<% ns_puts [mkm_getnavbar] %>
TennisONE is interested in hearing from you.
Send your comments to: readerswrite@tennisone.com
|
|
Kim,
Let's face it, tennis will never be a spectator sport for the masses in the US. Other participant sports, e.g. cycling, swimming, etc., face the same dilemma as tennis, i.e. a near-absence of coverage by the TV networks and other major channels. This isn't surprising since, in the US, ratings determine whether anything gets broadcast. When in Europe, I'm always amazed at the incredible variety of TV or radio programming.
And yes,
the Davis Cup final was shown on TV in the EU. And so were therecent
Cycling World championships held in Ontario. Sadly, I missed both the
Davis Cup final as well as the Cycling World Championships this year:
they weren't shown on any of the three hundred odd TV channels I
receive on my satellite dish at home in New York.
The same phenomenon applies to radio. I happen to listen to WABC in
the morning and there's one Don Gould who comes on with sports news.
Do you think he will ever mention any sport other than baseball,
football, or basketball (and, yes, ice hockey)? Nope. The others
simply don't exist, they are invisible. He doesn't even cover tennis
during the US Open.
And so, I must agree with whoever suggested we 'do nothing' to promote
tennis in the media. It's futile. And perhaps it is for the best: we
want to be able to make that court reservation, don't we?
Yves Danneels
Yves,
Many people who want to do nothing like things
just the way they are. You seem not to like the way things are, but
don’t think there’s any hope of changing things. I don’t pretend to
have the exact formula for improving the game, but I’m going to
maintain a certain level of optimism public opinion can change, and at
a certain point, some new leadership will emerge to institutionalize
that change.
Thanks for your note.
Regards,
Kim
TennisONE,
I find Dave Smith's response to Bill's question about racquet and
stroke development surprising. In his letter, Bill disagrees with a
local tennis pro who encourages his son to switch to a less powerful
racquet to facilitate proper stroke development, and Dave Smith
replies, "I think you are on the right track regarding racquet and
stroke development."
In my experience, good technique produces all the power that's
necessary and then some, due to solid contact with the ball and lots
of racquet head speed. The people I see using (and benefiting from)
the new ultra-stiff racquets are petite women and senior citizens,
who, because of their poor technique and lack of strength are unable
to produce power without the extra stiffness.
If success in tennis was just about hitting the ball as hard as
possible, stiffer racquets would indeed be better. But (thankfully)
tennis can be more than just heavy serves and groundstrokes. Flexible
racquets are much better for managing power. (If you don't believe me,
try hitting a drop shot or slice approach with a new Head iS6 - it's
much easier with an old Head Radical.)
Bill writes, "...why doesn't he have all of his juniors hit with wood
racquet for the next few years as wouldn't even weaker racquet be even
more effective in "developing" a proper stroke?" In fact, Pete Sampras
has said that he'd start his son on a wooden racquet precisely for the
purpose of facilitating proper technique.
As for the "inferior technology" of older racquets, the racquet of
choice of both Sampras and Federer is the Wilson Pro Staff. My
understanding is that this is a very old model - flexible and heavy,
compared with new models. Call me crazy, but neither Pete nor Roger
seem to have a problem producing powerful shots.
If a stiff racquet works well for Bill and his son, good on 'em.
However, it appears from his letter that Bill doesn't understand the
reasoning behind his tennis pro's advice.
Doug
Vancouver, BC
Doug,
My "on the right track" response to this multi-concept question posed
by Bill was more in regards to the fact that good strokes are far more
important than racquet technology...which Bill was discussing when he
said that he and his son were using proper strokes. My response I
believe matches your comments for the most part. My contention in
racquet selection for training purposes deals more with appropriate
weight, balance, and power of racquets in which players will not
develop bad mechanics if using too heavy or too light or too
powerful/not powerful enough of a racquet for player progression.
I agree with you that proper technique combined with proper timing and
certainly hitting the ball within the "sweet spot" will indeed produce
ample power for almost any level player. And you are correct when you
identify that the lighter, stiffer racquets which are used
predominately by those who have slower or shorter strokes benefit
those who play within such swing patterns.
