Category: Tennis

Lessons From a Bad Situation – Support Your Local Team

horvath Leave a comment

In May, 2006 the University of Colorado eliminated its men’s tennis program, the second time in a matter of years that a Colorado Division I school dropped its men’s tennis program. A small group of “supporters” irrationally responded to the rational, but unfortunate decision in a childish manner.

In fact, the protesters coerced the United States Tennis Association, Colorado Tennis Association, Intermountain Tennis Association, and the Intercollegiate Tennis Coaches Association to purchase a full-page ad in the Denver Post condemning the University of Colorado.

On May 31, 2006 Boulder Daily Camera sports writer Neil Woelk wrote an editorial addressing the situation. The text of that article follows.

Not only did Woelk explain the situation, he offered advice for Colorado sports fans. Unfortunately, Woelk’s words of wisdom issued 8 1/2 years ago have been ignored by ‘supporters’ of about every sport at the University of Colorado.

The bottom line – get out and support your local team, whether it is junior high, high school, college, or a university athletic program!

————————————————————————————-

‘Support’ for CU tennis program rings hollow

I’ve watched with interest-and, I admit, a measure of amusement-as the heretofore unknown support for the Colorado men’s tennis program has emerged.

The first question that comes to mind is a simple one: Where was all this support over the last 10 years? Where were all these alleged die-hard college tennis fans when the Buffs routinely played home matches in front of a handful-very small handful-of fans?

The answer, of course, is that they didn’t exist.

Fact is, few people cared about CU tennis-at least, not enough to send a few bucks to the program or actually attend a match now and then. Tennis matches and seasons came and went, and nobody noticed.

But now all of a sudden-in true Boulder fashion-we have a “cause”. Now, folks who had no interest in the program suddenly have an interest because it’s become a crisis situation with all the elements that make such causes attractive.

The big, bad athletic department-yes, the one that puts so much emphasis on football-is picking on the little guy. Football stays, tennis goes. The only thing that would have made the cause more attractive would have been prairie dogs playing tennis.

But ask yourself this: How much support for tennis was there prior to this?

Here’s an interesting tidbit: Just last year, CU officials went to the tennis community and asked for help in building an indoor practice facility for the men’s and women’s programs. Such a facility would not only have guaranteed the long-term survival of the sport at CU, but would have helped increase interest in the programs by integrating the community into the program. The interest then? Zip. Zilch. Nada. Nobody cared. Nobody donated.

That was the first clue for CU officials that the Buff tennis programs weren’t exactly overflowing with supporters.

Not to say there aren’t a few ardent, bona fide boosters-just like there were a handful of wrestling, baseball, gymnastics and swimming boosters 26 years ago at CU. These folks are understandably upset. Something they love had been eliminated.

But now we have the entire tennis community-a relatively affluent demographic, by the way-up in arms because CU is eliminating something that only a few you paid attention to.

It’s similar to the little kid with the long-forgotten toy in the back of his closet. He never plays with it; in fact, he seldom remembers that it exists.

But when the decision is made to sweep the toy away, it’s temper-tantrum time-and this one is a doozy.

Now tennis supporters are self righteously threatening never to support CU again. They’re issuing press releases and buying advertising detailing how much CU will lose in the long term. At the same time, they’re leveling personal attacks on people who actually do care about CU student-athletes, an offensive mob-mentality reaction.

The irony here is that most of these folks threatening never to support CU again never supported CU in the past. Had those people cared before now, the situation never would have occurred.

But they didn’t support CU athletics. They didn’t care.

And now CU’s athletic department is faced with a difficult decision:

Keep all the current sports and watch each one gradually deteriorate; or, reduce the number of sports, shore up the financial problems, and do your best to keep the remaining sports competitive.

It’s not really a choice.

Today, organizers of the recent fundraising drive will argue that they had enough money in hand to keep the program afloat for another couple of years.  Actually they had enough money in hand to pay for approximately one-third of one year. The rest was in the form of pledges-not money in hand. Had AD Mike Bohn agreed to restore the program, the likelihood of being in the same position a year from now was very real.

