by Guy Cipriano
In 1987 the National Singles championships were held in greater Philadelphia. Yes, Virginia, that’s 27 years ago.
I looked up the participants then vs the participants this year.
Men’s Championship : Then 48, now 16
Women’s Championship: then 48, now 8
There was a Men’s 30 + flight then with 29 participants. No such draw now.
Men’s 35s: Then 43, now 8
Women’s 35: then 12, now 8
Men’s 40s: then 56, now 11
There was a women’s 40s draw then with ten entrants- no such draw now.
Mens 45s: Then 47, now 18
Womens 45s- now 7, no draw in 87
Men’s 50s- then 50, now 19
Women’s 50s- then 9, now 8
Men’s 55s- then 39, now 22
Women’s 55s- now 5, then no draw
Men’s 60s- Then 39, now 12
Men’s 65s- then 10, now 13
Men’s 70s- then 11, now 16
Mens 75+ - then 4, now 8.
There was also a 19-team 5 man draw – another 95 participants, but let’s not muddy the waters with that fact.
The total individual participants at the nationals 27 years ago was 455, and now it’s 179.
Now I have made the point dozens of times , ad nauseum, that adult singles softball play in this nation is in steep decline, while doubles play is high and going higher. The numbers don’t lie. Participation is 39% of what it was 26 years ago. That is a bad situation.
What can be done? I don’t think anything can be done. I think that doubles should be emphasized and nurtured and grown as a separate game and let the singies game for adults die on the vine. The truth is self- evident.
If this is what progress is supposed to look like, somebody needs to check his figures ,because this is what life- support looks like.
Mr. Cipriano makes a compelling case, though I believe he is a hardball and doubles advocate. Nevertheless the numbers that the powers that be should be most concerned with are the under-45 categories. Those players grew up playing softball and for whatever reason have turned their back on the sport.
ReplyDeleteGuy, you write that "adult singles softball play in this nation is in steep decline, while doubles play is high and going higher", without presenting any evidence whatsoever to support either conclusion.
ReplyDeleteDid any of the draws at 1987 Nationals have "adult singles softball" play? Because if not, your cherry-picked statistics suggest that hardball singles died off and that softball singles experienced tremendous growth.
For what it's worth, squash in the United States has always been on life-support, as it never really captured the public imagination and became an accessible sport. That life support was the treadmill of certain private schools, certain colleges and universities, and certain (mostly) private clubs where squash could be played.
With regard to "tremendous growth", it's not 1987 any more. It could well be that Nationals participation is down from that year to this for many reasons - distance, cost of travel, other activities in and near the host city, and more. Competitive adult singles participation may be down because there are other outlets that didn't exist in 1987 (you, Guy Cipriano, could be the leader of a virtual galactic empire without ever leaving your living room, and fight like heck for control of a little box of space). It may even be that overall adult singles participation because the social and business cachet of the sport aren't as potent as they used to be. That, then, leaves the purists, plus life support.
Sorry... "It may even be that overall adult singles participation is down because the social and business cachet...."
ReplyDeleteWhat's a shocker is the platform tennis nationals has close to 400.Double the squashnationals in all the divisions combined.
ReplyDeleteGuy,
ReplyDeleteI want to start off by saying that as a professional doubles player I really admire and appreciate your love for the game. It is definitely in the ascendancy and here's hoping that it continues for many years. I could talk all day about how great a game doubles is and how more people should try it (although inaccessibility is a bit of a stumbling block at times).
Regarding adult singles play I do not know enough about the numbers but will comment that the Massachusetts state championships has over 700 entrants....700!! I will say though that the tournament is somewhat self scheduling and some of those entrants have probably entered more than one event, nonetheless impressive numbers.
I guess my point is that perhaps the number of entrants in the National Championships is more indicative of the allure of playing in that particular tournament (or lack thereof) and less indicative of overall participation levels among adult players.
Any thoughts on that?
Just spitballing here....
Best,
Greg McArthur
Guy,
ReplyDeleteThose are interesting numbers on participation. What do you think happened to cause this decline?
I didn't start playing squash until 1998, in Memphis, on a hardball court.
The change to softball?
Was Philadelphia a better location?
US Squash promotion?
Cheaper travel?
Fewer regional tournaments?
Was hardball a better game?
Racquetball was still thriving.
Doubles courts are even scarcer than singles courts. Closest ones to Memphis are St. Louis and Atlanta. It was a lot of fun the few times I played.
Others?
Always curious to learn more. Thanks.
My explanation as to why participation has dropped:
ReplyDelete1. The hardball had more opportunities for upsets so it justified people traveling to the event and trying. There was a long history of first seeds crashing out in the first round. Now the top seeds never go out with the softball so if you aren’t one of the top guys, making the trip is a fool’s errand.
