGames/Tennis.htm](http://web.ukonline.co.uk/james.masters/TraditionalGames/Tennis.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Snooooopy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee7513/32.png) [@Snooooopy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snooooopy)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2001, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4-tennis-questions/70293/10 "2001-06-28T01:49:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by barbitu8 \* > \*\*(3) “No ad” scoring has been widely adopted, but not professionally. It is used in colleges, I believe. We use no ad scoring when time is a factor. In no ad scoring, the progression is not 15, 30, 40, and game, but 1, 2, 3, and game with no possibility of deuces and advantages. If the score is 3-all, the receiving team (in doubles) has the option of which player can receive the serve. > \*\* I covered quite a bit of Stanford University tennis this year, and they didn’t use no ad scoring. Some of the high schools in the area use it, though. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2001, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4-tennis-questions/70293/11 "2001-06-28T02:23:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by barbitu8 \* > \*\*That’s bullshit. It derives from l’oeuf. \*\* Evidence? ---
**Author:** ![minlokwat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/minlokwat/32/2844_2.png) [@minlokwat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minlokwat)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2001, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4-tennis-questions/70293/12 "2001-06-28T03:05:37Z")
1. I don’t think a “golden set” is any more improbable than a pitcher throwing a perfect game. Certainly in non-grand-slam tournaments, I can see a top ranked player, squaring off against a relative no-name who might be playing in his/her first professional tourney and completely waxing them without giving up a point. I agree it doesn’t happen often but definitely seems within the realm of possibility. I have seen players win a game with four straight service aces (Boris Becker did this to Ilie Nastase one time) but I realize this is a bit different. 1. As for “up-to-date” surfaces, probably the hard courts used in the U.S. and Australian Opens could be described as the most neutral surface between grass and clay. On clay, serve-and-volleyers with big serves have the advantage whereas on clay it is the baseliners who can slug it out for hours who reign supreme. The hard courts offer the players of various styles to compete and it is for this reason that they produce the most varied champions. 2. The win-by-two has simply always the way it has been with tennis as well as volleyball for that matter. Most agree that the best players are revealed during the deuce points. They have to put two consecutive points together and the pressure can certainly add up. (No pun intended.) Yes, many high schools and local tournaments use no-ad and this does speed things up considerably and one would argue, creates the same pressure situation but I guess tradition simply wins out. It is for this reason that I don’t think they will drop the let serve which many find an equally tedious, needlessly time-consuming aspect of the game. As for question 4, obviously the jury is still out and I don’t presume I can settle matters here. Lastly, remember tennis is a game with many advantages despite its few faults and that’s why it is still my racket. Horrible I know. So sue me. ---
**Author:** ![minlokwat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/minlokwat/32/2844_2.png) [@minlokwat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minlokwat)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2001, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4-tennis-questions/70293/13 "2001-06-28T03:53:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minlokwat \* > \*\*2. On clay, serve-and-volleyers with big serves have the advantage whereas on clay it is the baseliners who can slug it out for hours who reign supreme. > \*\* Ahem. Should read "on **grass** serve-and-volleyers with big blah, blah, blah. First sentence of number 3 is mangled as well but for now, to hell with it. ---
**Author:** ![Snooooopy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee7513/32.png) [@Snooooopy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snooooopy)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2001, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4-tennis-questions/70293/14 "2001-06-28T05:30:35Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by minlokwat \* \*\* > [@](#): > > It is for this reason that I don’t think they will drop the let serve which many find an equally tedious, needlessly time-consuming aspect of the game. > \*\* In collegiate men’s tennis, a let serve that lands fair must be returned. Don’t think the women have adopted that, though. ---
**Author:** ![puk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ea5d25/32.png) [@puk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puk)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2001, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4-tennis-questions/70293/15 "2001-06-28T06:53:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Snooooopy \* > In collegiate men’s tennis, a let serve that lands fair must be returned. Don’t think the women have adopted that, though. \*\* doesn’t a let serve allways land fair? If it didn’t, it wouldn’t be a let, would it? ---
**Author:** ![warmgun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecccb3/32.png) [@warmgun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/warmgun)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2001, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4-tennis-questions/70293/16 "2001-06-28T07:04:46Z")
To december,I would ask the same of Cecil. As to what would constitute an ‘up to date’ surface, I’ve played a lot of tennis and I should think any sort of artificial surface with properties of grass and clay could be formulated - like Astroturf for football. I realize that tennis is a romantic game and purist will never allow it. But it’s not that far from what they do now. Think computer designed shoes, balls and, jeez, the weapons that pass for raquets. The best thing I ever swung was a small,wooden (loose[by todays standards]for’english’)Slazenger. THAT was tennis… ---
