PDA

View Full Version : It is quite impossible for us to even come close to hitting like a pro but.........


Golden Retriever
08-27-2007, 06:56 AM
it is quite possible for us to run as fast or even outrun a pro. It is much easier for an amateur to attain good speed than good strokes. For example, lets say David Nalbandian can run 100M in 12 sec(which I really doubt he can but well) but with some training most young men can come very close or even top that quite easily. However most young men can never serve or hit a forehand half as good as David Nalbandian with just some training.

So what does that tell you? Even at the amateur level you could be dealing with near-pro-level or even pro-level speed. No wonder it is so hard for amateurs to beat fast pushers, you are trying to hit winners against someone with pro-level speed with your amateur level strokes!!

burosky
08-27-2007, 08:26 AM
Just with players having pro-level speed, there are also players who have specific pro-level strokes. How many times have you seen players who can hit "world-class" forehands or serves but nothing else? Of course the consistency is not going to be near pro-level but nonetheless the result is pro-level. Some people are just "blessed" with such attributes.

WildVolley
08-27-2007, 08:40 AM
There's probably some truth in what you say, but you're probably exaggerating the potential of most people. Most people will never run as fast as most of the top pros. When I was in college, I could run under 11 seconds in the 100 meters and was notably quick. That probably puts me in at least the top 3% in the world at 100 meters. Blacks of West African descent dominate the sprints, so a higher % would be able to run under 11 seconds. They won't have the potential to be great tennis players unless they have exceptional eye-hand coordination and are able to put in the years developing their technique.

So, the top pushers are usually excellent athletes who will never be great tennis players. Your analysis shows the secret to beating excellent pushers is superior court positioning and placement. The fastest man in the world is going to have difficulty with a well placed volley or overhead.

Rpp
08-27-2007, 08:47 AM
I doubt running well 100m has much meaning for tennis...but running well 10m or 10k means a lot more.

cstephenson
08-27-2007, 09:02 AM
Its not how fast you are its how well you anticipate. It helps to be fast but if you already know where the ball is going you can be a true tennis Jedi. You can play lots of people with pro level speed but only pro's have pro level anticipation.
Work on your anticipation first and then work on your speed. It won't matter how fast you are if you are running to the wrong place.

Clint

tricky
08-27-2007, 09:13 AM
No wonder it is so hard for amateurs to beat fast pushers, you are trying to hit winners against someone with pro-level speed with your amateur level strokes!!

Hmm, sounds like rationalization for losing to pushers. At the 4.5+ level, the players are both really fast and can pound the ball without much effort. In fact, the former facilitates the latter, because they need to be quick enough and need to be able to read the ball soon enough to set themselves up for the next shot.

If you refuse to volley, your technique has to be frigging great to consistently beat pushers at the baseline. If your technique isn't great and you don't want to attack the net, then you have to outpush the pusher. If your technique isn't great and you don't want to attack the net and you can't run . . .

cghipp
08-27-2007, 09:25 AM
Just with players having pro-level speed, there are also players who have specific pro-level strokes. How many times have you seen players who can hit "world-class" forehands or serves but nothing else? Of course the consistency is not going to be near pro-level but nonetheless the result is pro-level. Some people are just "blessed" with such attributes.So true - my serve is even better than Dementieva's! :-D

Golden Retriever
08-27-2007, 10:01 AM
Hmm, sounds like rationalization for losing to pushers. At the 4.5+ level, the players are both really fast and can pound the ball without much effort. In fact, the former facilitates the latter, because they need to be quick enough and need to be able to read the ball soon enough to set themselves up for the next shot.

If you refuse to volley, your technique has to be frigging great to consistently beat pushers at the baseline. If your technique isn't great and you don't want to attack the net, then you have to outpush the pusher. If your technique isn't great and you don't want to attack the net and you can't run . . .

I can't agree with you more, except the rationalizing part. So what level would you call "frigging great"? 4.0? 3.5?4.5?

Venetian
08-27-2007, 11:20 AM
I don't know why some people have the idea that it's impossible to come close to hitting like a pro. These are not superhuman athletes with 12 extra senses or anything; they are simply average people who have worked hard at developing their tennis skills, most likely from a young age.

I do agree that it would be quite hard to reach the level of play of say, the top 50 guys, but remember, the professional rankings go up to something like 1,200. I'm sure plenty of people could get to this level if they felt like expending the time, money, and energy to do it. It's just takes the right number of oppurtunities coming together. Most people don't want to sacrifice money, education, and say family life just to have a slim chance of making a decent living as a professional player in any sport.

Rpp
08-27-2007, 11:28 AM
I don't know why some people have the idea that it's impossible to come close to hitting like a pro. These are not superhuman athletes with 12 extra senses or anything; they are simply average people who have worked hard at developing their tennis skills, most likely from a young age.