While Pete and Federer use the relatively
heavy (12+ ounce) Pro Staff Tour 90 frames, these frames are still a
far cry from the wood racquets of a generation ago. And, as far as
physics go, the heavier the object, the more momentum can be
applied...if the player can generate ample racquet head speed. These
Pro Staff frames--in the right hands--are far from lacking in overall
power.
I think that racquet selection today can't be grouped into a simple
'use a weak, heavy racquet (wood, perhaps) to develop strokes for
beginners,' mentality. In some cases, a weak racquet may induce a
player to try to hit too big to generate desired or perceived power.
In other cases, a relatively heavy racquet may force a player to
over-compensate some swing aspects. And I have seen juniors using too
light of a junior racquet where they change their swing patterns to
try and hit with more power...even when the racquet simply won't
deliver it.
I hope I have made my points more clear. Thanks for writing and adding
your input. You contributed some very valid points.
Dave Smith
TennisONE,
I would agree that Pete Sampras, Stefan Edberg, and Roger Federer are
magnificent volleyers, but looks aren't always the barometer that
determine a great volley from an outstanding volley. While McEnroe's
volleys were not conventional, Tennis Magazine had his volleys as the
best of all-time simply because no one was about to match his touch at
net. He seemingly made the ball what he wanted to do.
I
also think Rafter's volleys are underrated because he was able to
volley in an era where players can whip heavy topspin passing shots
with ease. His volleys may not be as pretty as Sampras's, but I'll be
willing to bet that he has better net skills than Sampras simply
because Rafter did not have the luxury of coming behind big serves and
big forehands. When Rafter has to rely on positioning rather than good
serves, most of his volleys are going to be from awkward positions
where hitting pretty volleys is not possible. When we think of Rafter,
we think of the samurai (ponytail) going all out kamikaze style with
his war paint (zinc oxide over his cheeks) in an acrobatic lunge for a
tough volley, and I think there is something graceful about that.
Also, where is Martina Navratilova?
Gene
Gene,
I personally agree with your evaluation of the volley and those who
can be arguably regarded as some of the best in the game...that might
not meet the Sampras, Edberg or Federer model. I actually feel that
Sampras was almost too smooth, and often did not explode to the volley
as Rafter, Pat Cash, or Boris Becker often did. (I liked your
analogies of Rafter as the "Samurai" and the "kamikaze"!) I actually
have always liked McEnroe as he so often moved his whole body as a
unit to attack volleys, seldom getting his center of gravity too far
out of balance. In my opinion, McEnroe had probably the most graceful
volleys because of this sense of balance. Would McEnroe be able to
compete at the current game's pace and power? Hard to say. Since his
was more a game of touch, finesse, and geometric execution, he might
have not been as successful today as he was a short generation ago.
Yes, let us not forget one of the finest net players in the women's
game, Martina Navratilova. I believe her expertise at the net has
provided her with an uncommon longevity in the game, namely in
doubles. Also, I often liked to compare Martina Hingis to John
McEnroe. Hingis was one of the few women who really did mix it up at
the net.
Thanks for your comments, Gene!
Dave Smith
Dear Kim,
as usual, you're incredibly Americano-centric, but in a refreshingly
innocent kind of way. nice idea on the season ending with a dramatic
final in September! (...guess where? In the U.S.A. of course! Hey, why
not just play all tournaments in the U.S.? Unlikely. Can you imagine
the French Federation agreeing to that?) hmmmm.....
That's the problem with making changes to a truly world-wide, year-round sport. It evolved over time, and in different countries. When it's winter in the Northern Hemisphere, it's summer in the south... etc...
Here's my
suggestion: (Guess what country I'm from!) Let's extend the grass
court season by two weeks by moving Wimbledon back a week, so that it
begins near the 1st of July, and by moving the French forward, so that
it begins a week earlier in May. Of course, all of this could conflict
with the British Open Golf, or the Tour de France etc... Sports
schedules are tight.
