And here's a quote from Becker at 2003 Wimbledon, in which he distinguishes a game built on huge serving (serve and sweep) from one based on classic serve-and-volley:
"Finally you see a player with old technique; he plays the serve and volley tennis and plays the slice and doesn't need the 140 mph serve to succeed," Becker said while commenting on Federer's artistry on Sunday.
-- "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please".
I think the retirement of Pat Rafter caused a huge decline in serve / volley tennis, myself.
Here's hoping that Taylor Dent gets it together soon!
HC
"StephenJ" <cjones@corpus.com> wrote in message news:nFPae.3389$Bb.433@okepread06...> This 2003 article blames slower surfaces and slower balls designed to slow> down the serve:>
Here's a BBC article that says that racquet technology favors the big> server, but that slower balls and courts were causing the decline of s/v> play:>
And here's a quote from Becker at 2003 Wimbledon, in which he > distinguishes> a game built on huge serving (serve and sweep) from one based on classic> serve-and-volley:>
"Finally you see a player with old technique; he plays the serve and > volley> tennis and plays the slice and doesn't need the 140 mph serve to succeed,"> Becker said while commenting on Federer's artistry on Sunday.>
-- > "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning,> the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands> of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form> they please".>
I think the retirement of Pat Rafter caused a huge decline in serve /
volley> tennis, myself. >
Here's hoping that Taylor Dent gets it together soon!
That's never going to happen. Apart from Rafter, who is obviously no longer around, the only player who could inspire a new generation of S/V players is Federer, and he doesn't even play that much S/V himself anymore. At the moment, Henman is the poster-boy for S/V tennis, and nobody is signing up... for obvious reasons.
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 17:15:18 GMT, "Erich" <spoing@spammadoomylaaaa.uit> wrote:
I think the retirement of Pat Rafter caused a huge decline in serve />volley>> tennis, myself. >>
Here's hoping that Taylor Dent gets it together soon!>
That's never going to happen. Apart from Rafter, who is obviously no longer>around, the only player who could inspire a new generation of S/V players is>Federer, and he doesn't even play that much S/V himself anymore. At the>moment, Henman is the poster-boy for S/V tennis, and nobody is signing up...>for obvious reasons.
Isn't Mirnyi one- a them?
(Dementieva threw in a blinding S&V point in her first game against JHH recently. Stunned me.)
-- Thank you, Adelphia, for demanding $120 more a year for The Tennis Channel!
"Erich" <spoing@spammadoomylaaaa.uit> wrote in message news:GuQae.938001$za2.148270@news.easynews.com...
I think the retirement of Pat Rafter caused a huge decline in serve /> volley>> tennis, myself. >>
Here's hoping that Taylor Dent gets it together soon!
That's never going to happen.
Well, the remark wasn't made in a totally serious way. I mean, I'd be glad if he got it together, but it's not looking too good, is it?
Apart from Rafter, who is obviously no longer> around, the only player who could inspire a new generation of S/V players > is> Federer, and he doesn't even play that much S/V himself anymore.
Yeah, I noticed. Too bad. Makes the lack of stylistic contrast in top-level matches all the more obvious.
At the> moment, Henman is the poster-boy for S/V tennis, and nobody is signing > up...> for obvious reasons.
Henman must be starting to see the finish-line by now. Unless a Goran-like miracle occurs, Wimby just ain't gonna happen for him. And he ain't got Goran's serve....
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 17:24:34 GMT, "Erich" <spoing@spammadoomylaaaa.uit> wrote:
That's never going to happen. Apart from Rafter, who is obviously no>longer>> >around, the only player who could inspire a new generation of S/V players>is>> >Federer, and he doesn't even play that much S/V himself anymore. At the>> >moment, Henman is the poster-boy for S/V tennis, and nobody is signing>up...>> >for obvious reasons.>>
Isn't Mirnyi one- a them?>
Heh, I guess. Not sure which side of the argument that helps, though.>
(Dementieva threw in a blinding S&V point in her first game against>> JHH recently. Stunned me.)>
Don't you have to be able to serve to play a S/V point?
