PDA

View Full Version : Is "pro" technique for you?


Eric Matuszewski
08-22-2004, 03:48 AM
I've seen alot of disagreement over the question..

Should we look to the pro's for what techniques to teach.

I think most understand that teachers should strive to find "commonalities" of pro technique and teach them.

Still, I see alot of statements like "that is for the pros and there game is different" out there.

I think it's often forgotten that todays pros were juniors not to long ago and the chances of them changing their strokes, tendencies and habits because they decided to take a chance at making some cash is unlikely (this is my nice way of putting it).

In summary I look to the tour for the answers and that strategy has been paying off for me for a long time.

Without studying pro tennis and copying it, I wouldn't have been able to make the rapid improvements in my own tennis when I started at the "late" age of 15. nor the rapid improvements of my students.


I'd like to see EVERYONE chime in on this one, all of you out there have something valuable to say so say it.

goober
08-22-2004, 05:19 AM
I think watching pros is very valuable. Swing mechanics, foot work, strategy are all great to watch from the best players on the planet. Sure they are going to make some shots that you could never make but it beats watching a local 3.5 club players with their numerous faults in swing, footwork ect.

You just have to pattern your game after somebody that is similar to your own. I was watching Dent yesterday and well it would be bad for me to pattern my game after his :twisted: . I will never have that big of a serve and slicing everything and coming in off it isn't me. OTOH Justine Henin-Hardenne has a game that I would very much like to have 8)

JohnThomas1
08-22-2004, 05:36 AM
With kids and juniors starting out i think yes for sure. I think the coach has to make the call on some. It does take more talent and athleticism to say hit an open stance forehand with a semi western grip and plenty of topspin. You need a certain amount of racquet head speed. My g/f hits excellent flattish shots with a very basic motion and plays very successfully. A modern forehand would be out of her reach i feel. She does however wish she was taught that way early, when she comes up against the top juniors in doubles she envies their forehand penetration. Mind you she handles it rather well.

I'm sure someone will state that the pro's do many basic things so well and that's what we should be copying, the solid biomechanics that are present in most successful shots. The proper preparation, the proper footwork, good extension thru the ball, good shoulder turn etc.

Power Game
08-22-2004, 08:40 AM
I think that for advanced players pros technique (most pros, its probably better to stay away from the more unorthodox ones) is what you should strive for. Begginers should not start out with pro strokes though

polakosaur
08-22-2004, 09:05 AM
Pro technique should be used after basic technique and knowledge is attained. i guess maybe at the 3.5-4.0 level and beyond

Bungalo Bill
08-22-2004, 01:04 PM
I've seen alot of disagreement over the question..

Should we look to the pro's for what techniques to teach.

I think most understand that teachers should strive to find "commonalities" of pro technique and teach them.

Still, I see alot of statements like "that is for the pros and there game is different" out there.

I think it's often forgotten that todays pros were juniors not to long ago and the chances of them changing their strokes, tendencies and habits because they decided to take a chance at making some cash is unlikely (this is my nice way of putting it).

In summary I look to the tour for the answers and that strategy has been paying off for me for a long time.

Without studying pro tennis and copying it, I wouldn't have been able to make the rapid improvements in my own tennis when I started at the "late" age of 15. nor the rapid improvements of my students.


I'd like to see EVERYONE chime in on this one, all of you out there have something valuable to say so say it.

Actually Eric those are my comments, "the pros game is a different game compared to club level". I have not read this in anyone elses comments except for mine on this board. Oh, maybe, John Yandell's posts had it in there someplace. The coaches that I have been in communication with think the same way and believe me you and your "studying" can't hold a candle to these guys.

I haven't heard or seen any comments that disagree with looking at pros strokes to gain understanding of the basics we are learning. Vic Braden does it, Yandell does it, Dougherty does it, Nick B's coaches do it, so I am not sure where you're trying to go with this.

Actually, when I analyzed Tommy Haas's backhand or compared a TW posters strokes to a professionals strokes I have never heard anyone say we "shouldn't" look to the pros.

I also think you're twisting the meaning of my words " the pros game is different". The pro is game IS different - period! It is faster, it is smarter, there are fewer errors, they are stronger, coached, and they can hit balls that are deemed a low percentage shot for us as a high percentage shot. They have years and years of good solid foundational teaching which makes their game different!!! In other words, they are OUTSIDE of the box.

The pros do offer a way to see mature strokes in all of its glory which I have provided many breakdowns for players on this board. The club players can see that the building blocks they are working on are verified in a pros strokes. The common links between all of the pros strokes are extracted and instructional design is developed from the findings. This provides the club player seeking to improve and learn, gain confidence that they are on the right track. The little subtleties of a pros style or finesse can easily be separated from core elements that need to be practiced and engrained.

It is perfectly fine to build modeling around pros strokes and movement, but you still have to break it down to basic form and create instructional guidelines to allow a person to grow.Their game is different.

Building blocks are the key areas that instruction is built upon. Givens and prerequisites always support good instruction. When we see a pro play we are seeing years and years of fine tuning and maturity. When we watch a pro hit balls all we are seeing is a finished product.

Coaches of the past have studied finished products as all good coaches should, and have laid a good foundation for club players to study and master. Low to high, level racquet, move your feet, get set, keep your head still, HIT BOUNCE HIT are all common building blocks that were brought to us by coaches extracting these common things from their own game or a professionals game. The research that "newer" coaches are providing are simply "add-ons" to an already good product. They are upgrades.

Your reference to juniors was interesting, juniors are still in development! That is why they are called "juniors". They are simply further along the learning curve.

I am surprised that a coach that teaches juniors does not recognize that the pro game IS different than a club players game. I have discussed this with many USPTA coaches and they all see it as well.

Eric Matuszewski
08-22-2004, 03:44 PM
Bill,

You are far from being the only person who has taken that stance.

I've met lots of coaches who I've talked to about this.

It's an important question that new players are asking all the time. And one I would like to get an even broader perspective on.

You really need to stop taking everything that I write in this forum, as being directed at you.

Also, I don't appreciate your overt attempt at insult with "you can't hold a candle to" and my "studying" in quotation marks.

I've haven't tried to insult you, in fact, I've even offered you dinner before.

I offer my viewpoint here to help players and make some friends, that's it so lighten up, I mean you live in so cal, you got alot to be happy about!

Bungalo Bill
08-22-2004, 06:21 PM
Bill,

You are far from being the only person who has taken that stance.

I've met lots of coaches who I've talked to about this.

It's an important question that new players are asking all the time. And one I would like to get an even broader perspective on.

You really need to stop taking everything that I write in this forum, as being directed at you.

Also, I don't appreciate your overt attempt at insult with "you can't hold a candle to" and my "studying" in quotation marks.

I've haven't tried to insult you, in fact, I've even offered you dinner before.

I offer my viewpoint here to help players and make some friends, that's it so lighten up, I mean you live in so cal, you got alot to be happy about!

