Tennis Players' Grunts May Slow Opponents' Reactions

A recent study shows the negative impact that noise can have when one is attempting to predict where a tennis ball will land. Christie Nicholson reports

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


[audio clip] That’s Rafael Nadal, one of the loudest grunters in tennis  But the real screamers are the women. [audio clip] Ah yes, Maria Sharapova, belting at 101 decibels, is the scream queen. Yet curiously, she doesn’t utter a peep during practice.

But does grunting distract an opponent? Ivan Lendl complained that Andre Agassi’s howls in the 1988 U.S. Open threw off his concentration and timing. And last year the International Tennis Federation began considering banning grunts. Well, maybe a  study in the journal Public Library of Science ONE bolsters the case for a ban.

Thirty-three undergrads watched videos of a tennis player hitting a ball, sometimes with a grunt, sometimes in silence. The subjects had to predict, as fast as possible, the direction of the ball and where it would land, by hitting a keyboard key. And when they heard grunts, the subjects were slower and less accurate.

The researchers say that this is the first study on the impact of grunting in tennis. Now they’re examining how pro players deal with the negative effects of a loud player. But until the ITF rules, it’s up to the umpire to decide if a grunt goes too far.

—Christie Nicholson

[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe