I Miss Tennis: Technological "Advancements" and the Death of a Sport

I miss tennis. 

Sure, I understand that technically, the sport of tennis is still being played, and there are still millions of people that follow the sport.

If you are one of these people, I mean no disrespect to your sport. It is a great sport. 

However, it is not the same as when I followed it.

Some may argue that it has improved. There have been technological "advancements" that have changed the game, allowing for a quicker, more powerful sport.

Some may like these changes.

I, however, do not.

I view the technological advancements much the same way I view the technological advancements of the commercial fishing trade: a step that should not have been taken and has essentially taken away the soul of the profession.

It's kind of like in Jurassic Park when Dr. Malcolm states that the scientists had spent so much time wondering if they could bring back the dinosaurs, but never asked if they should.

Sure, we now have players that can serve at a blistering 140 miles per hour, allowing for amazing aces. 

Some may like that game.

I do not. The new, mph-obsessed sport is completely boring to me. Much like the steroids era of baseball was boring to me.

The real beauty of the sport lies in the nuances of the game.

Gone are the long rallies and attention to ground strokes. Gone are the Ivan Lendls and Martina Hingises, replaced by the Andy Roddicks and Serena Williamses. 

Don't get me wrong, there were power players in the past. But those weren't the players we remember. We remember Jimmy Connors, Bjorn Borg, and John McEnroe.

Some other players that should be remembered during this era include Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg, and Jim Courier.  Also, MaliVai Washington and Todd Martin. 

During this time, at the dawn of the aluminum racket era, players were forced to develop their footwork and their ground strokes. 

The game was beautiful and artistic, and kids watched and tried to emulate these players. They would go outside and play one another, and there were enough heroes to go around.

If I chose Lendl, my friend could still have his choice of Becker or a young flamboyant rock star like Andre Agassi. The sport was beautiful.

The men's sport that I see today is unrecognizable and ugly to me. The entire match is dictated by the serve, and as a result, nobody can return a strong serve. You look at the box scores of these matches, and they always lead to a tiebreaker because nobody can break anyone's serve. 

Don't get me wrong; this is not an indictment on the players of today. Roger Federer would be a champion in any era he played in. He is a tremendous player.  But those that rely completely on their serve would be chewed up without that advantage. 

Give one of those players an old wooden racket, and their advantage would be moot. Their serves would be returned, and their game would be shown as weak.

Today, the last bastion of hope is in women's tennis. Sure, there are some power players, such as Lindsey Davenport and the Williams sisters. 

The speed on their serves does not yet reach the middle triple digits. Once serves reach that point, it is essentially like a goalie on a penalty shot in soccer—they can only guess.

Eventually, however, the women's game will catch up with the men, and all of tennis will be ruined. 

Furthermore, I have not yet even approached the socio-economic issue in the sport.  Sure, tennis has always been considered a sport for the rich, but it is even more so today.

Due in large part to the fact that a top of the line tennis racket gives a player such an unfair advantage over another, only rich kids can play.

I am not a class warrior, and I will not dive too far into this issue.  However, when I was a kid, everyone had crummy rackets, so it was fun for all. We had long sets and incredibly competitive matches.

Anyone could win. But once someone came around with a great racket, the match was over before it began.

Have you ever played someone that could serve over 100 miles per hour? It completely takes the fun out of the game.

This is what has happened to the sport. Due to the development of the racket, rich people have been able to reclaim their sport. 

So, what am I suggesting?

Just like in baseball, tennis should scale back the advancements of the racket. There should be restrictions placed on the size and style of the racket. 

Ideally, I would like to go back to the wooden rackets, but that may be impossible, just like it is in baseball. The only reason that colleges and high schools allow aluminum bats is because of the price of replacing chipped and worn pieces of lumber. 

However, imagine what the game would look like today if we went back to wooden rackets. The points would last longer, the games would last longer, and the matches would last longer. Strategy would re-enter the conversation, and finesse would again determine matches.

But alas, advancement never turns back, and we cannot go home again.  Instead, we are left wanting a return of the soul to the game.

And watching baseball instead.