Watching Roger Federer likely to win in another grand slam makes me wonder if this is good for tennis. I like his game and his silky smooth style of play but he (like sampras) doesn't seem to have the personality to take the sport to the next level. He has only lost about 5 matches in the past year and a half and even the best of the best(roddick and hewitt) can't seem to beat him or most of the time be super competitive with him in head to head matchups. The women are very competitive and most have personalities that are good for the game or at least draw attention to the sport, the men's game is suffering right now. Any thoughts?
Does dominance in a sport appeal to you
- Thread starter guest301
- Start date
White Shogun
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 6,285
I don't know.. Tiger Woods recent dominance of golf the past few years sure didn't seem to hurt anyones enthusiasm for golf.
Maybe Federer is just the wrong color.
Maybe Federer is just the wrong color.
very funny!!!...but sadly you are right... and to be fair Tiger does have a personality..he gets noticeably angry on a golf course. That's why John Mcenroe and Jimmy Conners were so popular. Federer is quiet and goes about his business. Even a Bjorn Borg had a sort of cult of personality mysterious thing going on for him.
Repeating is a lot more difficult than winning a championship the first time so I've always liked dynasties and individuals who dominate. With the proliferation of the number of playoff teams in team sports and other measures to try to bring about parity (mediocrity is a better word for it), team dynasties are tougher than ever to put together.
Aragorn, I disagree with your characterization of Pete Sampras as not having "the personality to take the sport to the next level." I always considered him a great role model on and off the court. I'd much prefer him to the crotch-grabbing of Connors or the verbal assaults on linesmen by McEnroe. I think it's great that the antics of those two (and Ilia Nastasi) didn't become the norm in professional tennis. The young Agassi was a major jerk as well but has matured very nicely. The media under-publicized Sampras like it underpublicizes just about all white athletes, but that wasn't Pete's fault. He was a great champion, a class act all the way.
Aragorn, I disagree with your characterization of Pete Sampras as not having "the personality to take the sport to the next level." I always considered him a great role model on and off the court. I'd much prefer him to the crotch-grabbing of Connors or the verbal assaults on linesmen by McEnroe. I think it's great that the antics of those two (and Ilia Nastasi) didn't become the norm in professional tennis. The young Agassi was a major jerk as well but has matured very nicely. The media under-publicized Sampras like it underpublicizes just about all white athletes, but that wasn't Pete's fault. He was a great champion, a class act all the way.
white lightning
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2004
- Messages
- 20,835
You keep stealing my thoughts Don.Samprass was one of my favorite players of all time.He is a throwback in the way he handled himself.They wanted him to be more firey.I think he was just fine the way he was.Pete let his playing do the talking on the tennis court.SI did a article on him years ago and he could do a reverse slam with a basketball with ease.He was a incredible athlete.I admire him as I do Roger Federer.I get so sick and tired of most of the show off athletes these days.I don't mind a little bravado,but most take it too far.
I didn't say that Pete Sampras wasn't a class act and I also think he was a great"athlete". But I am right that he didn't take the sport to the next level. You are right that McEnroe and Connors behaved like jerks but they brought alot of fans to the sport. They are a kind of guilty pleasure for a sports fan..you miss them when they are gone but you are glad not every athlete acts that way. I also like McEnroe because he always considered it a high priority to play for his country on the davis cup team no matter how he was feeling or what tournament was going on at the time.
What "next level" should Sampras have taken tennis to? He played his own game at a rarified level that few if any others have. If he had been a Connors/McEnroe type, he would have received far more media attention. It's hardly Pete's fault that the media dislikes brilliant white athletes who are also impeccable role models.
I am just talking about levels of popularity that Conners and McEnroe took the game too with people talking about it at the water coolers at work the next day. You are right about it not being Petes's fault that the media didn't recognize his greatness and lift him up like they do other less than reputable black athletes. (Ray Lewis comes to mind).
Don Wassall said:
Exactly. To the media talking heads, morons like Chad Johnson have "personality." Screw that kind of "personality." Who needs it? Shouldn't we focus on the athletic ability of athletes, not the fluff that the media obsesses over? I'll take the quiet grace of Pete Sampras over the stupid antics of so many other athletes any day of the week.
And no, Tiger Woods does not have personality just because he gets angry out on the golf course. Give me a break. He's as stiff as a board.
And as for "taking it to the next level," you have to understand that only black athletes can do that now. Would Woods get 80 million dollars a year in endorsements, and be worshipped by the media, if he were white? Of course not. And would Federer be a more well known and celebrated athlete in America if he were black? I think you know the answer to that....
sport historian
Master
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2004
- Messages
- 2,954
The media dislike of what Don calls "brilliant white athletes who are also impeccable role models," started in the late 60's. Joe Namath was the prime example of the "New Breed," as they called it then. A slovenly appearance and obnoxious behavior was considered "authenticity."