Personally, I wish Bohn could have found a way not to cut the program. Such moves are always a sign of deeper problems-and Bohn inherited a department that is still reeling from mismanagement of the past regime. But Bohn was hired to clean up the mess, and he will be the one whose career is balanced on those decisions.

Now, as the athletic department prepares to present its budgets for the next fiscal year to the administration, it must prove that the department is doing his best to become viable again. It must present a business plan that presents sacrifices in some areas-and the cold, hard fact is that cutting a program is a sacrifice that must be made.

The hope is that at least some of the people who pledged to save tennis will maintain those pledges to help the other existing programs. That would be a strong statement.

It does not, however, mean that lessons from the situation can’t be learned:

• Years ago, CU officials-in their infinite wisdom-changed the rules and made it virtually impossible to support a specific program. Now, if you want to donate to athletics, your money goes to a general fund and is spent at CU’s discretion.

Reinstating the ability to donate to specific programs in some form would not be a bad idea-It might encourage coaches of the nonrevenue sports to be more proactive in the fund raising arena.

• Don’t wait for crisis mode to hit again.  Like volleyball? Take in a volleyball match now and then. Enjoy soccer? Check out the soccer team, and toss a few bucks to the scholarship fund, or donate to the general athletic department fund.

• And, as illogical as this may sound to some, one of the easiest ways to support tennis-volleyball, track, cross country, skiing or golf-is to buy a football ticket. Folks, football pays the bills. If football were the only sport in the athletic department, the department would be rolling in positive cash flow. Football is the ONLY revenue-generating sport in the department.

When Folsom Field is full, every other sport in the department benefits. If Folsom Field were sold out every Saturday this fall, CU’s financial worries would virtually disappear.

Don’t like football? Give the ticket to a friend. Donate it to charity.

But don’t wait until another crisis occurs. Don’t ignore a program if you actually do care.

And above all don’t complain when it’s too late.
————————————————————————————-

SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL TEAM!

International Premier Tennis League – A Hit in Kickoff Season

horvath Leave a comment

This past November, the International Premier Tennis League (IPTL) kicked off with competition between the:
• Micromax Indian Aces
• Musafir.com UAE Royals
• Manila Mavericks
• DBS Singapore Slammers

Match play includes:
1. Five sets
a. Men’s Singles
b. Women’s Singles
c. Mixed Doubles
d. Men’s Doubles
e. Men’s Legends’ Singles
2. Each set is played first to six games with a five minute shoot-out at five-all.
3. No-ad scoring applies for each game and each game won counts as one point for the team’s total.

The order of play is to be decided by the home team, and the team lineup is given to the umpire 45 minutes before the match starts. There are other slight differences in the rules that make the matches fun for all parties.

Critics of the league claim that it is not real tennis, that it is a commercial venture to benefit the league owner, and that it will detract from the WTA and ATP circuits. The critics are entitled to their opinions; however, it should be noted that the first season of the league was well received by fans and players. That is great for the sport!

Colorado tennis fans should note that Scott Davidoff, former coach for the CU men’s tennis team, is the Executive Director for the IPTL. Hats off to Scott and his group for demonstrating to people around the world how much fun it is to play and watch tennis.

For more details on the IPTL click here or check out the embedded You Tube video below.

<iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”//www.youtube.com/embed/oi2Is7pMlx4″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen>

Bill Scanlon – American Tennis Doesn’t Have to Suck

horvath Leave a comment

The following editorial was written by Bill Scanlon. It was posted on various websites prior to the firing of Patrick McEnroe.

Scanlon’s sentiment is that American tennis doesn’t need to suck. He stated that if you agree, please repost, send this to at least three people via email, and join AdvantageUSATennis.com (it’s free!).

Scanlon won the NCAA Singles Championships as a freshman at Trinity. Afterwards he turned professional and played on the ATP tour for 13 years. At one point he was a top ten player and reached the semifinals of the U.S. Open.

