What's Wrong With Aces? ...I'll tell you what!

It is fair to say the large majority of tennis fans do not wish to see a match decided by an ace fest! The tennis establishment has taken that on board and has done its best to reduce the spremacy of great servers we used to have in the 90s.

Why? When you think about it golf has plenty of fans and it also consists of one short swing after another...yet fans dont get bored by it. Both sports need in theory huge talent to execute the perfect swing. In both cases, the swing or move to hit the ball is about 2 seconds. It might be slightly shorter or longer but it is negligeable.  Both require different swings to achieve success. It could be a drive or a put or in tennis you have many types of serves Kick, flat, sliced, directions, etc...and in both cases, the player can't do anything once the ball has left his racquet or club.

So again why are people allergic to aces yet rush to watch similar swings in another sport? Caus ein fact I coudl say the same of cricket, where you wait for hours to watch a good swing, or baseball and so on.

The main problem with aces is that the beauty of the serve ends with it! Once the ball is hit the point is decided a few milliseconds later.  fans expect a story after it but no. It's just end of it and we need to refocus on the next point.
In golf, the swing is just the beginning. Not many people can tell whether the swing will bring a great shot or not. One has to wait and follow the ball for, sometimes, 10 seconds or more so, it is a much longer process which is going to tell us how good the swing itself was. It's the where the ball ges and how it gets there which validate the beauty of the swing.

The other problem people have with aces is that it is very physically related. Though a normal sized tennis player needs talent to produces great serves, a tall player needs much less talent to produce one. Whereas in golf, it doesn't matter how tall you are. It's not nearly as helping. Having said that recently McIlroy suspects doping is going on in golf too and wished more testing was going on. However in golf fitness has a much lesser impact.

So was the tennis institution right to limit the impact of big servers on the tour? I think yes. It's just a shame that this came at the same time string technology evolved as it completed reversed the trend and now we can't see any talented player have a chance to win a slam. Variety at the end is dead. Murray and Djoko's tennis is simply the winning one.

With professional tennis it is always going to be a thin balance, a difficult one to get right, as it needs to evolve with players skills.

Ah a golf and tennis comparative. I would disagree right now with the concept golf doesn't require high levels of fitness. It does. Courses are getting longer and longer where they are trying to take out the power advantage of long hitters. Look at Tiger Woods. Finished by 2008!

For example the tee shot is like the ace. A more powerful effort on both shots leads to a more advantageous position. However, some argue that a big serve or a big hitter off the tee will be dominate which is simply not the case. I'd take 2 examples. Isner and Holmes from tennis and golf respectively. Big hitters off the serve and tee, yet the other mechanics which are important, like a solid BH or Putting evades them and despite one element being really strong, the rest is less than average.

When I hear the term serve fest, I think each point is an ace ace ace and ace. A good server for me is able to provide different serves and not just hammer the fluff off the ball. Slice serving or just placement of the serve is an art in itself.

Tiger Woods's golf swing knackered his back completely as all the power in the swing motion was derived from the back. He tried changing his swing over the years and as a result had to forgo power. Today's players have many luxuries that the generation before never. Titanium club faces, graphite shafts, greater putting control. All makes the game forgiving. 

Golf has a luxury of many different venues for its Majors. As a result they can massage conditions to prevent a Nicklaus or Woods esq dominance occurring. 

I think tennis needs limits on the technology.

I think serve is the most complex shot in tennis and the one where talent helps most, too.

From that point of view, if someone can win serving aces, good luck to him.

Having said that, strings have killed the role of talent. Both in serving as well as the rest...

So...is it time to change something to curb the effect spin has in modern tennis like they did years ago to slow big servers?

We know it is....but how long before that knowledge reaches minds of those who can do something about it?

And do they actually want to do anything in the first place?

They did make an effort to co trol ti e between the points after that ridiculous 6 hour AO12 final...what needs to happen for the balls to become faster?

noleisthebest wrote:I think serve is the most complex shot in tennis and the one where talent helps most, too.