She *did* serve, in that first game. After that, it was the same- o, same- o, who gets broken the most.
-- Thank you, Adelphia, for demanding $120 more a year for The Tennis Channel!
Some people believe that S-V tennis relies on a powerful serve. This is> quite false. S-V tennis requires precision and quick reflexes above> all.
Yes, neither Mac nor Edberg had huge serves. They had good serves - decent pace, excellent spin and placement - but not huge-pace ace-maching serves.
-- "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please".
Some people believe that S-V tennis relies on a powerful serve. This is>> quite false. S-V tennis requires precision and quick reflexes above>> all.
Yes, neither Mac nor Edberg had huge serves. They had good serves - decent>pace, excellent spin and placement - but not huge-pace ace-maching serves.
Exactly.
It is entirely possible "out serve" your ability to get in position to volley. I would suspect that guys who serve flat and super hard most of the time are unable to get in close enough to be in decent position for the first volley. Ideally, what you are looking for is the best combination of a weak, awkward return *and* getting pretty tight to the net (got to watch for lobs, tho!). And to get tight to the net, the ball's got to be in the air for a while.
That was Mac's formula.
There's a *lot* more mind games to S&V that many people seem to realize...
-- --Sawfish ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "If there's one thing I can't stand, it's intolerance." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Martina N. said the reason S&V players are rare is because it's a very> difficult style to develop and perfect.
Yes, volleying at a high-level is a difficult skill. And it's athletically and physically demanding.
-- "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please".
Yes, neither Mac nor Edberg had huge serves. They had good serves -
decent> >pace, excellent spin and placement - but not huge-pace ace-maching serves.>
Exactly.>
It is entirely possible "out serve" your ability to get in position to> volley. I would suspect that guys who serve flat and super hard most of> the time are unable to get in close enough to be in decent position for> the first volley.
Possibly, but the main thing is if you get it in super-hard, unless you hit it right to the other guy, odds are the ball ain't coming back over, so no need to rush in there.
-- "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please".
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 14:40:24 +1000, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
HardCell wrote:>
Henman must be starting to see the finish-line by now. Unless a Goran-like>> miracle occurs, Wimby just ain't gonna happen for him. And he ain't>> got Goran's serve....>
..or the sting on his groundies.
I think you guys are selling Tim short.
This is a guy who doesn't depend on talent or physique at all, just technique and determination.
And look at that Hellacious run at the *FO*, the *FO*, of all things, last year.
And he definitely has configured his game for the grass.
And they seem to run a lot of his Wimby matches at the end of the day, presumably so they can break up a match "on account of darkness" that's not going well for him, allowing him to retool overnight.
So, IMHO, he has a chance-- a fair chance-- every year.
-- Thank you, Adelphia, for demanding $120 more a year for The Tennis Channel!
Some people believe that S-V tennis relies on a powerful serve. This is>>quite false. S-V tennis requires precision and quick reflexes above>>all.>
Yes, neither Mac nor Edberg had huge serves. They had good serves - decent> pace, excellent spin and placement - but not huge-pace ace-maching serves.>
They didn't have that particular talent, but were good in other areas.
Martina N. said the reason S&V players are rare is because it's a very> difficult style to develop and perfect. I'll go with that. Either> you're a natural, like Edberg, or you have to work very hard at> developing that style of play. I don't think a great S&V player has the> advantage they once did against the more powerful players of today.> Physically all that net rushing takes its toll on a player's legs. I> remember Stefan having to resort to baseline play in the 5th set,> because he had nothing left. Sprinting forward is more taxing than> lateral movement, I'm guessing.>
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 14:40:24 +1000, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>> wrote:>
HardCell wrote:>>
Henman must be starting to see the finish-line by now. Unless a Goran-like>>>miracle occurs, Wimby just ain't gonna happen for him. And he ain't>>>got Goran's serve....>>
..or the sting on his groundies.>
I think you guys are selling Tim short.>
This is a guy who doesn't depend on talent or physique at all, just> technique and determination.>
And look at that Hellacious run at the *FO*, the *FO*, of all things,> last year.>
And he definitely has configured his game for the grass.>
And they seem to run a lot of his Wimby matches at the end of the day,> presumably so they can break up a match "on account of darkness"> that's not going well for him, allowing him to retool overnight.>
So, IMHO, he has a chance-- a fair chance-- every year.>
I'd like to see him win Wimbledon, but the odds are very low. Nadal would whip him this yr....
