You can see the gradual improvement with the backhand. By the early 50s guys like Kramer and Gonzales were hitting powerful strokes and serves reaching the limit of the heavy wood racquet with its small head. They were also not allowed to do a modern jump serve. If Gonzales had been using the jump serve it would have been a rocket.
The backhand yes, but you could see the fluid motion in all of the forehands, the reflexes - world class. The old film doesn't do it justice. If you used the same poor quality film on Serena Williams and made her use a wood racket and old strings she wouldn't look any better imo : )
The "unusual fellow with the two handed backhand" So you're not gonna talk about how he also is lefty and can hit an overhead with his right hand for winner?! Sick.
Of course this looks like child's play compared to modern pros. But imagining yourself at those times, can tell they're confident & know what they're doing. Hopman was a genius for realizing the full potential of athleticism & work ethic in tennis, great talent & genetics can only get you so far (look at Nastase's career against Borg's)
I don't think it looks like child's play at all. Can you imagine what Djokovic and Nadal would look like playing with these small wood rackets, and on bad grass courts, and taped on poor quality video like this? I think they'd look the same.
@@whisper2441 " 'Compared to' them with modern rackets and what not (& watching on a small smartphone instead of actually being there) Not disagreeing, they say it's so so hard to compare era's because of so much change and speculation. Yes if someone had a time machine and put everyone in their peak in a tournament, nearly everyone would bet on someone in the big 3. Doesn't mean all things equal they are automatically the greatest-- if only wooden rackets allowed, probably Gonzales, Laver, Borg, McEnroe, or maybe Hoad at his best, would win. All I know is a champ is a champ, and has characteristics that would allow them to thrive in nearly any era to some degree, more than not
@@Dman9fp If we downgrade great players then just wait 20 yrs before the next gen of young tennis fans downplay the records of the big 3 because they may look slower and weaker than future players. Tennis is fortunate to have such a rich history but sadly it requires a quite bit of reading/research to fully appreciate this. My personal fave is McEnroe, but I suspect Hoad at his very best may have been the very best. He was like a stronger version of Laver, and Laver himself, as well as Rosewall and Pancho, rate him as the best. I also highly rate Maureen Connolly and Helen Moody, 2 names that have to go into any goat conversation imo.
@@whisper2441 Yeah exactly. When more money than ever is on the line, and sports evolution/ medicine/ diet/psychology, etc. knowledge & tools goes up, just inevitable it'll get more super competitive. But that certainly doesn't mean classic tennis is unwatchable, far from. & I still rate matches like Borg Gerulaitis 1977 wimbledon, a few matches between Borg & Mac, I'm sure Laver & Rosewall had some absolute epics, etc as some of the greatest matches ever played. But also on general it is fun to see serve and volley dominating & how it use to be the clear winning strategy. And matches like Gonzales Pasarell show there was plenty of grit and grinding, even without 50+ rallies on all surfaces I myself was born the early 90s so I've only ever really known serious tennis being played with graphite and modern strings, but thanks to youtube/ TV replays and dvds, have felt I've known and gotten accustomed to watching former greats over the years. And especially hitting with those wooden/ aluminum rackets, really makes one appreciate what these greats did with them So yeah I hope the tradition is carried on. It isn't just people arguing about goat's, I know I can't be the only fairly young one who reads up on, watches some or most of the accessible history, and appreciates it
@@Dman9fp well the older I get the more I appreciate and understand past eras of tennis. I think most young fans start out with the idea the current era is the best as that’s all they know, but as that era passes you see the same pattern emerge as new players emerge, ie less respect for the past as they are no longer on the scene. Imo the greatest players of any era are fascinating to watch as they have mastered the game on many levels, they problem solve and find ways of beating up on the field. A lot of modern tennis is boring to watch as it tends towards 1 style of play and it’s easier to produce quality shots aided by modern equipment, especially strings. It took great skill to hit a great shot with the old wood rackets as the sweet spot was only as big as a tennis ball, and you could see and hear when a great shot is produced. With modern rackets you can produce a quality shot with any part of the racket, so it makes it riskier to approach the net as you’ll have a harder volley no matter how good your approach is. Sampras said he served harder after he retired, and Navratilova said she hit shots she could only dream about with modern equipment. Is that a good thing for the game? Maybe not. There should be a reward for hitting the ball cleanly, and a punishment if you don’t hit a quality shot when backed into a corner. The equipment makes it easier so puts less emphasis on strategy. Ideally there should be a way to enable serve volley to be equally as effective as the modern baseline style. That would make for a better and more compelling viewing experience for fans. Thankfully there’s RUclips which allows us to indulge in whatever tennis appeals to us most. Having said that I just bought tickets for the United Cup, should get to see Nadal v Kyrgios again with a bit of luck : )
Joe, this was produced by a British firm and it was only a few years after the way. The Baron was probably still unfairly facing some post-World War II animosity. The anti-German sentiment lasted a long time. He was a great player and was well regarded by all of his opponents.
