Fred Perry Wins Wimbledon - Highlights, 1934
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ส.ค. 2011
- Fred Perry Wins Wimbledon - Highlights, 1934 [HD]. It was a great year for British tennis. In front of King Edward VIII and Queen Mary of Teck, Fred Perry met Jack Crawford from Australia in the Wimbledon Final. Perry won 6-3, 6-0, 7-5. Fred Perry was the last British player to win the men's Wimbledon championship back in 1936.
The highlights also include British Player, Dorothy Round playing against Helen Jacobs from the USA. Round goes on to win the Ladies' championship.
Check out our Wimbledon tennis montage:
• Wimbledon Tennis Final...
Subscribe to British Pathe:
/ britishpathe
Follow us on Twitter:
@britishpathe.com
Join us on Facebook:
/ 11304874870. .
From: www.britishpathe.com
A VIDEO FROM BRITISH PATHÉ. EXPLORE OUR ONLINE CHANNEL, BRITISH PATHÉ TV. IT'S FULL OF GREAT DOCUMENTARIES, FASCINATING INTERVIEWS, AND CLASSIC MOVIES. www.britishpathe.tv/
FOR LICENSING ENQUIRIES VISIT www.britishpathe.com/
British Pathé also represents the Reuters historical collection, which includes more than 136,000 items from the news agencies Gaumont Graphic (1910-1932), Empire News Bulletin (1926-1930), British Paramount (1931-1957), and Gaumont British (1934-1959), as well as Visnews content from 1957 to the end of 1984. All footage can be viewed on the British Pathé website. www.britishpathe.com/
True you can't compare era's, but consider this: Fred PerrY was also world no.1 at Table Tennis. That, is truly unique.
Everyone needs to realise that the modern game would not be as it is today without the pioneering stars of the past. Every era pushes the boundaries even further. Even footage of Ivan Lendl seems archaic now but he directly contributed to the power game and fitness levels we see today. Borg was a superman in the 70s but wouldn't make the top 200 playing like that today. But don't be fooled into thinking anyone off the street today would beat a Perry or Tilden from the 20s and 30s. Old film techniques don't show how good they really were and you would be annihilated. Tilden reportedly served well over 100mph. Return that!
I don't think an average player by today's standard would be annihilated at all, i've been playing for a year, i can serve over 100mph quite easily, and judging from the stuff i've seen of these guys, they would be the ones getting annihilated, infact i'm pretty certain they would be getting bageled every set. I'm sorry to disagree with you, but you can clearly see there abilities here, they have no hip rotation, topspin, everything is flat, there is little movement on the serve, it all just looks rather simple and they would get punished in this day and age
just to add to my point, look at 0:47 and tell me what the fuck that was, that is the most lame serve i have ever seen
jchneo26 I suspect you're not taking into account the equipment they had to use. Have you regularly served at over 100mph with a volcanised tennis ball using a wooden racket that has wire strings and a tiny racket head? Given how rare 1930s tennis balls now are, this seems unlikely. If Tilden had your modern racket and served a modern ball he would have had a serve you respect a lot more. As Eric says, each generation pushes the next to be even better. But advancements in equipment have certainly had a big impact too. With your modern racket, its strings and grip, the shoes you wear, and even your ease of access to a good diet, plus practice, perhaps you would have a shot against a 1930s player. But I doubt you would be successful if you both used 1930s equipment or you both used modern day equipment - i.e. play on level terms. As Eric says, a random person off the street would be annihilated by these guys. And given the levels of obesity in developed countries these days, I think they would still beat a random person off the street in these times - especially if they could drop the wooden racket. The other key thing to mention is that in earlier eras, a player's feet were not allowed to leave the ground whilst serving, making it again harder than today.