I do agree that it would be quite hard to reach the level of play of say, the top 50 guys, but remember, the professional rankings go up to something like 1,200. I'm sure plenty of people could get to this level if they felt like expending the time, money, and energy to do it. It's just takes the right number of oppurtunities coming together. Most people don't want to sacrifice money, education, and say family life just to have a slim chance of making a decent living as a professional player in any sport.

Well, they are defenitely not average people. They are very talented and ready to work hard...

Venetian
08-27-2007, 11:35 AM
Well, they are defenitely not average people. They are very talented and ready to work hard...

I think they are just average people. There aren't many pros that can lift insane amounts of weight, or run incredibly fast, or jump over buildings in a single bound. The only thing they're exceptionally good at is tennis, and that just comes from playing a lot of tennis.

There are plenty of 4.5+ players in the world that have gotten there just by playing tennis a few days a week for fun, possibly in leagues, tournaments, etc...

If all those players can get to that level while having a family, a full time job, and probably other hobbies, imagine how far they could go if they did very little else but play tennis.

Rpp
08-27-2007, 12:13 PM
I think they are just average people. There aren't many pros that can lift insane amounts of weight, or run incredibly fast, or jump over buildings in a single bound. The only thing they're exceptionally good at is tennis, and that just comes from playing a lot of tennis.

There are plenty of 4.5+ players in the world that have gotten there just by playing tennis a few days a week for fun, possibly in leagues, tournaments, etc...

If all those players can get to that level while having a family, a full time job, and probably other hobbies, imagine how far they could go if they did very little else but play tennis.

There are few miles from 4.5 to Top-50 pro...but you sure can have your opinion. In my opinion 99% of the people are born not to become top-1000 even how much they would practise, not have family, job nor pet.

EricW
08-27-2007, 12:19 PM
Raw speed is important but i've run into people who covered the court exceptional well even though they weren't great athletes. Anticipation, experience, court positioning, and everything else is what puts the pros ahead of amateurs, even if they are comparable in a 100meter sprint. Still, you're right about very athletic pushers, it's very hard to hit winners on them at certain levels, but once you attain a certain level it becomes easy, even if it takes 3-4 almost winners, they don't have the shots to put you under any pressure

spc9999
08-27-2007, 12:22 PM
but remember, the professional rankings go up to something like 1,200. I'm sure plenty of people could get to this level if they felt like expending the time, money, and energy to do it....

I think they are just average people. There aren't many pros that can lift insane amounts of weight, or run incredibly fast, or jump over buildings in a single bound. The only thing they're exceptionally good at is tennis, and that just comes from playing a lot of tennis.

How is it that you think the 300-1200 best tennis players on earth are somehow less talented than the 300-1200 best NFL, MLB, or football players?

For that matter, do you think you could become the 1200th fastest sprinter, marathon runner or 1200th best investment banker on earth?

If you do, why don't you do it?

snapple
08-27-2007, 12:37 PM
If you are willing to put in the time and effort, I personally believe that you do not have to be an exceptional athlete or possess incredible physical skills to become a top 1000 ranked player. In general, IMO it is only the top 50 or so players that are truly gifted in a way that is out of the grasp of the rest of us mortals. Outside of this realm, I think if you are a very good athlete with solid physical skills, and you have the desire, discipline and committment (as well as access to proper training and coaching) you should be able to attain top 1000 status, and probably much higher than that. It is these latter qualities that really will determine the extent of your success.

tricky
08-27-2007, 12:48 PM
I can't agree with you more, except the rationalizing part. So what level would you call "frigging great"? 4.0? 3.5?4.5?

About 4.0-4.5 or so. That's roughly the ceiling for a pusher because one's technique has evolved enough that they can comfortably beat a pusher at the net or just grind the guy down without worrying about UEs.

That technique isn't pro-level at all, but by then their mechanics are so well tuned that they look relaxed oncourt even though the ball is consistently penetrating and powerful.

Now, there's been a few threads on groundstroke technique vs. footwork (i.e. court movement.) I think the latter is more important, other people argue the former is more important for long-term success. Of course both are crucial the higher you go.

OrangeOne
08-27-2007, 01:06 PM
If you are willing to put in the time and effort, I personally believe that you do not have to be an exceptional athlete or possess incredible physical skills to become a top 1000 ranked player. In general, IMO it is only the top 50 or so players that are truly gifted in a way that is out of the grasp of the rest of us mortals. Outside of this realm, I think if you are a very good athlete with solid physical skills, and you have the desire, discipline and committment (as well as access to proper training and coaching) you should be able to attain top 1000 status, and probably much higher than that. It is these latter qualities that really will determine the extent of your success.