Move the U.S. Open forward 1 week, so that it ends near the last days
of August, which is commonly recognized in the Northern Hemisphere, as
being the end of the summer, and then play the Masters in the
beginning of October as a top 20player tournament, involving both men
and women. This end of season final would move from one country to
another in the same way that it does now.
Davis Cup and Fed Cup could be compacted into September. Forget the
indoor season. New season begins in January, down-under in OZ or in
Doha, middle east etc... 2 to 3 months off, even for the very best!
Enjoy!
Mark
Dear Mark,
In listing the ideas I’ve heard for reforming tennis, I didn’t mean to
suggest I endorsed them all. Also, I’m not sure that the proposal to
start the season in March and ending it in early September should be
characterized as North American-centric. However, I’ve admitted to a
few North American centric statements lately, so I won’t argue too
vehemently.
Thanks for sending in your ideas and broadening the dialogue across
the seas.
Regards,
Kim
TennisONE
I want to
ask probably the most difficult question. What do champions like
Sampras think about just before a point starts and during a point? Has
anyone asked him? Does he visualize, think strategy, or does he simply
relax and not think of anything? I have heard that thinking interferes
with your stroke process. I believe the thought process is crucial to
winning the "big points". I have seen and heard about players who had
great strokes and serves, but never made it on the tour, because they
couldn't win the "big points". Another related question is weather
champions play "big points" exactly the same as any other point or do
they raise the level of their game? Some have theorized that the
pressure that comes with thinking about the importance of the point is
what make lesser players fail and the great ones succeed.
If it isn't the thought process that makes a champion then could it be
something neural? Do great players perceive things faster than the
rest of us? Are things slowed down for them. Is that 120 mph serve
look like 105 mph to them? Have any great tennis players/baseball
hitters ever been tested for reaction time, visual acuity or visual
stabilization? Any light you can shed would be greatly appreciated.
Sorin
Sorin,
You have identified the crux of "mental tennis" at its core. While I
don't believe anyone has truly identified scientifically the diverse
applications and complexities that seem to effect individuals in
various pressure situations, I do think we are coming closer to
optimal training techniques.
While I can't speak for Sampras or other tour pros specifically, I can
relate the training that many top teaching pros use to train
world-class performers in terms of the mental approach. Obviously, at
the higher levels of skilled play, conscious thought about technique
or form is detrimental to execution. It would be like having to think
about all the movements required to walk across the room! Top players
think or "picture" what they want to do with the ball in terms of
placement and spin intention...not grips, stroke patterns, footwork or
other technical aspects to making the shot. Like walking across the
room, skilled tennis is all about knowing "where we want to go" with
the ball! Whether we decide to jog, walk or sprint across the room, we
know where we want to end up! Playing skilled tennis is like
that...hitting flat, topspin, or slice, or hitting hard or soft, is
our intention of where we want the ball to go and how we want it to
get there.
Dr. Jim Leohr did some excellent work on mental tennis, identifying
the importance of the "between point" condition of the player.
Clearing the mind, mentally preparing for only the next point while
not dwelling on any previous points, focusing the eyes away from
distractions, etc., were discussed in his "16 second cure" video he
did over 12 years ago.
A classic example of how previous points can interfere with our
present moment of competition is the number of people who double fault
after an ace! Instead of focusing on the next serve independent of the
past, (ace or perhaps a double fault), players often are still
relishing and thinking they can do another ace just like the one
before!
Being able to stay in the present is what allows players to not only
play big points well, but diminish the chances of choking, getting
angry, and tanking points, games and sets. Thus, the key to playing
your best tennis is to remain cognizant of the present with no
conscious thought of past great shots or mistakes we made, nor of
thinking of what the outcome of the point, game, set or match might
hold for us. It is thinking about the future or the ramifications of
winning or losing a match that can make players choke or tank matches!
I summarize this overall mental condition as "playing for the ego".
When we play tennis to protect our ego we create excuses and reasons
to not play well. "I would have killed that player if they didn't
cheat me," "I'm a lot better player than he is...I just wasn't
trying." These statements are common when we play to our ego.