It can be complex, but as Tenez said it's hugely related to height. Nishikori can have all the talent in the world, but he will never have Raonic's serve.

DONALD TRUMP wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:I think serve is the most complex shot in tennis and the one where talent helps most, too.

It can be complex, but as Tenez said it's hugely related to height. Nishikori can have all the talent in the world, but he will never have Raonic's serve.

Interesting you mention Nishikori and Raonic, because neither are a good example of what you were trying to say.

Raonic's serve is not that great. He does have an element of talent in it as he times it well, but his variation is poor.
Main reason is his extreme tenseness. And I don't think that will change in a hurry.

His serve as is much physical as it is timed. Works most of the time but not when it matters - under pressure.

If you wanted a tall player example - Isner and Karlovic would be better. Or Brown and Kyrgios.

There are quite a few players that are tall but have comparatively poor serves: eg Delpo.

As for Nishikori...he is a very interesting case. His natural talent is unquestionable, and it's a reall mystery how he is  not able to use that exceptional talent in his serving - which is very average as it relies in a learnt technique, nota  natural motion he could easily have.

The only three players I can think of that use their talent in all their shots (serve and groundstrkes) are Federer, Mannarino and Serena Williams.

legendkillar wrote:Ah a golf and tennis comparative. I would disagree right now with the concept golf doesn't require high levels of fitness. It does. Courses are getting longer and longer where they are trying to take out the power advantage of long hitters. Look at Tiger Woods. Finished by 2008!

For example the tee shot is like the ace. A more powerful effort on both shots leads to a more advantageous position. However, some argue that a big serve or a big hitter off the tee will be dominate which is simply not the case. I'd take 2 examples. Isner and Holmes from tennis and golf respectively. Big hitters off the serve and tee, yet the other mechanics which are important, like a solid BH or Putting evades them and despite one element being really strong, the rest is less than average.

When I hear the term serve fest, I think each point is an ace ace ace and ace. A good server for me is able to provide different serves and not just hammer the fluff off the ball. Slice serving or just placement of the serve is an art in itself.

Tiger Woods's golf swing knackered his back completely as all the power in the swing motion was derived from the back. He tried changing his swing over the years and as a result had to forgo power. Today's players have many luxuries that the generation before never. Titanium club faces, graphite shafts, greater putting control. All makes the game forgiving. 

Golf has a luxury of many different venues for its Majors. As a result they can massage conditions to prevent a Nicklaus or Woods esq dominance occurring. 

I think tennis needs limits on the technology.

LK, Mickelson is certainly not a physical beast. Of course fitness plays more and more role in golf but it doesn't decide a slam winner yet. Tall players have a huge advantage on a tennis court than golfers haven;t. It's as simple as that.

I am ok with technology as it can create a better tennis...and it can always be counter balanced by modifying balls or courts.

noleisthebest wrote:I think serve is the most complex shot in tennis and the one where talent helps most, too.

From that point of view, if someone can win serving aces, good luck to him.

yes but a tall player gets a real advantage without being particularly talented. Raonic is the best example.

Now with faster balls, those guys woudl be nearly unstoppable.

So what do you suggest, capping racquet heads to 85"?

"With professional tennis it is always going to be a thin balance, a difficult one to get right, as it needs to evolve with players skills."

how much more can the game evolve?
i get the feeling that it has hit a brick wall with the doping and running game..i mean where do you go from there??

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Ah a golf and tennis comparative. I would disagree right now with the concept golf doesn't require high levels of fitness. It does. Courses are getting longer and longer where they are trying to take out the power advantage of long hitters. Look at Tiger Woods. Finished by 2008!

For example the tee shot is like the ace. A more powerful effort on both shots leads to a more advantageous position. However, some argue that a big serve or a big hitter off the tee will be dominate which is simply not the case. I'd take 2 examples. Isner and Holmes from tennis and golf respectively. Big hitters off the serve and tee, yet the other mechanics which are important, like a solid BH or Putting evades them and despite one element being really strong, the rest is less than average.