GWTJ
Mentor
Anyone know for sure what Sampras's ancestry is. As Agassi once said, "he looks like he fell out of a tree".
He could have some Brazilian or something in him.
He could have some Brazilian or something in him.
"Sampras: I'm 75 percent Greek, 25 percent Jewish. My Dad's Jewish. My Mom was born and raised in Greece; she's 100 percent Greek. My Dad's mother was Jewish, but his father is Greek. That's where we got the Sampras name. A Greek Jew."
http://www.tennisserver.com/netgame/netgame_10_2_96.htmlEdited by: Don Wassall
http://www.tennisserver.com/netgame/netgame_10_2_96.htmlEdited by: Don Wassall
I haven't read any official figures about how many people play tennis these days and how many watch tournaments like the Australian Open on television, but my perception is that tennis became very popular in the '70s and into the '80s and then fell back into its traditional position as a minor sport in popularity.
Whether Connors and McEnroe caused that popularity surge or were the beneficiaries of it is hard to say. Probably some of both. It seemed to start with the emergence of Chris Evert -- who had a shy, undemonstrative personality to put it mildly -- but who was also attractive and feminine, a most pleasant contrast to arch-feminist/lesbian Billie Jean King. Evonne Goolagong, who was part white and part Australian aborigine, was also quite popular during her short heyday.
Bjorn Borg was like Evert in that he was very introverted, but he was almost as popular as Connors and McEnroe despite not being an American, especially among female tennis fans.
Despite all the media hype given the Williams sisters, tennis has sort of stayed at the same level of popularity for the past 20 years. Andre Agassi is very extroverted but there was no "going to the next level" during his long career either.
It may have been a "baby boomer" thing. Tennis is a great sport, but you have to be fit to play it. I was really into it myself during college and was a pretty good player. But once you hit middle age you have to be very dedicated to still be able to play decently. It's not a sport like golf that you can play your entire life. My guess is that as a lot of the people who began playing during tennis' popularity surge in the '70s and '80s stopped playing, the interest of many in following the pros waned as well.
Whether Connors and McEnroe caused that popularity surge or were the beneficiaries of it is hard to say. Probably some of both. It seemed to start with the emergence of Chris Evert -- who had a shy, undemonstrative personality to put it mildly -- but who was also attractive and feminine, a most pleasant contrast to arch-feminist/lesbian Billie Jean King. Evonne Goolagong, who was part white and part Australian aborigine, was also quite popular during her short heyday.
Bjorn Borg was like Evert in that he was very introverted, but he was almost as popular as Connors and McEnroe despite not being an American, especially among female tennis fans.
Despite all the media hype given the Williams sisters, tennis has sort of stayed at the same level of popularity for the past 20 years. Andre Agassi is very extroverted but there was no "going to the next level" during his long career either.
It may have been a "baby boomer" thing. Tennis is a great sport, but you have to be fit to play it. I was really into it myself during college and was a pretty good player. But once you hit middle age you have to be very dedicated to still be able to play decently. It's not a sport like golf that you can play your entire life. My guess is that as a lot of the people who began playing during tennis' popularity surge in the '70s and '80s stopped playing, the interest of many in following the pros waned as well.
GWTJ
Mentor
I've noticed that tennis is only popular during the Grand Slam events. American fans only seem to care about Wimbledon and the U.S.Open with the other 2 majors a little behind them. New Yorkers do go crazy for the U.S Open and will pack in 400,000 in a 2 week period.
But there is no TV coverage of any other tennis events. The German Open, the Family circle Cup, the Japan Open, the Thailand Open and a slew of others are pretty much unavailable to TV viewers. Even the players abuse the system by using these other tournaments only as tune ups for the Majors. A top seed will get a lot of money to enter a tournament, then get knocked out in the early rounds because they have fulfilled their obligation to the tournament sponsor. If the players don't care, why should we?
I think the men's game needs to be tweaked. Matches drag on forever. Three out of five is too long for today's "limited attention span" generation. That is why the women's game is so much more popular. A lot of matches are over in an hour.
I agree that tennis had more popular players in the 80's. I was a fan of all the American players but my favorite player from another country was Ivan Lendl. We used to joke that before the match they would give him a quart of oil and send him out. We figured that his coach had a remote control with him that had commands such as smile, wave, "pick up towel and wipe face" and "grab trophy and hold over head".