**Author:** ![Snooooopy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee7513/32.png) [@Snooooopy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snooooopy)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2001, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4-tennis-questions/70293/17 "2001-06-28T07:19:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by puk \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Snooooopy \* > > In collegiate men’s tennis, a let serve that lands fair must be returned. Don’t think the women have adopted that, though. \*\* > > doesn’t a let serve allways land fair? If it didn’t, it wouldn’t be a let, would it? \*\* It could clip the net and then bounce into the alley. ---
**Author:** ![barbitu8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@barbitu8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barbitu8)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2001, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4-tennis-questions/70293/18 "2001-06-28T15:02:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Snooooopy \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by puk \* > > \*\* > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > \*Originally posted by Snooooopy \* > > > In collegiate men’s tennis, a let serve that lands fair must be returned. Don’t think the women have adopted that, though. \*\* > > > > doesn’t a let serve allways land fair? If it didn’t, it wouldn’t be a let, would it? \*\* > > It could clip the net and then bounce into the alley. \*\* Then it’s not a let, but a fault. As to the etiology of “love,” a search reveals that no one knows for sure. See my previous link. Cecil’s column is what many of the search links indicate as a possible etiology, but to me that’s ridiculous. Because you haven’t scored, doesn’t mean that you’re just playing for the love of the game. We all, non-professionals, play for the love of the game. The “noble” aspect sounds better, but the derivation from the French “egg” is the most plausible to my mind. ---
**Author:** ![DKW](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dkw/32/3118_2.png) [@DKW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DKW)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2001, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4-tennis-questions/70293/19 "2001-06-28T17:07:18Z")
astorian - Thanks for your insight. Still, it never fails to unnerve me that such an incredibly emotionally loaded term (which “birdie” and “bogey” certainly aren’t) would be used for the most common score in the sport. Don’t get me started on the horrible jokes. barbitu8 - I believe that rally scoring in volleyball (i.e. serve _and_ point for a “side out”) originated in colleges as well. Makes sense to me. The 3-all doubles rule sounds interesting. minlokwat - There’s a difference…there are no “games” in volleyball. Or rather there are, but they’re the equivalent of the sets in tennis. Thus winning by two comes into play once per game, not six or more times per set as in tennis. I know that a tight deuce war builds pressure, but wouldn’t a close fight for the _set_…i.e., both players exchanging games, neither one pulling ahead…due the same _and_ advance the match instead of leaving it stuck in neutral? Ah well…this is tennis, the sport were nothing ever changes, so your explanation will have to do. Re. the let rule: The thing _I_ could never understand is why when the ball hits the top of the net and lands in the box, the serve doesn’t count, but if it lands outside the box, it’s a fault. This has always struck me as unfair. But I’ll dismiss it as one of the quirks of the sport. There do seem to be quite a few. ---
**Author:** ![BobT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e8cbc/32.png) [@BobT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobT)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2001, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/4-tennis-questions/70293/20 "2001-06-28T17:18:19Z")
I would inteject that volleyball’s practice of winning a game by two points is necessary because it is much harder for the serving side to win a point than the receiving side. So a team that wins by two has had to work a little bit harder than the other to win the game. This was even more so under side out scoring. The evolution of rally scoring in volleyball is a bit hard to trace as both U.S. collegiate and international volleyball adopted some form of it. From this site, [http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A521975](http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A521975) it looks like the international game adopted rally scoring for fifth games in 1989. In 1998 rally scoring was used for all games. The NCAA didn’t adopt that rule for men until this year.