Is that really the case? At present, the world's #1 and #2 men's players are 6'1" and 6'2" respectively. And both well under 200 pounds. These are not giant musclemen by anybody's reckoning. Nadal and Federer were also both 6'1" and quite slim.
It seems to me that tennis is about agility, coordination, and reaction time -- and that great height and remarkable muscle bulk are somewhat disfavored.
The two-handed backhand is apparently a shorter and biomechanically more efficient movement than its single-handed equivalent, is all. And at the top levels of sport, with so much on the line, every small advantage counts.
Before I get too deep - I don't follow tennis. I'm just a sport nerd. I went and grabbed the 2007 and 2023 ATP men's ranking (cause that's whats on ESPN.com) and grabbed the heights of the top 10. Average height in 2007 was 71.8 inches (1.82m) and average height in 2023 was 74.5 inches (1.89m).
Djokovic (who is in top 3 in both lists... absolutely amazing) went from being tied for tallest in the top 10, to being tied for 4th tallest.
Height has risen over time, although the rise is far more pronounced for women than for men.
Perhaps most interesting though is the apparent decrease in height variance from the 1990s onwards. Before that, you had a mix of relatively tall and relatively short champions. But from 1990 onwards, which would seem to coincide with the decline of wooden rackets and the rise of the modern power game, you stopped seeing any champions below 180cm.
It's also worth considering that, even if height confers a significant advantage, its impact is limited by the normal distribution of height in the overall population. Assuming that A) you still need to have exceptional tennis playing ability to become a champion and B) exceptional tennis playing ability is very rare and not correlated with height, then you would expect rather more exceptional players of average height than exceptional players of significantly above average height.
So even if height provided an advantage with no meaningful upper limit, you still might not expect champions of 7'0" because there are just no players with such an unlikely combination of extreme height and extreme ability. You might instead expect a statistical sweet spot where the populations of players with both attributes is large enough that the overlap is where most champions sit.
Of course there's plenty of interest in amateur pickleball, but there's no evidence that amateur tennis is becoming more about strength and height.
Looks like there is pro pickle ball. Other pro athletes have been buying teams even
Not only is tennis far more athletic - almost like fencing with a ball - it sounds and looks so much better. In tennis, the audible whack at the point of contact with the ball is so satisfying. Pickleball sounds, by contrast, are squeaky and annoying.
Pickleball is more accessible to new and older players, though. And that counts for something.
1. change: "high-level" -> "the highest professional levels". I'd wager Venus could play well easily until her 60s if not longer. There are many levels in tennis. There is are a range of competitive club levels. How often and how intensely she plays is another question.
2. Change: "the" -> "one" (w.r.t. "Pickleball is the sport she can still play.)
Stepping back, in my view, some of the most interesting questions are psychological and personal. If you were to talk to a hundred former tennis pros about aging, what would they say? How much do they play? How does it feel? How do they shift their mindset as their bodies age? To what degree is tennis still fun for them?
Is this a backhanded remark? (pun intended) In conversation, generalization and cross-comparisons happen. Our brains do these things, and it makes for interesting discussion.
There's an implied quantitative model in this comment, but what is being claimed is rather unclear. Until that model gets specified, we could talk in circles about it.
Most would expect that strength matters, but how much? / And how much for what? For winning? For being competitive enough for it to be satisfying and fun? For overall participation levels? / I don't assume a linear effect across age, ability, nor skill. / And how much relative to other qualities? And how much are the factors intertwined?
Here on HN, like most forums, there is a write vs. read imbalance: "write once, read many". If you take a broad view, the implications are clear: it is better when writers put in the effort to be clear, particularly when asked.
There is a common conversational pattern:
(a) One person makes a comment which is somewhat vague.
(b) The next person reads, and despite the ambiguity, responds without asking clarification questions.
(c) Repeat.
Is it a surprise that such conversations have so many failure modes? Some include: (1) talking past each other; (2) not really learning; (3) not getting to know each other; (4) missing an opportunity to connect and build bridges.
I attempted to break the pattern by pointing out the ambiguity and asking clarification questions. This is the norm for sites like Stack Overflow, for good reason.
I have a hypothesis: the above dysfunctional pattern is not widely recognized here on HN. It isn't part of people's awareness; we fall into counterproductive conversational styles without recognizing it.
Sure, there are styles of debate where people try to score points. That's a zero-sum mentality; a waste of our collective effort.
I encourage us to reflect on this question: Given how much time people spend on HN, how many durable personal connections are formed?
> Wow, you are vastly, vastly overthinking this.
This is your opinion. It also comes across as judgmental. Remember: people think differently and to different depths.
I suspected you had more to say. There is no plausible way one could read your mind and go from what you wrote before to what you wrote here.
I'm here to learn and discuss. It doesn't help when people have a dismissive tone in response to questions.
FWIW, I enjoyed many of your comments in this thread. But this one wasn't persuasive to me. If you are curious why, I can explain, but at present, based on your above response, I'm reluctant.
On a somewhat related topic, fitness has taken over many sports. In field hockey, dribbling used to be a skill. India was unbeaten for decades in Olympics, winning 8-9 gold medals. The introduction of artificial turf ushered in the era of strength and fitness, and the Western nations mostly took over.