You're dreaming, as are many in this thread.

I'm a 4.5 to 5.0 player (I'm in Australia, we don't have USTA ratings here). Sometimes, I've played against 5.5 players, who have more natural talent in their little finger than I do in my body. Think of the best 5.5 in your area, and know that they had almost zero chance of making it as a pro, and there's thousands of them across the world. Ten's of thousands, even. Many of them played 5 or 6 days a week as a junior, and would have gladly gone pro if they could.

OR

Go to a pro tournament. Walk in, feeling confident. Wander past a pro or two, thinking "wow, they look human too". Then stand on the sidelines in the practice courts, during a training session. 10 minutes, any top male or female....and you'll know they're not only phenomenal, but that they're also playing what is almost a different sport.

Rpp
08-27-2007, 01:08 PM
If you are willing to put in the time and effort, I personally believe that you do not have to be an exceptional athlete or possess incredible physical skills to become a top 1000 ranked player. In general, IMO it is only the top 50 or so players that are truly gifted in a way that is out of the grasp of the rest of us mortals. Outside of this realm, I think if you are a very good athlete with solid physical skills, and you have the desire, discipline and committment (as well as access to proper training and coaching) you should be able to attain top 1000 status, and probably much higher than that. It is these latter qualities that really will determine the extent of your success.

I guess you have never seen a top-1000 player in a match?? Many more thousands tries to get there and they all likely have a desire...it is just not for everyone. Those players in lower rankings of professional game should get a bit more respect.

Venetian
08-27-2007, 01:11 PM
How is it that you think the 300-1200 best tennis players on earth are somehow less talented than the 300-1200 best NFL, MLB, or football players?

For that matter, do you think you could become the 1200th fastest sprinter, marathon runner or 1200th best investment banker on earth?

If you do, why don't you do it?

Yes I believe I could actually. Do I know for certain that I would be the 1200th fastest sprinter in the world if I tried? No.

I was the fastest sprinter at the 100m and 200m in track at my school and the 2nd fastest went on to run well in college for his track team. Who knows how far I could have gone? But I chose instead to join the military and raise a family, because I consider that more meaningful than being a professional athlete. Had I really wanted to try though, I could have. Maybe I would have been a top sprinter, maybe not. There's no way to know what could have happened had someone made different choices in their life.

Again, I do not know how good I could have become at a number of activities because I chose to focus on other things, and I'm sure there are many people like me out there.

burosky
08-27-2007, 01:22 PM
You're dreaming, as are many in this thread.

I'm a 4.5 to 5.0 player (I'm in Australia, we don't have USTA ratings here). Sometimes, I've played against 5.5 players, who have more natural talent in their little finger than I do in my body. Think of the best 5.5 in your area, and know that they had almost zero chance of making it as a pro, and there's thousands of them across the world. Ten's of thousands, even. Many of them played 5 or 6 days a week as a junior, and would have gladly gone pro if they could.

OR

Go to a pro tournament. Walk in, feeling confident. Wander past a pro or two, thinking "wow, they look human too". Then stand on the sidelines in the practice courts, during a training session. 10 minutes, any top male or female....and you'll know they're not only phenomenal, but that they're also playing what is almost a different sport.

I agree with OrangeOne on this one. The disparity is quite obvious even with the top 50 pros, man or woman. I would imagine as you approach 1200 the disparity gets less and less to the point that they look just like that great recreational player at the club. However, don't let their appearance fool you. They probably could run rings around the best open tournament player (non-pro) that you know even on their bad day. To be in the top 1200 is no joke. I bet there are hundreds of thousands of players who has pro aspirations and potential. Sadly, a vast majority of those will not make it. If I'm not mistaken, to get into that elite 1200 you need to have earned at least 1 maybe more ATP points. These players outside the top 128 fight for every ATP point they can get. They don't give away charity matches. This is what getting in that circle of 1200 and staying there so difficult.

Venetian
08-27-2007, 01:23 PM
I guess you have never seen a top-1000 player in a match?? Many more thousands tries to get there and they all likely have a desire...it is just not for everyone. Those players in lower rankings of professional game should get a bit more respect.

What I'm saying is that becomming a professional level tennis player requires both natural athletic ability and training. These players are not just born to be awsome at tennis, they work hard at it for many years. There are plenty of people out there that are good solid athletes, that if they worked really hard for years to play tennis, could also have a shot at being a pro. These people either choose to play other sports or do something else entirely different, not utilizing their abilities to be good at tennis. Not everyone that has the potential to be good at tennis has the means or desire. I'm sure plenty of gifted athletes chose other sports instead of tennis. Who knows how good Michael Jordan could have been at tennis had he played it since childhood instead of basketball, with the same drive.

