The Science Experiment

Engage in a cursory lookup of the seated version of tennis and one is quickly bombarded by the seemingly forgone conclusion that the activity is correctly described as a sport. Such an assertion, while common, does not give a scientist assurance. Observations, recordings and scientifically supported theories are the building blocks of their conclusions. Therefore it would be a crime to suggest that wheelchair tennis be given a pass of rigorous scientific scrunity.

The only rule that differs from pedestrian tennis is the one that concerns the number of bounces a ball may take before it must be played. In wheelchair tennis the ball may bounce up to two times, the second bounce may also occur outside of the field. This also holds true for service.

The main thesis: Is wheelchair tennis a sport?

Is predicated upon the seven following tests. First and foremost is the conundrum do the wheels give an unfair advantage. Would a rain soaked French open be easily won by a paraplegic piloting a chair with a drive train the envy of Hummer engineers everywhere. Second, we are faced with the puzzle: Is the opponent is pyschologically affected or “weirded out” in any way. That along with question six is most likely the most demanding and most challenging task.

what’s more dangerous:

the lack of goggles on his face or the presence of tie-dye all over his torso?

this experimenter’s verdict: the only eyes that were injured due to this ‘experiment’ were mine. that shirt will get your ass kicked in any city in the states.

tie-dye = more dangerous.