Well Jon have you watched it? This was the days when USA had great male players in Ashe and Connors . Showed what BJK did for womens tennis. The USA could also do with her on the womens playing side now as well. Tennis has also become more global since1973 .
Well Jon have you watched it? This was the days when USA had great male players in Ashe and Connors . Showed what BJK did for womens tennis. The USA could also do with her on the womens playing side now as well. Tennis has also become more global since1973 .
I saw there are three episodes up and I dipped into episode 1 but was too tired so am going to watch it this week and then the other two later.
Episode 1 focused on Ashe and BJK, a lot on BJK and looks interesting. Lots of interviews and action. Episode 2 , I believe, is focused on Borg and McEnroe and their rivalry, and episode 3 is Evert and Navratilova.
I am guessing this is inspired by the grass season but also, as per Jeff Sackman, 50 years from 1973 which appears to be historically a transformative year for tennis with the Battle of the Sexes and also the Wimbledon Boycott
Did Vitas Gerulaitis get a mention? He seems almost the forgotten man of that generation these days.
Not sure yet! Not in the first episode about King and Ashe but thats before Gerulaitus, early 70s. maybe in episode 2 when borg and McEnroe are covered
A real look at social history! Battling sexism - OMG the comment from Bobby Wilson, a member of our Davis Cup team, who complained that King charges around the court like a man and lamented how the womens game was no longer attractive, and racism.
Updated to avoid offending anyone
-- Edited by Elegant Point on Tuesday 6th of June 2023 04:25:33 PM
A real look at social history! Battling sexism - OMG the comment from Bobby Wilson, a member of Englands Davis Cup team, who complained that King charges around the court like a man and lamented how the womens game was no longer attractive, and racism.
Dont mention that with so many Scottish friends around here!
Seriously, I saw Bobby Wilson play at Ilkley around late 70's. He was possibly mid 40's then, played the open singles alongside players like Mike Appleton, John Paish, Donald Watt, Simon Ickringill, John Clifton, Nick Brown (who later took Goran to 5 sets at Wimbledon) . Very stylish player, lorded it around the place, got beaten in the semis by, I think , Appleton but I may be wrong there. I was 13 at the time!
I watched the first of these tonight, a good watch. Several things struck me:
- Arthur and BJK we know made a huge impact on tennis, but they changed society - BJK for womens rights through starting the tour, the Battle of the Sexes which made people sit up to womens equality in sport and then , soon after, got equal prizemoney at the US Open - people still argue about prizemoney equality now but Billy Jean achieved it in the 70's; Arthur for race equality, through being a bright articulate spokesman for his sport, through going to South Africa to show the world that black people could have a voice on a world sporting and political stage, taking on the SA authorities at the SA Open and making demands of them for things people take for granted as whites but which werent given to black people then; winning WImbledon, both of them in 1975, was written really. One of Arthurs friends said that his win over Connors showed that the "the brain of a black man could take black people to miracles" or something like that and he was right - Arthur changed his game from one of all out hard hitting attack and served Connors junk and dead balls and bamboozled the worlds best player into a loss. Awesome seeing it again
- that tennis was so big then, especially in the US, and it seems sad in retrospect that it has lost that cache since. Players such as Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Ashe, Smith, Laver, Rosewall, and so many more, Vilas Gerulaitus, Newcombe, Roche for the men, Evert, King, Court, Goolagong Cawley, Casals, Wade and so on from the women - names which transcend tennis history more than other group of players until maybe the recent big 3. Tennis became rock, and it had the attention like nothing before. I have said it here before, but in the 70's on BBC 1 (we had BBC 1, 2 and ITV, 3 channels) in 1978 alone we had on TV (live) - British Hard Courts from Bournemouth, Pepsi Grand Slam from Florida, Monte Carlo Grand Prix, WCT Finals from Dallas, Queens, Eastbourne, Wimbledon, Brighton International Women's, Stockholm Open Indoor, Benson and Hedges Indoor from Wembley, Wightman Cup from Royal Albert Hall, Davis Cup Finals from Palm Springs (GB v USA) and the WCT Branniff Airways World Doubles from Olympia. I might have missed one or two, but you get the point.
- Wimbledon had standing, I remember that, haha. I stood on the old Court One one year.
- the rackets hindered the players so much - King and Evert both used wooden rackets, Evert a Wilson, King was Slazenger I think; Ashe had an early graphite racquet (Head?) and Connors his trusty Wilson T2000. I played with one of those because of Jimmy; I thought I was Jimmy!! But you couldnt hit top spin with those racquets and everyone had a traditional grip, so it wasnt until Vilas and Borg came that topspin became a thing - and their top spin was nothing compared to the guys today like Nadal - no one had thought of moving the hand so the racket faced the floor, moving it a few degrees from shake hands was enough!! You had to move it back to play a single handed backhand, for Gods sake - and why would you, you couldnt get top spin with wooden rackets anyway!
So many memories, if you like tennis history, watch it
Watched the second one last night which focused on Borg and McEnroe and took the story from 1976 onwards really, through to 1981.
The focus was all on them, the personality and the appeal. Lots of action - I saw match I was at from 1981, McEnroe versus Gullikson and you cannot be serious .
Two things struck me - the power level of the players had picked up, and wasnt far removed from todays tennis. Borg played serve volley on grass which I had forgotten and much more than say a Fed or even Sampras I would say.
The big thing was the sheer media news story of the players of the time - it was a time without social media but these guys were genuine rock stars, even Prince Harry would have nightmares at the coverage they got. One clip from early Borg, 1973, showed teenage girl fans invade centre court after he lost to Roger Taylor and crowd him for autographs by the umpires chair. Also, the atmosphere at that 1980 final was like football - genuine chanting and fans really getting into it.
Im inclined to say tennis was much bigger then than now , exposure and media wise.
Finally - the Borg story is fascinating to revisit. He lost that 1981 Wimbledon final, went to the US Open half interested, reached the final and lost again to Mac and then missed the prize giving ceremony. Days later he retired. Literally. He tried a come back a couple of years later but in essence he was worn out from the exposure , the game , the fame and had enough. For me, he would have topped any GOAT conversation if hed played a few years longer. But it is a moot point of course !
Notable they didn't really cover the 90s, presumably as the big names (Sampras, Agassi, Graf, Seles) rarely give interviews?
Mmm, Not really but the programme was about the period when tennis really had its first media golden age, as pro tennis became of age and the players featured dominated not only the sporting but also the gossip columns pages . King and Ashe took on the establishment and got tennis noticed fighting for womens and racial rights and equality in the sport; borg and mcenroe was the rivalry that took the world by storm; and navratilova and Evert was a rivalry that transcended eras but also pitted the iron curtain turned American, lesbian, powerhouse against the all American, apple pie , feminine girl next door.
added to which their stories were all centred around Wimbledon, which is what the bbc and producers were using this to promote, and you have a clear reason to focus on them. Sampras and Agassi had a rivalry which was probably us centric in reality , grafs story just began as Martin and Christie waned and Seles never had the public consciousness in the same way. Their stories wouldnt have captured the same level of appeal nor have been able to use wimbledon as the focus of that story, I think.