If I Wanted to Keep American Tennis Down

By Bill Scanlon

Last year, my partner and I formed Advantage USA Tennis, a non-profit to help support and promote American tennis. Just for fun, we imagined what we might do if our goal was, instead, to keep American tennis in the dumps.

Here are some of our crazy and entertaining ideas. Obviously, no one would ever actually do them, but just imagine….

First, we’d formally establish a “system” and make sure that every player has to learn the exact same way. That way, if faced with polar opposites like Sampras and Agassi, we could guarantee that one or the other will be shut down.

Next, centralize all the training into one location. Make sure that the players are only exposed to one teaching philosophy and a very few teachers.

At the junior level, we’d reduce the number of national tournaments. There are too damn many opportunities for kids to get excited about tennis. We need most of them to be discouraged and moving on to other sports.

Unfortunately, some players will still show promise. We’d identify these potential champions (threats) early – offer financial incentives to get them into our system. Get them to leave whatever environment has helped them develop thus far. They must relocate to the central training center and conform to the system.

Once we have the players in the system:

Remove the parents. Their love and passionate support could nurture and motivate, potentially causing a player to believe that he could become a champion. Strong parental (or family) influence must not be allowed, as it could result in a future Connors, Agassi, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, McEnroe, Chang, Bryan Brothers, Williams Sisters, Evert, Sharapova, Graf, Hingis, Seles, Jaeger, Pierce, etc.

Also, remove any coach (or major influence) who has had previous success with the player. Strong, loyal, one-on-one bonds could result in a future Borg, Vilas, Federer, Sampras, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Roddick, Navratilova, Austin, Davenport, etc.

Coaches should be assigned, shared, and changed often. Allow no personal bonding, continuity, or individual loyalty because these could encourage and motivate the players. It could also build confidence and unacceptable levels of self-esteem. Ideally, a coach should be assigned to a male and female player simultaneously, on separate tours.

Coaches (especially former top-ten players) should be required to teach conformity by the system. Allowing their personal experience and individual knowledge could lead to unacceptable progress.

Finally, once the system has achieved the goal (American tennis sucks), it’s time to build an even bigger central training center and an even bigger system to perpetuate the problem.

American Women – More Fizzle than Sizzle at U.S. Open

horvath Leave a comment

With the exception of Serena Williams, there was more fizzle than sizzle on the courts for the American women at the 2014 U.S. Open.

The pre-match publicity set high expectations for the American women. Unfortunately, they didn’t live up to the hype.

The best news was that twelve of the seventeen women advanced past the first round and Serena captured her 18th Grand Slam.

First round losers included Taylor Townsend, Lauren Davis, Alison Riske, Grace Min, and Danielle Collins.

The second round reduced the number of American women from twelve to four.

The losers included Vania King, Coco Vandeweghe, Shelby Rogers, Madison Keys, Christina McHale, C.C. Bellis, Sloane Stephens, and Madison Brengle. The losses by Keys and Stephens were particularly painful.

Varvara Lepchenko, Nicole Gibbs, and Venus Williams bowed out in the third round, with 2-1 records.

There were some bright spots. Overall, the American women won 21 matches and lost 16. (Serena Williams won seven of those matches).

Despite first round loses, Americans Taylor Townsend and Donald Young teamed up to reach the semifinals of the Mixed Doubles. Unfortunately, success in professional tennis is usually measured in Grand Slam singles wins and trophies.

C.C. Bellis charmed spectators with her tennis and innocence. Time will tell if she turns out to be a rising star or the next Melanie Oudin.

The 2014 U.S. Open was a test of not only the player’s tennis skills, but their physical strength and fitness level. Eugenie Bouchard and Peng Shuai can attest to that. Much of the event was played under the WTA Tour’s extreme heat rules, which presented an extra challenge to players in all brackets.

What is in store for the American women when the Williams sisters retire? At the moment the answer is simple. There is heir apparent among the younger American women.