StephenJ <cjones@corpus.com> wrote: : LOL - he says the back-court game, not the ROS. And anyone who says s/v : declined in the *1980s*, when guys like Mac, Becker, and Edberg were : winning, isn't to be trusted.
S&V DID decline in the '80s. It just didn't die instantly. Lot more baseliners in the '80s compared to '70s. This with no major change in surface speed.
Wonder why?
: LOL - look like he's talking about volleying vs. baseline shots, not serve : vs. return of serve.
Stevie, you're really desperate here. That wasn't even the point - it's just a straw man you created in your own little mind. YOU were the one who claimed in this thread that S&V didn't decline because of modern racquets. Return of the serve is just a tiny bit of that developement - much bigger reason are improved passing shots and backcourt groundstrokes. And guess why is that? That's right, modern racquets.
Steve would like us to believe that S&V game is dead because it isn't necessary - merely serving is enough. Everyone else knows that S&V game is dead because VOLLEY part has become so hard.
If serve really benefitted more than return, then S&V tennis should be just fine; even if volleys are harder, serves are better too and there should be plenty of hard-serving S&V players like Krajicek, Rusedski etc. around. But there are very few. Why is that?
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote: : mimus wrote: : > So, IMHO, he has a chance-- a fair chance-- every year. : >
: I'd like to see him win Wimbledon, but the odds are very low. Nadal : would whip him this yr....
Henman's past it. He's soon turning 31. He hasn't won a single set this year from players of any stature. Even if he gets back in shape, no way he's going to repeat his FO run unless better half of top 20 gets injured.
I like Henman, he's underappreciated, but 2004 FO was his last, and best, shot for a Slam.
: uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com wrote: : > Some people believe that S-V tennis relies on a powerful serve. This : is : > quite false. S-V tennis requires precision and quick reflexes above : > all.
: A good kicker like Rafter or Edberg can get the job done, and in fact : is the classic, but that doesn't change the fact that executing s-v : strategy has never been tougher due to the increased velocity and : effectiveness of returns and passers--and for the high ball, the grips : in common use (poor Lleyton--he needs a ladder according to Rocket and : Jaros--lol). Oh, and the American Twist serve was an invention of the : wood era, so don't anyone let Jaros convince them that it wasn't : possible to get heavy kick on a serve back then. He must never have : seen that.
When first players employing heavy kick serve came to scene ca. 1900, there was huge upcry and complaints how tennis was totally ruined and became boring serve-only fest.
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 15:31:19 +1000, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
I'd like to see him win Wimbledon, but the odds are very low. Nadal >would whip him this yr....
I know you've got great hopes for Nadal at Wimbledon, but I just can't see it. I can imagine him winning the odd round, but not going deep into the draw. I guess we'll find out this year, barring injury. -- Luke Croll ABDK FAQ: http://home.earthlink.net/~abdk-faq/faq.htm
A good kicker like Rafter or Edberg can get the job done, and in fact> is the classic, but that doesn't change the fact that executing s-v> strategy has never been tougher due to the increased velocity and> effectiveness of returns
Absurd. Why do you keep spreading misinformation?
-- "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please".
"I've just creamed the first serve and am now 1-2 feet inside my> baseline. The same weak return comes back, but I can let it bounce, take> three steps forward, and take it anywhere within an arc of ~80> degrees...and the other poor fucker (er, "bumrooter"?) is still 4 feet> behind his baseline.">
I can sure see the second option as more desirable.
Yes.
-- "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please".
StephenJ <cjones@corpus.com> wrote: : You are delusional.
: You face the weight of 15-20 yrs in which *far, far* more talk - from fans, : experts, champs, etc. has been about the problem of huge serving, not huge : serving, and to the extent that huge serving isn't quite as dominant as 5+ : years ago, that can be attributed to changes made to.... limit huge serving, : like slower courts and slower balls.