When I hear the term serve fest, I think each point is an ace ace ace and ace. A good server for me is able to provide different serves and not just hammer the fluff off the ball. Slice serving or just placement of the serve is an art in itself.

Tiger Woods's golf swing knackered his back completely as all the power in the swing motion was derived from the back. He tried changing his swing over the years and as a result had to forgo power. Today's players have many luxuries that the generation before never. Titanium club faces, graphite shafts, greater putting control. All makes the game forgiving. 

Golf has a luxury of many different venues for its Majors. As a result they can massage conditions to prevent a Nicklaus or Woods esq dominance occurring. 

I think tennis needs limits on the technology.

LK, Mickelson is certainly not a physical beast. Of course fitness plays more and more role in golf but it doesn't decide a slam winner yet. Tall players have a huge advantage on a tennis court than golfers haven;t. It's as simple as that.

I am ok with technology as it can create a better tennis...and it can always be counter balanced by modifying balls or courts.

Mickelson has an exceptional short game Tenez, the best in the game. Mickelson Is much trimmer than in 2005 and is much fitter and has won more as a result.

Let me ask you this. How many tall golfers are out there? It's not the height, but the power hitters who can hit 330+ off the tee. It's that simple. They have the advantage. Not seen a player win a major hitting less than 300 off the tee.

LK in tennis it's very easy to see who is fit and who is not. I challenge to rank golfers by fitness.

I have no doubt that even McIlroy is fit but at 1.75 (5'9") and 73kg he is no superman and yet he won 4 majors already!

My point is size and fitness in golf is not nearly as helpful as serving in tennis. That's easy to understand.

Stenson is 40! That says it all about golf fitness requirement v Tennis!

Modern tennis is exceptionally demanding on the heart, i,e. you need to have very strong aerobic+anaerobic base to play it right now.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in golf I assume you only may need big arm/leg muscles to hit the swing harder.

Do you even sweat playing it?

Tenez wrote:LK in tennis it's very easy to see who is fit and who is not. I challenge to rank golfers by fitness.

I have no doubt that even McIlroy is fit but at 1.75 (5'9") and 73kg he is no superman and yet he won 4 majors already!

My point is size and fitness in golf is not nearly as helpful as serving in tennis. That's easy to understand.

Let's keep the debate within the context. Are you suggesting that hitting a serve is more demanding than a tee shot in golf? Right off the bat?

noleisthebest wrote:Modern tennis is exceptionally demanding on the heart, i,e. you need to have very strong aerobic+anaerobic base to play it right now.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in golf I assume you only may need big arm/leg muscles to hit the swing harder.

Do you even sweat playing it?

I guess you don't even need big arms in golf. Maybe on the tee but after that it's all about timing. McIlroy and Stenson are amongst many who demonstrate it on regular basis. Sure one can have an advantage in being powerful but with power comes lack of precision and in golf that's very important hence the balance between natural power and timing.

legendkillar wrote:

Tenez wrote:LK in tennis it's very easy to see who is fit and who is not. I challenge to rank golfers by fitness.

I have no doubt that even McIlroy is fit but at 1.75 (5'9") and 73kg he is no superman and yet he won 4 majors already!

My point is size and fitness in golf is not nearly as helpful as serving in tennis. That's easy to understand.

Let's keep the debate within the context. Are you suggesting that hitting a serve is more demanding than a tee shot in golf? Right off the bat?

That's not keeping the debate in context.

My point is that it is clear than in tennis a taller player has a huge advantage while serving whereas in golf being  6'4" instead of 5'9" doesn't get you much closer to the hole!....hence all golf swings are treated egal and the result is down to skills. But more importantly the time between the start of the swing till the ball stops lasts longer and it is more exiciting than an ace.

Not many get amazed at Karlo's serve (except his opponent) and despite his number of aces not many will give him much credit (sadly maybe). Not everybody is equal while serving an ace.