There are probably many players trying to break into the top 1,000 that either completely lack any natural talent, and only have worked hard for years, or have no work ethic and try to get there on talent alone. That's also why many people don't break into that realm.

I know many other guys in the military that can run like the wind, lift huge amounts of weight, and have exceptional hand-eye coordination. All of that could transfer into excellent tennis playing, but they're not interested in playing tennis, or any other professional sport.

0d1n
08-27-2007, 01:28 PM
Yes I believe I could actually. Do I know for certain that I would be the 1200th fastest sprinter in the world if I tried? No.

I was the fastest sprinter at the 100m and 200m in track at my school and the 2nd fastest went on to run well in college for his track team. Who knows how far I could have gone? But I chose instead to join the military and raise a family, because I consider that more meaningful than being a professional athlete. Had I really wanted to try though, I could have. Maybe I would have been a top sprinter, maybe not. There's no way to know what could have happened had someone made different choices in their life.

Again, I do not know how good I could have become at a number of activities because I chose to focus on other things, and I'm sure there are many people like me out there.

Yup, and during high school Al Bundy scored 4 touchdowns in a single game... :rolleyes:

burosky
08-27-2007, 01:31 PM
Yes I believe I could actually. Do I know for certain that I would be the 1200th fastest sprinter in the world if I tried? No.

I was the fastest sprinter at the 100m and 200m in track at my school and the 2nd fastest went on to run well in college for his track team. Who knows how far I could have gone? But I chose instead to join the military and raise a family, because I consider that more meaningful than being a professional athlete. Had I really wanted to try though, I could have. Maybe I would have been a top sprinter, maybe not. There's no way to know what could have happened had someone made different choices in their life.

Again, I do not know how good I could have become at a number of activities because I chose to focus on other things, and I'm sure there are many people like me out there.

I applaud your belief in yourself. No one here can judge you. You could very well be correct in your assessment. For all we know, you could be one of those "blessed" athletes. To say though that they are all just average people appear to be incorrect. Maybe some of them but as their ranking get higher there is always going to be something that separates them from the amateurs. It is that something that makes them above average.

Venetian
08-27-2007, 01:31 PM
Yup, and during high school Al Bundy scored 4 touchdowns in a single game... :rolleyes:

Them's fightin' words.

Bad Dog
08-27-2007, 01:34 PM
You're dreaming, as are many in this thread.

I'm a 4.5 to 5.0 player (I'm in Australia, we don't have USTA ratings here). Sometimes, I've played against 5.5 players, who have more natural talent in their little finger than I do in my body. Think of the best 5.5 in your area, and know that they had almost zero chance of making it as a pro, and there's thousands of them across the world. Ten's of thousands, even. Many of them played 5 or 6 days a week as a junior, and would have gladly gone pro if they could.

OR

Go to a pro tournament. Walk in, feeling confident. Wander past a pro or two, thinking "wow, they look human too". Then stand on the sidelines in the practice courts, during a training session. 10 minutes, any top male or female....and you'll know they're not only phenomenal, but that they're also playing what is almost a different sport.


That puts life in perspective. :)

But let's console ourselves by remembering that most of us may have a non-tennis job or career that we take pride in and are extremely good at, since we've had many years of experience to hone our skills and that most international touring pros may fail if they switched places with us. :)

Venetian
08-27-2007, 03:46 PM
I think too many people have a general lack of faith in themselves and hero worship celebrities and athletes far too much. I'll end with that though as I've said as much as I can think to say.

WBF
08-27-2007, 04:02 PM
Go to a pro tournament. Walk in, feeling confident. Wander past a pro or two, thinking "wow, they look human too". Then stand on the sidelines in the practice courts, during a training session. 10 minutes, any top male or female....and you'll know they're not only phenomenal, but that they're also playing what is almost a different sport.


Indeed.

I'll occasionally get to a pro tournament, and seeing the matches, I'll trick myself into thinking how easy it would be. They make mistakes, unforced errors, etc.

Then I watch them on the practice courts, where I am reminded of my place in the tennis world :p

Steady Eddy
08-27-2007, 04:03 PM
Its not how fast you are its how well you anticipate. It helps to be fast but if you already know where the ball is going you can be a true tennis Jedi. You can play lots of people with pro level speed but only pro's have pro level anticipation.
Work on your anticipation first and then work on your speed. It won't matter how fast you are if you are running to the wrong place.

Clint

This is what I was going to say. But I also want to add to it. Do the math. The shortest sprint is the 100 meter dash. How far does a tennis player have to run? The court is 36 feet wide, standing in the middle, that is 18 feet to each sideline. 18 feet is only 6 yards! How far is it to the net from the baseline? Only 13 yards! What if the track meets had 6 yard and 13 yards sprints? The winner would be whoever anticipated the start.