People used to tell Don Budge (in 80s and 90s) that is was easier back in 1930s. His answer was may be that is why he is the ONLY Grand Slam winner until Laver came along. You think it was easy in those days ? Why do you think that there are a thousand people watching and ONLY 2 guys with rackets playing on center court ? If it is so easy then it should be a thousand people playing on center court and 2 people watching in the stand. Hundreds thousands people will be playing tennis for money instead of suffering the Great Depression.
Freedom Is not free except it was an amateur sport then so no incentive other than glory. These guys were the best of their time, that’s all there is to it.
People who imagine they'd beat these guys are living in fantasy land. You'd barely get a point. These guys are using wooden rackets with a tiny sweetspot on a skidding surface. Perry in particular had a whipped forehand that very players can emulate - let alone with a wooden racket. Modern players have rackets that can impart enormous amounts of top spin allowing them to strike the ball very hard as the ball will dip. Try that with a wooden racket and you'll just go long.
Many dont have clue...i would Like to see those "speakers" handle those racquets, that surface and that ball...i have nothing but admire For those players in that era, pure skills...nowdays more workers wining tennis
i honestly thought this was warmup hahaha
Would Like to see you how you would handle this racquet, this surface and this ball hahahaha i admire those players, pure skills...today workers wining tennis
😭😅🤣
I remember this game, back in the good old days
I want to actually see them play. Instead 90% of this video is close-ups of Fred Perry hitting the ball
Actually, the first man to win four grand slam events. Not four grand slams.
as Boris Becker said " if you played in pants, it doesn't count"
Instead of just highlights, is there any decent quality footage of complete matches from this era?
Maybe. But i don´t think so. Even they filmed the whole match i doubt it was archivated. Tennis was not so important at this time. There isn´t even a complete film of the 1954-soccer-final Germany-Hungary for example
COMO HA EBOLUCIONADO EL TENNIS INCREIBLE
So many people comment on how Britain hasn't produced a male British winner at Wimbledon since the 1930's. I wonder if a curse was put on the club because of the terrible way they treated Perry just because he was working class. Many overseas players were aghast at the treatment Perry received. In 2012 the All England Club has hardly changed its toffee nosed image which I am sure is why we have so few tennis stars.
MrBabies123 It's really the weather. Playing tennis in a London winter is no fun.
Fred Perry was the best player of all time in my opinion. The only person I think who could challenge him today would be Nadal on slow clay only, as Perry wasn't accustomed to playing that. Even so though, i'd place my money on Perry.
The King shown at this event is George V. Edward didn't become King until 1936.
Well spotted
Nice warm-up. And where the play begins?
So I was watching Agatha Christie's Poirot and in one episode included this tennis match. Since I know nothing of tennis, I looked up Perry and was surprised to see, yes he did exist and was at Wimbledon. What an interesting 'Easter Egg'.
If this was a modern day period drama about the 1934 Lawn Tennis Championships I'd have been posting on the imdb that the electronic scoreboard was an anachronism. But it's surprising how old some things that one thinks are relatively new actually are.
I disagree. The powerful play brings with it a display of immense skill and athleticism. It's also very exciting to watch.
Must add that it is King George V not King Edward VIII, he never took to the throne until 1936, he would of been king the last time he won though.
and actually, they got nadal to play with a racket like that on a promo, and he was surprisingly good and got topspin
Fred Perry is this the same guy as the brand?
Yes, he's the founder
Those illuminated scoreboards have been around for at least 88 years then.
I have seen old film when at a football match, Man U etc, at half time the players would sit at the edge of the pitch and they would be having a ciggie LOL.
The difference in play from this era is astonishing.... and the shot of the crowd looking from left to right just seems so parodic...
Still think that now?
Same now they should make andy murry clothes
Maccis?
haha i was just thinking this!
English!!! Not Scottish. Fred Perry forever!
Most probably, yes.
come on andy 2013!!!
I wish I could have been born in that era but have modern training and rackets, heck i could win everything
You might as well take a modern car back with you and win the Grand Prix.