Come on Eric, who is kidding who. I just put up those comments on the post that we talked about Wardlaw Directionals and have posted the same comment on several other posts, it's kind of a coincidence that you all of sudden "thought" about it.

Of course a lot of coaches think that way, I just mentioned several. I just think you are avoiding being direct with your question. As I can support my findings but I doubt you can support yours.

Well you cant hold a candle to your studying vs. what other better coaches have done prior to you and coaches of today.

You really should stop taking things personal. I am not in the same boat as these other coaches as well, but I am smart enough to know what I can challenge and what I shouldnt challenge or dont need to challenge.

If you cant tell the pro game is different in so many aspects of play by now, well I guess you outght to keep studying!

I am not insulting you, I just dont appreciate wishy washy questions and then you give sidetrack answers to off set things and dont get to the point. If you reread your posts you might see what I mean.

Maybe your communication style is to always dance around things and sort of go "deep in tought" about the things of tennis. I guess I am not like that and speak direct and to the point. Sorry you take it so personal.

Eric Matuszewski
08-22-2004, 06:34 PM
Bill,

I'm not sure why you think that "I dance around things".

On the contrary, I greatly value precision and consciseness. I can't imagine that people look forward to looking thru 1000's of words for their answers.

On your recommendation I will be even more to the point in the future.

I'll take the comment that I go "deep into thought" as a compliment...

Thank you.

Phil
08-22-2004, 06:52 PM
Bill wrote:
but I am smart enough to know what I can challenge and what I shouldnt challenge or dont need to challenge.


Not trying to jump in on Bungalow and Eric's "discussion"-because, regardless of who is "right" here, I find myself picking-up many good points. However, this line in particular caught my attention. If the great innovators and inventors and educators had thought this way, then we'd be no where. What if Galileo thought this way, or Jack Kramer for that matter? Conventional wisdom is just that, conventional. And no one should censor themselves from challenging it or ANYTHING. Really. "Rocking the boat" is how new and revolutionary concepts are introduced-it should be done, periodically. There are tennis gurus out there, and not everything that comes out of their mouths is necessarily immune to challenge. Just saying...

Rickson
08-22-2004, 07:19 PM
Phil, I want you to never post in the tennis tips section again.

Phil
08-22-2004, 07:51 PM
Rickson - Burp. IF...YOU never post on this board again, maybe I'll consider it.

doubletrouble
08-22-2004, 08:09 PM
Eric

What do you mean when you say "technique"? If you mean "pro" strokes then no I don't. I started playing tennis way later than your "late" 15 years. I love watching the pros hit and do study their technique but many of their strokes are too "advanced" for me to copy, however I do agree that you can learn by studying the strokes of other players.

What I do is watch college matches. There I am seeing some very good fundamental tennis up close. The coaches are teaching techniques at this level that are executable by "ordinary" players. I'd have to say these are the level players I try to copy. Beside its fun to watch and its free.

Pro players have abilities that allow them to do things certainly far beyond my capabilities so for me, as they say "try to stay within myself".

goober
08-22-2004, 08:17 PM
Eric



What I do is watch college matches. There I am seeing some very good fundamental tennis up close. The coaches are teaching techniques at this level that are executable by "ordinary" players. I'd have to say these are the level players I try to copy. Beside its fun to watch and its free.

Pro players have abilities that allow them to do things certainly far beyond my capabilities so for me, as they say "try to stay within myself".

The college players I have seen ( mostly D1) are pretty close to the pro level. Their serves on the men's side are way above what you typically see at a club level. Also a lot of them have a big shot such as huge forehand. Maybe on the small college and lower divisions this is not true.

Anyhow unless you are watching these in person, college tennis is rarely on TV. The only college matches I can recall on TV are the NCAA championships which is pretty close to watching a pro match in terms of level of play.

Bungalo Bill
08-22-2004, 08:57 PM
Bill wrote:
but I am smart enough to know what I can challenge and what I shouldnt challenge or dont need to challenge.


Not trying to jump in on Bungalow and Eric's "discussion"-because, regardless of who is "right" here, I find myself picking-up many good points. However, this line in particular caught my attention. If the great innovators and inventors and educators had thought this way, then we'd be no where. What if Galileo thought this way, or Jack Kramer for that matter? Conventional wisdom is just that, conventional. And no one should censor themselves from challenging it or ANYTHING. Really. "Rocking the boat" is how new and revolutionary concepts are introduced-it should be done, periodically. There are tennis gurus out there, and not everything that comes out of their mouths is necessarily immune to challenge. Just saying...

Actually I disagree again!

What I am saying is I WILL challenge things that are UNVERIFIED or ARE UNCLEAR or HAVE NOT BEEN PROVEN.

If something is clear to me, why would I spend my energy challenging it? To be a rebel? To be difficult? To be "unconforming"? To try and MAKE myself "known" as a contrarion?

You are dead wrong about what you said Phil.

It is so clear that the pro game is different then club level play it is ludicrous to think otherwise. When players or even "pros" say it is not or "question" that it is not I find that arrogant and someone who is philosophying about things that are simply not there.

Do you question the world is round now that you know it is not?

Do you think it is a good idea to go out and try and "question" the current teaching with your little "idea" that the world might not be round?

I think I would call you a knucklehead.

When things are clear I dont challenge them anymore and waste my time, I move on to challenge things that are unclear. If Eric really wanted to know the answer to his question then he needs to be open to what another pro might say even though it could be challenging and contrary what he wants to hear.

I dont mind contrarians in the tennis business, I am a contrarian, but when things are clear and obvious that is when I cut the cord and move on to things that aren't so obvious and unclear.

If a pro has "heard" it from other pros, other famous coaches, and still has a hard time beleiving it, I find that being stubborn, rebelious, or someone that just wants to draw attention to themselves by "challenging" issues that dont exist.

Phil dont drift out and start being more "global" with your thread. In case you didnt read above we are talking about whether or not a pros game is a different game then a club players game - and I say it is. Keep it on track Phil.

doubletrouble
08-22-2004, 09:11 PM
goober yeah I do watch them in person. In fact last year I watched an exhibition where the Bryan Bros played against Cal Poly San Luis Obispo CA. And maybe this is the point Bill was trying to make but there is a huge difference in talent between the Pros and everyone else. Now I don't think Cal Poly was nationally ranked so I realize their talent is not on the level you would see at say the NCAA championships. You are probably right they are closer to the Pro game. The Bryans were #1 doubles and I think it was Mike was ranked #1 singles at Stanford. Anyhow after the match I talked to the guys that played the Bryans and they both said they were amazed at how fast things happened at that level.