The Gay pre-WWII German, anti-fascist superstar, Gottfried Von Cramm, was completely left out. British Hitler supporters made sure he was not allowed to play post war and that is probably why his name has been disappeared in this Pathe reel. On Von Cramm's release from prison in 1938 (charged under Paragraph 175 for being gay, and aiding a Jew, his partner, to flee Germany), he resumed his tennis career and was again a favorite to take out Wimbledon. But Harold Harmsworth, 1st Viscount Rothermere, owner of the Daily Mail, antisemite and Nazi sympathizer, pressured the All England Lawn Tennis Club to disallow von Cramm’s participation. The club chairman was Sir Louis Greig, a friend of King George VI and supporter of the British Fascists. The club disqualified Gottfried Von Cramm from competition purportedly because of his criminal conviction.
So, von Cramm was allowed to compete at Queen's in London in 1939, but allegedly he was told he could not compete at Wimbledon because he was a convicted criminal. I don't dispute your comments about Rothermere but I'd say that there were a lot of machinations going on back then. George VI certainly wasn't pro-fascist, but he also knew tennis well. His Majesty played doubles at Wimbledon in 1926, the only member of the Royal Family to ever participate in the event.
You can see the gradual improvement with the backhand. By the early 50s guys like Kramer and Gonzales were hitting powerful strokes and serves reaching the limit of the heavy wood racquet with its small head. They were also not allowed to do a modern jump serve. If Gonzales had been using the jump serve it would have been a rocket.
100%👍
The backhand yes, but you could see the fluid motion in all of the forehands, the reflexes - world class. The old film doesn't do it justice. If you used the same poor quality film on Serena Williams and made her use a wood racket and old strings she wouldn't look any better imo : )
The "unusual fellow with the two handed backhand"
So you're not gonna talk about how he also is lefty and can hit an overhead with his right hand for winner?! Sick.
Of course this looks like child's play compared to modern pros. But imagining yourself at those times, can tell they're confident & know what they're doing. Hopman was a genius for realizing the full potential of athleticism & work ethic in tennis, great talent & genetics can only get you so far (look at Nastase's career against Borg's)
I don't think it looks like child's play at all. Can you imagine what Djokovic and Nadal would look like playing with these small wood rackets, and on bad grass courts, and taped on poor quality video like this? I think they'd look the same.
@@whisper2441 " 'Compared to' them with modern rackets and what not (& watching on a small smartphone instead of actually being there)
Not disagreeing, they say it's so so hard to compare era's because of so much change and speculation. Yes if someone had a time machine and put everyone in their peak in a tournament, nearly everyone would bet on someone in the big 3. Doesn't mean all things equal they are automatically the greatest-- if only wooden rackets allowed, probably Gonzales, Laver, Borg, McEnroe, or maybe Hoad at his best, would win.
All I know is a champ is a champ, and has characteristics that would allow them to thrive in nearly any era to some degree, more than not
@@Dman9fp If we downgrade great players then just wait 20 yrs before the next gen of young tennis fans downplay the records of the big 3 because they may look slower and weaker than future players. Tennis is fortunate to have such a rich history but sadly it requires a quite bit of reading/research to fully appreciate this. My personal fave is McEnroe, but I suspect Hoad at his very best may have been the very best. He was like a stronger version of Laver, and Laver himself, as well as Rosewall and Pancho, rate him as the best. I also highly rate Maureen Connolly and Helen Moody, 2 names that have to go into any goat conversation imo.
