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

Principles of Insufficiency and Sufficiency

   The principles we use but don't know it.  1.      Introduction . Every field, scientific or otherwise, rests on foundational principles—think buoyancy, behavior, or democracy. Here, we explore a unique subset: principles modified by "insufficiency" and "sufficiency." While you may never have heard of them, you use them often. These terms frame principles that blend theory, practicality, and aspiration, by offering distinct perspectives. Insufficiency often implies inaction unless justified, while sufficiency suggests something exists or must be done. We’ll examine key examples and introduce a new principle with potential significance. As a principle of principles of these is that something or some action is not done enough while others may be done too much. The first six (§2-6) of our principles are in the literature, and you can easily search them online. The others are relatively new, but fit the concepts in the real world. At times, these pri...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Lemming Instinct

  In certain vital domains, a pervasive mediocrity among practitioners can stifle genuine advancement. When the intellectual output of a field is predominantly average, it inevitably produces research of corresponding quality. Nevertheless, some of these ideas, by sheer chance or perhaps through effective dissemination, will inevitably gain traction. A significant number of scholars and researchers will gravitate towards these trends, contributing to and propagating further work along these established lines. Such a trajectory allows an initially flawed concept to ascend to the status of mainstream orthodoxy. However, over an extended period, these prevailing ideas invariably fail to withstand rigorous scrutiny; they are ultimately and conclusively disproven. The disheartening pattern then reveals itself: rather than genuine progress, an equally unvalidated or incorrect idea often supplants the discredited one, swiftly establishing its own dominance. This cycle perpetuates, ensurin...
Post a Comment
Read more