Congratulations to Serena Williams on another great Grand Slam performance.

 

American Juniors Have Strong Showing at 2014 U.S. Open

horvath Leave a comment

The combination of a home court advantage and solid play propelled the American juniors to a strong showing at the 2014 U.S. Open. It also helped that the boys had 17 entrants and the girls 19 in the 64 player draws.

For the boys, seven players advanced out of the first round. The following ten players lost their only match: Dennis Uspensky, Logan Smith, Walker Duncan, Aron Hitzik, Sameer Kumar, Deton Baughman, Tommy Paul, Michael Mmoh, Eduardo Nava, and John McNally.

Only two of the remaining seven players dropped their second round matches: Reilly Opelka, and Alex Rybakov.

In the third round, three players exited the tournament with 2-1 records: Taylor Harry-Fritz, Henrik Wiersholm, and Jared Donaldson.

Stefan Kozlov was ousted in the fourth round (quarterfinals) with a 3-1 record.  Frances Tiafoe was defeated in the semifinals with a 4-1 record.

Overall, the group won 15 matches and lost 17. Although none of the players advanced to the finals, they had one player in the semis, two in the quarters, and five in the round of sixteen.

The results for the girls were similar.

Nine players advanced out of the first round with ten players dropping their only match: Katrine Steffenson, Ingrid Neel, Sofia Kenin, Claire Lu, Brooke Austin, Jessica Ho, Madison Bourguignon, Dasha Ivanova, Kylie McKenzie, and Ena Shibahara.

Five of the remaining nine players were defeated in the second round with 1-1 records: C.C. Bellis, Michaela Gordon, Francesca Delorenzo, Kelly Chen, and Usue Maitane Arconada.

Only one of the remaining four players exited in the third round: Raveena Kingsley. She had a 2-1 record.

In the fourth round (quarterfinals), Tornado Alicia Black was defeated. She won three matches before losing.

Katerina Stewart and Carolyn Dolehide were ousted in the semifinals. Both were 4-1.

Overall, the group won 18 matches and lost 19. Despite the fact that none of the players advanced to the finals, two players were in the semifinals, three were in the quarterfinals, and four were in the round of sixteen.

Does this strong showing bode well for American tennis in the future?

These American juniors are some of the top players in the world. A majority of them will test their skills on the pro tour and some will end up in the top 100. That is the good news.

The most recent group of juniors to enter the pro ranks (Sloane Stephens, Madison Keys, Alison Riske, et. al.) are demonstrating how difficult it is to become an elite player. The current group of  juniors are likely to face even greater challenges.

If anything, the 2014 U.S. Open demonstrated how tough it is for young players to become an elite player and continue to play at that level.

 

Chicago Cubs, ’69 Mets, USTA Player Development

horvath Leave a comment

What do the Chicago Cubs, 1969 New York Mets, and USTA Player Development have in common? They are the laughing stock of professional sports.

The performance of the American men at Wimbledon was embarrassing. The men won five matches and lost ten. Nobody advanced past the third round.

On the stage of the U.S. Open, the greatest Grand Slam for American players, the performance of the American men was even worse than Wimbledon. They won five matches and lost twelve. Even worse, they lost nine of the matches 3-0, i.e. the American men were not competitive.

First round losers included Marcos Giron, Bradley Klahn, Donald Young, Wayne Odesnik, Jack Sock, Steve Johnson, Noah Rubin, Ryan Harrison, and Jared Donaldson.

Tim Smyczek was 1-1, winning his first round match before being thumped by Roberto Bautista Agut in the second round.

Both Sam Querrey and John Isner won two matches before bowing out in the third round. Querrey was destroyed by Novak Djokovic while Isner lost in four sets to veteran Philipp Kohlschreiber.

The combined record of the American men at the U.S. Open was 5 and 12.

The American men are excellent players; however, none of them are elite players and they never will be. It is clear the player development programs of other countries have aspirations for greatness that far exceed those of the USTA Player Development program.

