Photographer unknown: Don Budge, 1937
I very badly want to watch the men's Wimbledon final this morning between 20-year-old World No. 1 sensation Carlos Alcaraz of Spain and seven-time Wimbledon men's champion and all-time majors leader Novak Djokovic of Serbia, but I can't. I don't have a TV.
I'm coming up on nine years without one; big sports events are the one thing I miss. But, as I said back in the '80s when I first went without TV, "the problem with TV is that you buy one so you can watch the Super Bowl, but then three weeks later you find yourself watching a rerun of 'Bewitched' at two o'clock in the morning." That whole sentence being literally autobiographical. Nowadays I'm sure the rerun would be different, but I wouldn't know what it would be because, as I say, I don't have a TV.
My friend Jim hasn't watched television since the 1970s*. They do have a set in their closet. They take it out from time to time to watch a movie on DVD, but that's it. At the same time, he and Becky undoubtedly have more books per square foot in their house than anyone I know. You pick your medium. I watch movies on the computer—most recently, The Best Years of Our Lives, directed by Willi Wyler, which I loved. (Willi Wyler—I always use the German spelling of his first name, because he never officially changed it—is the most accomplished director that nobody but film buffs today have heard of.) I also watch sports highlights on YouTube. I'll be able to see Carlos and Nole's highlights later. Consolation prize.
I played tennis when I was young. My grandfather was an excellent club player when he was young, and my mother played too, and my younger brother. My cousin Lou (called Terry as a kid) was a standout until he was grievously injured in a car accident**. I took lots of lessons all through my childhood, and always enjoyed them. My younger brother Scott was much better than I was, and we played together endlessly, for years.
My peak was that I was No. 1 on the junior varsity team in high school when I was a sophomore. There are some pretty big caveats to that, though: the five best players in my class of 90 or so students, Michael Davidson and John Jeka and the rest, moved up to varsity in sophomore year, the first year they were eligible; and the actual best player left on the junior varsity, Fritz Kaesar, was strategically played at the No. 2 position so we would be more likely to notch at least one win at the top of the draw. I lost to the other team's No. 1 pretty much every week all season. Hey, it was my role. Our varsity won the Wisconsin State Championship several years in a row.
Scott went to Don Budge's tennis camp one summer. Don Budge is one of only two men ever to win the Grand Slam, which means winning all the so-called major tournaments, the Australian Open, the French Open, Wimbledon, and the U.S. Open, in order, in one calendar year. What makes it so tough, besides the unlikeliness of surviving a grueling draw four times in a row, is that the French and Wimbledon are played so close together in the Summer, and on "opposite" surfaces. The French is played on clay, which is slow and predictable, and Wimbledon is played on ultra-traditional grass courts (the game was originally called "lawn tennis" to distinguish it from an indoor version, no longer played), and grass is fast and unpredictable and harder to move on. Both surfaces are almost extinct on the pro tour and both were historically dominated by specialists. Fourteen of Rafael Nadal's 22 slam titles were won on clay at the French, but Roger Federer, the all-time leader on Wimbledon's grass with eight titles, has only won the French once, in 2009.
The other man who won the Grand Slam is Rod Laver, who did it twice, once in the amateur era and once in the open era. No other man has ever done it. Djokovic came within one match of doing it last year, losing in the finals of 2022's last major. Because the sport is so starved of anyone achieving its greatest accomplishment on the men's side, they've invented a thing called a "career slam," meaning someone who has won all four of those tournaments at some point or another at least once in their career. Six men, not including Laver and Budge, have done that. But that's not a Grand Slam. That's like driving in an RBI from first, one from second, one from third, and homering in four different baseball games and calling it a grand slam. Nope. They've also taken to calling each of the constituent major tournaments "a grand slam," which is lazy, as well as borderline wrong, although we "get" the usage. All to try to glorify the accomplishment of those who win one. Which is admittedly difficult to do. But, sorry. The "calendar" Grand Slam is the one and only Grand Slam. The last time it was done was 1969.
Scottie, back at his physical peak, is playing with Mr. Budge in heaven. I'll be young and fit enough to play with him again when I get there myself, but he'll still beat me. And I won't mind. If you're lucky enough to be watching the final this morning, enjoy it for us, will you?
Mike
*I happen to know that he watched Get Smart and The Man from U.N.C.L.E. when we were kids, though.
**After his accident at age 19, which nearly severed his right arm, Lou had to switch from playing golf right-handed to playing left-handed, only using his right arm for part of the swing. He was such a great natural athlete that he achieved a USGA handicap of 2 left-handed.
