An engineer overthinks tennis in a daily journal.
When I originally conceived of the topic of how to best take commercial flights with tennis racquets, I was thinking that it would be a quick “one and done” easy writing session. I even spent some time thinking about what two additional topics for rounding out the rest of the weekend should be. Flying with tennis racquets turned out to be a three part series. This final installment focuses on how to best handle racquets as a carry on item.
Today we are examining the pros and cons of checking tennis racquets in your luggage when taking commercial airline flights. There are some players in my orbit who have strong opinions that racquets should never be checked. That feeling is based on the fact that it can get pretty cold in the cargo hold of a passenger airplane. Most sources place the temperature lows somewhere in the 40 degree Fahrenheit range. We have a word for that in Texas. It is called “January.” I think the word for that in the Northern USTA section is “July.”
A couple of nights ago, the Fiend at Court Spousal Unit and I played a recreational husband-wife mixed doubles match. As we were engaging in the pre-match banter I realized that I was the only person on the court who was not about to travel to the USTA NTRP National Championships later this month. As they were discussing their travel arrangements, the topic of dealing with racquets on commercial flights arose. I have a lot of experience flying with my tennis racquets in tow. Everybody get your shocked face ready. This is yet another topic where my overthinking tendencies prevail.
I am growing weary of media sources blithely quoting the 22% surge in tennis participation during the COVID-19 pandemic. That claim is based on a USTA press release which cited that fact from the most recent PAC Report. I have no doubt that tennis participation was up in 2020. With gyms and health clubs facilities shut down, people were naturally funneled into tennis. It is inherently well spaced and commonly played outdoors. The self congratulatory nature of the USTA’s press release and the mindless parroting of the same claim in various media articles in the intervening time… is repetitive and annoying.
This weekend’s Fiend at Court Unplugged series has focused on the importance of building participation that feeds into the competitive Player Development pathways. To close out this topic, we are going to examine the initial consumer engagement model for two current Player Development programs. Over the previous two days, a case has been built that one of the keys to building elite level players is to attract and engage as many prospective players as possible. Not everyone will be a future Grand Slam Champion. However, increasing the numbers the number of players who pick up the sport and work through the competitive pathway increases the odds that someone from that program will emerge with a competitive chance to compete at the highest echelons of professional tennis.
“Every Russian Schoolboy Knows…” is a concept that was introduced yesterday. The Russians and Soviet Union dominated the international chess world championships for almost 50 years. As a community, they were simply better than everybody else. Soviet propaganda would assert that the dominance was a reflection of intellectual superiority. Others would point to the efficacy of the chess knowledge, training, and mentorship available in Russia. While that is certainly a part of it, it is also an undeniable fact that the sheer numbers of people that were formally and systematically taught to play chess was also a factor. The high levels of participation dramatically increased the odds that prodigies naturally skilled in chess would be identified. It was a numbers game.
Following an early morning training session this week, the FACSU thanked me for “the hit.” As soon as that innocuous phrase was uttered, it was clear that the tennis phrase “having a hit” had jumped to the start of the queue for the installment of “Tennis Vernacular” themed posts this weekend. That phrase was introduced and repeated as a recurring concept throughout Grace Lichtenstein’s “A Long Way Baby” book. I regarded it as an interesting turn of phrase, but not one that was in contemporary usage. As it turns out, apparently the FACSU uses it from time to time, albeit in a shortened format.
Evonne Goolagong’s profile in Grace Lichtenstein’s “A Long Way Baby: Behind the Scenes in Women’s Pro Tennis” highlights her easy going demeanor. She never scowled or argued and rarely exhibited irritation over a missed shot. She played the game with child-like abandon and enjoyment. Goolagong personifies how people should experience playing tennis. It is supposed to be fun.
Women’s Tennis Revolutionary: Anna Kournikova ~ Kournikova revolutionized how women’s tennis is marketed. She also may have contributed to the journey toward equitable prize money. @BenRothenberg, @NCR_Tennis, @FortyDeuceTwits, @jon_wertheim
Martina Navratilova is the perfect case study of inequities in professional tennis endorsements. It is an undeniable fact that throughout here playing career she did not receive the same level of corporate sponsorship that the other players in her tier of performance were routinely awarded. We have previously touched on two contemporaries of Navratilova, Zina Garrison and Lori McNeil. Those players also did not receive many endorsement opportunities and that fact is attributed to the color of their skin. On the other hand, Navratilova’s issue is that she has always been always open about her sexuality. The tennis industry powers during her career simply did not believe that people would purchase products enforced by bisexual and homosexual athletes.