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

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

The Devil and Artificial Intelligence

 In Stephen Vincent Benét’s allegory, The Devil and Daniel Webster , the Devil comes to collect a soul, armed with the fine print of a contract and the inevitability of human weakness. Daniel Webster, the great orator, wins the day not by denying humanity’s flaws, but by appealing to its higher nature. The story warns us about the bargains we make and the price we might pay when power comes too easily. Consider the allegory of Goethe’s “ Faust” as a substitute if Benét’s story is unfamiliar. Today, Artificial Intelligence stands in a position uncannily similar to the Devil in the old tale. It offers dazzling speed, vast knowledge, and seemingly miraculous powers, always at just the right moment when we are tired, overwhelmed, or greedy for an advantage. It whispers I can solve your problems, do your work, make your life easier; just trust me. Playing the role of Daniel Webster is only these few pages, but it is you or me that have signed the contract. The “gifts” AI offers ar...
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