why is it that tennis today is alot faster than tennis before?
969677
Yep racquet technology is definitely a major reason- maybe the biggest reason.  Don't forget though that, just like in pretty much every other sport, athletes participating in tennis have gotten faster, stronger, better conditioned, etc. over the years  serves, volleys, returns, etc have all increased an incredible amount due both to lighter racquets and stronger athletes generating more power; tennis players also dedicate more time to their sport, start playing increasingly younger (for better or worse like in many sports), practice game situations, drills (for increasing power and speed to make more returns), etc, etc.  Another thing to consider is that in the early days, only a very few people participated in tennis; nowadays you have far more people playing the game thus drawing athletes from a far greater pool of players where the best players have far more skill and talent than previously.  I would also suggest that, just as lighter racquet technology has vastly sped up the game, tennis balls have also probably been "improved" over time to produce more bounce/speed, to last longer, etc.  The only other factor I could also possibly think of, although I'm only speculating here, is that various tennis surfaces have gotten "faster" over time  too due to new technologies in creating "hardcourt" surfaces, mowing  techniques and caring for grass courts, etc.
1031192
A bit of clarification: first of all, the man that the Williams sisters lost to was ranked 205 at the time. The Williams sisters had been claiming to the media that they could beat any professional male outside of the top 100 men in the world. Apparently, after being smoked by an aging player (who prepared for his match by downing a few beers, among other things), they changed their song and started claiming being able to beat any male outside of the top 350 in the world.\n\nAnd as for the Billy Jean King match, it should be noted that the match pitted King against a 55 year old man. Bobby Riggs wasn't one of the top men's players in the world anymore--he wasn't even a professional player, anymore. His glory days where in the 1930s and 40s, not in the 70s when the Battle of the Sexes took place.\n\nBut to answer your question directly, no. The ATP Tour is for men's tennis, while the WTA is for women. Maybe your question is more 'Can women physically compete with men' rather than a question of rules.\n\nIn order to better understand the differences between women's and men's tennis, go to your closest D1 university and watch the men's and the women's teams play. You'll notice a few differences, among which: the men are able to produce more velocity on the ball from more positions (i.e., in the men's game defenders can turn into attackers from virtually anywhere), the serves are all bigger, and their movement is usually better.\n\nAnother anecdote to put things in perspective: when I was a junior player in a small city, there was a woman on the WTA tour from our city. One day she played one of my 16 year old friends in a training match. He was a good player--ranked among the top 5 in the state for his age, and probably among the top 100 to 50 in the region--but he almost beat her and lost 5-7 or 4-6, something like that.\n\nI'm afraid that the gap is still too big between the top men and the top women in the world.\n\nI hope that helps.
919833
i am a girl and i play tennis but i agree that its okay if the women are getting less pay cos the maximum length of their match goes to about 3 hours while men sometimes gotta slog for 6 hours.earlier i used to feel that this inequality is not right but once i was acquainted with the facts i realised that they are being paid according to their work.i disagree with what a person mentioned about womens tennis being better than mens.definitely not.mens tennis has such a load of action and energy compared to the womens game which is lame in the absence of top 10 players.mens tennis does attract more crowds and is more popular,the guys are working much more so they definitely deserve more money than the women.
622241
Roger Federer is getting there boys.  He might do it.  Just keep watching, he might be the best in the world in the history of tennis in a couple of years.
681833
At the French Open, Americans tend to lose because they play on clay courts instead of hard courts.  Americans are more used to playing on hard courts then on clay, but that's still no excuse.  I guess us Americans just aren't as good at tennis like other countries.
1077284
Ummmm I'm American, and first to answer the person before me - I wouldn't say that we have a domination in everything, so it's not ours to lose: Have you been watching the world cup?\nAs for tennis, I honestly wouldn't say that we are or have been dominating in tennis either. There have been some great players from the US, but there are many more from all over the world. So, I don't think that we are LOSING our domination in tennis, I don't think we ever had it to begin with. Sometimes things may seem that way because the media focuses on who they think the world wants to see, but that doesn't make it reality.
835643
Every sport has it's own strategy and weakness.  In tennis, you hit deep to the corners.  In football, if you can get to the sideline, ALL the opposing players MUST run to the sideline to tackle you BEFORE you run past them!  \n\nThey might be in the middle of the field and have to run 15 yards just to get to the sideline...you might only have to run 10 yards to outrun them...meaning BEFORE they can get to the sideline (they had to run 15 yards) you ran 10 yards (a shorter distance) and ran PAST them!  \n\nFor example, a halfback running with the ball get's to the outside-the sideline.  He's at the fifty yard line and has fifty yards to go.  If he was in the middle of the field, he'd have to dodge the majority of players.\n\nOk he's at the sideline and running down it fast. \nAt that point, he's already past MOST of the opposing players.  Reason why-most of the larger opposing players are too SLOW to get to the sideline to tackle him!\n\nHe might only have four to six players to beat-to run past.  Say they are on the 45, 40 + 35 yard line.  He blows past both the 45 + barely get's by the guys at the 40 yard line.  Now only one more player to beat at the thirty yard line.\n\nHe can go to the middle (where most of the opposing players are) and gamble...or continue running full steam ahead down the sideline.  Ok here comes the last opposing player coming to tackle him (at the 30 yard line) and our player fakes a move to the left (middle of the field.)\n\nThe opposing player slows down to tackle him.\nBut our player instead goes back to the sideline, catching the opposing player out of position...and blows past him all the way down for a touchdown.\n\nMeanwhile most of the other players (many larger ones) are in the middle of the field.  They were too slow to be involved for the run to the sideline...(most weighing 300lbs compared to our player running down the sideline who weighs 200lbs and is way faster.)\n\nThere must be a mathematical equation or other simpler way to explain this.  Hope it helps!
