Talk:Tennis court

message: Any objections to merging the three stubs, Grass court and Clay court and Hardcourt here? I'm happy to fix up links (they seem to be all around the place) and stuff like that. --Qirex 22:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't seem relevant to merge Hardcourt into here, but the others are candidates.  If you are going to do it, I'd put the merge templates on for a while first.  Noisy | Talk 00:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll work on the two "candidate" articles and try to make them their own. Tarret 19:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging sub articles

message: I have started a relatively small page on types of sports surfaces which are used these days and the skills needed to look after them. It is in a very early stage and i am particularly looking for help on tennis courts. The section on tennis courts i think might have vered a little too much towards the construction/types of court as opposed to caring for the courts.Also unsure about quoting the £s as taken from the LTA web site...is this ok in wiki law?
Any help would be appreciated
IndianSunset 16:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Turf_management]]

message: The section on clay courts should have a better image. The one that's up now hardly even shows a tennis court, instead opting to show a nice field with trees. Perhaps a bird's-eye image of the more typical red clay court would be better. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clay court image 

message: In the article it states
Clay courts are considered "slow", because the balls bounce relatively slowly with less forward motion, making it more difficult for a player to hit an unreturnable shot. Points are usually longer as there are fewer winners.
But since its slow wouldn't it be more easy to hit unreturnable shots? Thus  making points longer? Explain? I'm changing it for now.
 Yes, you are right. The line should have probably read "less difficult".
I like your opinion, but the ball might bounce in a different direction than expected.
It makes it easier for more winners and aces.¬¬¬¬  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acer81996 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clay Courts 

message: The long list of parts of the court would be improved by the addition of a labeled image showing where the alley, service line, base line, etc. are on the court.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.42.139 (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology needs a labeled graphic 

message: Shouldn't this be "court (tennis)" with this name as a link?Mjquin id (talk) 04:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename

message: The article states that "Grass courts are the fastest type of court in common use court (AstroTurf is faster but is primarily only used for personal courts)" and then, "Hard courts (usually made of asphalt) are definitely the fastest type of tennis court, where fast hard-hitting players have a slight advantage." Could someone with more tennis knowledge than me clear up the contradiction?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.8.105 (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a contradiction message box, which will hopefully speed up the correction. I always thought it was grass, as it has less grip, so takes less speed off the ball due to friction? --Tom dl (talk) 11:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Fastest Surface?

message: The article says "Although clay courts are more traditional..." But the Tennis article tells us that the game began as Lawn Tennis. That surely makes grass courts more traditional. HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Since that claim was uncited, and has been for some time, I have now removed it. HiLo48 (talk) 02:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clay courts more traditional? Hmmmmm 

message: In Australia, particularly in the state of Victoria, and before the advent of various synthetic surfaces, a very common alternative to grass courts were en tout cas courts. They were a porous, red, very finely crushed rock kind of surface. (I don't know the exact source, maybe volcanic.) They required large amounts of water to manage, and recent drought and water restrictions seem to have led to the replacement of a lot of them with synthetic courts. 
The don't get a mention in the article. Are they a subset of clay courts? HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Clay courts, despite the common name, rarely use raw natural clay anymore, and haven't in decades. It retains water too much. In practice they're made with a form of crushed brick or rock on top, as a form of loose aggregate (which is what the ITF's technical definition calls it). They are also (and more accurately) called soft courts, in contrast to hard courts, in reference to their less rigid surfaces. The en tout cas version just uses a coarser grind than others, as does the HarTru green clay, which uses a naturally green basalt instead of brick, but is still a loose aggregate surface. The coarser grind allows water to pass through quicker for faster drying, and supposedly causes the surface to play a little faster. The Truth is no two clay courts are exactly alike because of differences in construction and maintenance, even if they use the exact same materials. oknazevad (talk) 01:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  en tout cas 

message: The diagram is not clear. The dimensions include the widths of the lines. As shown they appear to exclude the lines.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.22.94.215 (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  court dimensions 

message: Substituted at 07:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Maybe it's own section and a few words as it seems that it was one of the major surfaces. It even appears on records page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-time_tennis_records_–_men%27s_singles#Titles_per_court_type   213.149.61.3 (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, today's indoor courts (e.g. in the Davis Cup, Fed Cup, on the ATP World Tour or the WTA Tour) are still often based on wood panels or particle boards (the courts are sometimes labeled as "acrylic on wood", for example in the Paris Masters tournament), so the popular notion that wood courts are not used anymore in tennis is not entirely accurate. For example, the GreenSet acrylic surface can be laid on top of a wooden platform.—J. M. (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and no, in that it uses a wood underpinning, but the surface is itself the acrylic materials, making them really no different than a acrylic-topped hardcourt. What the anon OP is referring to is bare hardwood similar to a basketball court, which indeed was once a common indoor surface in the early 20th century, and was the surface of the World Covered Court Championship. It just kinda was replaced by carpet courts, as bare hardwood is low friction resulting in play that is too fast. (Carpets themselves became so super engineered that they lost popularity, and are no longer used on any WTA or ATP event.) oknazevad (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure the characteristics are different from an outdoor acrylic-topped hardcourt (laid on top of an asphalt or concrete base). The acrylic paint layer is very thin and the base material plays its role, too. A softer base (particle board) results in lower bounces, which is still the prevalent characteristic of indoor tennis today. That's why indoor tennis is still different from outdoor tennis and certain players (e.g. Federer) are more successful on these courts than others (e.g. Nadal). Acrylic on concrete is different from acrylic on wood.—J. M. (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but they're still quite different from the basketball/gym like floors that are usually meant by "wood court" and which the historical events refer to. oknazevad (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

text: Indoor tournaments at Olympics in 1908 and 1912 were played on (hard)wood courts. It was a prominent  surface type. It has nothing to do with todays hardcourts. It should be covered in the article. Setenzatsu (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardwood is mentioned in the indoor courts section. I believe that is sufficient, as it is more a historical curiosity, for lack of a better term. Unlike grass, clay, or hard courts, they just haven't the enduring importance to warrant a separate section. And that's not really WP:RECENTISM, as we're talking specifically about a comparison of surfaces that are already a hundred years old. oknazevad (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wood courts 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: As described in the article, the size of the court is measured to the outside of the respective baselines and sidelines. However, the illustration suggests otherwise. The black measuring lines should extend to the outside of the sidelines. – Andreasquo (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Court dimensions 

message: Hard, grass, clay, and carpet courts all have an explanation for the varying speeds and conditions of playing on that court. Indoor courts should also have a similar explanation because there is an absence of wind in indoor courts. This leads to a more consistent playing surface than outdoor courts. The different types of indoor courts might be worth mentioning, such as permanent indoor courts and retractable roof indoor courts. Elfams2020 (talk) 23:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indoor Court Conditions