I do appreciate and understand the issues of stroke dynamics. However, my post was only about the effect of slow courts, synthetic strings, and the new stringing techniques – and did not address the subject of stroke dynamics. Without new strings, racquet technology, and slower courts, tennis would be the same as it was in the 60s.

As for “the old classic Federer forehand,” he uses a semi-western grip – a grip which has been around for decades.

Back with the old wooden racquets, some players did use a western grip as did I. My first pro, Harvy Snodgrass (Google that one!) did nothing to change my grip. My next pro, Bob Harmon, made me use an eastern forehand as was the practice at the time. I wound up with a semi-eastern and a pretty good forehand. Harmon had a great serve, and passed that on to me.

When I moved to Italy, the first match I saw was a singles match with Sergio Tacchini playing some unknown. Watching the game, I knew I could beat Tacchini easily – which showed I knew nothing about clay courts. In Naples, I lost 0-6, 1-6 to Pietrangeli by playing California tennis. (Hey, I had him down a break in the second set.) My only consolation was that Pietrangeli took out Neal Frazier by the same score in the next round. Finally, when I moved to Saudi Ariabia (cement courts), I gave up my old Jack Kramer wood racquets and went modern – still with the classic California stroke production, but with a bit more western on the forehand. I also developed a reverse flat serve which was very effective. Aside from that, my game remains pretty much in the dark ages, but ready for the 75 and over crowd should I decide.

Some years back, I was working out with Alex Olmedo who was then the pro at the Beverly Hills Hotel (only their second pro since Harvy Snodgrass). Olmeda was then playing in some local tournaments and doing quite well with his “classic” game. I asked him how he handled the guys with all the topspin. “I take the ball early,” Olmedo answered.

Like all Wimbledon winners, Olmedo was a genius when it came to tennis. I asked him how he managed to beat Laver in the Wimbledon finals. “Noticed he was a bit weak on high balls to his backhand at the net,” came back the answer. At the time, Olmedo was looking for a new tennis pro job. The Sultan of Brunei had purchased hotel, and was going to renovate, closing down the tennis courts. Olmedo told me his problem was that no one seemed to have heard of him – a Wimbledon winner!

I do understand today’s stroke production, but found it a less interesting topic than the effect of technology on tennis.

Going back to the past, when Ken Rosewall was on his first tour with Pancho Segura, Pancho told me that Rosewall was getting better every time he played. At the time, Pancho had a broken toe and was a bit slow following his serve to the net. The difference between winning and losing to Rosewall, said Pancho, was this: if Pancho could make it one inch over his service line when following his serve to net, he would beat Roswall; if Pancho couldn’t make it over the line, Rosewall would beat him.

In New York City, I had the good luck to live in an apartment overlooking a tennis court where Don Budge played doubles. Although far from his prime, his topspin backhand was the best shot I have ever seen (talk about stroke production). Budge’s backhand on return of serve was like a serve coming back at the net rusher.

Tennis in the past had more variety and required a greater set of skills. It was more interesting. Today, we watch two very similar guys (or girls – there is little difference), hammering away from the baseline.

This piece contains a small grain of truth but many misunderstandings and oversimplifications as well. First of all, luxilon strings don’t intrinsically give you more spin, they translate more of the kinetic energy of the swing into the ball, simply because they don’t flex as much as natural gut. They actually give you both a little bit more pace AND more rotation. However, to suggest that Roger Federer’s forehand is “old” or “classic” betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of stroke kinetics of the last 30 to 40 years, and the factors responsible for those changes.

Although there is a great deal of hype about the polyester strings (most famously, luxilon, but now a whole host of imitators that are pretty much the same deal), unquestionably THE biggest change has been from racket technology. If you put the new strings in a 15+ ounce wooden racket, you wouldn’t have ANY approximation of what is going on in the pro tennis tour in terms of pace or spin. There is no way that anyone (even someone working out with weights) could approximate the racket head speed generated by thin, light weight composite technology rackets, if they were forced to play with the old wooden rackets. It’s simply not physically possible.

Another variable that this author completely negates in his silly comments about Federer is how dramatically stroke kinetics have changed over the last 40 years, in the context of kids learning the game with lightweight rackets that allow them to take a huge swing at the ball and use every possible joint articulation, including an enormous amount of wrist and elbow pronation that would have simply been physically impossible with the enormous pendulum of an old wooden racket attached to your hand (those pronations were largely prohibited in tennis teaching circles in those days, and for good reason).

Because of the enormous amount of wrist and elbow pronation involved in modern racket kinetics (tennis swings), and the movement towards Western grips (yes, even Federer uses a semi-Western grip), young players coming up have learned really a DIFFERENT GAME than the game of the 1960s. Because of those changes in racket technology which allowed a liberation of stroke kinetics, young players, even by the time they are juniors, are able to put enormous spin and pace on the ball. Polyester strings have only given an additional layer of pace and spin to this fundamental change. To suggest that luxilon string is responsible for the modern pro game, and that Federer is being left behind (“the old classic Federer forehand”?) because he uses a mixture of gut and polyester really suggests that somebody doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

Obviously, Federer’s results in the last year argue that he simply has reasserted his dominance in the context of a dip in form and fitness from Nadal and his other primary rivals. He still generates significantly more racket head speed, particularly on the forehand, than anyone except Nadal, again because of his enormously complex stroke kinetics that allow him to use every joint to accelerate the racquet (wrist, elbow, shoulder, etc.). Those stroke kinetics would be impossible with the older rackets, and anyone else with a clue about the 21st century version of tennis would tell you the same thing.

It’s a shame that Mr. Harding does not appear to appreciate understand these other issues and presents a radically oversimplified view of what is going on professional tennis. I’m posting this to give readers another point of view.