Skip to main content

Modern Tennis

April 1, 2017.  Modern tennis.  I’ve been watching professional tennis for decades.  Oh, the days of Rosewall, Laver, Ashe and others.  Those were the days! One thing I always noted was that pro tennis players were the models of decorum.  Until, that is, the time of Jimmy Conners, a rather emotional player, and John McEnroe, a player given to temper.  They were the exceptions at the very top. On the whole, emotional reservation of players was the rule.  But lately, we see younger players expressing extreme emotions on the court.  Case in point: Federer (age 35, and old with established talent) vs Grygio (age 21, and young with great talent) at the Miami Open, 2017.  

Loud swearing is common.  Breaking tennis rackets is everyday.  It is something like the frustrated player, bothered by poor playing or bad luck, can deflect the blame onto his racket by smashing it.  I think we see this in our younger generation, using violence to express frustration if their situation is not as desired.

The moral of this story is that if you don’t like the outcome, blame it – but not on you.

Proof:  It is not often “proof” is given to  “morality,” but here it is, as morality is principally a state of values in time.  Many commentators review the antics of Grygios gain him a greater following. This reveals approval, support, and favor.  This establishes acceptance of on-court poor behavior. 

In sports and other modern events, it seems morality is an inviscid fluid, changing hourly.


In our present case, Roger Federer defeated Nick Grygios.  Nick responded to the final (losing) point by destroying his racket, and hardly congratulating his opponent.   

----

BTW, Federer went on to win the Miami Open, his long time opponent, Rafael Nadal behaving in the traditional manner of good sportsmanship. 


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Please Comment.

Popular posts from this blog

Behavioral Science and Problem-Solving

I.                                       I.                 Introduction.                Concerning our general behavior, it’s high about time we all had some understanding of how we operate on ourselves, and it is just as important how we are operated on by others. This is the wheelhouse of behavioral sciences. It is a vast subject. It touches our lives constantly. It’s influence is pervasive and can be so subtle we never notice it. Behavioral sciences profoundly affect our ability and success at problem-solving, from the elementary level to highly complex wicked problems. This is discussed in Section IV. We begin with the basics of behavioral sciences, Section II, and then through the lens of multiple categories and examples, Section III. II.     ...
Post a Comment
Read more

UNCERTAINTY IS CERTAIN

  Uncertainty is Certain G. Donald Allen 12/12/2024 1.       Introduction . This short essay is about uncertainty in people from both secular and nonsecular viewpoints. One point that will emerge is that randomly based uncertainty can be a driver for religious structure. Many groups facing uncertainty about their future are deeply religious or rely on faith as a source of comfort, resilience, and guidance. The intersection of uncertainty and religiosity often stems from the human need to find meaning, hope, and stability in the face of unpredictable or challenging circumstances. We first take up the connections of uncertainty to religion for the first real profession, farming, noting that hunting has many similar uncertainties. Below are groups that commonly lean on religious beliefs amidst uncertainty.   This short essay is a follow-up to a previous piece on certainty (https://used-ideas.blogspot.com/2024/12/certainty-is-also-emotion.html). U...
Post a Comment
Read more

Robin Hood and Cliven Bundy

  Actor Herbert Mundin, playing Munch in the 1938 film The Adventures of Robin Hood (starring Errol Flynn) is charged by Prince John's troops of slaying a royal deer in the royal Sherwood forest.  The punishment is death.  Though the events of this film are a portrayal of events dating to the 15th century, they became by the 19th century a "robbing from the rich for the poor" theme so often depicted in other film genres. The William Tell legend is another. The plot is simple.  A poor man desperate to survive tastes the forbidden fruits owned by the authority, and is condemned. I would love to hear this event debated on the current TV news shows.  On the one hand, Munch would be a champion in service to his family.  On the other hand, his legal rights are restricted by legal authority. so, the argument would proceed.  Legal scholars cite statutes chapter and verse, while others would root for the common man.  Fast forward to 2014. Parallels ...
Post a Comment
Read more