JohnThomas1
08-22-2004, 10:37 PM
Yeah it is clear that Bill is saying he doesn't challenge absolutely proven irrefutable proofs. A lot of these would be biomechanical facts and carved in stone. Bill has a strong way of debating but i see most of his debates and comments as extremely insightful. It is actually educational to see some people debate with him as it makes him dig even deeper into his immense knowledge or he simply point things out in a stronger more straightforward way hehehe. It's all good as long as people don't take it personally. Phil was entitled to his say tho Rickson. If anyones going to enlighten him or go further into his comment it should be Bill :)

Phil
08-22-2004, 11:32 PM
Actually I disagree again!

What I am saying is I WILL challenge things that are UNVERIFIED or ARE UNCLEAR or HAVE NOT BEEN PROVEN.

If something is clear to me, why would I spend my energy challenging it? To be a rebel? To be difficult? To be "unconforming"? To try and MAKE myself "known" as a contrarion?

You are dead wrong about what you said Phil.

It is so clear that the pro game is different then club level play it is ludicrous to think otherwise. When players or even "pros" say it is not or "question" that it is not I find that arrogant and someone who is philosophying about things that are simply not there.

Do you question the world is round now that you know it is not?

Do you think it is a good idea to go out and try and "question" the current teaching with your little "idea" that the world might not be round?

I think I would call you a knucklehead.

When things are clear I dont challenge them anymore and waste my time, I move on to challenge things that are unclear. If Eric really wanted to know the answer to his question then he needs to be open to what another pro might say even though it could be challenging and contrary what he wants to hear.

I dont mind contrarians in the tennis business, I am a contrarian, but when things are clear and obvious that is when I cut the cord and move on to things that aren't so obvious and unclear.

"I WILL challenge things that are UNVERIFIED or ARE UNCLEAR or HAVE NOT BEEN PROVEN"...that's it? Playing it pretty safe, aren't we, but I don't blame you or anyone for doing that-we all have to make personal compromises if we want to continue to work-I question a lot of things, but I'm no rebel-just a pain in the a??.

And yes, Bill, I'm not surprised that you call someone who dares even question your knowledge, a knucklehead-that is a pattern of yours, although I haven't actually questioned or disagreed with anything you said tenniswise-just one of your conformist-sounding statements. I actually agree with most of what you said-there is absolutely NO WAY that the club level compares to the pro, and I'm not even sure that Eric said such a thing, really. Obviously, there are fundumentals that we can emulate from watching the pros, but when the average players talk about the pros, and watch them, their focus is only on those amazing shots that ONLY a pro can master, and only certain pros at that. No one's going to hit a forehand like Roddick, and to try and do so risks, at worst, injury, at best, embarassment or failure on the court.

To say that my statement is "wrong" (it cannot be wrong-read it again, it is a line of thinking and only a reactionary brick head would discount ), you are once again letting your ego do the talking and wasting space on one-upsmanship. That's not necessary.

My point is NOT that you or anyone should become a "rebel" just to be a rebel, but that people, particularly TEACHERS, look beyond the facts as presented, toward other possible options or alternatives. The fact that someone has said something for YEARS, and others, disciples, fall into line with it, doesn't mean there isn't something better out there, unless, of course, you are CERTAIN that tennis is a limited game and teaching knowledge and technique has reached their limits. I don't question that the world is round, but tennis and many other subjects are a bit more open ended than that, don't you think? I find that the very best teachers question, and teach their students to question and think for themselves, after, of course, providing them with a foundation grounded in the fundumentals...other teachers-not to say that they are not good teachers- parrot other teachers, who are parroting other teachers who taught them, without looking at why. Braden and others have, on occasion, stood tennis conventional wisdom on its head. And because tennis is such a diverse game, there is more than one way to skin a cat. You know this, obviously, but I notice that in your world, there may be more than one way, as long as it's MY way.

Bill, I respect your knowledge and how you communicate it, but you need to learn that you can disagree with someone who is not "wrong"...yours is not the only opinion that counts for something in this universe.

Bungalo Bill
08-23-2004, 12:10 AM
Phil if someone was out to tell everyone that they think the world is shaped like a diamond, would you call that person knucklehead?

Afterall Phil, you and I, are probably two of the most bluntest people on this board. You don't seem to tolerate weird opinions yourself.

Now, I was not calling you directly a knucklehead but was saying that if you did think the world was shaped any different then round, I would think you're a knucklehead. Now that would be an opinion of you since in reality no one is really a knucklehead. Also, your opinion of the world being other than round, would be an opinion and would be contrary to fact.

I always question things, I have questioned Braden at times when he was saying things that were a little "off". I question Yandell at times, but he is open to the possibility that he might be wrong and we debate things. However, almost all the time I can't argue with the man as he knows far more than I do about the game of tennis - especially at the pro level.

Everyone has a right to their opinions, but this is a TENNIS TIPS AND INSTRUCTION board and if tips and instruction are being given out that may be a little off, or slanted, or flat out wrong, I will be speaking up about it. I will challenge it.

People are certainly entitled to their opinions, as I am as well. I choose to debate opinions that are not based on facts. I know for a fact the person providing his opinion will not be able to support it. They really are of opinion and have no foundation of truth. What I have a hard time with is someone stating an opinion when the proof is there for the contrary!

The dictionary defines the word opinion as this:

"a message expressing a belief about something; the expression of a belief that is held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof"

I am not stating an opinion, it is a fact that the pro game IS a very different game then the game we play.

jun
08-23-2004, 12:19 AM
I am not really interested in this argument, but I am interested in the topic.

I don't think one should try to copy HOW certain pro hits the ball, but one should rather copy important ELEMENTS in how pros hit the ball. Sampras has a great serve, but you can't enforce his style on someone else. Andre has a great forehand, but you can't enforce his style on other people. But you can take important elements of the style such as early preparation, balance, and being loose etc. Each person should develop their own styles w/i the framework. It might end up being looking like Sampras, or it might end up looking like Andy Roddick (god forbid this from happening)

Also, the student needs a good understanding of frameworks in technique. Many pros go airborne on their forehand. If a person w/o solid fundamentals wants to copy that, it would just be wrong.
Sometimes, pros finish around hips due to extreme racket head speed, but a beginner tries to immitate that swing, it would go into the net, or be short. You need to have fundamentals before improvising and applying. It's just like you have to learn how crawl before you learn how to walk, and then you get to learn how to run.

Bungalo Bill
08-23-2004, 12:23 AM
I am not really interested in this argument, but I am interested in the topic.

I don't think one should try to copy HOW certain pro hits the ball, but one should rather copy important ELEMENTS in how pros hit the ball. Sampras has a great serve, but you can't enforce his style on someone else. Andre has a great forehand, but you can't enforce his style on other people. But you can take important elements of the style such as early preparation, balance, and being loose etc. Each person should develop their own styles w/i the framework. It might end up being looking like Sampras, or it might end up looking like Andy Roddick (god forbid this from happening)

Also, the student needs a good understanding of frameworks in technique. Many pros go airborne on their forehand. If a person w/o solid fundamentals wants to copy that, it would just be wrong.
Sometimes, pros finish around hips due to extreme racket head speed, but a beginner tries to immitate that swing, it would go into the net, or be short. You need to have fundamentals before improvising and applying. It's just like you have to learn how crawl before you learn how to walk, and then you get to learn how to run.