At best, the USTA Player Development program has developed sparring partners for the world’s elite players. Hopefully, the leadership of the USTA has taken notice and will make changes. The U.S. Open would be a lot more fun to watch, if American players were strong enough to compete in the second week of the tournament.

USTA Player Development Not Producing Elite Players

horvath Leave a comment

The USTA Player Development program has never been effective, but in 2014 it continues to reach new lows. Prior to the U.S. Open there are only two men ranked in the top 50  and 6 men ranked in the top 100.

Going into the 2014 U.S. Open there are 27 countries with men ranked in the top 50 according to the ATP rankings. There are three countries with more than two ranked men:

  • Spain – 10 players
  • France – 6 players
  • Czechoslovakia 3 players.

The following countries each have two players ranked in the top 50:

  • Switzerland – 3rd and 4th
  • Argentina – 13th and 26th
  • Canada – 6th and 46th
  • Croatia – 27th and 30th
  • Germany – 25th and 35th
  • USA – 15th and 47th
  • Italy – 17th and 49th

John Isner and Donald Young are the top ranked Americans.

The following countries each have one player ranked in the top 50:

  • Serbia – 1st
  • Bulgaria – 8th
  • Great Britain – 9th
  • Japan – 11th
  • Latvia – 12th
  • Rhodesia/South Africa – 20th
  • Ukraine – 22nd
  • Russia – 23rd
  • Columbia – 32nd
  • Taipei/Taiwan – 34th
  • Portugal – 38th
  • Uruguay – 40th
  • Australia – 41st
  • Poland – 43rd
  • Uzbekistan 44th
  • Austria – 45th
  • Kazakhstan – 50th

Only six American men are ranked in the top 100. In addition to Isner and Querrey, the other top 100 Americans are:

  • Steve Johnson – 51st
  • Jack Sock – 55th
  • Sam Querrey – 57th
  • Tim Smyzcek – 90th

Thanks to the USTA Player Development Program, the state of American professional tennis has never been worse.

USTA Player Development Program – Quantity not Quality

horvath Leave a comment

As the U.S. Open approaches, the USTA press corps will be out in force to brag about the great crop of young American women produced by the USTA Player Development program.

Unfortunately for the Americans and the USTA, other countries are producing players who can actually win in the Grand Slams. To date, the USTA Player Development program has produced a contingency of players who will be eliminated by the third round. Quantity will be the mantra for the young American women in the 2014 U.S. Open, not quality.

The August 18th WTA rankings show the USA is at the top of the leader board for the greatest number of players in the top 50. There are 22 countries with players ranked in the top 50:

  • USA – 8
  • Czech Republic – 5
  • Italy – 4
  • Russia – 4
  • China – 3
  • Germany – 3
  • Serbia -3

The following countries each have two players ranked in the top 50:

  • Australia
  • France
  • Kazakhstan
  • Slovakia
  • Spain

The following countries each have one player ranked in the top 50:

  • Belgium
  • Canada
  • Denmark
  • Estonia
  • Japan
  • Kazakhstan
  • Poland
  • Romania
  • Ukraine
  • United Kingdom

A closer look at the rankings shows that Serena Williams is at the top of the list. Her sister Venus is ranked 20th. Sloane Stephens is ranked 22nd and Madison Keys is 28th.

The remaining four American women are far from being world-beaters. They are ranked between 39th and 48th and include Coco Vandeweghe, Christina McHale, Alison Riske, and Lauren Davis.

The Americans other than the Williams sisters are 19 to 24 years old. Contemporaries of this group include Halep, Kvitova, Bouchard, Wozniacki, Krunic, Cornet, and Bencic. Elite players who are slightly older include Radwanska, Cibulkova, and Azarenka. None of the young Americans have demonstrated the ability to compete against these players with success.

Most of the top 50 American women are young. Time will tell if they will mature and improve or if they continue to be cannon fodder for the world’s elite players.