I also agree that champions are blessed to a certain degree with
athleticism that may be in some areas better than the average person.
However, whether this athleticism is conditioned or created, or
whether it is simply nature is often difficult to quantify. I have
seen players who didn't appear to have great athleticism work so hard
they overcame this apparent deficiency. Some champions seem to have
some "gift" in either physical areas or mental areas. Borg certainly
had it mentally. It has been argued that Sampras, Safin, and others
have had great physical gifts. And others still, namely Courier,
Chang, Seles, and others simply worked their butts off.
I believe that if you are going to pursue any sport to the highest
level, you can't ever assume you have "it" or don't have "it"! Because
every individual has a different baseline level of "it", we must work
to discover what or how much of "it" we have...and work even harder to
make up for the amount of "it" we might be missing!
Thanks for a very thought provoking question!
Dave Smith
TennisONE,
I found
Jack Broudy's article on the infinity board really interesting. In it
you mention something about the injuries that have happened to Venus
and Serena. Is it due to incorrect movement or overstressing the
joints? In the light of the infinity board how would their injuries be
prevented?
Regards,
Agni
Agni,
Thanks for the email. I enjoyed your question. I was hoping someone
would ask.
For starters, I’ve only mentioned Venus, with regards to injury due to
stress of poor geometric execution. I think Serena plays a better game
in terms of body coordination and efficiency. Venus, quite open-stanced
on both sides, begins her stroke at the 45º, though that should be the
midpoint (contact) of the stroke (and figure 8). She then pulls her
hips back into the hit (back towards the net) early, (so she’s facing
the net-and then some), while her arm flies out (created by to
centrifugal force) to the 45º into contact, as it should, (because she
does hold a nice coil.) Therefore she strains her stomach, because
instead of facing the ball on contact (a la Federer or Agassi), she’s
facing the net and straining her stomach. Contrary to a Roger, she
often makes the strokes look difficult, due to muscling the shot.
Hopefully that explains it a little. Maybe I’ll do an article on that
one, so I can show on video what I’m talking about.
Best regards.
Jack Broudy
TennisONE,
Way down
here, at the grassroots, we are doing something. In my area, Lyncbhurg,
Virginia we are going to the downtown after-school programs at the Y's
and teaching inner city youth that tennis is fun. How? Not by boring
tennis lessons but by 45 minutes on strokes, the rest of the hour and
the next 6 weeks, playing rally ball and having fun. Those that show
potential are hooked up with a teaching community person to work on
skills. They are taken to exhibitions and clinics where they see
tennis played.
We are also writing grants, to USTA, to local organizations, to
foundations, to anyone who will give us money to buy equipment to get
tennis into the community and out of country clubs.
That's what we are doing and what we think will grown tennis in our
area.
Barbara Evans
Board of Directors, Mid-Atlantic Tennis
Barbara,
I believe the USTA is launching a number of these grass-roots programs
in public schools, which I think is a great idea. It really does take
tennis out of the country club setting, and exposes hundreds of kids
to a game they would never get a chance to play. Congratulations on
your program and good luck.
Regards,
Kim
Kim,
I agree with you on some of the points and would like to add one. I've
been playing tennis for over 20 years, and feel like the game is dying
out in New York. Many indoor facilities in New York have closed down.
I used to practice in the Junior Development program at Pardegat
tennis club in Canarsie, I don't think the tennis courts exist there
anymore.
Mill Basin
tennis club in Brooklyn has gone down from 10 to 7 courts this year.
They have converted 3 tennis courts to health/spa facilities. Very few
tennis round the City are available to the public. As far as the
winters go. Well you better have $ cash to pay up to enjoy the game.
This year me and 3 partners got a tennis court for $30/hour, now this
is the cheapest I have seen. This rate is at Prospect Park in
Brooklyn. Everyone else is charging $40 and up per hour. I heard that
people from Manhattan book time in Prospect park. How can a game grow
if you have to have lots of $$$ to play. Obviously, nothing is free
and I understand that, but if one can't find a tennis court, and one
can't find a court for a reasonable rate, it's not fun anymore.
