I was a huge Roscoe fan. Everybody talks about his serve, yet he was an allround, technical and intelligent player. His one handed backhand is fantastic!
Tanner was very underestimated. He was way faster than he looked. His backhand was amazing. Great volleys, a good hard flat forehand with his continental grip and of course the Tanner serve. Tanner was hitting serves 150 mph long before modern racket tech was invented.
@ steppinout67. The US Open tennis tournament moved from the West Side Tennis Club in Forest Hills, NY to The National Tennis Center (which was renamed The Billie Jean King Tennis Center a number of years ago) in Flushing Meadow, NY in 1978. The court surface at the National Tennis Center , has always been a Deco-Turf hard court surface.The tennis courts at the West Side Tennis Club were grass courts until 1975 when they changed the courts to Har-Tru (which is a crushed green slate surface) courts which are a faster clay-type surface than the slower red clay ( which is actually a crushed red brick surface) courts at Roland Garros (the tennis center outside the city of Paris where the French Open tournament is played).
Always mentioning greats things about Bjorn! I would like to mention great things about Roscoe. He was such a great player! That awesome serve and attacking game. He had a great temperament on the court. It was great seeing him win the Australian Open
Roscoe, could have been the Pete Sampras of his day. But he eneded up the John Daly of tennis. He had a great serve, but he was also stylish player with a great alround game. My favorite player of the time. If he worked like Borg, he would have won Wimbledon 7 times in a row. Way more talented then Borg, but he had his issues and in the end winning a US open in spite of those issues was a great achievement.
This was a massive upset at the time but with that thunderbolt lefty serve Roscoe was the Goran Ivanisevic of that era, and on his day he'd beat anyone. It was also sweet revenge for Tanner after losing in five sets to Borg in the Wimbledon final a few months earlier. Vitas Gerulaitis ended Roscoe's run in the semis, with McEnroe winning his first slam against Vitas in the US open final.
Adriano Panatta was the best looking according to a poll of women tennis fans in Tennis mag. Go take a look at his highlights. Won the 1976 French open .
@@iamtman1 Panatta, Clerc, Vilas, Borg were voted best looking by women fans at the time I think. Gerulitas, Roger Taylor, and Arthur Ashe were very popular among women fans. John Newcombe may have been voted most attractive by women fans and players in the mid 1970's.
Had the Borg-Tanner 1979 U.S. Open match been played during the daytime and not at night under the floodlights at Louis Armstrong Stadium, Borg would have gone on to face McEnroe in the finals and although the very fast DecoTurf2 surface favored McEnroe's serve-and-volley game over Borg's baseline game, 1979 was Borg's most dominant season in his pro tennis career in terms of matches won and tournaments won, and Borg would have had excellent chances of winning his first U.S. Open singles title. Sadly, we'll never know what the result might have been had the match against Tanner been played during the daytime. Borg always stated that he didn't like playing at night because he couldn't see the ball as well as during the daytime. But back then the thinking of the USTA was not as it is today in which they want, if possible, the top 2 seeds to make it to the finals for TV ratings. Back then the USTA's thinking was how can they give the American players every possible advantage to get as far in the tournament as possible to increase the chances of two Americans getting to the finals. How times have changed!
Thanks posting ! Borg came too short, his approachs hit in the line serve, too bad to beat the great Roscoe that was the only one to preserve dignity during RG 78, loosing on clay only by 626476 (what happened if he won the TB...?) while Borg used to beat his opponants 61-61-61. That bad that Roscoe messed his match in Wimb semi in 76, after an incredible victory on Jimmy with awesome serves that he failed to do again against Bjorn...
Very exciting match! Great upload and thanks a lot! Tanner is a great player! He should have won a few more Grand Slams than he did. Could have won Wimbledon and the US Open for sure!
@ Alan Chong. Roscoe Tanner never won a major singles title. He came close to winning his 1979 Wimbledon final match against Borg but lost in 5 sets. Borg stated that in the 5th set of that match he was so nervous that he could barely hold his racket which is amazing because Borg never looked nervous in any of his matches including that one.