[CORRECTION: This is completely wrong! Apparently I made it up in my mind, based very loosely on actual facts. I called Lou. He was 16 when he was in the accident, he didn't start playing golf till he was in his thirties, switched to playing left-handed in his forties because of the accident injury, had a handicap of 15 playing right-handed, and his personal best is 85 playing left-handed. He turns 68 in November.
This is why journalists check their facts. Sorry for "making it into a story."
One thing I didn't get wrong: he was an excellent athlete, and a very good tennis player before the accident. He has limited movement in his right arm. I remember him telling me (I didn't confirm this yesterday) that he has to put his belt on his pants before putting the pants on, because he can no longer put on a belt while wearing the pants. So the fact that he can hit an 85 on the golf course is still pretty impressive.]
Original contents copyright 2023 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)
Featured Comments from:
robert e: "I hope you did/will watch the match. It was worthy of a grand slam final, chock full of superb tennis, astonishing athleticism, and drama, including a nearly half hour long game at its rough midpoint. There were also a bunch of falls, a few arguments with the ump and a smashed racquet. Federer won only one French Open, Nadal only two Wimbledons. What might have happened if they hadn't gotten in each others' way? I wonder if the transition from clay to grass wasn't as big a deal in the era when every major was played on either grass or clay."
Mike replies: Only Bjorn Borg really managed it. And yet he failed to win a U.S. Open. On the other hand, he retired at the astonishing age of 25. That's only five years older than Alcaraz, and eleven years younger than Djokovic. He actually won major tournaments at a faster clip than Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic: 11 in 8 years, as opposed to 20 in 24 years for Federer, 22 in 22 years for Nadal so far, and 23 in 20 years for Djokovic so far.
It's important, too, to remember that major tournaments weren't always the be-all and end-all yardstick they are considered to be today. Number of tournaments won, number of weeks at No. 1, won-loss records, doubles titles, Davis Cup, and other measures were given more weight in earlier eras. Then too, before 1969, players were required to be amateurs! There was no prize money for the majors. Whereas for years now tennis has been highly lucrative for the top names. Many players in earlier eras would skip the Australian Open because it was hard to get to. Djokovic travels by private Gulfstream jet—and not a small one, either. Rod Laver turned pro after winning his first Grand Slam and was not eligible for the majors until the Open Era started, when he promptly won it again. Jimmy Connors was banned from the French Open during his peak years because of his association with World Team Tennis. So there are a lot of things to consider when weighing players' records, especially across eras.
Although I am a big fan of Alcaraz, I was really hoping Djokovic would have another chance at the Grand Slam this year. However, this is a leitmotif of tennis for a fan—the brash-up-and-comer beating the older master in the autumnal years of the latter's greatness. You see it over and over again. I've been watching it since Jimmy Connors dismantled Ken Rosewall in the finals at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open in 1974, when Connors was 21 and Rosewall 39.
Paul: "Comparing athletes and sporting events of different eras, while entertaining and or intriguing, is futile. The game in nearly every sport has drastically changed. We like to toss out the numbers such as total Grand Slam wins or Super Bowl championships. As you suggest, Mike, the money made is Monopoly money now. Most athletes in older generations needed part-time jobs off season to make a living. I think one can make a good argument for the greatest of your generation, but not all time, at least in any realistic way. If Don Budge had access to the same technology, training and money as today's top players, he would likely be at or near the top as well.
"Talent can only go so far. If Tom Brady played in the '60s and '70s, his numbers would not be what they are today. The game was largely based on the running back. In addition, the likelihood of playing 20+ years was zero. He would have been broken, as every player on the field was fair game at that time. There was no rules protecting the quarterback. Place a wood racquet in Alcaraz's hands and his power drops significantly. He would have to play a different game."
>>I happen to know that he watched Get Smart and The Man from U.N.C.L.E. when we were kids, though.
As all the kids our age did. And Lost in Space.
Posted by: Joe | Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 10:20 AM
Everything is available on the internet. And you obviously have an internet connection. Just do a search.
I have nothing but a Samsung Galaxy S21 plus 5G phone and have no problem watching whatever I want. This ain’t rocket science.
Posted by: c.d.embrey | Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 10:21 AM
You can download the ESPN+ app on your phone right now, and watch the finals “live”. Then cancel your subscription before 30 days. Small price to pay for what obviously is a passion of yours. BTW, I was an avid tennis player in my youth. Got to play with both Rod Laver and Roy Emerson at the Greenwich Field Club. It was the only club near Forest Hills which had grass courts, so they’d spend the week before practicing at our club. Our tennis pro would always pair them up with the best young players at the club. It was a blast for me being a 15-16 year old aspiring tennis player.
