Now that we have firmly established that no one really knows the origin of why Love represents “no score” in tennis, the logical next examination is to focus on the subsequent points.
First Point – “15”
Second Point – “30”
USTA Friend at Court, ITF Rules of Tennis, 5.a.
No one really knows why the scoring system of tennis starts counts the first two points in multiples of 15. One prevailing internet theory is that the practice originated because points were associated with a clock face, thus if four points are required to win a game then each point would represent a quarter of an hour. There is actually no historical evidence backing up that theory. While it is possible that there is a temporal origin of the scoring system, it is also possible that there is no relationship. This seems like a good time to mention that not everything you read on the internet is accurate, ya’ll.
More credible to me than the clock face theory is basically the same logic, but referenced to a navigational sextant rather than a clock. Contrary to what my children believe, I was not around in ancient times. I do imagine that sextants were more widely accessible than clocks in the early 1400’s which is the time frame when he tennis scoring originated. For the sake of transparency, I frequently use images of sextants in presentations I make for my day job. There may be a little bit of bias in play here.
There is considerable evidence that scoring by 15 in tennis is an ancient practice. A French ballad comparing the struggles of life with tennis penned in 1435 references scoring by 15 as do other historical accounts dated 1505, 1522, and 1555. While those early sources are said to include the fact of the 15 point scoring system, none include a reason as to why that is the case. I should note that ordinarily I like to examine all the original sources for myself, but in this case these works are in languages that I don’t speak, so the exercise would be pointless. I would point anyone to “Tennis Origins and Mysteries” as a good starting point to anyone who is interested enough to pull that thread a little further.
The theory that has the most appeal to me is rooted in the understanding that the early game was played for stakes. In the 1400s the coinage of France had a series of tokens that were divisible into 60. Tradesmen were allowed to cut these coins into equal quarters for legal tender, thus each piece would be valued at 15. There is a possibility that the scoring by 15 originated because it was based on the prevailing monetary unit at the time while at the same time accounting for why it takes four points to win a game.
As someone who has been playing tennis since I was knee high to the net post, I have always taken the scoring system for granted without ever giving it much thought. The discovery that the origin is actually a mystery from ancient times gives me some cosmic sense of connection to something much larger than myself. As a bonus, I now have something new to think about when adjusting my strings between points.
- United States Tennis Association (2020) Friend at Court. White Plains, NY
- Whitman, Malcolm D. “Tennis Origins and Mysteries”, Dover Publications, 2018.
- Putter, Ad, “Personification of Old Age in Medieval Poetry: Charles d’Orleans,” British Academy Review, Issue 17, March 2011.