Excellent Jun, well put.

JohnThomas1
08-23-2004, 12:34 AM
Your racquet head speed is a good comment i think jun, it would be hard to hit shots similar to the pro's with half the raquet speed.

Phil
08-23-2004, 12:38 AM
Bill - Yes, I would probably call the diamond-shaped world theorist a knucklehead, or worse, but again, that's not so open-ended as something that is as ever-evolving as tennis, is it? That's a very extreme and, probably, far fetched example. You say that you've challenged Braden (so have I) and others-the so-called mainstream teaching gurus of the game, and make a case that you'll do so again. I think, right there, you've contradicted your previous, reactionary statement-and in this case, I see that contradiction as a POSITIVE-for you, as a teacher, and your students. The game is fluid, and over time, changes and there's room for more than one approach, once PROVEN.

As for the tennis part of this, again, I agree that it is not realistic-or safe-to "copy" the pros' strokes. They are on a completely different plane from us. I don't know how anyone with any knowledge of the game can seriously argue otherwise.

Bungalo Bill
08-23-2004, 12:48 AM
Bill - Yes, I would probably call the diamond-shaped world theorist a knucklehead, or worse, but again, that's not so open-ended as something that is as ever-evolving as tennis, is it? That's a very extreme and, probably, far fetched example. You say that you've challenged Braden (so have I) and others-the so-called mainstream teaching gurus of the game, and make a case that you'll do so again. I think, right there, you've contradicted your previous, reactionary statement-and in this case, I see that contradiction as a POSITIVE-for you, as a teacher, and your students. The game is fluid, and over time, changes and there's room for more than one approach, once PROVEN.

As for the tennis part of this, again, I agree that it is not realistic-or safe-to "copy" the pros' strokes. They are on a completely different plane from us. I don't know how anyone with any knowledge of the game can seriously argue otherwise.

But Phil do you really think there is no difference in the pro game vs. the club game.

How about this for starters:

1. You have to pay for a ticket to see a pro match vs. a club match

Now once you think about that one, you will understand my position. Nothing wrong with an opinon, but if the opinion is challenged and is proven false, then the opinon needs to be altered or the person is simply being stubborn.

If several top coaches and many many other coaches believe that the pro game is a very different game then our game and can prove their opinions then it is fact.

So I am not arguing on some flimsy "idea" that can go either way. In this case, it is only one way and that way is the way of fact not opinion.

Phil
08-23-2004, 01:02 AM
But Phil do you really think there is no difference in the pro game vs. the club game.

How about this for starters:

1. You have to pay for a ticket to see a pro match vs. a club match

Now once you think about that one, you will understand my position. Nothing wrong with an opinon, but if the opinion is challenged and is proven false, then the opinon needs to be altered or the person is simply being stubborn.

If several top coaches and many many other coaches believe that the pro game is a very different game then our game and can prove their opinions then it is fact.

So I am not arguing on some flimsy "idea" that can go either way. In this case, it is only one way and that way is the way of fact not opinion.


Bill - I didn't say, anywhere, that there is no difference between the pro and club games. My point with you was philosophical. If you want my OPINION (which, despite your dictionary definition, IS supported by the facts), the pro and club games are different, as Earth is from Venus, night from day, Chinese from German, Jack Daniels from beer...you get the point.

Your opinion-or the facts, or thesis or whatever you want to call the meat of your argument with another poster-is, to me, correct and unassailable. Didn't I say that already, or wasn't I clear? Looking at what I said, and forget for a moment about pro vs. club...I picked up on one statement you made, because I think it's relevant to the teaching of tennis, and raised an issue with THAT. Period.

Bungalo Bill
08-23-2004, 12:12 PM
But Phil do you really think there is no difference in the pro game vs. the club game.

How about this for starters:

1. You have to pay for a ticket to see a pro match vs. a club match

Now once you think about that one, you will understand my position. Nothing wrong with an opinon, but if the opinion is challenged and is proven false, then the opinon needs to be altered or the person is simply being stubborn.

If several top coaches and many many other coaches believe that the pro game is a very different game then our game and can prove their opinions then it is fact.

So I am not arguing on some flimsy "idea" that can go either way. In this case, it is only one way and that way is the way of fact not opinion.


Bill - I didn't say, anywhere, that there is no difference between the pro and club games. My point with you was philosophical. If you want my OPINION (which, despite your dictionary definition, IS supported by the facts), the pro and club games are different, as Earth is from Venus, night from day, Chinese from German, Jack Daniels from beer...you get the point.

Your opinion-or the facts, or thesis or whatever you want to call the meat of your argument with another poster-is, to me, correct and unassailable. Didn't I say that already, or wasn't I clear? Looking at what I said, and forget for a moment about pro vs. club...I picked up on one statement you made, because I think it's relevant to the teaching of tennis, and raised an issue with THAT. Period.

Well I have no issue with this as I will always debate something I dont believe to be correct - irregardless if it was a teaching pro or not.

I think you were clear but you were isolating one statement I made and seperating it from the context of the discussion. Since we agree on the topic, I feel our particular conversation will go in circles as we confrim and reconfirm our undestanding of this matter. I stated my reasons, I also had good grounds to stay in the debate.

Ace
08-24-2004, 09:19 AM
Theres an awful lot of testosterone floating around in here!

dropshot
08-24-2004, 08:38 PM
Phil and Eric,

Stop wasting your time with this person.
He thinks he rules this forum and everybody has to shutup.
He will throw you tons of (longwinded) truth but then rip you apart with false logics, personal insults to build up his authority here.
(link with John Yadal would help too !)

It is right, his ego is too big.

JohnThomas1
08-25-2004, 03:02 AM
You've been here but for a day dropshot?

C_Urala
08-26-2004, 02:09 AM
.. Also, your opinion of the world being other than round, would be an opinion and would be contrary to fact.


Actually, the world is NOT round. The Earth has a complex form, which can be descibed as a sphere only approximately.

Moreover, for centuries, the world was clearly proven to be a disc.

My point is that if something seems to be proven doesn't mean it IS true. (I guess it's only the second time I agree with Phil. :shock: )

Back to pro techniques.

I think that this topic is very valuable. Many beginners, often without coaching, try to copy what pros do. What do they copy?
The basics, those bricks about which Bill said so well? No. They copy nutshell. That's why it is so important to draw a line. Between pros and amateurs, between kernels and shells.

In his origional post, Eric didn't say that tennis at a club level and at the pro level is the same. He only stated that we can learn from pros. Is it so incorrect?