Posted by: Ned Bunnell | Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 10:33 AM
I'm about your age and for the life of me, I couldn't give up television. I'm not a couch potato and I don't "veg" out in my La-z-boy in front of my T.V., but I think about the world events breaking in real time that I watched live, 9/11, Jan 6th, etc, and I wouldn't be able to not hit my remote and see these events. I guess for those that care, major sports events would fall into this same category.
I know I'm in the minority against younger people. I'm forever seeing articles online like, "How to watch 'Better Call Saul'. I don't get it, just go to AMC... it's not complicated.
In the immortal words of that great philosopher, Homer Simpson: "Television, it gives so much and asks so little."
Posted by: Albert Smith | Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 11:01 AM
If you want to watch something, stream it on your computer.
Posted by: Tracy | Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 12:30 PM
You do in fact have a television: you used it to type this article. Perhaps final is not streamed live in US? Just checked and certainly is in UK.
Posted by: Zyni | Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 01:10 PM
In 2000, during a major move, I decided to part ways with my TV. However, when I planned a trip to Iceland for a few weeks, I entrusted my son with the responsibility of caring for my house and pets, including five dogs and one cat. Since he lived in a college dorm, he agreed to do it on the condition that I purchase a TV for him. With that in mind, we headed to Best Buy, where he selected a TV that he then mounted above the fireplace.
Fast forward to today, and the TV still holds its place on the wall after more than two decades. Over time, I have discovered various ways to utilize it, listed in order of popularity: #1, a fish aquarium screensaver for when I'm reading in its dimly lit room; #2, for watching baseball; and #3, for accessing YouTube.
Given the amount of time I spend on work-related tasks on my computer, I find it more comfortable to relax in my recliner and enjoy YouTube videos from the wall, not the computer screen.
As far as tennis goes, I do not believe we had that at my high school, and forget about sports lessons when I was growing up--would not happen. I played softball well but was more into the arts.
Posted by: darlene | Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 01:59 PM
Sorry. I am reading your emphasis on the "real" Grand Slam as some sort of statement about the greatness of past athletes compared to today.
So I must argue against this assertion.
I cannot find it but...
There was an article that pointed out that speed records for various running distances (100m, 400m, etc.) have been getting faster not because of improved training or better nutrition but simply because of the increase in the number of people getting the opportunity to compete in running.
The essential point is that the athletes of the past were not the best EVER simply because it is highly unlikely, given equal opportunity, that they were even the best in the world during their own time period.
How many Serbians and Spaniards (don't forget players from China and the East Block) got meaningful opportunities to compete in tennis during the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s?
The essence of this is that basic statistics point to the fact that is is unbelievably improbable that the top 100 players from 1938 were as good as the top 100 players from today. If Budge didn't have to go through the same quality competition in EVERY match, how could he legitimately be compared favorably to the best of today.
["I am reading your emphasis on the "real" Grand Slam as some sort of statement about the greatness of past athletes compared to today. So I must argue against this assertion."
Your comment is a nice illustration of "The Straw Man Argument," in which you set someone up in order to knock them down. I could write on your topic, but I didn't in this post. --Mike]
Posted by: Jeffrey Hartge | Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 03:04 PM
For all those who take great satisfaction in not having a TV and seemed to feel superior to those who do have one, sorry, but there are things to watch that are worth one's time. And, no, streaming it on your computer, iPad or phone is a dull replica of a large screen with decent sound. Tonight I had the chance to watch the documentary on Little Richard. I always knew what a great he was, but never realized the tortured life he endured as a black gay man who really was the original RnR megastar. I read often, but there are certainly worthy movies and events on TV not limited to great sporting events.
[You're imputing motives to me that aren't there. I quit watching TV mainly because I really dislike commercials and just got sick and tired of having them inflicted on me all the time. If you want to accuse me of feeling tortured by endless commercials, then guilty as charged. --Mike]
Posted by: J D Ramsey | Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 11:17 PM
Couple of corrections:
1. It is spelt "Rafael" Nadal.
2. Roger Federer has won the French Open only once.
Cheers!
[Thanks! Fixed now. --Mike]
Posted by: Arjun | Monday, 17 July 2023 at 01:13 AM
Federer has only 2 French titles [actually one, as several readers corrected me —MJ] because he was the exact contemporary of the best clay court player ever. He has 4 second place finishes to Nadal. Some players had a surface they couldn't play on, like Sampras couldn't do anything on clay. Federer was good on them all, just not quite as good on clay as an all timer.
I also wanted to watch the final and I do have a tv, but for some reason it was relegated to ESPN instead of network tv.
Posted by: Patrick | Monday, 17 July 2023 at 01:24 AM
For the sake of correctness, Federer has only won the French once, in 2009.