And of course, there never was talk about huge serving before graphite racquets, right?
: It's obvious that the modern racquet boosts the server more than the ROS, : and that you are pretty dumb for insisting otherwise.
It's obvious it is not, otherwise servers would dominate the game.
: This point about the strength of groundies mitigating rally net-rushing just : provides another good explanation for why the s/v game has declined despite : the fact that the serve is boosted by the modern racket more than the ROS. A : serve oriented player (a) doesn't need to risk rushing the net to win : points, given the boost provided by the modern racket over the ROS, and (b) : once rallies do begin, and on the opponents serve, net rushing is far : tougher than in the past because of more potent baseline passing shots.
b) is correct, a) is not. Remember, return of a serve is also a background groundstroke.
Couple of years ago, Taylor Dent was whining who he was serving 140mph and Agassi was still winning those points...
: Also, (c) a key play in the s/v play-book is the "chip and charge" off the : other guy's serve. But of course since the other guy is serving much bigger : with his modern racket, it's almost impossible to "chip and charge" : (returner is lucky just to get the ball back), which mitigates s/v play as : well.
I doubt there was much chip&charging off big first servers in the '70s. Some players still chip&charge from second serves - Henman for example. Sampras did it a lot too.
: > If serve really benefitted more than return, then S&V tennis should be : > just fine; even if volleys are harder, serves are better too and there : > should be plenty of hard-serving S&V players like Krajicek, Rusedski etc. : > around. But there are very few. Why is that?
: LOL - it's been explained many times, so why hasn't it sunken in?
: Huge serving obviates the need to rush the net. And on the other guy's : serve, net-rushing is much tougher because of improved groundies.
So why almost all big servers do rush the net? Are they idiots? Or are you idiot? Place your bets!
: And if Yama is correct, why has the talk in the tennis community been far : more about big serving than big returning, with the tour taking steps to : limit the former but not the latter?
Because few people see big returning as a problem - more like solution. There are exceptions (Whisper, Scarpitti to name some) but most people prefer longer rallies.
: You face the weight of 15-20 yrs in which *far, far* more talk - from
fans,> : experts, champs, etc. has been about the problem of huge serving, not huge> : serving, and to the extent that huge serving isn't quite as dominant as 5+> : years ago, that can be attributed to changes made to.... limit huge serving,> : like slower courts and slower balls.>
And of course, there never was talk about huge serving before graphite> racquets, right?
Beats me, but irrelevant. Different game, different conditions, etc. Either big serving or big returning could have been a problem under different conditions of play in the past.
: It's obvious that the modern racquet boosts the server more than the
ROS,> : and that you are pretty dumb for insisting otherwise.>
It's obvious it is not, otherwise servers would dominate the game.
No, huge serving is a big part of a game, but not the only part. If that's all you have, you won't make the top tier.
Most important, though, is the fact that even traditionally weak servers like Agassi and Hewitt have been able to use the modern rackets to boost their serves to a point where they get some freebies themselves.
: This point about the strength of groundies mitigating rally net-rushing
just> : provides another good explanation for why the s/v game has declined despite> : the fact that the serve is boosted by the modern racket more than the ROS. A> : serve oriented player (a) doesn't need to risk rushing the net to win> : points, given the boost provided by the modern racket over the ROS, and (b)> : once rallies do begin, and on the opponents serve, net rushing is far> : tougher than in the past because of more potent baseline passing shots.>
b) is correct, a) is not.
(a) is absolutely correct. Remember, it doesn't matter what kind of racket i'm armed with if the serve is whizzing by 10 feet to my right at 130 mph.
Couple of years ago, Taylor Dent was whining who he was serving 140mph and> Agassi was still winning those points...
You can be sure that Dent won the vast majority of points where he served 140. Unless he hit them right to Andre, of course.
: Also, (c) a key play in the s/v play-book is the "chip and charge" off
: other guy's serve. But of course since the other guy is serving much
bigger> : with his modern racket, it's almost impossible to "chip and charge"> : (returner is lucky just to get the ball back), which mitigates s/v play
: well.>
I doubt there was much chip&charging off big first servers in the '70s.