 

Gladys Heldman – A Daughter’s Perspective

horvath Leave a comment

The French Open and Wimbledon have recently finished and the world’s top players are focused on the U.S. Open and the tournaments leading up to it.

So far this year Li Na, Maria Sharapova, and Petra Kvitova have each won a Grand Slam. Given the depth of the women’s pro tour, there will likely be a different winner for the U.S. Open.

If Gladys Heldman was alive today, she would look on with pride and amazement at the accomplishments of these women. You see, she was responsible for laying the foundation for the women’s pro tour almost 50 years ago.

In 2012, the WTA recognized her significant contributions to women’s tennis by posthumously honoring her with the Georgina Clark Mother Award. Not only did Heldman change tennis, but she played a role in advancing the importance of women in business and society.

Periodically, it is important to note the accomplishments and battles that have been fought by those who preceded us, whether it is in sports, business, or life. Individuals such as Heldman made the sport of tennis and life better for generations to come. All athletes and sports fans who enjoy women’s professional tennis owe a debt of gratitude to Gladys Heldman.

The following is the text of the acceptance speech given by her daughter Julie Heldman at the WTA award ceremony.

“Thank you for honoring my mother with the Georgina Clark Mother Award. This award is certainly not because Gladys Heldman was a traditional mother. She was unapologetically unconventional. She didn’t cook, she didn’t clean, she didn’t vacuum. She was uninterested in makeup and frilly dresses. But she was a helluva role model. She taught us to value education and success, she was committed to helping others, and she stood up for what she believed in.

This weekend we are celebrating the founding of the Family Circle Cup and the founding of the women’s pro tour. My mother had a role in the founding of this tournament, and she was the driving force, the shepherd, and the guiding light for the beginning of the women’s pro tour. Yet my mother never took a dime from women’s tennis. In fact she dug deep into her own pocket.

Here’s why she was uniquely qualified to be the founder of the modern women’s tennis tour:

She was extraordinarily hard working. She graduated from Stanford in three years, at the top of her class. In 1953, she started, owned, edited, and published World Tennis, which became the world’s largest and most influential tennis magazine. When she sold the magazine in 1972, she liked to say she was replaced by seven men. That’s probably true.

She was committed to unlimited opportunities for women. In the 1950s, she was often asked “Isn’t it nice your husband lets you work?” My father was a distinguished scientist and businessman who had married a force of nature, and nothing was stopping her.

She had a bully pulpit. For years she used her editorial pages to campaign for open tennis, and when that battle was won in 1968, she championed women’s tennis, calling for more tournaments and bigger prize money for the women pros.

She was a self starter who was driven to succeed. She had no experience in journalism, but she taught herself to write and edit articles and to sell ads, the life blood of magazines. I remember her each month going without sleep for days, typing furiously, chain-smoking cigarettes, and laying out articles all over her bed, all to send the magazine to press on time. She was never one day late.

She was a phenomenal, creative promoter who batted 1,000. Her most successful promotion before the women’s pro tour was the 1962 US Championships at Forest Hills. The field had been weak for years, because top tennis players were playing in Europe for bigger under-the-table money. No one knew how to solve the problem. So Gladys took over. She and a group of friends ponied up enough money to jet the players in from Europe and treat them like kings. The tournament was a huge success. She saved Forest Hills.

She focused on the goal and didn’t back down, even when she ruffled feathers. The Forest Hills promotion is a perfect example. The men who ran the United States Lawn Tennis Association resented her coming in and doing a better job than they had. After her astonishing success, they kicked her out. She succeeded in part because she was headstrong and sometimes difficult.

She knew everyone in tennis. She attracted advertisers by cold-calling the heads of big companies. If she struck out, she’d go to Tiffany’s and buy herself something expensive. She owned three gold cigarette lighters, but she also got lots of ads and lots of business connections.  She brought Joe Cullman, Chairman of the Board of Phillip Morris, into tennis, and his company became a major presence.