914124
Roddick seems to have the better serve as he serves more aces, a higher percentage and also has the rest of the game to back if up. Also, Taylor Dent's serve breaks down under pressure while Andy's does not.
779000
Pete Sampras is an amazing player, but Federer is currently ON FIRE.... he has killer skill in every part of his game. He has an ace serve, not as tough as Andy Roddick, yet still amazing, and doesn't show significant weakness in his forehand or backhand. R Fed's Game is insane.
932736
Football & soccer are played on two possible surfaces (grass, astroturf). Baseball has two different surfaces in every game (grass or turf AND dirt). Golf (which I consider a game, not sport) has grass and sand.\nI would guess that the surface differences for tennis are based on what was available when the sport first became popular in that region. Perhaps it was cheaper to trim grass down than keep a harder surface available. Same with clay.
396080
Fastest Tennis Serve\nThe fastest tennis service by a man (measured with modern equipment) is 246.2 km/h (153 mph) by Andy Roddick (USA) during a Stella Artois Championship match against Paradorn Srichaphan (Thailand) at the Queen's Club, London, UK, on June 11, 2004.
892438
That person that said tennis is more strenuos ... dont listen to them they OBVISIOUSLY have no idea what their talking about. FIRST of all swimming is one of the most strenuos sports EVER. it is one of the best sports you can do. And another ting you DO sweat in water... when your face is red and your hot and theirs a weird smell in the pool.. yeah thats sweat and that means youve been sweating...stick to the sport you love or do both but just do one one semester and one the next semester. hope it helps!
1078798
Male tennis is a faster and more intense sport. Females play at a slower pace (except Venus and Serena) not to mention the difference in match lengths. The bottom line is that tickets to female events do not sell as well and the prizes are given out accordingly.
1004567
Nadel holds a 59 match winning streak on clay courts coming into the final.\nNadal holds a 5-1 head to head record against federer with the last two meetings being on clay in Rome and Monaco.\nFederer is World no.1 while Nadal is world no.2.\nFederer can become the third man to win four consecutive grand slams.\n\n              World No. 1 and top seed Roger Federer against World No. 2 and second seed Rafael Nadal in the final of Roland Garros. It couldn’t have been scripted any better. Sunday’s match between the two evokes memories of past Grand Slam finals between the top two players in the world – Sampras vs. Agassi, McEnroe vs. Borg for example.\n                  Federer, of course, is trying to become the first player since Rod Laver in 1969 to win four straight Grand Slam events, a streak that began at Wimbledon last year. Meanwhile, Nadal is seeking to extend his Open Era record of 59 straight matches won on clay and defend his crown in Paris (d. Puerta in 2005).\n              Federer, 24, hails from Switzerland, while Nadal who turned 20 last Saturday, comes from Spain. The two have met six times during their ATP careers, with Nadal coming out on top in five of those encounters, including all three times on clay. Last year at Roland Garros, the Spanish sensation took out Federer in the semifinals.\n\nWith these stats, I beleive that Nadal will win the French Open for a second consecutive time
376280
Unfortunately cricket is given way too much importance here. Tennis is finally picking up after the emergence of Sania Mirza. Hockey, which used to be popular is also given less importance these days. The media is partly to blame for that, since they idolise the cricketers & leave the players of others sports out...\n\nAlso, politics has crept into sports as well. Really good players might be dropped from the team, & the ones who have the influence & are thick with the selectors will find a way in...\n\nHopefully by the end of the next decade things should change (though personally I don't see it happen), & India atleast qualifies for the World Cup!
825765
In Australia, I've heard the the Rebound Ace surface gets tackier the hotter it gets.  At the AO, they have the extreme heat policy where they will stop play and close the roof for play on the 2 main courts.\n\nBoth the clay courts at the French and the grass courts at Wimbledon will play faster if it is warmer and drier.  Particularly at Wimbledon, the surface will become brown earlier in the 2 week tourney, and you will see more strange bounces.\n\nAt the US open, I think the surface is similar to most public hardcourts in the US, and their conditions don't change very much with the weather, except that even a little bit of rain will make the courts slippery and dangerous.
332805
You may not have been around during the moonballing era at the French Open, but that was surely the most boring of times.\nAs for today, the big matches are still exciting, but perhaps less so than a decade or two ago. The big difference, in my view, has nothing to do with your premise about modeling and acting, however, or about their focus. The big difference is twofold: first, players have converged on a single style of play with minor variations. That style is the power baseline, power serve game. No more McEnroes, Edbergs, Navritolovas. This means that we are usually watching less interesting tactical matchups.\nSecond, there are few of the intense rivalries of before. We had McEnroe vs. Conners vs. Borg; Graf vs. Seles; Evert vs. Navratilova; Agassi vs. Sampras. Right now we are missing the enduring rivalries, although I don't see that as a permanent situation.\nSo, on the whole, I agree that tennis is slightly less exciting than early, bur for different reasons.