Jim Loehr Response:

I wanted to respond to some of Dr. Roland Carlstedt’s comments on the 16-Second Cure in his article: The 8 Greatest Myths of Tennis Pyschology (click here to view Dr. Carlstedt’s article).

Throughout my career I have been open to comment and criticism from other researchers and coaches. But most of what Dr.Carlstedt writes is based either on misunderstandings or misrepresentations of what the 16 Second Cure really is, as well as how it was developed.

According to Dr. Carlstedt, the 16 Second Cure as an absolute, regimented time frame that all players must follow “like robots.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Ironically, I agree with his pronouncement that: “Between point timeframes in tennis are widely variable and must be ascertained on a case-by-case or player-by-player basis.” This was the conclusion I reached in my own research, and I’ve never argued otherwise!

Clearly players must develop their own pre-performance rituals between points that reflect their unique psychological and physiological dynamics. The “16 Second Cure” simply represents a starting place and was never intended to be the final formula for anyone. As you’ll see in this series of TennisONE articles, I recommend a 16 second minimum between points. But often it’s better for players to take up to the full 25 seconds allowed under the rules. Of course, there are always exceptions, for example in the case he mentions of Steffi Graf who played at a faster rhythm than most players, but nonetheless followed the stages in between point behavior impeccably.

This is another problem with his critique. The heart of the 16 Second Cure is not a rigid between point time frame, rather it is the way the player spends this time to help maintain his Ideal Performance State. Dr. Carlstedt never addresses the content, purpose, or effect of the 4 stages of between point behavior.
His conclusion is “Don't be surprised if you don't win the next point even after having followed your ideal timeframe routine.” But again, the point is not to take arbitrary, robotic time intervals between points. The point is to use this time to create and sustain mental toughness through practice of the 4 stages.

Based on the feedback I’ve received from literally hundreds of top coaches and players from throughout the world for nearly two decades, the training guidelines that the 16 Second Cure provides have proven quite useful in helping players improve their competitive skills.

Now let me address his claim regarding the lack of research supporting this work.

My understanding of the importance and function of the between-point time in competitive tennis came primarily from a multi-year research project I designed in which EKG heart rate data was synchronized with continuous video of match play.

Each match was charted for unforced errors, winners and consecutive points won and lost. A computer program was written that correlated heart rate data with match chart data and an ideal range of heart rate for each player was calculated based on the computer analysis. Over 25 players participated in the project, including male and female subjects, juniors and adults, and professional and amateur players. Several of the participants were highly ranked players on the ATP.

The project was conducted not for publication purposes but rather to improve my understanding and effectiveness as a practitioner. The project, although very time intensive and tedious, proved to be one of the most valuable sources of insight into my work with players.

The data collected clearly revealed the importance of the between-point time in terms of self-regulation (specifically heart rate regulation). When players performed well, heart rate data showed a distinctive oscillatory pattern – heart rates would rise during points and fall between-points. Conversely, the more linear the cardiac output, the less likely players would perform well, particularly at high or low heart rate levels for them. When players became angry, frustrated, nervous or tanked (gave up), cardiac output became increasingly linear.

Since between-point time can consume as much as 70% of total match time, it seemed only logical that player patterns of thinking and acting between-points could profoundly affect during-point performance. The heart rate data supported this premise. During the next several years, I spent hundreds of hours analyzing the between-point time of the world’s best and poorest competitors.

My objective was to determine if there were commonalities in the way top competitors managed this time dimension of match play. I was excited at the prospect of building on-court mental training guidelines for players that were based on the actual practices of top competitors. This would be analogous to identifying the common elements in the games best forehands and using that data to establish biomechanical guidelines.
The importance and value of pre-performance routines has been clearly established in the literature over the past 15 years (Lobmeyer and Wasserman, Boutcher, Moran, Crews, Feltz and Landers, and Amberry to mention just a few). Moran defined a pre-performance routine as a “sequence of task-relevant thoughts and actions which an athlete engages in systematically prior to his or her performance of a specific sport skill.” My objective was to (1) to bring attention to the mental training value of the between-point time – when I first started introducing these ideas in the mid-1980’s, virtually no attention was given by coaches or players to the training between-points and (2) to provide specific guidelines and suggestions for helping players to ritualize between-point time based on data collected from top competitors.

In teaching the forehand drive to a new student, coaches must start somewhere with grips, footwork, backswing, follow-through, etc. or the student will become hopelessly confused with all the options. Exposing new students to the full range of acceptable biomechanical possibilities would be a learner’s nightmare.
The intent of the “16 Second Cure” training system was simply to give players and coaches a place to start – a sequence of thinking and acting that could be used to eventually build a highly individualized pre-performance routine that works for that individual. If you want to evaluate it’s effectiveness, you have to opportunity to do so in your own match play and see if you have the same result as so many other players—more enjoyment of the game and improved competitive results.

Last Updated 7/15/02. To contact us, please email to: webmaster@tennisone.com

<% ns_puts [nsv_get mkm_includes mkm_oldContentFooter_inc] %>