2. There used to be rivalries between cities and also college alumni, and the groups would support their guys at the nationals . You’d get a match between a NY guy and a Boston guy and there would be real rivalry. Now that is all gone so going to the nats to support your buddies is not a draw.
3. The hardball had much greater variation in shot making with three walls, reverse and roll corners, Philadelphia boasts, massive pace, and by comparison the softball is boring.
4. The potential for injury playing softball with its increased physical demands is higher than with the old hardball. That is a deterrent for vets who may have suspect conditioning. You could fudge a match or two at the old nationals if you were not super fit, but now if you’re not really fit you crash out fast, for sure.
5. The old “ circuit” in which people saw one another during the season is gone. Huge events like the Cowles, Lockett-Ketcham Cup, Yale Club Invitational, Princeton Club Invitational, Trenton Club Invitational, Lordi at NYAC- all gone, so the cohesiveness of the social squash community no longer exists. Therefore the old “gathering of the clan” at the nationals has disappeared. The William White and Gold Racquets at RHC have singles draws, but they are a sideshow when compared to the doubles which are the big draws.
6. USSquash has carved down its board to a low number. In the old days the USSRA had three dozen people on varioius boards and meetings were held in conjunction with the nationals, so people would come to the meetings and play. That impetus is now gone.
7. Earning a national ranking used to be a big deal, and participations at the nationals was critical to get points. The USSRA yearbook was like the bible and contained everything and people who eagerly await its arrival and look for their ranking. Now the yearbook is gone and nobody cares about national rankings.
8. When you have the nationals in Charlottesville, VA instead of a major city, that is a deterrent to participation. You have to rent a car or drive there and that is a nuisance.
9. In the 80’s the nation was in a better place psychologically. Business was good, Pres. Reagan was celebrating America as a shining city on a hill, and people were upbeat and optimistic. Now, the nation is in a sour mood, especially rich people who feel under attack by the POTUS. And make no mistake about it- the squash community is mostly rich people playing at swanky private clubs. Any other spin is rubbish. Today people are not willing to part with their money so easily- they will hold onto their wallet and if there is not a certainty of perceived value, they will not participate.
10. Doubles has filled the gap with the Old Guard so people can fulfill their objectives playing doubles and just ignore the singles. Doubles participation is high and growing.
-Guy
Solid, pithy reasoning Guy, particularly points 1-8 and 10. I only disagree on point 9
DeleteTom Harrity
The US shot itself in the foot by converting nearly all its hardball courts to softball.
ReplyDeleteSoftball played on the hardball court is a better game for most players than softball played on the official court.
If the juniors and college kids played softball on the narrow court, many fewer would quit the sport in their early 20's.
Additionally, hardball would still be a viable option. The racquet head size and ball would simply need to be modified back toward the game's original state.
We switched to the softball 25 years ago so that we could develop world class players and compete in the Olympic Games.
However, there's no Olympics on the horizon, and since the transition we've developed only one player (Amanda Sobhy) who has scared anyone in the world top-10.
I'd recommend converting multiple courts back to the hardball width, re-introducing softball on the narrow court and re-introducing hardball. Guaranteed, participation numbers (and enjoyment) will increase.
I am one who sees through a political lens far too much to make me good company in most settings, but even I have to laugh at Guy's effort to blame a poor turnout at Nationals on Obama. Those poor rich folks, keeping their money in their pockets because Obama doesn't suck up to them quite enough, have entirely (according to all the evidence) recovered their losses from 2007, while the rest of the country remains mired in debt. The rich have a greater share of the nation's wealth than they did under Reagan. Much of the wealth out there is not earning investment returns because the rest of the country has no spare cash to spend on goods and services, but the rich have more dough than they did in 1987. That's a statistical fact. Are we supposed to feel bad that they don't have the exuberance of the unfettered blond beast at this particular point in history? This is like those silly Ayn Rand fables about the rich taking the ball home from the playground. We would have a great turnout at Nationals if Romney had been elected? Honestly, Guy.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand Guy's very likely correct that the social side of the squash circuit is not the draw it used to be. The Boat-Race-Night atmosphere is disappearing. Didn't we sort of want that though? Is a game played entirely by the Old Guard really going to grow? (It looks like we're headed back to that anyway, as public clubs seem to be increasingly eliminating courts.)
It's clear also that holding the Nationals outside the Northeast will always result in smaller draws. Rich or not, the hassle of flights and rental cars makes the weekend seem like a chore. US Squash has opted to try to make the whole country feel included. That may very well be a wise decision, but certainly plenty of Northeasterners who can ordinarily drive to most tournaments, and often stay with friends at the site, will opt out. (It's certainly interesting that the college players stay home even when it's in the NE.)