[Thanks! Fixed now. --Mike]
Posted by: Amine Sultan | Monday, 17 July 2023 at 03:33 AM
Speed, power and youth are difficult to overcome even for the great Djokovic. He still does it most often but this Alcaraz kid has the talent at the highest level to go along with the aforementioned attributes. When you give up nearly 16.5 years, savvy can only go so far. Of course, the game has changed dramatically over the last 20+ years. Champions of the past were often produced via the surface played. There were many great grand slam winners that never sniffed a Wimbledon because they did not have the serve and volley game needed to win. All you have to do is look at the grass courts and the wear pattern. There is virtually no wear at the net and has not been for quite a long time. Probably since the "big three" Federer, Nadal and Djokovic ruled the tennis world. In the past, there was hardly any wear at the baseline. I am not sure these three guys could have dominated as they have in past eras. All the professionals play essentially the same game today regardless of surface. Those three just happened to be better than everyone else. Nadal's game is made for clay and his French Open titles speak to that. He also has a couple of Wimbledon titles but that would have never happened in prior generations. He does not have a grass court game. Only Borg navigated the difficult task of red clay to grass with multiple consecutive years of winning both tournaments. Not likely to ever happen again.
Posted by: Paul | Monday, 17 July 2023 at 06:13 AM
Fair enough, Mike, but surely the problem of endless distraction is far worse on the internet, which has so many more distractions, available at the click of a mouse?
Wouldn't it be safe to assume that whatever meager capacity we have built up, by now, to resist being distracted while online is more than sufficient for us to resist the temptations of TV sitcom reruns, late at night, should we choose to return to watching TV?
Posted by: Mani Sitaraman | Monday, 17 July 2023 at 11:55 AM
Your second footnote (about your cousin, Lou) reminded me of the tenacity of this student athlete at Gustavus Adophus College in St. Peter, MN.
https://homepages.gac.edu/~kranking/DigitalHistory/Biographies/Gibbs_Hall.html
Posted by: Stan Waldhauser | Monday, 17 July 2023 at 02:20 PM
https://www.tablotv.com/
Posted by: Michael Koryta | Monday, 17 July 2023 at 02:34 PM
The most amazing statistic from this match? Alcaraz's grandfather is younger than me.....
Posted by: Richard Tugwell | Monday, 17 July 2023 at 03:15 PM
I'm with you on TV, it's such a passive thing. I watched a fair bit of it when growing up, though less than many of my friends, but when I moved out I never bought one. I prefer the radio for company and I detest adverts. My wife was very sick in early pregnancy, incredibly bored and desperate so I caved in and bought the smallest portable TV I could find (14"). It was also handy when the kids were small but viewing time was limited.
Nowadays the other 3 spend far too many hours on their smartphones. I refuse to have one of those too, I call them 'toy computers'. Our 19" TV hasn't been used for 2 or 3 years or more so I put it away and cancelled the direct debit for the TV licence (£159 p.a.).
Whenever I check the listings I struggle to find anything of interest as so much of it is repeats, ghastly reality TV, old ideas rehashed or cliche-ridden 'comedy'. There are some fine nature documentaries but I try to experience my semi-rural version of the natural world first hand instead.
Posted by: Simon | Monday, 17 July 2023 at 03:33 PM
Nope, there's no image or sound quality advantage to watching directly on the TV (not inherently). One can stream from one's computer or phone to the big TV screen (or you might have a bigger monitor on your computer than you have a TV screen for that matter), and the image and sound will be the same in that case to originating it at the TV (the sound goes in digital from over the HDMI cable to the TV and then is handled however the TV sound is handled).
Posted by: David Dyer-Bennet | Monday, 17 July 2023 at 04:56 PM
I hope you saw the post match interview:
https://youtu.be/JpE_mAuzU1c
The retirement of Federer has been somewhat depressing for me, but this kid Alcaraz is special.
Posted by: Jeff1000 | Tuesday, 18 July 2023 at 10:50 AM
Speaking of "brash up-and-comer," I'll never forget the 1990 U.S. Open, when 19-year old Pete Sampras stunned everyone (including himself) by taking the title in what looked like a relaxed, acrobatic sleepwalk, beating in a row Thomas Muster, perennial finalist Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe and in the final 20-year-old Andre Agassi (who'd taken out Boris Becker). That was the first Agassi-Sampras match in a major, near the beginning of a terrific rivalry that would end 12 years later at the same tournament (which Sampras won for his last title, at his last tour event--a heck of a curtain call).
For the record, Federer won the French and Wimbledon back-to-back in 2009, while Nadal pulled it off twice (2008, 2010), and Djokovic once, in 2021. Borg of course did it three years in a row in his brief career. As you say, he really was a phenom! (By the way, his son Leo just won his first ATP match the other day in Bastad.)
Posted by: robert e | Wednesday, 19 July 2023 at 12:44 PM