In tennis, every player has a fixed amount of time they just stare at the shot without moving. For beginners, this is as long as a second. They waste precious time. Moving immediately to where the ball is hit, takes experience, and that is why some old-timers can cover a court better than a speedster who's new to the game.

BTW, back in the 70's the Oakland A's baseball team decided to use a track star as a pinch runner, for the purpose of stealing bases. But, he never even stole one base! It seems that getting a jump on the pitcher matters more than raw speed. Similarly, in tennis it's likely that anticipation matters more in court coverage than foot speed.

Frank Silbermann
08-27-2007, 07:04 PM
If you are willing to put in the time and effort, I personally believe that you do not have to be an exceptional athlete or possess incredible physical skills to become a top 1000 ranked player. In general, IMO it is only the top 50 or so players that are truly gifted in a way that is out of the grasp of the rest of us mortals. Outside of this realm, I think if you are a very good athlete with solid physical skills, and you have the desire, discipline and committment (as well as access to proper training and coaching) you should be able to attain top 1000 status, and probably much higher than that. It is these latter qualities that really will determine the extent of your success. I am in the top 1% in mathematics aptitude. That means that in a country the size of the USA there are approximately three million (!) people who have more math potential than me. And yet, the average person in my high school had no chance whatsoever of matching my math achievements no matter how hard he tried and no matter how hard he studied.

I suspect that you find the same disparities in athletic ability. If a player who cares about the game is in the top 1% of talent, the average person has no chance whatsoever of matching his skills, no matter how much he trains. And yet, just among Americans there would be three million people with equal or better talent.

So, no, the _average_ person has no chance whatsoever of making the top 1,000 -- no matter what he tries (short of bribery and threats of violence). The _average_ person who throws himself into the game body and soul has precious little chance even of becoming the best player in his own city.

So what if you are "a very good athlete"? That depends on what you mean by "very good". I would say that a person who is in the top 1% is an _extremely_ good athlete, and yet, such a person has as little chance of making the top 1000 tennis players as I had in making the top 1000 mathematicians in the world. (I couldn't have come even close.)

raiden031
08-27-2007, 07:19 PM
Am I the only person who isn't all that amazed at the pro game? I actually think they look better on TV than in person. I have watched a few 5.0 level players a little bit and couldn't tell much of a difference between their game and a pro. The pros make so many unforced errors compared to what I'd expect for the years of experience they have. The main difference I find is the pros often have noticably better serves, but I am not amazed by their other strokes or athleticism. To me the main difference between a pro and a 5.0 player is more subtle than just the way their strokes look. They can place the ball better, have better anticipation and shot selection, they are more consistent even though you can't tell because of all the UEs when they're playing against someone of the same level. I just don't see the big deal in their strokes.

Venetian
08-27-2007, 07:27 PM
Am I the only person who isn't all that amazed at the pro game? I actually think they look better on TV than in person. I have watched a few 5.0 level players a little bit and couldn't tell much of a difference between their game and a pro. The pros make so many unforced errors compared to what I'd expect for the years of experience they have. The main difference I find is the pros often have noticably better serves, but I am not amazed by their other strokes or athleticism. To me the main difference between a pro and a 5.0 player is more subtle than just the way their strokes look. They can place the ball better, have better anticipation and shot selection, they are more consistent even though you can't tell because of all the UEs when they're playing against someone of the same level. I just don't see the big deal in their strokes.

I'm generally not that impressed either. I love to watch and play the game, but these guys aren't gods to me or anything.

It seems like you can just say the name Federer and people on this boad start drooling and go into convulsions. :)

OrangeOne
08-27-2007, 07:37 PM
Am I the only person who isn't all that amazed at the pro game? I actually think they look better on TV than in person. I have watched a few 5.0 level players a little bit and couldn't tell much of a difference between their game and a pro. The pros make so many unforced errors compared to what I'd expect for the years of experience they have. The main difference I find is the pros often have noticably better serves, but I am not amazed by their other strokes or athleticism. To me the main difference between a pro and a 5.0 player is more subtle than just the way their strokes look. They can place the ball better, have better anticipation and shot selection, they are more consistent even though you can't tell because of all the UEs when they're playing against someone of the same level. I just don't see the big deal in their strokes.

I'm generally not that impressed either. I love to watch and play the game, but these guys aren't gods to me or anything.

It seems like you can just say the name Federer and people on this boad start drooling and go into convulsions. :)

Anyone who plays tennis, is below 5.5+ themselves, and can go stand on the sidelines of a pro practice session (not in the stands of a match, where you're too far away), and not be amazed, well, they need to take an ego check.