That's all I am saying and this is why people can watch golf all day but woudl not want to watch aces all day. I'd say that even if all tennis players were "equal" when acing (let's say size did not affect the ease of acing), people would still get bored of it due to the point ending at the end of the swing whereas in golf, it is only teh beginning of the excitment.

The only time people gets excited about aces is when a player pulls 3 in a row and are looking for the 4th. It's a bit like darts. Hitting the tripple 20 is very common (like an ace) but scoring OOOOOOOOOnee Huuuuuunnnnnndred and EEEEiiiiggghhhhty gets people cheering.

However not many would watch darts all year round.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Tenez wrote:LK in tennis it's very easy to see who is fit and who is not. I challenge to rank golfers by fitness.

I have no doubt that even McIlroy is fit but at 1.75 (5'9") and 73kg he is no superman and yet he won 4 majors already!

My point is size and fitness in golf is not nearly as helpful as serving in tennis. That's easy to understand.

Let's keep the debate within the context. Are you suggesting that hitting a serve is more demanding than a tee shot in golf? Right off the bat?

That's not keeping the debate in context.

My point is that it is clear than in tennis a taller player has a huge advantage while serving whereas in golf being  6'4" instead of 5'9" doesn't get you much closer to the hole!....hence all golf swings are treated egal and the result is down to skills. But more importantly the time between the start of the swing till the ball stops lasts longer and it is more exiciting than an ace.

Not many get amazed at Karlo's serve (except his opponent) and despite his number of aces not many will give him much credit (sadly maybe). Not everybody is equal while serving an ace.

That's all I am saying and this is why people can watch golf all day but woudl not want to watch aces all day. I'd say that even if all tennis players were "equal" when acing (let's say size did not affect the ease of acing), people would still get bored of it due to the point ending at the end of the swing whereas in golf, it is only teh beginning of the  excitment.

I am struggling to see what "excitement" follows the initial swing in golf.

There is no excitement in the sport at all.

A tennis serve is a more complex than the initial golf swing, (however you call it) and it can be quite beautiful, too.

I really think golf is overrated. Even car racing is more interesting...

The fact that there are so many even more elegant shots to come after the serve plus the element of continual unoredictability of the next shot from thr opponent makes the whole game addictive, and that is why we can't get the fix from serving only.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Tenez wrote:LK in tennis it's very easy to see who is fit and who is not. I challenge to rank golfers by fitness.

I have no doubt that even McIlroy is fit but at 1.75 (5'9") and 73kg he is no superman and yet he won 4 majors already!

My point is size and fitness in golf is not nearly as helpful as serving in tennis. That's easy to understand.

Let's keep the debate within the context. Are you suggesting that hitting a serve is more demanding than a tee shot in golf? Right off the bat?

That's not keeping the debate in context.

My point is that it is clear than in tennis a taller player has a huge advantage while serving whereas in golf being  6'4" instead of 5'9" doesn't get you much closer to the hole!....hence all golf swings are treated egal and the result is down to skills. But more importantly the time between the start of the swing till the ball stops lasts longer and it is more exiciting than an ace.

Not many get amazed at Karlo's serve (except his opponent) and despite his number of aces not many will give him much credit (sadly maybe). Not everybody is equal while serving an ace.

That's all I am saying and this is why people can watch golf all day but woudl not want to watch aces all day. I'd say that even if all tennis players were "equal" when acing (let's say size did not affect the ease of acing), people would still get bored of it due to the point ending at the end of the swing whereas in golf, it is only teh beginning of the  excitment.

We've moved from the fittest to size  we are running in circles.

I agree the height of the tennis player more than likely has the advantage in serve. As I said the stronger player in golf will have the advantage off the tee. However, the tee shot varies in yardage as would the club selection, but in context of hitting with a driver, it's with the power hitter.

An ace can hold a beauty, but in today's game it's not the advantage many seem to think it holds.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Modern tennis is exceptionally demanding on the heart, i,e. you need to have very strong aerobic+anaerobic base to play it right now.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in golf I assume you only may need big arm/leg muscles to hit the swing harder.