Reviving hardball ain't happening. I believe hardball was more addictive, but part of that addictive quality came from the greater early investment in acquiring the necessary skill to sustain an interesting rally. The softball allows people with unsound technique to move the ball around the court in ways they couldn't with the hardball. Obviously top players have excellent technique, but thousands don't and still play an entertaining game. People who have only played softball and do not have refined technique find the transition extremely frustrating. In fact what must be remembered is that players who played softball in the summer started sticking with it when they found they couldn't keep a rally going the first few days back with the hardball. These were not typically the strong hardball players- in fact I'd argue that the folks who used to say, "My game's more suited for softball," were often simply less skilled players who worked on fitness. Nonetheless, they formed part of the group that drew the hardball numbers down. The reality is that the best U.S. hardball players were also almost always the best U.S. softball players; to be genuinely good at either game you need skills. The point is that to play hardball is a tough transition for all but the very good softball players, and they're the least likely to switch.
Softball on the 18'6" court is just an awful game. The swing required to get the ball going is dangerous in the confines and good shots don't earn enough payback so rallies become exaggeratedy long without meaning. We'd wind up with a bunch of courts which could only be used by a tiny group- that can't be a good thing. I still like hardball better, and I have never seen any pro softball that rivals the excitement of the best matches I saw with the hardball, (played with rackets that match the court) but you cain't get theah from heah.
Cheers, Sasha Cooke
Kudos to the Massachusetts State SRA for having 700 participants in their state tournaments as set forth by Greg McArthur!
ReplyDeleteThat is a tremendous achievement and it takes massive work from the organizers to make it happen.
The ( NY) MSRA , now rebranded as New York Squash, ran “ arrange your own” tournaments from the 1920’s until approximately 1992.
There were a huge number of flights contested each year:
Open Singles
Open Doubles
Amateur A Singles
Limited A Singles
B, C, D and E Singles- Men
Amateur A and B Singles – Women
Amateur A Doubles
Limited A Doubles
Age Groups- at five year intervals from 40 to 60
There were probably 500 participants each year, and it was all coordinated manually and via telephone. It worked , and worked well.
The turnout was massive. Finals Night was held before the annual dinner which was held at the Seventh Regiment Armory in late April.
The winners of each league team would be awarded their trophies, as would the winners of the individual and doubles events listed above.
The President’s Prizes for best winning percentage for a player each league would be awarded, as would special awards such as the Bigelow Trophy and the Standing Award for Excellence in Play and Sportsmanship respectively. All this died around 1990. Now there are about six people who even know and remember who Ned Bigelow and Eddie Standing were, and what they did in the game.
There was a spectacular permanent sterling silver cup held for a year by the winner of the Met A Singles made by Tiffany , presented to the association by the father of Beekman and Lawrence Pool. The winner’s name was engraved each year. There was also a sterling silver vase held each year by the winning Amateur A doubles team, presented to the association by Ernest “ Honey” Humpstone, a stalwart NY squash man who was a member of the University and Rockaway Hunting Clubs. The vase and its base also contained the names of each year’s winner.
Now those two trophies are being held for safekeeping in the garage of the 1990 winner out in Los Angeles and they are gathering dust.
Nobody at NY Squash seems to understand the significance of the events and there is no impetus to revive the competitions.
-Guy (continued)
The ( NY) MSRA produced an annual yearbook with match reports from every tournament and ever flight. It also contained photos, ranking lists and promotion data, and a listing of every member of the association , the club(s) to which he or she were attributed, and each person’s phone number. That died in 1988. It was a tremendous resource, and was compiled each year as a labor of love by the late Bobby Lehman who wrote most of articles, took the photos, and made it all happen. It was a compendium of each season and contained “Everything You Wanted To Know About NY Squash , But Were Afraid To Ask.”
ReplyDeleteThe league standings were published every Sunday in the NY Times sports section for both singles and doubles. That died around 1983.
There were tournaments every weekend for every standard of play starting in October with the Lordi at NYAC. Sometimes there were multiple tournaments each weekend . In November there were challenge matches held to determine which five men would represent the association in the Lockett Cup ( vs Boston and Philadelphia) and which three teams would represent the association in the Ketcham Doubles. The Lockett-Ketcham was held every second weekend in December. That died around 1990.
There were probably fifteen public clubs where anybody could join, learn the game and compete. The public clubs and the private clubs all fielded teams in each league and the competition was hotly contested. There were some special quirky clubs like the Long Star Boat Club where visiting players wandered past Studio 54 and the gay movie theatre The Adonis, up the stairs, past the attendant, into a linoleum- floored changing room with rusting steel lockers in which the members sat naked on wicker furniture, playing pinochle and drinking Johnny Walker Red neat out of plastic cups. If you were lucky you might run into Joe Dimaggio who was a member for 40 years. There were suburban leagues for Westchester/Connecticut and New Jersey who sent their winners to compete with the NYC clubs at year end, and would occasionally win it all.