@@michaelbarlow6610 Roscoe won the Australian Open against Vilas in the 1970s. I think it was 1977. He won in straight sets. I consider that a Grand Slam even though the field didn't include a lot of the big guns because they skipped it to enjoy Christmas festivities!
@@michaelbarlow6610 On RUclips , there is footage of Tanner Vs Vilas. I also got into a very heated argument with a poster who made a racial attack against me. I came back hard at him and then he deleted all his posts and promptly left the thread. Haha.
@ Alan Chong. You are correct that Tanner did win a major singles title. He won the January 1977 Australian Open final over Vilas 6-3, 6-3, 6-3. Mark Edmondson was the defending champion but lost in the quarterfinals. Immediately after I posted my response comment erroneously claiming that Tanner had never won a major singles title , I started racking my brain to recall if he actually ever won an Australian Open title, because in the back of my mind I vaguely recalled that he might have won one Australian title during the 1970's when many of the top players frequently skipped the Australian Open because it wasn't regarded as highly back then as the other three majors. So I stand corrected in my erroneous claim that Tanner never won a major. Interesting thing is that in the Wikipedia autobiographical article on Tanner it states that his serve on one point during a 1978 match in Mexico against Raul Ramirez was measured at 153 mph which is hard to believe because Tanner played with the conventional size (65-70 square inch racket head size) PdP Compact aluminum racket which was nowhere near as powerful as the modern graphite midsize and oversize rackets of today's tennis. Jonathan Isner who I believe is taller than Tanner can hit a 150 mph serve with a graphite racket. Either the radar equipment they used to measure Tanner's serve on that point in the match against Ramirez was improperly calibrated or was inaccurate or the higher elevation of Mexico could have been the reason that his serve reached 153 mph, just like the higher elevation of Mexico is why Bob Beamon jumped so far in the long jump event in the 1968 Olympic games in Mexico City.
@ Alan Chong. Sorry to hear that you had a heated argument with a racist individual on RUclips. It is disgusting that such revolting individuals post their deplorable comments on the internet or make their hate-filled comments any time and anywhere.
Though Borg.. Connors.. Mcnroe.. Lendl were stealing the limelight... I got to hear Rosco Tanner hell of Z lot. We had no TV then.. It was all news paper.. Watching this clip.. No suprise he was a fantastic talent of that time.....
If Tanner played this well in the semis against Vitas he would have won that match too and gone to the final, but Tanner got flat late in the match and lost the last 3 sets.
les chercheurs americain ont dit : un service de tanner avance a plus de 30 metre seconde !!!!!!!!!!!! il avait surement ( quand elle passait ) le meilleur premier service au monde !! le seul a avoir detruit le filet sur 2 tournois different !!!!! qui fait mieux ????????????????
Hello Alan. I have been mulling this thought over and over in my mind for quite some time, but today I was thinking about it again, and I wanted to get your opinion on it. Specifically, the thought occurred to me that the impression that I and most other tennis fans have that there is a plethora of great forehands on the men's pro tennis tour in today's tennis compared to the wood/metal rackets era in tennis is because of the change in the style of play first introduced into the game by Borg, Lendl (and to some extent Vilas) from hitting a traditional backhand when the opponent hits the ball to that side, to the current practice of running around the backhand (especially in the midcourt area) to nail a forehand hard -frequently for an outright winner. The late great tennis teacher/writer Vic Braden in his classic book and tennis instructional video series from the 1970's, "Tennis For The Future" stated that it was fairly easy for tennis fans/players to name 10 great backhands in the history of the game, "but can you name 10 great forehands" in the history of the game? Back then he was right because prior to the graphite rackets era of tennis, players rarely ran around their backhand to hit a forehand. But 3 developments in the game changed that--the first, a technological change , the second , a development within that technological change, and the third, a stylistic change. The first change was obviously the creation and adoption of the graphite rackets which made the wood and metal rackets obsolete. The graphite rackets obviously allowed the players to hit the ball with much more power than their wood and metal rackets predecessors. The change within that technological change was the increase in size of the racket head from standard size (65-70 square inches) to midsize (85 square inches) to midsize+ (90-95 square inches) to oversize (110 square inches) and superoversize (125 + square inches). Of course Howard Head, the owner/CEO of the Head Corporation (until he sold it to another corporation) and inventor of the famous Head ski had sold his concept of an oversized tennis racket to Prince Manufacturing which resulted in the introduction of the Prince Classic aluminum 110 square inches oversize racket back in 1975 or 1976, before the graphite rackets replaced wood and metal rackets on the tennis market and on the two pro tennis tours. The third change --the stylistic change-- which was first introduced and utilized effectively