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. 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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...

Human Simulation is Possible - by Humans

  Human Simulation: Agent-Based Modeling and the Computational Case for Our Reality   1.       Introduction In the essay, we introduce the notion that humanity could be a deliberate simulation based on an extremely simple single-celled organism, hardly anything more complex than that. This will allow an (apparently) new interpretation of the notion that humanity is simulated, but that there is no master engineer at a massive number of dials and switches, responsible for every twist and turn of our universe and lives. We begin with the notion that the universe exists and operates under its own laws. So, given the Earth [2] , when and where life first began, it was infused with a living agent, self-actualized, reproductive, and with other basic rules for its operations, interactions, and much of what single-celled organisms do today. The idea from this occurred some years back when writing code in ActionScript (formerly Flash), I was able to create...

Where is AI (Artificial Intelligence) Going?

  How to view Artificial Intelligence (AI).  Imagine you go to the store to buy a TV, but all they have are 1950s models, black and white, circular screens, picture rolls, and picture imperfect, no remote. You’d say no thanks. Back in the day, they sold wildly. The TV was a must-have for everyone with $250 to spend* (about $3000 today). Compared to where AI is today, this is more or less where TVs were 70 years ago. In only a few decades AI will be advanced beyond comprehension, just like TVs today are from the 50s viewpoint. Just like we could not imagine where the video concept was going back then, we cannot really imagine where AI is going. Buckle up. But it will be spectacular.    *Back then minimum wage was $0.75/hr. Thus, a TV cost more than eight weeks' wages. -------------------------