By today's standards, there were no big first servers in the 70s. But yes, it's always harder to chip/charge vs. a hard serve than a softer one. Which is why we see so little of it today.
Some players still chip&charge from second serves - Henman for example.> Sampras did it a lot too.
Few and far between, whereas it was common practice back in the day.
: LOL - it's been explained many times, so why hasn't it sunken in?>
: Huge serving obviates the need to rush the net. And on the other guy's> : serve, net-rushing is much tougher because of improved groundies.>
So why almost all big servers do rush the net? Are they idiots? Or are you> idiot? Place your bets!
They don't s/v the way mac and edberg did, i.e., religiously. They serve and sweep (sheesh this is exasperating sometimes).
: And if Yama is correct, why has the talk in the tennis community been
: more about big serving than big returning, with the tour taking steps to> : limit the former but not the latter?>
Because few people see big returning as a problem - more like solution.
I doubt you can provide evidence for that claim about people's attitudes towards serving and returning, but even if it's true, it doesn't explain the tour taking steps to limit big serving (since no such steps should be needed if the ROS was so strong) and it doesn't explain the lack of talk about big returning - not complaints, just commentary.
It's plain as day why such talk has been swamped by talk about huge serving: The latter exploded with the intro of modern rackets.
-- "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please".
StephenJ <cjones@corpus.com> wrote: : > : It's obvious that the modern racquet boosts the server more than the : ROS, : > : and that you are pretty dumb for insisting otherwise. : > : > It's obvious it is not, otherwise servers would dominate the game.
: No, huge serving is a big part of a game, but not the only part. If that's : all you have, you won't make the top tier.
: Most important, though, is the fact that even traditionally weak servers : like Agassi and Hewitt have been able to use the modern rackets to boost : their serves to a point where they get some freebies themselves.
Where do you get that they are 'traditionally weak servers'?
: > : This point about the strength of groundies mitigating rally net-rushing : just : > : provides another good explanation for why the s/v game has declined : despite : > : the fact that the serve is boosted by the modern racket more than the : ROS. A : > : serve oriented player (a) doesn't need to risk rushing the net to win : > : points, given the boost provided by the modern racket over the ROS, and : (b) : > : once rallies do begin, and on the opponents serve, net rushing is far : > : tougher than in the past because of more potent baseline passing shots. : > : > b) is correct, a) is not.
: (a) is absolutely correct. Remember, it doesn't matter what kind of racket : i'm armed with if the serve is whizzing by 10 feet to my right at 130 mph.
But not all serves 'whizzle by 10 feet at 130mph'.
: > Some players still chip&charge from second serves - Henman for example. : > Sampras did it a lot too.
: Few and far between, whereas it was common practice back in the day.
Indeed - because you get passed.
: > : Huge serving obviates the need to rush the net. And on the other guy's : > : serve, net-rushing is much tougher because of improved groundies. : > : > So why almost all big servers do rush the net? Are they idiots? Or are you : > idiot? Place your bets!
: They don't s/v the way mac and edberg did, i.e., religiously. They serve and : sweep (sheesh this is exasperating sometimes).
Let me quote a recent article which explains it even better:
"Hearing this man, whose *serve-and-volley* game has always seemed so perfectly suited to Wimbledon, describe grass-court tennis as ‘torture’, might come as a shock, but Krajicek was adamant that he didn’t feel comfortable.
“I had part of the game to play on grass – I had a great *serve and volley* game and I would hardly lose my serve, but my return was very bad,” he said. "
" “I relaxed more,” he said. “I started returning well and that was the key to my success – my *serve and volley* game was always good, but it was my return game that basically won the tournament for me.” "
: > : And if Yama is correct, why has the talk in the tennis community been : far : > : more about big serving than big returning, with the tour taking steps to : > : limit the former but not the latter? : > : > Because few people see big returning as a problem - more like solution.