by Borg, Lendl and to some extent Vilas, was the practice of running around the backhand (especially in the midcourt area) to nail a forehand crosscourt for a winner. My thought is this--if players back then had not been allowed to run around their backhand to hit a forehand (and of course such a prohibition would be impossible to put into effect via a change in the rules of the game for obvious reasons), then there probably would not be the current impression among tennis fans and players that there is a plethora of great forehands in today's tennis compared to the tennis of the wood and metal rackets era. In other words, players in today's tennis run around their backhands so often in a match to hit outright winners that that has led to the development of a probably somewhat misleading impression that there is a plethora of great forehands in today's tennis compared to the wood/metal rackets era. I just wanted to get your opinion on that possibility. And of course from a physiological standpoint, it is easier to hit a one-handed backhand than it is to hit a forehand because the racket arm on the one-handed backhand is not inhibited by the upper body on the extension of the follow-through, whereas on the forehand, the upper body somewhat inhibits the racket arm from fully extending on the follow-through.
Borg looking out of sorts here. Oddly flat. I wonder looking back which year he thought he had the best chance of winning the US Open. Many people think 1976 when it was played on clay (in 1977 he withdrew mid tournament after injuring his shoulder while water skiing with vitas Gerulaitis just before the US Open)
Typical lousy topspin lob by Borg at 1-3 down in the 4th set tiebreaker against Tanner in their 1979 U.S. Open match. Sad that Borg never developed a great (let alone a good) ,reliable topspin lob on either forehand or backhand (contrary to what Steve Flink erroneously thinks!).
@@iamtman1 . You obviously suffer from the all too-human affliction described so well by the author/social commentator George Orwell in which he wrote or stated that "Life is a constant struggle to see and comprehend that which is in front of my very nose"! Most people see what they expect to see and not what is actually there in front of their eyes in terms of events and trends in society! It is a certifiable myth that Bjorn Borg had a "great" topspin lob! You obviously fail to remember the very rare times during their rivalry in which Borg attempted to hit a topspin lob against McEnroe --for example, the lousy forehand topspin lob that Borg hit against McEnroe in one of their two Wimbledon finals in which Borg completely mishit the lob and it landed either wide of the singles sideline or over the baseline! Or the lousy two-handed backhand topspin lob that Borg hit against McEnroe in the 1980 U.S. Open final in which Borg hit the lob way too short and got exceedingly lucky when McEnroe hit the overhead over the baseline! Borg demonstrated conclusively on that point how he did not have a clue as to how to hit a proper topspin lob! He hit that backhand lob with a slow, finesse swing instead of hitting it properly with a full, fast, upward swing which would have (1) gotten the ball well above McEnroe's reach at the net , (2) forced McEnroe to retreat rapidly from the net to retrieve the lob and (3) would have rebounded severely towards the back wall behind McEnroe's side of the court! If Borg had a great topspin lob as you and tennis writer/ commentator Steve Flink erroneously assert, then how do you explain the fact that Borg exceedingly rarely utilized a topspin lob against McEnroe -- a great serve-and-volleyer--that Borg desperately needed to discourage from getting as close to the net and into the net as frequently as John McEnroe?! Borg almost invariably tried to pass McEnroe crosscourt or down-the-line ( usually crosscourt). Borg in essence, essentially admitted that when he said that he liked to go mostly crosscourt and sometimes down the line on his tennis matches. If he possessed a great topspin lob, he would have certainly mentioned it as one of his favorite tactics against netrushers like McEnroe and Connors! Against a serve-and-volleyer -- and especially a great serve-and-volleyer like McEnroe -- a baseline player needs to employ the topspin lob as frequently as possible to (1) find the timing and the range on that stroke early in a match and (2) to discourage the serve-and-volleyer from getting in tight to the net! Borg failed miserably in that regard! Tennis fans erroneously assume that because Borg had great baseline topspin groundstrokes, that therefore he possessed a great topspin lob, when the reality is that regarding his topspin lob, nothing could be further from the truth! John McEnroe and Ivan Lendl, for example, were both much more adept at the forehand topspin lob than Borg! It reminds me of the story that the late Vincent Bugliosi related in one of his books, in which he was playing tennis with a group of his friends at a tennis club and his friends asserted that a professional boxer had a great jab. Bugliosi urged them to carefully observe and examine that boxer's jab the next time he fought. Later after they had done so, they agreed with Bugliosi that they had wrongly beleved that that boxer possessed a great jab and couldn't believe that they had totally failed to see the reality that he had a poor jab! So the fact is that people can almost invariably be counted upon to fail to see the reality of things that are right in front of their eyes in terms of events and trends in society!