Tennis game is one of the harder sports to pickup and if you add
complexity of getting a court and then on top of that $$$, you have a
problem.
As far a
coverage goes, unless it's a major tournament such as US Open, French
Open, Wimbledon, I hear nothing and see nothing. I do wish that I
could see more tennis competition on TV. Promoters of tennis have done
a bad job at making the game to enjoy.
Your publications are excellent and I enjoy reading the articles. Keep
them coming.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Neal
Neal,
As you note, the deterioration of the "infrastructure" (availability
and quality of courts, hitting backboards, etc.) in the U.S. is a
symptom of tennis' decline from its heyday. (Again, maybe it's
different in other countries, and we shouldn't automatically
extrapolate what happens in the U.S. to the world.) I've seen many
clubs and tennis resort hotels eliminating tennis courts in favor of
other activities. It would be very interesting if someone had kept
track of the total number of tennis courts available 20 years ago
versus today. The statistics would probably be very revealing. If the
cost of participating in tennis is also rising, as you say it is in
New York, that's another worrisome trend. I don't want to come across
as a doomsayer: there's plenty of great things about tennis. At the
same time, we should always be thinking about how we could make it
better.
Regards,
Kim
Jack (Broudy),
Why did you not put McEnroe with Sampras, Edberg, and Federer? A few
current players put him there or higher!
Chris
Chris,
I put John in as a great volleyer but not an exceptional one. He didn't really make it look easy or relaxed. He sure put the ball where he wanted to though, and he did most everything right. But when I say exceptional I mean "effortless" graceful and natural. Johnny really stiff-armed a lot. And jumped at contact. But I can't argue that he isn't a great volleyer. I'm glad somebody brought that up.
Thanks,
Jack
TennisONE,
I am in complete agreement with John McEnroe (and, actually, Jimmy Connors as well, in a rare moment where the two agreed). I think the large racquets and hi-tech materials have almost ruined a beautiful game (the same thing is happening to golf; just listen to Jack Nicklaus on the subject of today's super-juiced golf balls).
I would
like to see the professionals return to wood racquets with
standard-sized heads. This would make possible the return of elegant
players like McEnroe, Edberg, and Rosewall, whose style of play has
been made obsolete by today's equipment, which favors people just
pounding away from the baseline. Remember Borg's frequent mishits on
his topspin haymakers? It doesn't happen today with 90-110 in^2
racquet heads. Hell, I'm 61 years old and I can hit big topspin
forehands, topspin backhands and even topspin lobs. I doubt I could do
this reliably with a standard-sized racquet head. It's possible that
even a Laver might not be successful in today's tennis, given his
slight stature and all-court game, though the latter can be made to
work today, as proven by people like Roger Federer, a magnificent
player.
Now, I know full well that what I am suggesting will never happen.
Racquet companies sell equipment by having it endorsed and used by the
pros. I am *not* suggesting that we amateurs return to wood racquets.
Making the game a little easier for the masses is needed to enhance
the game's popularity. So, I'm suggesting a world where the pros play
with standard-sized wood racquets and the public plays with hi-tech
large racquets. This is not a possible world. But I really think the
obsolescence of a game like McEnroe's detracts tremendously from the
sport.
Don Allen
Don,
I’m sympathetic with your point of view. I think there should at least
be more serious discussion and experimentation with changing equipment
at the professional level. (Also agree we don’t want to make the sport
more difficult for amateurs.) For some reason, people have a
fatalistic attitude about tennis, including the possibility of
equipment changes. There are restrictions on equipment in professional
golf and baseball, as they saw what might happen to the game if
technology wasn’t controlled. The essence of the game is the game and
how it should be played, not the equipment. Would baseball, for
example, allow high-tech bats that would guarantee players could hit
500 foot homeruns on a regular basis? I’m not sure there is any one
silver bullet solution (like returning to wood racquets), but I think
more experimentation and test marketing should be conducted.