Bill surely has a lot of tennis knowledge, but he lacks some patience. Nobody's perfect.. Sigh..

kevhen
08-26-2004, 05:49 AM
I don't know why a tennis player can't learn from watching the pros and at least experimenting with their techniques to see if it makes their game more effective. Too many club players just do what their club pro tells them to do and won't experiment with different grips, different spins, ball toss locations, etc. in order to make themselves a better and more complete player.

There is no one perfect way to play tennis, as the sport will always continue to evolve and experimentation is the key to pushing the sport on. Before Agassi, did anyone think you should hit the ball on the rise? Before Sampras, did anyone think you could hit 120mph second serves or jump overheads? Before the Williams, did anyone think women could hit 80mph+ groundstrokes with consistency? Before Roddick, did anyone think that a human could hit 150 mph serves? Don't let yourself get stuck into thinking there is only one way to play tennis.

Chanchai
08-26-2004, 10:59 AM
Indeed, too many club players play with one arm, two heels, one grip, flat footed eastern forehand serves, and zero sweetspot--and of course they mistake their ugly technique for graceful touch ;)

-Chanchai

kevhen
08-26-2004, 11:17 AM
I like the part about heels. Makes them sound like they wear heels, but you are correct, many play flat-footed like they learned when taking too many ball feeds.

Chanchai
08-26-2004, 11:19 AM
Yeah... there's of course many more finer details of some trends... Body always facing forward, shoulder high contact for serves, etc... :p

But I'd be overrating myself if I thought my technique didn't have major flaws hehe.

-Chanchai

Bungalo Bill
08-27-2004, 09:00 PM
.. Also, your opinion of the world being other than round, would be an opinion and would be contrary to fact.


Actually, the world is NOT round. The Earth has a complex form, which can be descibed as a sphere only approximately.

Moreover, for centuries, the world was clearly proven to be a disc.

My point is that if something seems to be proven doesn't mean it IS true. (I guess it's only the second time I agree with Phil. :shock: )

Back to pro techniques.

I think that this topic is very valuable. Many beginners, often without coaching, try to copy what pros do. What do they copy?
The basics, those bricks about which Bill said so well? No. They copy nutshell. That's why it is so important to draw a line. Between pros and amateurs, between kernels and shells.

In his origional post, Eric didn't say that tennis at a club level and at the pro level is the same. He only stated that we can learn from pros. Is it so incorrect?

Bill surely has a lot of tennis knowledge, but he lacks some patience. Nobody's perfect.. Sigh..

Round being a general term to keep the conversation LESS scientific and ON track!

Patience I have, a philisophical pointless conversation on whether "the pro game is different then our game" I do not have patience for because it is a lame conversation! It is stupid talk to me! SO SORRY ABOUT THAT!

It is painfully obvious that the pros play a different game then the club players!

If you cant see that, you don't know anything about tennis, except to hit the ball over the net and wait for it to come back!

C_Urala
08-29-2004, 11:27 PM
Round being a general term to keep the conversation LESS scientific and ON track!

Patience I have, a philisophical pointless conversation on whether "the pro game is different then our game" I do not have patience for because it is a lame conversation! It is stupid talk to me! SO SORRY ABOUT THAT!

It is painfully obvious that the pros play a different game then the club players!

If you cant see that, you don't know anything about tennis, except to hit the ball over the net and wait for it to come back!

Bill,
to save your and my time, I'll put it as theses.
1. I never said I understand tennis even to the extent that you stated.
2. Nobody in this thread ever said that the pros game is the same as at the club level.
3. This whole thread could be settled right after your first post provided it had been calm and not unnecessarily addressed to one person.
P.S. I like this word "philisophical" :wink:

Tim Tennis
08-30-2004, 06:15 AM
We had a freshman on our high school tennis team last year. He is poetry in motion, beautiful topspin forehand using the SW grip, very good two-handed backhand, service motion smooth as silk with no hitches, court positioning and movement fantastic, shot selection excellent. I asked him how long he had been playing tennis and where did learn to play like that, what tennis camps had he been to? He told me had been playing for two years and basically learned to play by watching the pros play on TV, taping matches and watching them over and over. He said, he fell in love with the game watching Andy Roddick play. Now he goes to tennis clinics and takes some lessons from the local pros every now and then since people have noticed. Everyone wants to claim him now. Granted this is one exceptional young man but he did get his basics from watching the pros.

C_Urala
08-30-2004, 07:07 PM
I would add No.4 to my last post.
4. Nobody said that "tennis player can't learn from watching the pros".

Bungalo Bill
08-31-2004, 09:56 AM
I addressed my first post to the "pro" because it was too coincidental that I mentioned "the pros game is different than the club game" in a very recent post.

It is very important to understand that the pro game is different in the area of complexity than a club level game. Can we learn from the pros? Absolutely. This is how models are created. We find common elements that pros have and develop duplicatable instruction so that others can develop the same consistent stroke patterns to hit a ball. There will always be different techniques and methods that grow on top of each other and improve our ability to learn this game faster and better. That is a given in anything we do as human beings.

Also, it is equally important to learn how to hit shots like the pros because you get to see where the fundamentals of building a stroke looks like in finished form.

When club level players begin to master the fundamentals of the game which is more on the physical side, they soon learn there is another level of the game they have never learned about - the mental side of the game.

When you begin learning the mental side of the game, you soon realize that tennis at this level and above has more to it then once thought. It is very important to realize this in order to set goals and begin your course to improvement.

At top level play, pros already know how to "look" for weaknesses in another pros game, they have "automated" their footwork and stroke patterns so it is extremely difficult to find the "hole" in their game. The matches are longer, faster, and are much more of a chess match then club level play.

It is a lot like like saying "is club chess different than championship level chess?" You bet it is. If you don't think so, get a chess program and set it as high as you can and try to beat it. If you can beat it, then you already know that this level of chess play is a whole different ballgame. It is a much more complex and different game. If you try and play the highest level the same way you approach your little club chess match, you will be humiliated.

A naive tennis player will only see the ball hit back and forth in a pro game. A smart tennis player will see the genius in the mental match at hand. Take American Football, do you think American Professional football is the same at the College level? If you say yes to this question you are being foolish.

If you have a problem with something I have said, say it directly to me. Don't go around and dilute the issue you have with one of my comments. Challenge it. I am not afraid of a challenge. All I ask is that you don't dilly dally around with unsupported "theories" and when your cards are called, you face up to it. I have had many players challenge my thinking, that is ok, I will face up to something I am wrong in. I will apologize as well and add this new knowledge to my database of tennis knowledge.

For example, Kehven (spelling??) and I were debating whether a two back formation is a good formation for doubles. If you were carefully reading this issue you would determine that BOTH of us agree that the two back formation is a viable formation. The areas we disagreed in were the areas of strengths that were necessary for the doubles players to have in order to be successful with it as they moved up the ladder.

I felt the doubles team needed good returners and solid groundstrokes in order to maintain a good winning percentage. Kehven felt that a strong return game wasn't necessary. We both argued our case but still remained unchanged on both of our views. I didn't feel Kehven presented enough evidence to change my view. He didn't feel I was persuasive enough to change his view. That is ok!