@@HankFinkle11 . What do you not understand? I cited numerous examples in my above-posted response comment of Borg's lousy topspin lob on both forehand and backhand! It is a certifiable myth that Borg had a great topspin lob! It is blatantly obvious that if Borg possessed the great topspin lob that so-called "tennis experts" (like Steve Flink) and some tennis fans claim, then common sense logic indicates that he would have used it innumerable times against McEnroe (and successfully so) in order to not only drive McEnroe away from the net, but also to discourage McEnroe from getting in as close to the net for his first volley as McEnroe constantly did against Borg! Borg only rarely attempted (usually unsuccessfully) a topspin lob against McEnroe in their matches because he had zero confidence in that shot on either his forehand or backhand-side!
![Gunna - HIM ALL ALONG [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/w7Wf0h1Q8a4/mqdefault.jpg)
I was a huge Roscoe fan. Everybody talks about his serve, yet he was an allround, technical and intelligent player. His one handed backhand is fantastic!
I loved Tanner as a kid great to see him here I had forgotten how good a competitor he was.
Tanner aurait dû battre Gerulaitis en demi-finale
Tanner was very underestimated. He was way faster than he looked. His backhand was amazing. Great volleys, a good hard flat forehand with his continental grip and of course the Tanner serve. Tanner was hitting serves 150 mph long before modern racket tech was invented.
Jesus! Tanner's serve is huge! Imagine if he played today with the racket advancements.
+Kingston Gapate that would be fricking terrifying and scary good!...
More speed and less shoulder and thorax traumatisms for sure.
Kingston Gapate sure, amazing serve, but he played brilliantly overall in this match.
I have thought that 100's of times!
Without a doubt the biggest serve ever! No one else comes close....
Roscoe was a beast during that time , sort of reminds of Goran Ivinesvic
roscoe servait plus fort que goran
Tanner was a huge serve player that actually could play tennis as well. They do not make them like that anymore
@ steppinout67. The US Open tennis tournament moved from the West Side Tennis Club in Forest Hills, NY to The National Tennis Center (which was renamed The Billie Jean King Tennis Center a number of years ago) in Flushing Meadow, NY in 1978. The court surface at the National Tennis Center , has always been a Deco-Turf hard court surface.The tennis courts at the West Side Tennis Club were grass courts until 1975 when they changed the courts to Har-Tru (which is a crushed green slate surface) courts which are a faster clay-type surface than the slower red clay ( which is actually a crushed red brick surface) courts at Roland Garros (the tennis center outside the city of Paris where the French Open tournament is played).
When playing tennis on High School team back then, when someone would serve an ace, people would yell: ROSCOE!
I know :)
Yes, that happened even in my country, Ecuador. Tanner is the first great server I saw, and as a lefty I cheered for him.
