- Jun 16, 2018
- 8,733
- 15,676
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
Hear me out. Base your reaction on logic rather than emotion. Let's look at this issue objectively and sensibly.
There is no need for weight divisions in team sports: football (various codes), cricket, baseball, etc.
In these sports, various positions or roles can be filled by different body types.
Some sports highly favour height (eg basketball) especially at the top level. However, all teams can field as many small or large people as they like. It averages out.
In one-on-one sports, this is not the case. A small person vs a large person is, and always will be, a small person vs a large person.
This is why in wrestling, boxing, and the various martial arts, there are weight classes. It is simply unfair for small people to fight larger people.
Now look at tennis. I watched Nadal vs de Minaur. It was like watching a boy against a man. Okay, in some ways, de Minaur still is a boy, but the point remains:
He was outgunned by a bigger man. And if size makes no difference in tennis, why are people like Nadal clearly on the juice? Why have taller players dominated for so long now?
Imagine a restricted class, perhaps <80kg (and/or < 6'), where the little guys can fight it out, with matches determined mostly by skill, angles, agility, strategy, finesse.
And then the open class which will continue to be dominated by huge serves and forehands being delivered by big men who generally stand 6'1"+.
No, this will never happen. I'm not even saying it necessarily should. Perhaps we don't want to see any little men at the top level of tennis again.
But what do you think? Is size a huge advantage in tennis? And if so, is it time to give the little people a go?
Remember, the key to good discussion is to focus on logic, rather than emotion
There is no need for weight divisions in team sports: football (various codes), cricket, baseball, etc.
In these sports, various positions or roles can be filled by different body types.
Some sports highly favour height (eg basketball) especially at the top level. However, all teams can field as many small or large people as they like. It averages out.
In one-on-one sports, this is not the case. A small person vs a large person is, and always will be, a small person vs a large person.
This is why in wrestling, boxing, and the various martial arts, there are weight classes. It is simply unfair for small people to fight larger people.
Now look at tennis. I watched Nadal vs de Minaur. It was like watching a boy against a man. Okay, in some ways, de Minaur still is a boy, but the point remains:
He was outgunned by a bigger man. And if size makes no difference in tennis, why are people like Nadal clearly on the juice? Why have taller players dominated for so long now?
Imagine a restricted class, perhaps <80kg (and/or < 6'), where the little guys can fight it out, with matches determined mostly by skill, angles, agility, strategy, finesse.
And then the open class which will continue to be dominated by huge serves and forehands being delivered by big men who generally stand 6'1"+.
No, this will never happen. I'm not even saying it necessarily should. Perhaps we don't want to see any little men at the top level of tennis again.
But what do you think? Is size a huge advantage in tennis? And if so, is it time to give the little people a go?
Remember, the key to good discussion is to focus on logic, rather than emotion