Regards,
Kim
TennisONE,
I read with
interest your points of view regarding ways to improve and promote our
game. While I believe a great deal should be done, I am also somewhat
of a traditionalist and would not particularly like to see wholesale
changes in the rules or "fan conduct" to in my mind to artificially
make tennis seem like more of a fan game.
There are a few things I would do immediately however. One of which is
to make sure that the lower level seats at tournaments are loaded with
people. It pains me to watch televised events with no one in the
courtside seats. I know these are purchased by corporations but
provisions should be made to have people sit there if the corporations
are not going to use them! Nothing makes a match seem boring on TV
that to have the impression that no one is interested in watching.
Also, there needs to be a central place where players can donate old
equipment that can be used by grass roots organizations to get more
kids playing. If people are like me they have a plethora of racquets
that could used to good effect if they only knew how to get them to
the right people.
Thanks for listening,
Josh
Josh,
I'm not sure I want fans yelling all the time either, but I've seen
the idea proposed. At the same time, I watch NBA players at the
free-throw line making baskets even though the fans are screaming and
waving crazy stuff in the air. They seem to be able to concentrate
through it all. Why shouldn't tennis players? The underlying concept
is how to get fans more involved and excited, which leads to
commenting on your second point.
I totally agree with you that those lower seats should be filled for
televised matches. This is part of what I meant about poor marketing
and presentation to tennis fans. It sends out a poor message in a
number of ways, including: 1) tennis isn't popular; 2) excitement
level is reduced because of lack of fan involvement. This is part of
the reason why baseball moved from mega-stadiums down to small
stadiums. Some people within tennis haven't grasped this.
I also like your idea of a central place to donate equipment. Perhaps
the USTA can take this up.
Thanks for your comments and ideas.
Regards,
Kim
TennisONE,
Just because no one in America saw or cared, doesn't mean the Davis Cup isn't big news. In Australia it was the biggest TV draw this week, front page news, and the players received a huge welcome in Melbourne city centre this morning. In Europe it was live through the night, and last year's final in Paris was the most watched program in France for the whole year.
The Masters Cup was great drama too, as was the Champions Race--the crowds in Paris and Madrid (good TV coverage as well) were huge, and enthused by the 3-way race for No. 1.
Tennis is
big news here, blame ESPN and the advertisers for its stateside
problems. When TV companies and schedulers call then world no. 1
Ferrero an 'outsider' and put him on outside courts while Ashely
Harkleroad plays on Ashe Stadium how do you expect American fans to
care? For us Federer v Ferrero or Hewitt v Moya is huge; for American
TV its two no-names.
It's America that has the problem, not tennis.
As for changing the rules, are you mad? Did you see the excitement
that the Masters Cup showed? Or the stunning matches played at the
Davis Cup final, or Federer's masterclass at Wimbledon, or Justine
Henin-Hardenne's remarkable US Open performance? The game is more
exciting now than ever. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
C. Kissane
Ireland
Christopher,
Your comments reminded me once again that tennis is a worldwide sport,
and I have to be careful about making statements from a U.S. centric
perspective. It’s good to hear tennis is thriving in Australia and
Europe, and congratulations to our Australian fans for their Davis Cup
victory. It was great that they came back this year to win after
losing to France in the final last year.
As far as being “mad,” sometimes perhaps, but on this subject I think
not. True, there were some great matches and tournaments this year,
but my real question was, can we improve things? I think if you look
at what other sports have done to revitalize their game and their
fans, you can see that there’s room for improvement within the tennis
world. When I’m watching a Grand Slam final on TV and they decide to
skip to the tie-breaker, I think that’s pretty broken.
Regards,
Kim
Jack (Broudy),
The problem with Rusedski (as well as with millions of others) is that
he was told that it is a must to plant his left foot before making the
forehand volley and to plant his right foot before making the backhand
volley. It looks like he came to the net to follow the foot planting
axioms instead of volleying.
The three magicians you mentioned were focusing on volleying to the place from which it would be difficult to pass them. It takes years to develop.