Always mentioning greats things about Bjorn! I would like to mention great things about Roscoe. He was such a great player! That awesome serve and attacking game. He had a great temperament on the court. It was great seeing him win the Australian Open
Tanner hits the ball on it’s way up!!
Two of my top favorites here. THANKS
Roscoe, could have been the Pete Sampras of his day. But he eneded up the John Daly of tennis. He had a great serve, but he was also stylish player with a great alround game. My favorite player of the time. If he worked like Borg, he would have won Wimbledon 7 times in a row. Way more talented then Borg, but he had his issues and in the end winning a US open in spite of those issues was a great achievement.
Huh?
@@HankFinkle11Exactly.
This is definitely true.
John Daly of tennis. That says it all.
Tanner had lots of personal issues.
Tanner wasn't all about serving, he had game.
This was a massive upset at the time but with that thunderbolt lefty serve Roscoe was the Goran Ivanisevic of that era, and on his day he'd beat anyone. It was also sweet revenge for Tanner after losing in five sets to Borg in the Wimbledon final a few months earlier. Vitas Gerulaitis ended Roscoe's run in the semis, with McEnroe winning his first slam against Vitas in the US open final.
Thank you for posting this video & great quality!
roscoe tanner was quite handsome back in the day, handsomest player on the tour in that era?!
Hahaha. He haa movie star looks, Roscoe Tanner! I agree with you!
He was totally Robert Wagner. Especially before the Wimbledon perm.
+Jon Dunmore Dear oh dear. Don't say 'Robert Wagner.' Wagner may have killed Natalie Wood!
Adriano Panatta was the best looking according to a poll of women tennis fans in Tennis mag. Go take a look at his highlights. Won the 1976 French open .
@@iamtman1 Panatta, Clerc, Vilas, Borg were voted best looking by women fans at the time I think. Gerulitas, Roger Taylor, and Arthur Ashe were very popular among women fans. John Newcombe may have been voted most attractive by women fans and players in the mid 1970's.
Had the Borg-Tanner 1979 U.S. Open match been played during the daytime and not at night under the floodlights at Louis Armstrong Stadium, Borg would have gone on to face McEnroe in the finals and although the very fast DecoTurf2 surface favored McEnroe's serve-and-volley game over Borg's baseline game, 1979 was Borg's most dominant season in his pro tennis career in terms of matches won and tournaments won, and Borg would have had excellent chances of winning his first U.S. Open singles title. Sadly, we'll never know what the result might have been had the match against Tanner been played during the daytime. Borg always stated that he didn't like playing at night because he couldn't see the ball as well as during the daytime. But back then the thinking of the USTA was not as it is today in which they want, if possible, the top 2 seeds to make it to the finals for TV ratings. Back then the USTA's thinking was how can they give the American players every possible advantage to get as far in the tournament as possible to increase the chances of two Americans getting to the finals. How times have changed!
Most Scandos have very poor night vision - its the lightness of their eyes I believe. USTA knew this.
@@kaialoha It´s just the opposite. Scandinavian people have better night vision, because they live in areas with less sun through the year.
The power of the PDP and Roscoe Tanner!
Thanks posting !
Borg came too short, his approachs hit in the line serve, too bad to beat the great Roscoe that was the only one to preserve dignity during RG 78, loosing on clay only by 626476 (what happened if he won the TB...?) while Borg used to beat his opponants 61-61-61. That bad that Roscoe messed his match in Wimb semi in 76, after an incredible victory on Jimmy with awesome serves that he failed to do again against Bjorn...
Tanner was on fire here! Huge serving, powerful groundstrokes and incredible movement.
avec le materiel actuel et sans son operation du coude gauche , roscoe servirait surement au tour des 265 /270 km/h
Why do people keep saying Borg was a baseliner? Even in this clip he is going to the net many times
Because he's not a serve and volleyer, and ( except on grass) goes to the net only on short balls.
Very exciting match! Great upload and thanks a lot! Tanner is a great player! He should have won a few more Grand Slams than he did. Could have won Wimbledon and the US Open for sure!