I will no longer argue this with Kehven because we both need to see it in the stats now. This debate will take time. It will take time as things are played out on the courts. I am confident that Kehven will see it from my point of view, but not from a "I told you so" standpoint. Everyone has to grow and learn.

This particular topic "is the pros game different" or "can we learn from the pros" is something that doesn't need to be played out. It is already known. Some people trying to make a name for themselves under the phrase "I am allowed to challenge everything" is just being ridiculous.

Are there stars in the skys? Yes. Does the earth have water? Yes. Do we drive cars? Yes. Can an airplane fly in the air? Yes. Do I need food to live? Yes. Is the sun hot? Yes. If you stare at the sun long enough will you be blind? Yes. Is the pro game different? Yes. Can we learn from the pros? Yes.

I think this topic is over. No one has provided proof that the pro game is NOT different and that you CAN'T or SHOULDN'T learn from a pro. No one.

Chanchai
08-31-2004, 11:32 AM
Are there stars in the skys? Yes.

Well... there really aren't stars in the sky. They're refractions and projected light (images of other suns and what not) that are travelling (at the speed of light) and so are more or less after images that project around the sphere of the earth (or the atmosphere if you want to see it that way). In fact, many of the stars we see may no longer be existing by the time we see them. :P

Anyways, I'm just playing around. Just thought I'd poke a bit of fun at you (Bill) while I could find an opportunity. I really appreciate you sharing your perspectives, experiences, and insights on these boards. Just thought I'd be playful :)

But yes, we can at least see stars in the sky just like we can see a difference between the pro game and our game (hence the reason many people do watch the pro game). :lol:

-Chanchai

kevhen
08-31-2004, 12:04 PM
I don't know if you can do a good statistical analysis of 2 back vs one up-one back formations. It's more of a feel for what seems to work best for the returners and what they feel comfortable with. I know I want to continue to work on my net game and improve that so I move up if I feel playing up is just as good as playing back.

Playing back on returns says to your opponents that I feel weak at net so they may attack you at net when you do move up and it makes it easier for them to get to net so it does have it's psychological weaknesses, but there are just certain situations where I feel it's the percentage play for me but that is hard to quantify and prove, but I just wanted to give others the thought if they hadn't tried it themselves since all the club players I see play up and I see them make many errors from that position.

Also I see servers making many errors when rushing to get to net while the returner drops the ball at their feet. I prefer not to rush in but to wait until I can make a nice low, deep approach shot, but then again this all depends on the net players and opposing returner and how aggressive or unaggressive they are. If my opponent rips returns then I prefer to stay back when serving so I have a much higher chance of returning them if they do land in and don't play them by mistake if they were going out anyway.

If I had a better first volley, I would always charge in and probably play serve and volley in singles as well.

Bungalo Bill
08-31-2004, 02:07 PM
I don't know if you can do a good statistical analysis of 2 back vs one up-one back formations. It's more of a feel for what seems to work best for the returners and what they feel comfortable with. I know I want to continue to work on my net game and improve that so I move up if I feel playing up is just as good as playing back.

Playing back on returns says to your opponents that I feel weak at net so they may attack you at net when you do move up and it makes it easier for them to get to net so it does have it's psychological weaknesses, but there are just certain situations where I feel it's the percentage play for me but that is hard to quantify and prove, but I just wanted to give others the thought if they hadn't tried it themselves since all the club players I see play up and I see them make many errors from that position.

Also I see servers making many errors when rushing to get to net while the returner drops the ball at their feet. I prefer not to rush in but to wait until I can make a nice low, deep approach shot, but then again this all depends on the net players and opposing returner and how aggressive or unaggressive they are. If my opponent rips returns then I prefer to stay back when serving so I have a much higher chance of returning them if they do land in and don't play them by mistake if they were going out anyway.

If I had a better first volley, I would always charge in and probably play serve and volley in singles as well.

Games, scores, errors, winners, points lost, points won, first serves in and where, second serves in and where, # of shots before the point end, game score and tactics used, match scores, tendencies, kind of team you lost to, etc.

CAN ALL BE QUANTIFIED!!!!

C_Urala
08-31-2004, 09:34 PM
It is very important to understand that the pro game is different in the area of complexity than a club level game. Can we learn from the pros? Absolutely. This is how models are created. We find common elements that pros have and develop duplicatable instruction so that others can develop the same consistent stroke patterns to hit a ball. There will always be different techniques and methods that grow on top of each other and improve our ability to learn this game faster and better. That is a given in anything we do as human beings.

Also, it is equally important to learn how to hit shots like the pros because you get to see where the fundamentals of building a stroke looks like in finished form.

When club level players begin to master the fundamentals of the game which is more on the physical side, they soon learn there is another level of the game they have never learned about - the mental side of the game.

When you begin learning the mental side of the game, you soon realize that tennis at this level and above has more to it then once thought. It is very important to realize this in order to set goals and begin your course to improvement.


At top level play, pros already know how to "look" for weaknesses in another pros game, they have "automated" their footwork and stroke patterns so it is extremely difficult to find the "hole" in their game. The matches are longer, faster, and are much more of a chess match then club level play.

It is a lot like like saying "is club chess different than championship level chess?" You bet it is. If you don't think so, get a chess program and set it as high as you can and try to beat it. If you can beat it, then you already know that this level of chess play is a whole different ballgame. It is a much more complex and different game. If you try and play the highest level the same way you approach your little club chess match, you will be humiliated.

A naive tennis player will only see the ball hit back and forth in a pro game. A smart tennis player will see the genius in the mental match at hand. ..

If you have a problem with something I have said, say it directly to me. Don't go around and dilute the issue you have with one of my comments. Challenge it. I am not afraid of a challenge. All I ask is that you don't dilly dally around with unsupported "theories" and when your cards are called, you face up to it. I have had many players challenge my thinking, that is ok, I will face up to something I am wrong in. I will apologize as well and add this new knowledge to my database of tennis knowledge.
...

This particular topic "is the pros game different" or "can we learn from the pros" is something that doesn't need to be played out. It is already known. Some people trying to make a name for themselves under the phrase "I am allowed to challenge everything" is just being ridiculous.

I think this topic is over. No one has provided proof that the pro game is NOT different and that you CAN'T or SHOULDN'T learn from a pro. No one.

O'k. If I have a problem with something you say, I'll surely say it directly to you. But sometimes, somebody's words are just food for thoughts. You don't want to argue, you just want to know other opinions. Personally I understood Eric this way.
Now, when the topic is settled there is no need to repeat everything again, but when I hear words "pros game is different", I feel myself puzzled. How different? Do they hold their racquets with their feet? or what? Do they do the same things, only faster? Or do they have completely different techniques? Many beginners are not aware of tactics, let alone mental and psychological aspects of tennis.
As you see, there can be too many questions beyond the statement "pros game is different" of "we can learn from watching their game"

I'm sure Eric understands all this even if he is not a real pro.
He only asked questions. And suggested everybody to answer it to themselves.
Your response to him partly looked like when a pupil says to his teacher - if you ask how much is 2x2, then you don't know it and you do not deserve to be a teacher!

