Why is a big serve considered a cheap-shot?

Question

In tennis, great foot-speed, ground strokes, returns and fitness are all seen as admirable qualities. Why is it, then, that a big serve is often regarded as an unfair advantage. To me this makes no sense. After all, it is a shot, like any other, that has to be honed. There is nothing underhanded about it.

Yet, there are constant ideas proposed to prohibit fast serves: No second serve, wooden racquets, heavier balls, slower surfaces, etc. I myself am not a particularly huge server but I do think this is unfair. If fit players are not forced to gain weight to diminish their physical advantage and fast players are not made to wear ankle weights to slow them down why should big-servers have their advantage diluted?

The big serve, much like improved fitness and better equipment, has become a part of the modern game and its up to players to adjust. By eradicating the big serve, we are surely diminishing the variety that the sport prides itself in. What's your take?

Answer 1

Because they win the point instantly. I don't think a good serve is cheap but people like Ivo Karlovic who are 6'10" would definately be useless without a big serve because he can't hit any other shot. People like Roddick however are just better at serving and deserve the cheap points.

Answer 2

there is no implication that a big serve is an unfair advantage.  It is just that when u win lots of points with only your serve, you don't have to work very hard.  You don't spend a lot of energy winning those points, so they are considered cheap points.

Answer 3

I have never heard this stereotype.  Even if people down you for your big serve, say it helps you win and what can you do about it?  In other words, they can go "suck it."  

Big serves are the basis of tennis.  I'm more fit than anyone on my team and I have the best serve.  Even if you do have the biggest serve, that doesn't make you the best player.  I'm not the best on my team.

Answer 4

Because it is !!! Whenever a player is in trouble ``oh better do an ACE`` its soooo annoying !!!

Answer 5

I agree with you.

I'm not sure that the powers that be are saying they don't appreciate the skill involved in a big serve...  I think that they believe that big serves make the game very boring for fans because they're almost impossible to return.

But you're right, a big serve is just as much a part of the game as any other aspect.  And it's not "fair" to the players who spend years honing their skills in this area, only to be told later that the rules might be changed in order to curtail their dominance in this area.

If that's the case, then maybe the players with the best footwork SHOULD be made to wear weights on their shoes... doesn't seem fair that their  footwork is so good, does it, lol?  You're absolutely right on that point.

Men's tennis (and to a lesser extent, women's tennis) was much more entertaining to watch before the advances in technology created these incredible rackets they use today.  That plus the fact that studies in body mechanics on the serve have created these incredible players.

The tennis powers that be created these monsters that play these one serve/volley and done players... it's probably too late to go back to the Borg/McEnroe/Connors days of wooden rackets.  

But tennis, like every sport, is becoming more specialized... by that i mean it's possible to make a good living at it even if you can only do one thing... that wasn't the case as recently as 20 years ago, when you had to be good in all aspects of the game in order to achieve a top raking.  This is not to say that Federer can't do all the things those "old timers" could... he can, he's an incredible tennis player...  But tennis has become too automatic and mechanical.    There STILL hasn't been anything to come along which matches the intensity and great play of the Borg/McEnroe Wimbledon final in 1980 (that of the 18-16 tie break).

But yeah, I think players should be allowed to do whatever they do best, as long as it's within the rules.  The powers that be created this mess in tennis, now they have to live with it.

But a big serve helps the player by giving him or her points without going through too much physical exertion.

Answer 6

It doesn't mean a great serve is an unfair advantage. It's more called a "free point" or a "cheap point" and not exactly "cheap shot" the way you'd accuse someone of making a mean remark. Because it gets you a point without having to work hard physically... no running, strategy or sweating. That doesn't diminish that a great serve doesn't take talent!! Nadal would love to have a great serve. Imagine his game if his serve improved!!!

What is not so pleasant about it, is that it is tough to assess the person's game from just how they serve. And its not as fun to watch constant aces. Sure an Ace here and there, or the 4 aces Roger served Samprass for emphasis, are fun. But you really want to watch their talent in other areas and observe their strategy skills and such.