TennisOne Lessons
by Jim McLennan, Senior Editor, TennisONE
To see other articles in the Stow Series, go to:
Part 2, Part
3, Part 4, Part
5, Stow Reprint
Tennis is a game, an art form, a discipline, perhaps even a science. In
this vein there have been countless books written on mechanics, strategy,
mental preparation, equipment and more. Good books, boring books, detailed
books, and flimsy ones as well.
TennisONE will undertake an overview of what we will call "Theories
of the Game." We will examine both past tennis "thinkers"
and the current crop of tennis gurus. Why bother with the past thinkers?
We do this to recognize and celebrate those who have made such a valuable
contribution to the game. But the chief reason for initiating this series
is that we think many of their theories can be incorporated into the
training of today's tennis players, whom are often accused, and quite rightly,
of being one dimensional. The secrets of great tennis can't be learned
just from watching today's pros. The great players and strategists today
learned from the greats of 20 years ago, and they learned from the greats
of 20 years before that. We stand, as been often said, "on the shoulders
of giants." So it's to the giants of the game we must look to master
all the dimensions of the game.
Significant contributions to the theory of the game have been made by Bill
Tilden, Tom Stow, and Pancho Segura. In the modern era contributors include
Stanley Plagenhoef, Vic Braden, Dennis Vander Meer, Jim Loehr, Jack Groppel
and Nick Bollitieri. Please understand, this is only the beginning piece
in a running feature that will continually explore theories and theorists,
and if we have neglected to mention a prominent contributor or two please
be patient.
We will begin this series of articles with a consideration of Tom Stow,
who died in 1983. Tom coached in Northern California, his protégé
was Donald Budge, the first player to win the Grand Slam, but equally important,
Tom coached and influenced a legion of outstanding players, many of whom
are now prominent coaches themselves. Tom was the National Intercollegiate
Doubles Champion at University of California (UC) at Berkeley with Bud Chandler.
Later he coached the UC Berkeley team and then worked at the Claremont Country
Club, the Berkeley Tennis Club and finally at Silverado Resort in Napa.
It was my personal good fortune to meet Tom in 1972. I had been traveling
on the satellite circuits in Florida with Tom's assistant pro, Jim Irwin.
Jim convinced me that Tom could "remake" my game and dramatically
improve my performance (something that in fact Tom easily did). Interestingly,
he focused only on the fundamentals--but in an unusual manner--for Tom worked
at the fundamentals with a microscope. Balance had to be perfect,
the body weight had to be precisely placed against the ball, and shots were
taken early and with forceful intent. No chips, few counterpunches,
always moving forward, always pressing the "All Court Forcing Game,"
a phrase he coined and which sums up the Stow theory.
What intrigued me then, and continues to influence me now as a teaching
professional, was his insistence that there was really a special way to
hit the ball. This is in sharp contrast to the approach where the teacher
says that since all of us are unique, then all of us can develop our own
unique approach to tennis. For Tom the opposite was true. He had a picture
of a perfectly hit forehand, and all of his students tried to learn the
nuances of that swing. This special way of hitting was evident with Connors,
with Rosewall, with Laver, with Ashe, and now obviously with Sampras. Power
without effort, classically simple style, absolutely nothing superfluous
to the stroke itself. Even now in the 1990's, it is clear within
Northern California who were the Stow students of previous years, for we
all have a similar hitting style.
The distinctive feature of Tom's "All Court Forcing Game"
was his belief that the best style of play was to put constant pressure
on your opponent. Pressure exerted by taking the ball early, pressure
by coming to the net on all short balls, pressure by sharp volleying and
crushing overheads, and pressure by the commitment to play this style throughout
the match. Remember, he said, your opponent is human and ultimately
this pressure will break your opponent down. Even today, I am aware
of matches where my opponent exclaims, "I have never played worse!"
To which Tom would have smiled and said, "Exactly, you forced him."
As I indicated earlier, we think the theories of the past great thinkers
are relevant to today's game. So permit me to speculate on Tom's assessment
of some of today's top players. Sampras would get high marks for his aggressive
style, his cleanly hit groundstrokes and for his volleying style. I
am certain that Tom would suggest that Sampras waits much too long to come
in to net, and plays from the backcourt when he could just as easily approach
the net. In contrast to Sampras, Connors played a much more forcing
game with his punishing return of serve and his eagerness to step inside
the baseline and come in against any and all short balls. (An interesting
footnote, I believe there is a statistic that indicates Connors had the
highest percentage of doubles faults served to him by his opponents, precisely
because of his punishing intent on the return of serve). But obviously Connors
didn't have Pete's serve.
Concerning Agassi, I think Tom would commend his crisp groundstrokes but
little else. Andre shows no real ability to understand or use the
approach shot or the volley, and his serve is not constantly used as a weapon.
And in spite of Andre's titles, Tom would have relished the opportunity
to tinker with Andre's game.
For Graf, Tom would be super critical of her backhand slice, which
she produces with an awkward hopping gait to the ball. I can still
hear Tom screaming, "No hopping!" when I did this. And when I
asked why, he said that he had never seen an outfielder or an infielder
hop to a ball so why should I? Whereupon I felt smaller than a bug and resolved
to hop no more. And in spite of the fact that Graf's slice skids low and
may set her up for forehand opportunities, it is not hit nearly as cleanly
as Rosewall's slice, which Tom would have preferred in her situation.
Becker would receive the same critical scrutiny, for his backhand slice
is also produced with a very high initial preparation, not at all reminiscent
of Rosewall, and truly a limiting stroke within his game. Throughout all
of this speculation, the common threads are to create constant pressure
on your opponent and to hit the ball with the perfect model in mind. That
is the Tom Stow theory--the all court forcing game.