Sadly this happy land of squash is all gone. The public clubs are gone from Manhattan, the quirky clubs are gone, the old legendary pros like Milt Russ, Louis Ballato , Rick Rescigno, Jimmy Leddy, Bobby Martinez, and Danny Spina are gone, the yearbook is gone, the Met tournaments are gone, the annual dinner and the yearbook are gone, the Lockett-Ketcham Cup is gone, the invitational tournaments are gone, the huge public club tournament events like the Boodles, which morphed into the Chivas, are gone, and what is left is unrecognizable with the exception of the doubles circuit. Today’s NY squash players will never have the experience of watching a Rob Dinerman vs Eliot Berry donnybrook, or seeing legendary Charlie Ufford torturing some up and coming young kid from New Jersey , holding his shots until the kid’s feet blistered and he couldn’t walk the next day. All I can say about the halcyon days is R. I.P.
-Guy
Sasha,
ReplyDeleteI agree that softball on the hardball court is an inferior game at the elite level.
I stand by my opinion that it is a better game for most players.
It is also a better game for new players.
The Uptown Racquet Club had 14 courts - 12 narrow and 2 wide. It was common during the annual spring switch to softball for all 12 narrow courts to be booked during prime time while the 2 wide courts remained empty. Club players who experienced softball on the narrow court didn't want any part of the official court.
Back then we couldn't get the official Dunlop ball so we were forced to use faster balls, which improved the game as well. When we were able to import the official ball, the game got worse for most players.
The nationals draws used to be loaded with college players. Now, they don't love the sport and by the time the nationals rolls around they've had enough.
It's possible that narrow court softball can be entertaining to a certain group, but it''s pretty hard to imagine clubs building courts that only inferior players use. Most people like to think they're playing the real game anyway. Look at all the guys with 20 handicaps shooting from the back tees. Still, you've observed players who preferred softball on the narrow, so there must be something to it, although I'm tempted to think it was just laziness.
DeleteI wonder how much the college players' absence is due to physical burnout, rather than lack of love for the sport. I watched a game of the college finals on the computer and found it amazingly dull, by the way. Pro softball is now much more like hardball used to be. The scoring allows them to set a faster pace without fear of running out of gas and lighter rackets with better strings allow players to do more with the ball at the fast pace. College softball appears to be the same old dull game.
Sasha
I respect and am grateful to Ted Gross for this site but am astonished w his opinion about narrow courts. I am in th 4.5+ neighborhood (non-elite) and prefer wide courts to narrow courts by a factor much much greater than 21.5/18
ReplyDeleteBasically, I cannot stand narrow courts when compared w wide
Ted Gross has it right.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree, narrow court softball is like sailing with a motor. Yes you are sailing, but you are also motoring, the skill level is much less. Guy is so right on target. The fad right now is doubles and collegiate squash. We adult players are completely discounted by our US governing body. I have been in this game for a long time and can tell you in the day there were adult tournaments abound. The draws were huge. Now the only tournaments are junior tournaments. The future of this game is not in those junior players who are trying at their parents insistence to play and get an edge on getting into an Ivy school -- they will be the death of squash if you put your eggs in that basket. Squash will die here, in NYC because it will become so expensive to play at exclusive clubs, the public courts are no more. Face it, this is what the old boy network wanted all along exclusivity. We are back to those days and our US governing body is inadvertently promoting that. We are in immense trouble because it will become so expensive to play this game that it will be for those financially who can afford it. So you wonder why this sport turns people off, why it isn't recognized by the Olympic committee, people despise the 1% entitlement and privilege which is what we are moving back towards. Why does a player have to play to get into college? Why can't a player like all the other countries simply play because this is one incredible sport. Overseas they laugh at us because the governing body still promotes the blond haired blue eyed squash IVY player. When in fact in Egypt and UK players come from all walks of socio and economic backgrounds.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is not the size of the court. It is the number of courts.
ReplyDeleteThe growth of hardball doubles will be limited by the lack of revenue generated per square foot. Ultimately, in order for the sport to really grow, more courts are needed and that just isn't going to happen as allocating that type of space for two or four people in a given hour is not cost effective for virtually all health clubs. Follow the money in order to see true growth. If doubles squash is "exploding", why aren't new clubs opening everywhere and existing clubs allocating space to squash?
ReplyDeleteSecond, the 700 participants in the MSRA draw are actually almost half that amount in actual players as many did actually enter multiple draws. Further, of those that entered, intentions were good but if you look at the draws, there are many defaults.
"You are old!" said the youth.
ReplyDelete"One would hardly suppose,
you'd eat anything tougher than suet,
yet you've done with the sport,
from old times to the fut-
ure. Pray how did you manage to do it?"
"In my youth," said the man,
"I took to the court,
and argued each case with a ball,
and the muscular strength which it gave to my jaw
is more than enough for you all!"