@ Alan Chong. Roscoe Tanner never won a major singles title. He came close to winning his 1979 Wimbledon final match against Borg but lost in 5 sets. Borg stated that in the 5th set of that match he was so nervous that he could barely hold his racket which is amazing because Borg never looked nervous in any of his matches including that one.
@@michaelbarlow6610 Roscoe won the Australian Open against Vilas in the 1970s. I think it was 1977. He won in straight sets. I consider that a Grand Slam even though the field didn't include a lot of the big guns because they skipped it to enjoy Christmas festivities!
@@michaelbarlow6610 On RUclips , there is footage of Tanner Vs Vilas. I also got into a very heated argument with a poster who made a racial attack against me. I came back hard at him and then he deleted all his posts and promptly left the thread. Haha.
@ Alan Chong. You are correct that Tanner did win a major singles title. He won the January 1977 Australian Open final over Vilas 6-3, 6-3, 6-3. Mark Edmondson was the defending champion but lost in the quarterfinals. Immediately after I posted my response comment erroneously claiming that Tanner had never won a major singles title , I started racking my brain to recall if he actually ever won an Australian Open title, because in the back of my mind I vaguely recalled that he might have won one Australian title during the 1970's when many of the top players frequently skipped the Australian Open because it wasn't regarded as highly back then as the other three majors. So I stand corrected in my erroneous claim that Tanner never won a major. Interesting thing is that in the Wikipedia autobiographical article on Tanner it states that his serve on one point during a 1978 match in Mexico against Raul Ramirez was measured at 153 mph which is hard to believe because Tanner played with the conventional size (65-70 square inch racket head size) PdP Compact aluminum racket which was nowhere near as powerful as the modern graphite midsize and oversize rackets of today's tennis. Jonathan Isner who I believe is taller than Tanner can hit a 150 mph serve with a graphite racket. Either the radar equipment they used to measure Tanner's serve on that point in the match against Ramirez was improperly calibrated or was inaccurate or the higher elevation of Mexico could have been the reason that his serve reached 153 mph, just like the higher elevation of Mexico is why Bob Beamon jumped so far in the long jump event in the 1968 Olympic games in Mexico City.
@ Alan Chong. Sorry to hear that you had a heated argument with a racist individual on RUclips. It is disgusting that such revolting individuals post their deplorable comments on the internet or make their hate-filled comments any time and anywhere.
4th set ie-breaker in its entirety begins at 1:00
Borg beat Tanner in Wimbledon final earlier that year. Oddly, players he beat in Wimbledon finals he lost to months later at the US Open.
Though Borg.. Connors.. Mcnroe.. Lendl were stealing the limelight... I got to hear Rosco Tanner hell of Z lot. We had no TV then.. It was all news paper.. Watching this clip.. No suprise he was a fantastic talent of that time.....
So what happened?
😮
TANNER EXPLODED BORG !! YES
BJORN BORG WAS THE BEST. PERIOD.
Roger
Connors has 109 singles titles wins, the most in the open era. By comparison borg had 66, McEnroe had 77..
I’m a huge Borg fan but I’m not sure if he’s better than federer
Borg played ten less years than Connors on tour and still won more majors 11-8.
The problem with this match was the light, or to be more precise the spotlight. Under daylight it would be "slightly" different.
Yeah, "slightly" different :)
Would love to see usta RUclips this match
@bjornsiborgsi so?
Really, you couldn’t show the end
Mc played like Roscoe in tactics but very different and everything more effective
If Tanner played this well in the semis against Vitas he would have won that match too and gone to the final, but Tanner got flat late in the match and lost the last 3 sets.
3:00 Tanner serve 3:08 1:13
Con las raquetas de hoy Tanner estaría cerca de los 300 km...
JAJAJA, es verdad, rompería la barrera del sonido. Primero recibirías el pelotazo y luego oirías el golpe.
les chercheurs americain ont dit : un service de tanner avance a plus de 30 metre seconde !!!!!!!!!!!! il avait surement ( quand elle passait ) le meilleur premier service au monde !! le seul a avoir detruit le filet sur 2 tournois different !!!!! qui fait mieux ????????????????