I don't believe the Williams sisters were good for tennis at all. In fact, tennis probably lost a lot of viewers who didn't like their dad's antics and racist remarks. They were a novelty act for a couple of years but as soon as the public saw them take the money and run, they lost whatever popularity they may have had. Only the media pays attention to them now. If a talented white American female had come along they would have been forgotten instantly. Look how fast the fans embraced Jennifer Capriati during her comeback. Didn't Venus Williams get booed unmercifully and cry after her match with Jennifer.
Tennis doesn't seem to have a very big niche in the TV market but what niche it does have seems pretty secure.
But there is no TV coverage of any other tennis events. The German Open, the Family circle Cup, the Japan Open, the Thailand Open and a slew of others are pretty much unavailable to TV viewers. Even the players abuse the system by using these other tournaments only as tune ups for the Majors. A top seed will get a lot of money to enter a tournament, then get knocked out in the early rounds because they have fulfilled their obligation to the tournament sponsor. If the players don't care, why should we?
I think the men's game needs to be tweaked. Matches drag on forever. Three out of five is too long for today's "limited attention span" generation. That is why the women's game is so much more popular. A lot of matches are over in an hour.
I agree that tennis had more popular players in the 80's. I was a fan of all the American players but my favorite player from another country was Ivan Lendl. We used to joke that before the match they would give him a quart of oil and send him out. We figured that his coach had a remote control with him that had commands such as smile, wave, "pick up towel and wipe face" and "grab trophy and hold over head".
I don't believe the Williams sisters were good for tennis at all. In fact, tennis probably lost a lot of viewers who didn't like their dad's antics and racist remarks. They were a novelty act for a couple of years but as soon as the public saw them take the money and run, they lost whatever popularity they may have had. Only the media pays attention to them now. If a talented white American female had come along they would have been forgotten instantly. Look how fast the fans embraced Jennifer Capriati during her comeback. Didn't Venus Williams get booed unmercifully and cry after her match with Jennifer.
Tennis doesn't seem to have a very big niche in the TV market but what niche it does have seems pretty secure.
sport historian
Master
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2004
- Messages
- 2,954
I remember watching a pro football game on CBS around 1974. The announcers were doing a promo for an upcoming tennis match which CBS was carrying. One of the announcers remarked, "It's amazing how popular that sport has gotten," or words to that effect.
Players like Connors and McEnroe were household names during the 70's, and Bjorn Borg became very famous. It has fallen back somewhat into a "niche" sport. The Williams sisters wereexpected to "take it to another level" as Tiger Woods was supposedly doing in golf.
Players like Connors and McEnroe were household names during the 70's, and Bjorn Borg became very famous. It has fallen back somewhat into a "niche" sport. The Williams sisters wereexpected to "take it to another level" as Tiger Woods was supposedly doing in golf.
Quiet Speed
Mentor
I've been trying to figure how Roger's dominance could be a positive for tennis? If he should win the French Open and that is a big if - there's always a couple of clay court specialist who get on a roll about that time - but if he wins, that sets up things very nicely for tennis. There will be a lot of buzz heading into Wimbledon. If he takes Wimbledon, watch out. Can you imagine the atmosphere at the US Open? I don't know if that will translate into a big jump in popularity, you would think there would be a bump in spectators and viewers somehow.
I wonder how much the move to racquets geared to power tennis has hurt the game. There are times when I don't find bang bang tennis very compelling and that's saying something.
I wonder how much the move to racquets geared to power tennis has hurt the game. There are times when I don't find bang bang tennis very compelling and that's saying something.
I enjoyed Sampras' quiet demeanor on the court. He let his rauqet
do the talking. The only thing I hold against him is that I think
he relied too much on his power serve. He was clearly more
effective on grass than on any other surface. His failure
to have won the French is, to me, a fairly large hole on
his otherwise stellar resume'. Say what you will but if you can
win on all three surfaces you are a very complete player. Now
before you say it, no, I don't think Agassi is better than Sampras just
because Andre won a career Grand Slam but I do however consider him to
be a more accomplished player.
do the talking. The only thing I hold against him is that I think
he relied too much on his power serve. He was clearly more
effective on grass than on any other surface. His failure
to have won the French is, to me, a fairly large hole on
his otherwise stellar resume'. Say what you will but if you can
win on all three surfaces you are a very complete player. Now
before you say it, no, I don't think Agassi is better than Sampras just
because Andre won a career Grand Slam but I do however consider him to
be a more accomplished player.
I think the decline in Tennis was in large part due to the change from wooden rackets to high powered composite rackets. Power was in and the grace and strategy of the game went out the window. The game just isn't as fun to watch as it once was. Bjorg and McEnroe have also pointed this out and have lobbied for a return to wooden rackets, but too much money is being made by Racket companies to change now - they won't have it.