The power, the work on the ball, the accuracy, the fitness, and the ability to cope with power & work on the ball... all amazing. Pros make too many UE's? You're dreaming. Pros make UEs against the shots of other Pros, on the biggest stages in the world. You think Fed would rack up many UEs beating the average 5.5? Golden sets here we come.

raiden031
08-27-2007, 07:51 PM
Anyone who plays tennis, is below 5.5+ themselves, and can go stand on the sidelines of a pro practice session (not in the stands of a match, where you're too far away), and not be amazed, well, they need to take an ego check.

The power, the work on the ball, the accuracy, the fitness, and the ability to cope with power & work on the ball... all amazing. Pros make too many UE's? You're dreaming. Pros make UEs against the shots of other Pros, on the biggest stages in the world. You think Fed would rack up many UEs beating the average 5.5? Golden sets here we come.

I've watched up close during match play (not practice sessions), and while its obviously above my level, it doesn't look that amazing. Their movement, strokes, and power don't look much different than some of the better players I might see at my club. I'm sure they would crush these players at my club simply because they will be in direct control of the points the whole time due to the more subtle qualities of their game, such as placement, shot selection, and consistency.

And yes pros make tons of UEs, which to me takes away from their God-like appearance. Just like I can hit better in practice than a match so can the pros. When I play a level below me I can win a match making almost no errors as well. I don't see a difference in the pro game other than the fact that they are just simply the best players at all the strokes and strategies, but there's nothing magical about their game, to me.

Golden Retriever
08-27-2007, 08:34 PM
They make UEs because they have to come up with a great therefore risky shot everytime. If a shot isn't great it will get pound on. They literally have to go almost all out for every shot.

OrangeOne
08-27-2007, 08:37 PM
They make UEs because they have to come up with a great therefore risky shot everytime. If a shot isn't great it will get pound on. They literally have to go almost all out for every shot.

And they have to make that great shot against a pro-level shot. They have to get to shots that would blindly be a winner against you or I, and send them back with a quality reply....

mucat
08-27-2007, 09:09 PM
Am I the only person who isn't all that amazed at the pro game? I actually think they look better on TV than in person. I have watched a few 5.0 level players a little bit and couldn't tell much of a difference between their game and a pro. The pros make so many unforced errors compared to what I'd expect for the years of experience they have. The main difference I find is the pros often have noticably better serves, but I am not amazed by their other strokes or athleticism. To me the main difference between a pro and a 5.0 player is more subtle than just the way their strokes look. They can place the ball better, have better anticipation and shot selection, they are more consistent even though you can't tell because of all the UEs when they're playing against someone of the same level. I just don't see the big deal in their strokes.

Pros can hit much much much......much harder than a 5.0 level. The differences are not subtle at all. I don't know what are you trying to say. From the perspective of a beginner I can understand, but for someone who played enough tennis, I don't understand.

raiden031
08-28-2007, 01:57 AM
Pros can hit much much much......much harder than a 5.0 level. The differences are not subtle at all. I don't know what are you trying to say. From the perspective of a beginner I can understand, but for someone who played enough tennis, I don't understand.

What I'm trying to say, as an intermediate player, is that I don't notice a major difference in velocity from 5.0s that I've seen playing at a club or a pro I've seen in person at a pro match. I notice a considerable difference in the men's serving speed at the pro level, but the rest of the game doesn't appear that much different to me. I'm not going to say there is no difference, just from my observation it doesn't look much different. I will say that I think the women's pro game is actually slower than men's 5.0 players. Although I have yet to see any top women's players up close. Once again I could be wrong, but thats just how it appears to me.

WBF
08-28-2007, 03:41 AM
Raiden and Venetian:N When you reach the 5.0 or higher levels yourself, you will realize how silly you sound right now.

mucat raiden and venetian: Power alone is absolutely *not* the difference. I hit shots as hard as the pro's back in and *before* high school (groundstrokes, didn't develop my serve that far until college). Back then I remember thinking the same thing, because I simply didn't know better. I used to play against my 5.0 father all the time and think to myself "wow! he should be a pro!"

There are many factors that combine to create the vast difference between a 5.0 and a pro.

Footwork: The ability to maintain this level of footwork throughout a 3-5 set match, twice a day if needed.
Power: The ability to maintain this level of power consistently, and against equally or more powerful and deep shots.
Few (if any) Weak Points: If you have a weak point that can be capitalized on, you will stand no chance in the pro's.
Mental Game: This one is underestimated big time. Just because you can hit professional level shots doesn't mean you know how to use these shots to win the point. Very important.

And many more. It's too early to think more though :)

Venetian
08-28-2007, 04:09 AM
Deleted........

goober
08-28-2007, 05:21 AM
In my humble opinion, anyone who is so amazed by simple human beings playing a sport needs to get their priorities straight. I'm pretty sure my ego is well checked.