Shocking quality tennis even for 1934
bro i would like to time travel soo muuchhhhh
Cor, it's just like Harry Enfield's Cholmondeley-Warner sketches.
I learned that Fred Perry learn lawn tennis at 19 or 20 yrs old Is it too late for me to start a career from amateur to profession like him?. Can anyone answer this is my one way ticket for a new life.
They'd do well today given the speed they move at.
Yeah, we will have holographic strings with TURBO power button which can be used once per game :D
They weren’t even allowed to jump to serve back then. Does anyone know when this rule changed?
Bada Bing888 1959.
This has to be Harry Enfield
This is hilarious 😂
yeah i agree 100%. Plus there werent any big sponsors and rare baseline winners which are usually much harder than their volleys.however dont forget in another century we will be the lame ones lol (=
I'm not joking, the difference between the modern game and the game back then is huge. Players are much more physically fit and they play with more powerful groundstrokes and a variety of spin.
If they played with modern equipment, I highly believe that Serena Williams would beat Fred Perry in a best of 5.
Maybe... Maybe not.... But Fred Perry helped revolutionize tennis. Tennis might not be where it was today if it weren't for this or players in this era.
It's more competitive and exciting. What are you on about.
This is called WALKING TENNIS....
that is a VERY debatable opinion, and one that is almost impossible to judge, because of the difference in the game today, from when Perry was playing, but even given the same equipment and technical support, as the game is completely different, it's impossible to tell!.....any number of today's players might have 'thrashed' Perry, or vice versa!.......this holds for the women players too!
The Williams sisters learned to play on public courts. They could never have afforded to belong to a private club back then. I have never in my life in the UK seen any public courts. All belong to expensive and exclusive clubs. Tells you all really!
MURRAY MAKES HISTORY!!! Ending the 77 year drought!
Phased Spaces Which in turn ended a 25-year drought. Previous English winner was 1909.
So the standard of tennis should drop to enhance your veiwing pleasure. These guys couldnt get a point on murray/djocovic
I know, finally someone with some sense. Impossible to compare generations...there is simply too many things are different - styles, rackets, balls, surfaces, training methods, media coverage and even the players themselves (there's alot more money involved). Such comparisons are pointless.
I agree. People say that Serena Williams could beat Perry, but you're comparing a person from today to a person 80 years ago.
andy :D
For the sake of accuracy, there were professional players and tournaments from 1927 onwards but comparing eras is pointless. Whatever era you play in will dictate the style and level of tennis (or any other sport) you play. You wouldn't have been able to successfully do what you describe if you were living then and last time I checked time travel still hasn't been perfected.
It has somewhere in time
YES MURRAY
ON ONLINE YES ON ONLINE YES YES
good comment dude I thumb up
Some of the debates here are banal and blindingly obvious. Just enjoy it for what it was.
Short answer, yes.
Long answer, yes it's too late unless you have some incredibly natural ability, but even if you do then the only way you would even stand the slightest of chances would be to start full time training with a professional coach immediately, and even then you almost certainly wouldn't ever make it anywhere near the top level of professional tennis.
And its war cause ppl give it all on the court cause their lifes depend on it.They invested all their money and time on tennis and its their source of earning.If they just walk on the court and hit slice forehand they would never even get in the ranking and their all hard work and dedication would mean nothing.And seriously you enjoy this pace of tennis?most of the people would fell asleep watching this .
ANYD WIN !!!
Respect your opinion y11971alex but i must reply on your comment.You can play that type of tennis,bring a amateur who had never touched a racquet before,go to a tennis clup,get a court and just tell him to hit the ball and you will get this kind of tennis.Come one man back then tenis was secondary job for richer ppl cause they only can afford it and it was amateur sport it didnt give prize money.They all played it at free time.
I wish I was born in that era . Could've racked myself a tonne of Slams too .
hitting the ball with those raquets at that time would be as hard as becoming a pro in todays tennis.