She was dedicated to helping tennis players. Without any publicity, she paid for players who couldn’t afford to compete. At a time when opportunities were few for players of color, she reached out a hand to those in need. All of these traits came in handy when she founded the women’s pro tour.

Her work ethic led her to ignore her busy schedule and help the women players. At Forest Hills in 1970, the women were furious that the upcoming Los Angeles tournament had a prize money ratio of 8 to 1 in favor of the men. Billie Jean King, Rosie Casals and Nancy Richey approached my mother, asking her to help start a competing event. My mother had a magazine to run, there were people from far and wide to meet at the Open, and my parents were in the process of moving from New York City to Houston. Yet when she heard the women’s cry for help, she jumped into action.

She started immediately. Within days she gained verbal permission from the men in power, contacted people in Houston to run the tournament, and rounded up the players. Yet when the Houston tournament was about to start, the men in power made an about face, threatening to suspend any player who competed in Houston. Those suspensions could cause havoc for the players and the club. So Gladys reassured them all.

Her creativity as a promoter led to a unique solution. In 1970 the rules distinguishing amateurs and pros were complex. To make the tournament work, my mother creatively made all the players contract pros for one week by signing them up for $1. That solution protected the players and the club.

Her connection to Joe Cullman was vital. She called him and got Virginia Slims, his company’s new women’s brand, to support the tournament.

That first event was a great success. The nine of us stood up for ourselves and for women’s tennis. Virginia Slims had a public relations coup. And after the finals, the Original 9 ate spaghetti dinner at our house and then chose my mother to head a women’s pro tour. Before the lights were out that night, she attacked her Rolodex, contacting anyone vaguely capable of promoting or sponsoring a women’s pro tournament. She signed up Virginia Slims to be the tour sponsor. And she never stopped reaching out to women players, supporting those who had already committed to the Virginia Slims tour, and enticing those who hadn’t.

For the next two-and-a-half years, my mother was the force behind the scenes, and Billie Jean King was the tour’s greatest star, without whom the tour would not have succeeded. And the rest of us players worked hard, putting our careers and the future of women’s tennis on the line.

Yet some of my mother’s strengths were also her downfall. Those years were a rough go for her. She was still running World Tennis. There were fights with tennis associations and unreliable promoters, and it took a huge toll on her. And then she was booted out of women’s pro tennis when the Virginia Slims Tour agreed to combine with the rival USLTA women’s tennis tour. Why? She was outspoken, she was mercurial, and she was difficult.

Thank heavens Gladys Heldman was difficult. It meant she stood up for the things she believed in. It meant she wouldn’t back down. It means she and the Original 9 players started what has become the most successful women’s pro tour in all of sports.

– Julie Heldman, April 6, 2012

source: http://www.wtatennis.com/news/article/2733273/title/gladys-heldman-a-daughters-perspective

 

Do Tall Women Have a Better Chance to Succeed at Tennis?

horvath Leave a comment

Recently a group of tennis professionals were talking about how they thought female professional athletes were taller than the average population. One of the questions raised in the discussion was, “Can shorter females realistically aspire to play tennis at a highly competitive or professional level?”

As a result, the height of the 128 women participants at Wimbledon 2014 was collected from online websites and the distribution and average heights were calculated.

The women players at Wimbledon 2014 were taller than the general female population. On average (mean, median, mode) the Wimbledon participants were 5’9”. This compares to an average of 5’4″ for the U.S. (CDC).

  • 21.1% of the women professionals who played at Wimbledon 2014 were 5’6” or shorter.
  • 68.0% of the women professionals who played at Wimbledon 2014 were between 5’7” and 5’11”.
  • 10.9% of the women professionals who played at Wimbledon 2014 were 6’0” or taller.
  • The shortest player was Kurumi Nara and the tallest players were Maria Sharapova and Naomi Broady.

While it is possible for shorter females to play tennis at a highly competitive level, tall women are more likely to succeed.

tall women at Wimbledon 2014