Do you even sweat playing it?

I guess you don't even need big arms in golf. Maybe on the tee but after that it's all about timing. McIlroy and Stenson are amongst many who demonstrate it on regular basis. Sure one can have an advantage in being powerful but with power comes lack of precision and in golf that's very important hence the balance between natural power and timing.

Yes, and that particular aspect interests me.

In theory, extra power on the shot should only enhance the element of talent, and Serena Willaims is a perfect example.

I supoose women have the luxury of not having to pace their energy levels like men as they play only the best of three in slams.

Federer has always gone for placement, but imagine if he had even a tiny bit of muscle on the arm!

Actually, Serena must be the only good server in the history of sport who has muscles.

noleisthebest wrote:I am struggling to see what "excitement" follows the initial swing in golf.

There is no excitement in the sport at all.

. There is. Like in tennis it is about controlling a ball and putting it where you want. In tennis the ball is in mouvement when hit (especially after the serve) whereas in gold the ball is stationery but the power into the ball is much bigger hence much harder to control. When the swing is beautiful, the sound of the club into the ball is exquisite and then for 10s or more you see the result of your perfect swing. It can be magic. Even more so than a DTL SBH winner. I played a bit of golf when I was 16, I enjoyed it.....though never quite excited me nearly as much as tennis but that is probably because I did not persevere in golf. In my time it was an expensive sport in France....and impossible to practice in Paris.

A tennis serve is a more complex than the initial golf swing, (however you call it) and it can be quite beautiful, too.

I'd say very similar. You can have ugly and efficient action both sports and likewise, a nice style but not that great a result. However usually good shots come with style.
I really think golf is overrated. Even car racing is more interesting...

The fact that there are so many even more elegant shots to come after the serve plus the element of continual unoredictability of the next shot from thr opponent makes the whole game addictive, and that is why we can't get the fix from serving only.

I like the geometry in tennis. But likewise the variety of golf courses is amazing.

It's a great sport NITB.

Well, it's all yours!

I find it boring, slow, static.

If I want to enjoy countryside, I'll hike in Swiss Alps.

It's a snobbish game for those who can't run.

It simply cannot compare to tennis.

btw I saw a few minutes of golf on gym tv last night...a heavily groomed guy in peacock blue trousers and pink jumper, looking frustrated as he stared into where his shot went wrong for about a minute.....no, def not me....gimmie roaring Roger in white... any day! 

NITB it's actually a highly skilled game. The margins for error very small. If you take an approach shot to a sloping green. Come up too short and the ball runs off the green. Go too long and your left with a putt on glass virtually.

Tennis and Golf are total polar opposites.

Tennis gets the adrenaline going and golf really is a chillaxing sport.

legendkillar wrote:...

Tennis and Golf are total polar opposites.

Tennis gets the adrenaline going and golf really is a chillaxing sport.

I see quite a bit in common.

They both use a "tool" to control and place a ball where needed.

the difference is that in golf it is a static ball, whereas in tennis it is a moving ball. And tennis is of course much more physical.

Serve isn't the issue.  The fact the racquets and conditions have gotten easier is.  That's why taller players are now having more success in areas they didn't used to.  They've always had success with serve and there is no reason to mess about with the game even more.  Go back to faster conditions and standardize the racquet size to be like 80s.

Also, I like to see Aces... especially by players under 6 feet 3.

whats everyones take on the racket that federer just designed for wilson?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xBU7ALQb2E



http://www.wilson.com/en-us/explore/tennis/federer-pro-staff?cmpid=facebook%7Cten_vancouver_usa-nat_organic_facebook_au-rogerfb_t-fans_a-13%20_desktop-mobile%7Cten_vancouver_v-rogerlive-organic_c-announcement%7C&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social_organic&utm_campaign=ten_vancouver_usa-nat_organic_facebook_au-rogerfb_t-fans_a-13%20_desktop-mobile&utm_content=ten_vancouver_v-rogerlive-organic_c-announcement