Don't think it would be so easy. Its easy to say now how bad it was when watching todays tennis. People in that time didnt have clue how tennis would develop.
@hurensohnsBruda U remember how old are you lol?
It seems to be the case that you've got too much money. Perry would loose this game in straight sets. Doesn't matter if it would take place on clay, gras, hardcourt or stone.
Hear, hear! And athletes should slow down! They go too damn fast these days, how are us common folk supposed to compete?!
lol laughing at some of the comments i am reading.Perry beating Nadal!???lol who can even compare his era and this era?And Perry playing Nadal on modern time on clay and putting money on Perry.lol such a childlish comments.Perry was one of the best of his times and Nadal is one of the best of his time .End of story.
can they beat djokovic?
No, I very much doubt it, the tennis players now are a different beast entirely.
I say spiffing show by Perry. He would show this Murray fellow how tennis must be played and won, by Jove.
Rather.
hahaha that serves
amazing how far has the game evolved... the women beaten in the first round would annihilate these two now.
it is not too late. you will be at a disadvantage for sure but it can still be done. just dont give up, you will need to be super efficient with your time. if you can go to a good tennis academy, quit everything and go now. if you dont have the money to go, learn to play smart tennis on your own (ie go for the corners and serve out wide etc), also get really fit. nothing is impossible, pm me and i can give you more tips, i taught myself how to play tennis
from your picture I'm guessing you're a tennis fan. Then you should be ashamed with agreeing that serena williams would beat any man from any era. All about context remember.
are you joking!!!...look at perrys movement compared to nasals, perry doesn't use topspin....loo at how slow the ball is moving....im sorry but you are wrong....maybe if perry was born at the same time as nadal and grew up playing tennis he might have a chance but definitely not back then. top spin rules tennis now, without it you can't it a ball hard or it will go out, i reckon anyone in the top 200 would beat perry.
I could've beaten perry, not even kidding
With 1930s gear?
Utter ballocks.
I really wish we could watch tennis at this pace today! It's a war now complete with cannonballs and bullets. Tennis is a game/sport, not a war.
no spin, and they hold a ball as they play. Let's see Nadal do that lol
After watching Scotlands Wimbledon Champion yesterday and watching Englands Wimbledon winner her today, I really don't know what they've been banging on about all these years. Fred Perry, nice shirts but crap at tennis. I'd beat him no problem and I'm not even that good.
Cummon ANDY!
From my point of view there are two ways of comparing players from two different eras: Either you compare their potential or their actual abilities.
If you compare Fred Perry with a nowadays female top-player based solely on their actual abilities than I would believe the woman to win. The physical condition alone would make a huge enough difference to believe so.
But if you compare their potential rather than their actual abilities, well, than it's a completely different ball game, of course.
ha ha !
This looks like an average warm-up before a Nadal/Federer match...if both players haven't slept for three straight nights and took all the alcohol they could afford to buy with all the price money they ever got at once.
Tennis is a wart.
lol no i'm just kidding :D
Women still play in dresses.. Amazing how it's been carried down
this speed is boring
nadal is better, yes because of technology etc but he is better
I'm guessing you're joking but if you're not then you clearly know nothing about tennis
LMFAO (=
so glad i didnt play tennis during this time. wtf get this paddy cake sh*t out of here
This was a funny comment. Fred Perry was the best in his time.With this type of tennis he wouldnt win one game of the number1000. Sorry 10000 it should be. Its another game today.
A wooden racket isn't an excuse for everything. Even if Federer or Nadal (or any professional tennis player) would take a wooden racket too, they would destroy Perry.
Tennis really WAS boring back then... no wonder only "posh" people went to watch.... it wasn't as global for that very reason.
champion1642 It was a mass spectator sport. You don't know what you're talking about. How do you think all those tennis stadiums came into existence?
How many sports were really global in 1934 anyway? Nobody even owned a TV.
Serena Williams would beat Fred Perry