3 ms·

The money quote from the end of the introduction: >> We find that the introduction of the new composite racquets temporarily helped younger players at the expe

The money quote from the end of the introduction: >> We find that the introduction of the new composite racquets temporarily helped younger players at the expense of older players, reduced the rank correlation in player quality over time, and increased exit rates of older players relative to younger players. We find that these effects last for two to four generations of players. Pretty cool, fun, interesting study. I hope the authors leave it to the reader to make sweeping generalisations/extrapolations from their results. (Still reading.) Edit: generalisations are pleasantly restrained. I found the supporting statistics much more interesting than the mathematical modelling. Maybe I just don't have the patience for the latter, but I'm not sure it really lends more credibility to the study's conclusions.

p1esk 9y ago
No doubt new technology has been important, but there might have been another significant factor influencing generational changes: the number of aspiring pro players. This number has increased dramatically in the last 30 years, but in the paper they only consider the number of successful players (roughly equivalent to the top X ATP rankings, where X is somewhere between 200 and 500). X has also been increasing, but at much lower rate, and as a result there are vastly more people competing for those X spots today than in 1980. It could be that to get into the top 100 today is as hard as it was to get into top 10 thirty years ago. As the natural selection gets more brutal, new players have to develop new, more effective skills to succeed.