By the way
not long ago it was a must to plant your left foot diagonally forward
(your favorite 45 degree) before executing the forehand drive.
Thanks for a nice analysis,
Vitaly
Vitaly,
I couldn’t agree with you more. It certainly looks like he’s trying to get a foot planted (and close his stance) as well. That’s one of the commands in the “linear world” of teaching that I’m referring to in my article. I will say though that although the 3 magicians have mastered their craft through long hard hours, they have an “unconscious knowing” of this balanced “geometry” that I’m talking about. All the pros practice long and hard, but very few can get this “feel” through their “operating system”. This “feel” and mastery can, and is, being learned.
Thanks for your email,
Jack Broudy
Grail Sports Inc
Tom,
The article was very well done but I have one question. How did he come up with the statement that for every degree swung downward the racquet face must be open one degree. This is the first time I have heard this which is why I'm asking the question. It sounds very logical.
Thanks,
Harold Swanson
Harold,
Thank you for your response and in regards to your question, I learned
this concept during my time working for Vic Braden. He did do a lot of
research at his research center in Cote de Caza, CA during the 70's
and 80"s. I also had it through Professor Dr. Howard Brody
substantiated at a conference, where he was lecturing.
Good luck with your tennis,
Thomas March
Kim,
In your last newsletter of Armstrong - Agassi - Syphius you wrote concerning the love and exultation of the process of effort, towards the redefinition of the soul and character of the person. It was quite an amazing and accurate capture, a synthesis of sport, philosophy and mythology. It seems we have two lives, one before we realize we are mortal, and one after it (death of the parent-s).
Live,
Kathy, Karl, and Bear
Karl,
When the great eighteenth-century writer Goethe said, "Die, so you can
live," he expressed what I was attempting to say about the ego-death
and sense of loss/suffering that leads to a new way of looking at the
world. Thanks for your note.
Regards,
Kim
Kim,
Another good newsletter with very good points.
Are you, like me, starting to realize that no matter how much we
analyze true champions that it all comes back to their character?
Victor Frankl talks about 'Mans Search for Meaning' and when you break
it down it is all about the value we all put on ourselves that will
ultimately determine our fate. You mentioned Lance's attitude before
he was diagnosed with cancer and this is fairly typical of someone who
has fame & fortune but is deep down unfulfilled. I love your reference
to his attitude when he opened the curtains and seen it was bad
weather and I also loved the reference to the letter he received
saying that he was one of the lucky one's. Both of these points
highlight one very important character trait, good can come out of
everything!
Switching my attention away from the superficial elements of life and
onto the truly rewarding elements has been one of the most liberating
experiences for me. I had to go through some pretty tough times to
decide to do this and had it not been for the bad I would not have
made the decision to change.
My only worry about all of this is that I fear the vast majority of
people will see this as gobblygook (for lack of a better word). I know
I have had experiences with tennis parents that have left me
completely deflated in this respect. Maybe they think they have found
that 'One Thing' but it is the wrong thing. I suppose all we can do is
ensure that we at least try to spread the word so to speak.
Well done again.
Best regards,
Kris
PS. Have you found your one thing?
Kris,
We have to remember there are all sorts of champions in terms of
results. Some seem to have been successful via sheer ego-mania, like a
Pancho Gonzales, whose life story I just read. But I agree there isn't
that much to admire about some of these "champions" from the
perspective of being great human beings.
Thanks for the note.
Regards,
Kim
Mr. Smith:
I enjoyed your article on TennisONE about advancing to a higher level
of play. I went through a very painful game change over the last three
years. I am not a kid, but a 50 year old 4.0-4.5 club player. For 20
years I was a baseline player with a weak serve, a weak defensive
forehand and a decent two handed back hand. My whole game was defense
and passing shots.
Then I decided to improve my game. I began working with my club pro
and found new and better players to hit with. I bought many tennis
videos and studied them for hours. I finally started serving with
correct form, getting away from the "patty cake" serve. I decided to
go to the net on approaches and to serve and volley. I also learned to
place serves and to hit spin and slice serves.
