Buzz
Ever wondered about tennis scoring? Why terms like 'Love' and increments like 15, 30, and 40? There are numerous theories behind it, and some interesting insights, including input from sportscaster and ex-tennis pro Mary Carillo (pictured above with Rafael Nadal after his triumph in last night's U.S. Open men’s final).
The Meaning of 'Love' in Tennis
You’re probably familiar with the expression ‘goose egg’ when a team doesn’t score in a game. Well, some believe a similar French phrase might explain why zero points is called 'love' in tennis. The French word 'L’oeuf' means 'egg,' and the idea is that over time, the pronunciation morphed into 'love.'
Carillo concurs: “It’s the goose egg, exactly. Most tennis historians think the French translation of ‘egg’ is the most plausible explanation.”
There’s another, less widely accepted theory that suggests we’ve twisted the Dutch or Flemish word “lof,” meaning “honor.” The idea is that a player with no points is merely playing for honor, since they’re certainly not playing to win. But the Dutch might have more to offer: another possibility comes from the phrase iets voor lof doen, which means doing something for praise.
The Oxford English Dictionary puts forward the idea that ‘love’ literally means ‘love.’ According to this theory, the only thing keeping a scoreless player on the court is their love for the game.
One last theory about ‘love’ doesn’t involve any mistranslation or mispronunciation at all: When both players start with zero points and no one is ahead, they still share a love for the sport.
The 15-30-40 Scoring System
Now that we’ve cleared up the mystery of ‘love,’ let’s tackle the equally perplexing tennis scoring system, which seems like a random jumble of numbers. Before tennis as we know it, there was a French game called jeu de paume (“palm game”), which resembled tennis, but players used their hands instead of racquets. The modern tennis scoring system was adapted from jeu de paume, but the reasoning behind the 15-30-40-Game progression is still uncertain. One theory is that, in pre-Revolutionary France, the over 1000 jeu de paume courts were 90 feet long, with 45 feet on each side. When a player scored, they’d advance 15 feet, and another score meant another 15-foot move forward. The third score would bring them right up to the net, with 10 feet being the last move forward.
If you’ve ever noticed the resemblance between the scoring system and a clock face, you’re not alone. “That’s the theory I think is most widely accepted—that you’re essentially playing around the clock,” said Carillo. This theory gains more credibility when you consider that in medieval numerology, the number 60 was considered a perfectly rounded number, much like how we view 100 today.
Another possibility is rooted in European fascination with astronomy and the sextant (which divides a circle into six parts). Since a full circle is 360 degrees, they may have based the game’s scoring around completing a full circle. According to the United States Tennis Association’s Official Encyclopedia of Tennis:
"In early records of the game in France, sets were played to four games. Since sixty degrees make a full circle when multiplied by six, it is thought that matches were six sets of four games each. Therefore, each point was worth fifteen degrees, or points, contributing to the whole. The game concluded when one player completed a full circle of 360 degrees."
Regardless of which theory is the correct one, it’s generally agreed that the original scoring system followed a simple logic: 15, 30, 45, 60 (game). Over time, the 45 was adapted to 40 because it was easier to shout clearly on the court; ‘forty’ can’t be confused with any other number.
Seinfeld’s Theory
One of Carillo’s favorite theories about tennis scoring isn’t found in any history books. “I actually love the Seinfeld scoring system,” she shared with us. In classic Jerry Seinfeld style, he humorously suggests that points are awarded simply because playing tennis is just so incredibly intense:
Regardless of the true origins of the scoring system, one thing is clear: Tennis wouldn’t be the same without its unique point structure. “I happen to love the scoring system,” Carillo remarked. “Because of it, you get matches like the one that wrapped up in 21 minutes [on Saturday], when Novak Djokovic triumphed over Stanislas Wawrinka in the semifinal. It was exciting, absolutely thrilling. There was a standing ovation. As odd as the scoring system is, it generates incredible tension and strategy in every game.”