I've seen a lot of amazing things in this life and none of them involve professional tennis.

Sorry but I'm just not blown away by these people like you guys I guess.

I agree. People seem to worship pro athletes which is why they are probably paid so much. Celebrity worship of actors, models and pro athletes is completely overblown in this country, but that is a whole different thread for discussion:)

mucat
08-28-2007, 07:10 AM
mucat raiden and venetian: Power alone is absolutely *not* the difference. I hit shots as hard as the pro's back in and *before* high school (groundstrokes, didn't develop my serve that far until college). Back then I remember thinking the same thing, because I simply didn't know better. I used to play against my 5.0 father all the time and think to myself "wow! he should be a pro!"

So, you could hit as hard as pros back then and you used to play with your 5.0 father and you thought he should be a pro......ok...

WBF
08-28-2007, 07:17 AM
You were saying Pros can hit much much much......much harder than a 5.0 level

This is simply wrong. Was my post that difficult to follow? I wasn't trying to be insulting, just pointing out my observations.

As for your response: I was pointing out that my inexperience lead to those conclusions. Most experienced players know that there is a vast difference between the 5.0 and 7.0 levels.

mucat
08-28-2007, 07:28 AM
You were saying

This is simply wrong. Was my post that difficult to follow? I wasn't trying to be insulting, just pointing out my observations.

I never hit with a 5.0 having a 100mph FH or BH. Also, Pro hit much harder (with consistency of course) with less effort (cleaner hit), more accuracy. I agree about the footwork part though. However, Pros can hit with consistently higher speed groundstrokes than a 5.0. There are a world of a difference between 5.0 and Pros. How can anyone says otherwise?

WBF
08-28-2007, 07:42 AM
I never hit with a 5.0 having a 100mph FH or BH. Also, Pro hit much harder (with consistency of course) with less effort (cleaner hit), more accuracy. I agree about the footwork part though. However, Pros can hit with consistently higher speed groundstrokes than a 5.0. There are a world of a difference between 5.0 and Pros. How can anyone says otherwise?

My argument is that a professional does not have a harder individual shot than a 5.0. There are many 5.0's with harder shot's than professionals. The difference is that a professional can hit with more power *consistently*, due to the factors in my previous post. I agree that there is a world of difference, I just disagree that individual shots by pro's are harder than those by 5.0's.

mucat
08-28-2007, 08:24 AM
Yes, more power consistently, that's what I said before. I am not counting once in a blue moon shots. Also, A pros can probably give a 5.0 golden sets, that cannot be done by footwork alone.

WBF
08-28-2007, 08:46 AM
So do you think there are no 5.0's with groundstrokes as powerful as a pro? I'm not talking about placement, point construction, or anything else, just how hard someone can hit groundstrokes with reasonable consistency (match-worthy)...

How much experience do you have in the world of tennis? Not in terms of years, but in terms of level of play and opponents...

As for pro's and golden sets... Maybe against a 5.0 with a weak serve and no real strong weapons... But by definition, that player would not be a 5.0. In an entire match, the 5.0 could (get an ace|hit an low probability winner|watch the pro make an unforced error)...

mucat
08-28-2007, 09:12 AM
So do you think there are no 5.0's with groundstrokes as powerful as a pro? I'm not talking about placement, point construction, or anything else, just how hard someone can hit groundstrokes with reasonable consistency (match-worthy)...

How much experience do you have in the world of tennis? Not in terms of years, but in terms of level of play and opponents...

As for pro's and golden sets... Maybe against a 5.0 with a weak serve and no real strong weapons... But by definition, that player would not be a 5.0. In an entire match, the 5.0 could (get an ace|hit an low probability winner|watch the pro make an unforced error)...

I have to include placement, depth, spin and consistency. Otherwise, some big fat joe can probably hit as hard as Pro once in a while. I have hit with 5.0 and higher players, however, I can't imagine I can hit with a Pro. Anyway, this is getting too detail for a theoretical match between a theoretical Pro and a theoretical 5.0.

raiden031
08-28-2007, 02:59 PM
Pros might be better than 5.0 players at all the shots, footwork, shot selection, mental toughness, etc., but I don't think the game looks much different when you're watching a 5.0 vs. 5.0 or pro vs. pro. I'm sure stats will show that pros hit harder too, but I think that a 5.0 could rally against a pro, assuming the pro was hitting with tons of power, but not necessarily trying for winners. I think a golden set would be difficult for a pro to do against a 5.0. Of course 6-0 sets would be pretty routine, but these guys aren't perfect.