@@whisper2441 Yeah exactly. When more money than ever is on the line, and sports evolution/ medicine/ diet/psychology, etc. knowledge & tools goes up, just inevitable it'll get more super competitive. But that certainly doesn't mean classic tennis is unwatchable, far from. & I still rate matches like Borg Gerulaitis 1977 wimbledon, a few matches between Borg & Mac, I'm sure Laver & Rosewall had some absolute epics, etc as some of the greatest matches ever played. But also on general it is fun to see serve and volley dominating & how it use to be the clear winning strategy. And matches like Gonzales Pasarell show there was plenty of grit and grinding, even without 50+ rallies on all surfaces
I myself was born the early 90s so I've only ever really known serious tennis being played with graphite and modern strings, but thanks to youtube/ TV replays and dvds, have felt I've known and gotten accustomed to watching former greats over the years. And especially hitting with those wooden/ aluminum rackets, really makes one appreciate what these greats did with them
So yeah I hope the tradition is carried on. It isn't just people arguing about goat's, I know I can't be the only fairly young one who reads up on, watches some or most of the accessible history, and appreciates it
@@Dman9fp well the older I get the more I appreciate and understand past eras of tennis. I think most young fans start out with the idea the current era is the best as that’s all they know, but as that era passes you see the same pattern emerge as new players emerge, ie less respect for the past as they are no longer on the scene. Imo the greatest players of any era are fascinating to watch as they have mastered the game on many levels, they problem solve and find ways of beating up on the field. A lot of modern tennis is boring to watch as it tends towards 1 style of play and it’s easier to produce quality shots aided by modern equipment, especially strings. It took great skill to hit a great shot with the old wood rackets as the sweet spot was only as big as a tennis ball, and you could see and hear when a great shot is produced. With modern rackets you can produce a quality shot with any part of the racket, so it makes it riskier to approach the net as you’ll have a harder volley no matter how good your approach is. Sampras said he served harder after he retired, and Navratilova said she hit shots she could only dream about with modern equipment. Is that a good thing for the game? Maybe not. There should be a reward for hitting the ball cleanly, and a punishment if you don’t hit a quality shot when backed into a corner. The equipment makes it easier so puts less emphasis on strategy. Ideally there should be a way to enable serve volley to be equally as effective as the modern baseline style. That would make for a better and more compelling viewing experience for fans. Thankfully there’s RUclips which allows us to indulge in whatever tennis appeals to us most. Having said that I just bought tickets for the United Cup, should get to see Nadal v Kyrgios again with a bit of luck : )
What about Gottfried von Cramm, the three times Wimbledon finalist, three times French Open Champion and a true gentleman od this sport?
Joe, this was produced by a British firm and it was only a few years after the way. The Baron was probably still unfairly facing some post-World War II animosity. The anti-German sentiment lasted a long time. He was a great player and was well regarded by all of his opponents.
0.55 they played much more rapid at that time than nowadays, ha ha
And no mention of Anthony Wilding 4x Wimbledon singles and 4x Wimbledon doubles champion …….
suspicious quotes
The Gay pre-WWII German, anti-fascist superstar, Gottfried Von Cramm, was completely left out. British Hitler supporters made sure he was not allowed to play post war and that is probably why his name has been disappeared in this Pathe reel. On Von Cramm's release from prison in 1938 (charged under Paragraph 175 for being gay, and aiding a Jew, his partner, to flee Germany), he resumed his tennis career and was again a favorite to take out Wimbledon. But Harold Harmsworth, 1st Viscount Rothermere, owner of the Daily Mail, antisemite and Nazi sympathizer, pressured the All England Lawn Tennis Club to disallow von Cramm’s participation. The club chairman was Sir Louis Greig, a friend of King George VI and supporter of the British Fascists. The club disqualified Gottfried Von Cramm from competition purportedly because of his criminal conviction.
Very interesting..thanks for this.
@@AlexfromHollywood You're welcome! :)
So, von Cramm was allowed to compete at Queen's in London in 1939, but allegedly he was told he could not compete at Wimbledon because he was a convicted criminal. I don't dispute your comments about Rothermere but I'd say that there were a lot of machinations going on back then. George VI certainly wasn't pro-fascist, but he also knew tennis well. His Majesty played doubles at Wimbledon in 1926, the only member of the Royal Family to ever participate in the event.
Yes very interesting. I didn't know Cramm was gay. Tilden obviously yes.