Whether he just wanted to know other opinions or he suggested everybody to answer his questions, in either case, your harsh reply looked sort of unprovoked.

It's not your problem, it's your choice. Nobody's perfect. That is life!

Bungalo Bill
09-01-2004, 09:33 AM
It is very important to understand that the pro game is different in the area of complexity than a club level game. Can we learn from the pros? Absolutely. This is how models are created. We find common elements that pros have and develop duplicatable instruction so that others can develop the same consistent stroke patterns to hit a ball. There will always be different techniques and methods that grow on top of each other and improve our ability to learn this game faster and better. That is a given in anything we do as human beings.

Also, it is equally important to learn how to hit shots like the pros because you get to see where the fundamentals of building a stroke looks like in finished form.

When club level players begin to master the fundamentals of the game which is more on the physical side, they soon learn there is another level of the game they have never learned about - the mental side of the game.

When you begin learning the mental side of the game, you soon realize that tennis at this level and above has more to it then once thought. It is very important to realize this in order to set goals and begin your course to improvement.

At top level play, pros already know how to "look" for weaknesses in another pros game, they have "automated" their footwork and stroke patterns so it is extremely difficult to find the "hole" in their game. The matches are longer, faster, and are much more of a chess match then club level play.

It is a lot like like saying "is club chess different than championship level chess?" You bet it is. If you don't think so, get a chess program and set it as high as you can and try to beat it. If you can beat it, then you already know that this level of chess play is a whole different ballgame. It is a much more complex and different game. If you try and play the highest level the same way you approach your little club chess match, you will be humiliated.

A naive tennis player will only see the ball hit back and forth in a pro game. A smart tennis player will see the genius in the mental match at hand. ..

If you have a problem with something I have said, say it directly to me. Don't go around and dilute the issue you have with one of my comments. Challenge it. I am not afraid of a challenge. All I ask is that you don't dilly dally around with unsupported "theories" and when your cards are called, you face up to it. I have had many players challenge my thinking, that is ok, I will face up to something I am wrong in. I will apologize as well and add this new knowledge to my database of tennis knowledge.
...

This particular topic "is the pros game different" or "can we learn from the pros" is something that doesn't need to be played out. It is already known. Some people trying to make a name for themselves under the phrase "I am allowed to challenge everything" is just being ridiculous.

I think this topic is over. No one has provided proof that the pro game is NOT different and that you CAN'T or SHOULDN'T learn from a pro. No one.

O'k. If I have a problem with something you say, I'll surely say it directly to you. But sometimes, somebody's words are just food for thoughts. You don't want to argue, you just want to know other opinions. Personally I understood Eric this way.
Now, when the topic is settled there is no need to repeat everything again, but when I hear words "pros game is different", I feel myself puzzled. How different? Do they hold their racquets with their feet? or what? Do they do the same things, only faster? Or do they have completely different techniques? Many beginners are not aware of tactics, let alone mental and psychological aspects of tennis.
As you see, there can be too many questions beyond the statement "pros game is different" of "we can learn from watching their game"

I'm sure Eric understands all this even if he is not a real pro.
He only asked questions. And suggested everybody to answer it to themselves.
Your response to him partly looked like when a pupil says to his teacher - if you ask how much is 2x2, then you don't know it and you do not deserve to be a teacher!

Whether he just wanted to know other opinions or he suggested everybody to answer his questions, in either case, your harsh reply looked sort of unprovoked.

It's not your problem, it's your choice. Nobody's perfect. That is life!

Well maybe Eric ought to state the reasons the pros game is different. Afterall, Eric (supposedly) has spoken to the same high performance coaches I have spoken to.

C_Urala, I really don't think you're that simple minded to not understand that perhaps the pros game is different. But for a so called "pro" to ask this question to this board, and then tells me he has spoken to the same high performance coaches as I have is not quite right. Something is wrong with that picture.

I think many pros look for answers to get themselves "ahead" of the pack in stroke techniques to hustle lessons. Technique is technique. Sure there will be new discoveries but they are building blocks over the last discoveries - we will continually learn.

For example, many coaches are looking for answers in the areas of technique to try and figure out why the Americans have fallen behind in their success compared to countries like Spain or South America. I dont think oour technique on hitting a forehand is the issue. In fact, I think it is a bunch of fiddle sticks and tells me that coaches really don't understand WHAT wins games! Especially at the pro level.

Agassi found out the hard way. What Americans have forgot to play is DEFENSE. We don't know how to play defense and work points. Agassi resurrected his career by learning to play excellent defense and that is why he had to work on his conditioning. When you play defense, you play longer points and consistancy becomes a priority.

Americans seem to be more focused on hitting that winner and always taking the offensive. We need to relearn how to be content and confident playing defensively just as much as we want to play offensively. This is what Andy Roddick is now learning. When Andy Roddick develops that all-court game and learns how to play defense, he will be very very hard ot beat as he is already.

Marty Fish was a classic example of American tennis in the Olympics. As well as Massu played, Fish was not content with just working the point and exhausting Massu further. FIsh starts going for winners and making all kinds of errors. The biggest error was in his game plan and his flawed approach to tennis.

Clay courters are very content in allowing the point to last long and play defense. We Americans have lost that art.

kevhen
09-01-2004, 10:00 AM
Agree. Pusher style of defensive tennis is not taught here, but hitting big forehands is. A big forehand can take you to the top though, but then the art of playing defense needs to be learned in order to stay there which is what Agassi eventually learned and Roddick and Fish may learn in time.

C_Urala
09-01-2004, 07:33 PM
C_Urala, I really don't think you're that simple minded to not understand that perhaps the pros game is different. But for a so called "pro" to ask this question to this board, and then tells me he has spoken to the same high performance coaches as I have is not quite right. Something is wrong with that picture.


"I really don't think you're that simple minded to not understand that perhaps the pros game is different."

Well, thanks. I liked your analogy with chess. I've heard this comparison before, but it really explained your point.

I don't really like to speak on behalf of other people. The only reason why I did it was because I want this section of the DB to be even more valuable. You know, youngsters have a thinner skin and hotter head and even if their "pictures" do seem "wrong", their intentions are not necessarily bad. Give them some slack, they are mostly good kids.
(Damn, I hate it when I sound like a grandma...)

Bungalo Bill
09-01-2004, 07:49 PM
Yeah, I hear you, but that is not me. I simply don't tolerate people that are not upfront and honest with their words.

I think I have provided many examples of threads and posts that show tolerance to people. I have also gone way out of my way to help people with their strokes and knowledge of the game for a very long time now.