I like how Borg looks like he walked through a time machine just to come to the future and play against that guy, haha. So funny.
You mean Borg looks like a Viking?
Hello Alan. I have been mulling this thought over and over in my mind for quite some time, but today I was thinking about it again, and I wanted to get your opinion on it. Specifically, the thought occurred to me that the impression that I and most other tennis fans have that there is a plethora of great forehands on the men's pro tennis tour in today's tennis compared to the wood/metal rackets era in tennis is because of the change in the style of play first introduced into the game by Borg, Lendl (and to some extent Vilas) from hitting a traditional backhand when the opponent hits the ball to that side, to the current practice of running around the backhand (especially in the midcourt area) to nail a forehand hard -frequently for an outright winner. The late great tennis teacher/writer Vic Braden in his classic book and tennis instructional video series from the 1970's, "Tennis For The Future" stated that it was fairly easy for tennis fans/players to name 10 great backhands in the history of the game, "but can you name 10 great forehands" in the history of the game? Back then he was right because prior to the graphite rackets era of tennis, players rarely ran around their backhand to hit a forehand. But 3 developments in the game changed that--the first, a technological change , the second , a development within that technological change, and the third, a stylistic change. The first change was obviously the creation and adoption of the graphite rackets which made the wood and metal rackets obsolete. The graphite rackets obviously allowed the players to hit the ball with much more power than their wood and metal rackets predecessors. The change within that technological change was the increase in size of the racket head from standard size (65-70 square inches) to midsize (85 square inches) to midsize+ (90-95 square inches) to oversize (110 square inches) and superoversize (125 + square inches). Of course Howard Head, the owner/CEO of the Head Corporation (until he sold it to another corporation) and inventor of the famous Head ski had sold his concept of an oversized tennis racket to Prince Manufacturing which resulted in the introduction of the Prince Classic aluminum 110 square inches oversize racket back in 1975 or 1976, before the graphite rackets replaced wood and metal rackets on the tennis market and on the two pro tennis tours. The third change --the stylistic change-- which was first introduced and utilized effectively by Borg, Lendl and to some extent Vilas, was the practice of running around the backhand (especially in the midcourt area) to nail a forehand crosscourt for a winner. My thought is this--if players back then had not been allowed to run around their backhand to hit a forehand (and of course such a prohibition would be impossible to put into effect via a change in the rules of the game for obvious reasons), then there probably would not be the current impression among tennis fans and players that there is a plethora of great forehands in today's tennis compared to the tennis of the wood and metal rackets era. In other words, players in today's tennis run around their backhands so often in a match to hit outright winners that that has led to the development of a probably somewhat misleading impression that there is a plethora of great forehands in today's tennis compared to the wood/metal rackets era. I just wanted to get your opinion on that possibility. And of course from a physiological standpoint, it is easier to hit a one-handed backhand than it is to hit a forehand because the racket arm on the one-handed backhand is not inhibited by the upper body on the extension of the follow-through, whereas on the forehand, the upper body somewhat inhibits the racket arm from fully extending on the follow-through.
Borg looks very uncomfortable at the net . Even when it's above net height .
Borg looking out of sorts here. Oddly flat. I wonder looking back which year he thought he had the best chance of winning the US Open. Many people think 1976 when it was played on clay (in 1977 he withdrew mid tournament after injuring his shoulder while water skiing with vitas Gerulaitis just before the US Open)
IL AVAIT "le" speed gun !!!!!!
Borg was snake-bit at the US open.
Best to show WHOLE tie breaker! ; (
I thought this court was clay in the 70's.
Borg never winner of open USA I think.
yes but he did his best match against Tanner !
too bad that tanner then lost in a 5 set down to the wire thriller to vitas geruliatis when vitas never could beat borg...
net babbeln - machen!
Typical lousy topspin lob by Borg at 1-3 down in the 4th set tiebreaker against Tanner in their 1979 U.S. Open match. Sad that Borg never developed a great (let alone a good) ,reliable topspin lob on either forehand or backhand (contrary to what Steve Flink erroneously thinks!).