It was painful for months. Players who I usually beat won many sets
from me, primarily because of errors I committed trying to apply all
these new techniques. Many double faults at the worse times but many
aces and service winners. Some players scoffed at my efforts telling
me I was not a "net player." Some refused to play with me because our
sets were not competitive with me playing an error prone "new game."
I did exactly what you mentioned in your article. Whenever things got
tense in a match, I would revert to my old strokes and habits and not
try the new stuff. It took a while to overcome the "fear of losing."
After about one year, I started playing an occasional, unbelievable
for me, set and would defeat a player much better than I could ever
have hoped to defeat. At first I thought it was the other player who
was not up to par. Then I realized that I was actually forcing errors
on my opponents and had them rushing their shots. Now I play a much
more consistent game and I have matches with players much more skilled
than in past years. I am glad that I put in the effort to improve, but
it would have been very easy to quit along the way.
I am looking forward to your book. I now am working on better timing
for my stokes and volleys. I have a tendency to over react to shots.
My pro says I have not mastered the matching of my stoke pace to the
pace of the ball. Will your book have any tips on timing and rhythm
issues? Thanks for your help.
Sincerely,
Alan Terlinsky
Alan,
Thank you for your note and sharing your experiences! I congratulate
you on making the necessary changes towards becoming not only a better
player, but in reaching your true potential! Too often players are
thwarted by poor instruction... whether it be from being self taught
or having pros who teach inferior methods just to gain some sort of
"immediate tennis gratification" for their student.
When we consider that even at 50 years of age, we will have anywhere
between 15 and 30-plus good years of competitive tennis ahead of us.
It isn't rocket science to figure that if we apply ourselves to 4 to 8
months of relative frustration through making such educated changes,
we will have all those remaining years to continue to improve and play
more and more competitive tennis!
My book, due out now in mid December, does discuss some of the
necessary aspects to timing and rhythm using what I call segmented
swing patterns based on shot evaluation. However, if you are using
better form on your groundstrokes, I have found that this better
technique allows for natural evolution of timing and rhythm. Because
you are probably still at a semi-conscious state of stroke production,
(due to your still mastering the new strokes), you are not yet
completely at ease with the strokes as a whole. As a result, your
conscious control of certain stroke segments prevent you from finding
that natural and appropriate rhythm. You mentioned that you played and
beat some players who you considered quite good, and that you played
marvelously. I'll bet you didn't have any trouble with rhythm and
timing for the majority of those matches. If this is true, you can see
that you already have that aspect within yourself! As you continue to
play more, and more importantly, as you gain greater confidence, you
will indeed have more and more days of great play. And eventually, you
will come to the conclusion that it isn't "great play" anymore...it is
your "normal" play! And that is a great feeling!
Best of luck to you and to your continued improvement. I will e-mail
you when my book has been printed and let you know when it will be
available! Many thanks again for sharing your tennis with me!
Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Monty,
I have read your article on "A more consistent serve via a better ball toss" in which you mention the 2 tests to see how consistent your toss is, one of them being that you must be able to toss the ball straight up and down, so that it lands in your tossing hand again without you moving it, yet this contradicts John Yandells article on Myth of the toss, where high speed video shows the toss curves from right to left, into the hitting zone.
Is this test meant as a way to gain greater control of the tossing hand, so that when you serve in a match, the consistency of your "curved" toss is better, or should this be the way to toss the ball (straight up and down) when serving in a match. I have found when I toss the ball straight up and down, the toss is too far to my right, so I can only hit sliced serves and I can't generate sufficient topspin. It also feels less natural and rhythmic.
Any advice
greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Frank
Frank
It is meant as a way to gain greater control of the tossing hand, as
well as the toss. Another way to get some consistency on your ball
toss is get in you serving stance and stand on your left foot (right
handed) toss the ball and catch it with out loosing balance.
Best,
Monty Basnyat
TennisONE,
I really enjoyed this article... That idea of dividing the serving area into <% ns_puts [nsv_get mkm_includes mkm_oldContentFooter_inc] %>