And you can say that pros are so consistent, but they hit so many UEs against weak balls, thats not a rare occurrence by any means. Yes they are more consistent than everyone else, but still not as consistent as I would initially expect of someone who has been playing the sport since they were 4 years old. If anything, this just shows how difficult this sport really is.

tricky
08-28-2007, 04:54 PM
but I don't think the game looks much different when you're watching a 5.0 vs. 5.0 or pro vs. pro.

Mmm, not sure about 5.0, but yeah it's difficult to tell difference between a top-500 pro player and a good D1 player during practice. Both are pounding the ball and can make sick shots.

arnz
08-29-2007, 03:20 AM
What I'm trying to say, as an intermediate player, is that I don't notice a major difference in velocity from 5.0s that I've seen playing at a club or a pro I've seen in person at a pro match. I notice a considerable difference in the men's serving speed at the pro level, but the rest of the game doesn't appear that much different to me. I'm not going to say there is no difference, just from my observation it doesn't look much different. I will say that I think the women's pro game is actually slower than men's 5.0 players. Although I have yet to see any top women's players up close. Once again I could be wrong, but thats just how it appears to me.

OK, I dont know what your point is. It looks the same speed as a 5.0, and yet you'll agree that 5.0's would be bageled by these pros, wouldnt you? Where do you think the huge difference lies?

Anyhow, at least you didnt make a claim like, "pros dont look that good to me, I can beat them" or "I serve way harder, and I can return Roddicks serve, he sucks" LOL. I thought you were gonna say something like that when you start saying pros dont look impressive to you. Too many posters in here like that

Golden Retriever
08-29-2007, 10:54 AM
A "5.0" sprinter can run 100M in 10.09 sec, a pro sprinter can run 100M in 9.99 sec. The 0.1 sec makes a world of a difference. Remember a pro tennis player will get that "0.1 sec advantage" in every strokes and thats huge.

goober
08-29-2007, 11:13 AM
10.09 is a world class time in the 100 m. That would win or place very high at many professional meets.

But having played a lot of people, I can safely say that I have not seen anybody who even comes remotely close to having world class sprint speed in recreational tennis. Anyways, as a former speedster around the court who is getting older, I have come to realize anticipation and court position are far more important than pure speed in tennis.

burosky
08-29-2007, 12:29 PM
OK, I dont know what your point is. It looks the same speed as a 5.0, and yet you'll agree that 5.0's would be bageled by these pros, wouldnt you? Where do you think the huge difference lies?

Anyhow, at least you didnt make a claim like, "pros dont look that good to me, I can beat them" or "I serve way harder, and I can return Roddicks serve, he sucks" LOL. I thought you were gonna say something like that when you start saying pros dont look impressive to you. Too many posters in here like that

I don't know if you've had a chance to play an official match against higher level players than you. If you have, you would have noticed that even if you have strokes that may resemble some of their strokes, it is still difficult to get points from them. I'm a 4.5 who has seen action and won past local league playoffs. I think I can hang with a majority of the 4.5 players I've seen. I played a 10.0 mixed match against a 5.5 guy and 4.5 woman. The 5.5 guy was just too much to handle. The only times I was able to solicit a point from him was when I hit one of my rare perfect shots or when his partner laid it out for me nicely for a kill. Otherwise, I felt like there wasn't much I can hit that would get me a point. The frustrating part is finding out that the shots I rely on to get points from players who I normally play with merely makes the shot a little bit more difficult for him but nonetheless doesn't hurt him much.

I would imagine this is how it would be for a high level recreational player to play a touring pro. In my case, my "A" game was just normal for him. Conversely, the "A" game of the 5.5 guy I played would probably be a normal or even an "off-day" for a touring pro. I think that's where the difference lies.

Steady Eddy
08-29-2007, 12:36 PM
And when on a tennis court does anyone run anywhere near 100 meters? On a tennis court it's all about getting off to a quick start. Fox truthfully says in his book that coach's tell beginners, "Get moving, don't be so lazy." But the beginner doesn't know where the ball is going, so just stands there. It's not about being lazy. A great sprinter might still have poor court coverage as a beginner in tennis because of their 'one one-thousand two one-thousand then go' system of court coverage.

Same thing in two person beach volley ball. Ever try it? It seems impossible to cover with only two, it doesn't demand a spike to win, ordinary shots drop for winners. But when you watch good players, they don't even have to hurry most of the time, but that's because they're so good at quickly reading where the ball is going.

burosky
08-29-2007, 12:45 PM
Another good example is football. Various pro teams have tried drafting world-class sprinters to play the receiver position. There maybe some who were successful in making the transition but there's a lot more who didn't. Jerry Rice may not be the fastest man in the NFL but he seems to always out run defensive backs who are known speedsters during his prime.

It is not all just about speed or power. There is so much more to it in tennis.