I can also tell when someone is asking an honest question which deserves an honest answer. I will be there for that. If someone is arguing a topic with no evidence or a point - I will jump in and argue. If they are being an idiot about it, I will say they are. That is just me.

But all-in-all, I think my comments have been appropriate and helpful. So you will probably hear it again when someone is being foolish - sorry.

Hey next time, as much as you complain about the threads I get down on someone, let's hear your comments when I help someone. I think you will find you will be writing a lot more of those. :wink:

C_Urala
09-01-2004, 11:21 PM
Yeah, I hear you, but that is not me.


Yeah. I've figured it out. :lol:

Hey next time, as much as you complain about the threads I get down on someone, let's hear your comments when I help someone. I think you will find you will be writing a lot more of those. :wink:


No doubt, I will.
Actually, when you help somebody, you leave nothing for me to say. :wink:

Mash1230
09-06-2004, 09:58 PM
The professional game is the same game everyone plays, just played at a much higher level. Isn't this obvious?

The rules are the same, the racquets they use are no different, they are still human beings who have the ability to make mistakes.

But their strokes are fine-tuned, they play to each other's strengths and weaknesses, they have coaches and strategies and game plans, but above all, I believe they have a much better ability to execute their game plans against different opponents. They also have a better ability to execute their shots. There is an inner "chess match" going on underneath the surface.

I also liked Bungalo's chess analogy... and I'll use it just to elaborate my point - put two grandmasters and play them against each other. They are still playing the same game that me and my friend would play, but they are competing with a much deeper understanding of the game and are playing at a much higher level. They are thinking 5-6 moves ahead and are playing the game out in their minds, whereas my friend and I are thinking only 2 moves ahead. Far bigger difference between level of play in a game like chess.

Also, someone who is at a higher level can watch two people play and see a completely different match than someone who is just beginning to play the game. They can see the bigger picture.

Just for example, someone watching agassi play can say that he's having an off day because he's not hitting as many winners as he usually does. He looks like he's getting into a lot of long points and that his opponent is really challenging him.

But a high-level player can notice that what's REALLY going on is that agassi is making his opponent run side-to-side, testing his stamina and strength. They know how much agassi trains and that he can outlast many players. They know that he'll go for the knockout punch when his opponent is tired. A recreational player may be oblivious to the fact that agassi is making the points long on purpose.

I probably could've came up with a better example, but you get the point. The game is the same, but the level it is played at is completely different.

Bill - I am basically agreeing with you :shock: but I think saying the pro game is a "different game" confuses people. It's just the wording of it, but I know what you mean. My whole point in this post was to clear up the confusion that the pro game is not literally a different game, but beneath the surface it is. I felt the best way to explain it was to say "played at a higher level."

C_Urala
09-06-2004, 10:48 PM
Throughout all this discussion, I'd like to add that even at the club level, people play different tennis (or if you want, the same game but at different levels). The game of 3.5 players is much different from that of 5.0 ones.
...After all, pros are just players with 7.0+ level. ..

Bungalo Bill
09-07-2004, 08:10 AM
The professional game is the same game everyone plays, just played at a much higher level. Isn't this obvious?

The rules are the same, the racquets they use are no different, they are still human beings who have the ability to make mistakes.

But their strokes are fine-tuned, they play to each other's strengths and weaknesses, they have coaches and strategies and game plans, but above all, I believe they have a much better ability to execute their game plans against different opponents. They also have a better ability to execute their shots. There is an inner "chess match" going on underneath the surface.

I also liked Bungalo's chess analogy... and I'll use it just to elaborate my point - put two grandmasters and play them against each other. They are still playing the same game that me and my friend would play, but they are competing with a much deeper understanding of the game and are playing at a much higher level. They are thinking 5-6 moves ahead and are playing the game out in their minds, whereas my friend and I are thinking only 2 moves ahead. Far bigger difference between level of play in a game like chess.

Also, someone who is at a higher level can watch two people play and see a completely different match than someone who is just beginning to play the game. They can see the bigger picture.

Just for example, someone watching agassi play can say that he's having an off day because he's not hitting as many winners as he usually does. He looks like he's getting into a lot of long points and that his opponent is really challenging him.

But a high-level player can notice that what's REALLY going on is that agassi is making his opponent run side-to-side, testing his stamina and strength. They know how much agassi trains and that he can outlast many players. They know that he'll go for the knockout punch when his opponent is tired. A recreational player may be oblivious to the fact that agassi is making the points long on purpose.

I probably could've came up with a better example, but you get the point. The game is the same, but the level it is played at is completely different.

Bill - I am basically agreeing with you :shock: but I think saying the pro game is a "different game" confuses people. It's just the wording of it, but I know what you mean. My whole point in this post was to clear up the confusion that the pro game is not literally a different game, but beneath the surface it is. I felt the best way to explain it was to say "played at a higher level."

If you want to reword "different" to a "different level" that is fine. But there is no question that the pro game is different. The pro game is a mental, physical, and strategic game, not a strokes game, like the club game is. Pro players have a lot more on the line and approach the game differently then club players.

If you want to simplify things to racquets and balls then it is not the different. However, the way the pros PLAY tennis and approach tenn it is a different game.

High level means a different "game" is played on that level. To say the pro game is the same as club play is ridiculous. They are finely tuned athletes with incredible hand eye coordination that can do things with the ball and get to balls that you can only dream of getting.

Because they can DO more with the ball and hit a ton more balls while they are balanced they can elevate the game on another spectrum which makes it a different game.

Your reemphasis about chess reduced the game to pieces and squares. This is how a novice would approach and play chess. As you get better you learn defense and offense and piece positioning - it is a WHOLE NEW BALL GAME.

If I took you out surfing this weekend, you would have surfed about two - three foot waves. But if the next day I took you to Hawaii and brought you out to 10 -12 foot waves with a pack of surfers each fighting for the wave and trying to out position their opponents, you would eat it. You would quickly understand that surfing in Hawaii and the California wave you just came from is different. They have similarities but they way you surf the Hawaiian wave vs. the wave in California is different.

Rickson
09-07-2004, 08:41 AM
Rickson - Burp. IF...YOU never post on this board again, maybe I'll consider it.
Burp? Bwahahahahaha!

Mash1230
09-07-2004, 10:35 AM
I'd just like to add that another good example is table tennis. Watch table tennis on TV and see the way they play. It's completely different than playing table tennis recreationally. The velocity of the spins and the ball is insanely different than "regular" table tennis. Even the way they serve is different. These guys are obviously at a different level in terms of ability. You might even notice that they are unable to change direction of the ball at times because of the huge amount of spin on the ball. The abilities of the players themselves make it a "different game" as Bill would say. Or in my words - these players are playing the game at a much higher level than recreational players do.

Now, can you still try to "copy" the pro table tennis players' techniques? sure. if you are successful it can make you a better player. but once you play against a player of that higher level, you'll realize that it is in fact, a "different game."