: I doubt you can provide evidence for that claim about people's attitudes : towards serving and returning,
You just did it for me.
but even if it's true, it doesn't explain the : tour taking steps to limit big serving (since no such steps should be needed : if the ROS was so strong)
'Big serving era' was a result of surge of tall, athletic players hitting flat serves in early '90s. Racquet technology played small part in in (although generally not the rule you claim) but overall it was just a coincidence of multiple factors; had you stuck them in the '70s with wooden racquets, results would have been largely same. That is evidenced by the fact that now there are only few players of that style at the top.
It was soon found out that this style wasn't as successful as uninitiated may imagine; it is noteworthy that Rafter, with his obsolete style, had more success than any of these guys except Sampras.
: Most important, though, is the fact that even traditionally weak servers> : like Agassi and Hewitt have been able to use the modern rackets to boost> : their serves to a point where they get some freebies themselves.>
Where do you get that they are 'traditionally weak servers'?
Because for most of their careers they had nothing serves...? They still don't have big serves, but big enough to get a decent number of free points. An improvement.
: (a) is absolutely correct. Remember, it doesn't matter what kind of
racket> : i'm armed with if the serve is whizzing by 10 feet to my right at 130 mph.>
But not all serves 'whizzle by 10 feet at 130mph'.
True, but far more of them do with modern rackets than used to.
: > Some players still chip&charge from second serves - Henman for
example.> : > Sampras did it a lot too.>
: Few and far between, whereas it was common practice back in the day.>
Indeed - because you get passed.
That hurts too, but it's secondary. Before you can worry about getting passed, you have to be able to execute a credible chip-charge play, and big serving precludes that (hard to "charge" when you're sprawled out to your right or left lunging after a 120 mph line-painting serve).
: They don't s/v the way mac and edberg did, i.e., religiously. They serve
: sweep (sheesh this is exasperating sometimes).>
Let me quote a recent article which explains it even better:>
"Hearing this man, whose *serve-and-volley* game has always seemed so
perfectly suited to Wimbledon, describe> grass-court tennis as 'torture', might come as a shock, but Krajicek was adamant that he didn't feel comfortable.>
"I had part of the game to play on grass - I had a great *serve and
volley* game and I would hardly lose my serve, but> my return was very bad," he said. "
Krajicek played pure s/v at wimbledon, lots of guys do. That's grass. But everywhere else he was serve-sweep, and it's not hard to figure out why: His serve was lethal but his volley merely ordinary at best.
: > : And if Yama is correct, why has the talk in the tennis community
been> : far> : > : more about big serving than big returning, with the tour taking steps to> : > : limit the former but not the latter?> : >> : > Because few people see big returning as a problem - more like solution.>
: I doubt you can provide evidence for that claim about people's attitudes> : towards serving and returning,>
You just did it for me.
LOL. No i didn't. There's no evidence that people prefer to watch big returning to big serving. But even if they did, that doesn't explain the steps taken to limit *big serving*, since if big returning was dominating in the modern racket era (as you claim it has) then there would have been no "big serving problem" to solve.
but even if it's true, it doesn't explain the> : tour taking steps to limit big serving (since no such steps should be
needed> : if the ROS was so strong)>
'Big serving era' was a result of surge of tall, athletic players hitting> flat serves in early '90s.
Are you kidding? The early 90s big servers, like Becker and Sampras and Rosset and Krajicek, put a great deal of spin on their serves. "Big" isn't just about pace, it's about "heaviness" as well, and placement, all of which are greatly faciliated by the modern racket.
As for "tall athletes", that makes little sense. First, serving has never been bigger - the big servers of today serve bigger than the 6'4", 6'5" Stich/Krajicek types of a decade ago. Sure, being tall like a Karlovic or Johannson helps, but it's not necessary. The only real rule is that you can't be short, meaning under 6'. But Sampras was 6'1", Roddick is 6'1", and they served huge - Roddick is the biggest server ever.
And even guys under 6' like Agassi/Hewitt can crank it up into the 120s on occasion.
You've spilled a lot of cyber-ink trying to deny the obvious and haven't made the slightest dent in the claims about the modern racket and big serving. You need to come up with some new arguments or else fall by the wayside...
-- "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please".