Borg had a great top spin lob on both sides. So he messed up 1 you saw and that makes him not have a good lob? Wtf.
@@iamtman1 . You obviously suffer from the all too-human affliction described so well by the author/social commentator George Orwell in which he wrote or stated that "Life is a constant struggle to see and comprehend that which is in front of my very nose"! Most people see what they expect to see and not what is actually there in front of their eyes in terms of events and trends in society! It is a certifiable myth that Bjorn Borg had a "great" topspin lob! You obviously fail to remember the very rare times during their rivalry in which Borg attempted to hit a topspin lob against McEnroe --for example, the lousy forehand topspin lob that Borg hit against McEnroe in one of their two Wimbledon finals in which Borg completely mishit the lob and it landed either wide of the singles sideline or over the baseline! Or the lousy two-handed backhand topspin lob that Borg hit against McEnroe in the 1980 U.S. Open final in which Borg hit the lob way too short and got exceedingly lucky when McEnroe hit the overhead over the baseline! Borg demonstrated conclusively on that point how he did not have a clue as to how to hit a proper topspin lob! He hit that backhand lob with a slow, finesse swing instead of hitting it properly with a full, fast, upward swing which would have (1) gotten the ball well above McEnroe's reach at the net , (2) forced McEnroe to retreat rapidly from the net to retrieve the lob and (3) would have rebounded severely towards the back wall behind McEnroe's side of the court! If Borg had a great topspin lob as you and tennis writer/ commentator Steve Flink erroneously assert, then how do you explain the fact that Borg exceedingly rarely utilized a topspin lob against McEnroe -- a great serve-and-volleyer--that Borg desperately needed to discourage from getting as close to the net and into the net as frequently as John McEnroe?! Borg almost invariably tried to pass McEnroe crosscourt or down-the-line ( usually crosscourt). Borg in essence, essentially admitted that when he said that he liked to go mostly crosscourt and sometimes down the line on his tennis matches. If he possessed a great topspin lob, he would have certainly mentioned it as one of his favorite tactics against netrushers like McEnroe and Connors! Against a serve-and-volleyer -- and especially a great serve-and-volleyer like McEnroe -- a baseline player needs to employ the topspin lob as frequently as possible to (1) find the timing and the range on that stroke early in a match and (2) to discourage the serve-and-volleyer from getting in tight to the net! Borg failed miserably in that regard! Tennis fans erroneously assume that because Borg had great baseline topspin groundstrokes, that therefore he possessed a great topspin lob, when the reality is that regarding his topspin lob, nothing could be further from the truth! John McEnroe and Ivan Lendl, for example, were both much more adept at the forehand topspin lob than Borg! It reminds me of the story that the late Vincent Bugliosi related in one of his books, in which he was playing tennis with a group of his friends at a tennis club and his friends asserted that a professional boxer had a great jab. Bugliosi urged them to carefully observe and examine that boxer's jab the next time he fought. Later after they had done so, they agreed with Bugliosi that they had wrongly beleved that that boxer possessed a great jab and couldn't believe that they had totally failed to see the reality that he had a poor jab! So the fact is that people can almost invariably be counted upon to fail to see the reality of things that are right in front of their eyes in terms of events and trends in society!
Huh?
@@HankFinkle11 . What do you not understand? I cited numerous examples in my above-posted response comment of Borg's lousy topspin lob on both forehand and backhand! It is a certifiable myth that Borg had a great topspin lob! It is blatantly obvious that if Borg possessed the great topspin lob that so-called "tennis experts" (like Steve Flink) and some tennis fans claim, then common sense logic indicates that he would have used it innumerable times against McEnroe (and successfully so) in order to not only drive McEnroe away from the net, but also to discourage McEnroe from getting in as close to the net for his first volley as McEnroe constantly did against Borg! Borg only rarely attempted (usually unsuccessfully) a topspin lob against McEnroe in their matches because he had zero confidence in that shot on either his forehand or backhand-side!
Did you finish your bull shit now?
ibims der pana
im so freakin gay yo
yo am gai