Athletic or Skill?

[SageOfDeath]

I want to find out what is more important in the game of tennis, being athletic or having more skill? Obviously you need BOTH to play the game well but at levels such as 3.0-4.0 what do you think matters more? I figure that being skillfull helps you utilise your weight, correct stroke mechanics and such. Being athletic helps you to be able to return the ball, maintain a rally, using your upper body strength and legs to shift weight into the ball.

Which one would give you more power into your shot? Having really good stroke mechanics or having good stroke mechanics but more athletic???

Please if you are voting then post your REASON(S).

[theace21]

If both people have very similar strokes, the more athletic one will of course have more power. He will get setup quicker, have better balance, better timing, better coordination...Get more balls...

If your not very athletic, you will be limited in ability to continue to improve...

[dennis10is]

At the 3.0-4.0 level, a more technically skilled player has a rather distinct advantage from a developmental point of view However, as the level of play improves the physical gifts factor shows up more. And at the higher/est levels, you need to have a decent set of physical gifts. However, the psychological factors (both acquired and natural gifts) should also be considered. Think of Brad Gilbert.

If you have the correct technique you can take advantage of all of your physical attributes. That's all one can ask for.

My .02

[joe sch]

The correct mechanics of tennis, ie skill, take many years of training to get to advanced levels and this assumes good coordination and athletic ability !

[kevhen]

Even though I was much more athletic than my 3.5 doubles partner, he could hit much harder groundstrokes because of better technique. I hit a harder serve than him thanks to my height (around 100mph), but he could place his serve better (he was clocked at 90mph). Over time my game improved so that I was rated 4.0. Since he was older and had perfected his game he is still just a strong 3.5 The athleticm gives you the potential to improve more if you work on your strokes and develop the proper skills.

Having more skills means that usually you can place the ball better which is much more important than being able to hit with power since a hard hit ball slows down drastically like 50% on it way to you but a well placed ball keeps moving farther and farther away from you.

[donnyz89]

really depends, at 4.0/3.5 ish or lower is more technique, Im prolly the weakest player on my team but i was manage to play at 2 singles because of good technique, and i pack quite a bunch on my ground strokes and even serves at 5'1 because i use all parts of my body to make up for the lack of strength in my arm.

[ZhangM58]

I'd have to disagree to those who voted to have "skill." Of course, skills are very important tennis. All the weight transfering adds power etc... Being more fit is however more important I'd have to say because you need to be able to get to the ball early enough to hit the stroke you are trained to hit. If you get there late for example, you simply don't have enough time to hit the shot you would normally hit if you were in good position. I think having more skills and being more fit, both are big factors of tennis.

[Kana Himezaki]

This shouldn't warrant much of a discussion.

Skill (I'm assuming this is pretty much mechanics/timing) is necessary for power.

Athleticism is necessary to even get there and set up for the ball, and for being able to actually do anything besides hit the ball when it's coming close to you.

And normally, good athletes have the timing, motor control, whatever, to actually be skilled in the first place.

It shouldn't matter much, you want both.

[Exile]

You can get away with having only one or the other.

[SageOfDeath]

You can get away with having only one or the other.

At 3.0-4.0???? that's not true!!! having no skill would kill you?!?!

[Exile]

If you can chase EVERY ball down, it doesn matter

[papa]

Yeah, I agree with the athlete choice. Give me a good athlete and I'll make a tennis player out of him - anyone can, and it won't take as long as many might think.

[SageOfDeath]

If you can chase EVERY ball down, it doesn matter

Thinking about this more logically now I believe that having more skill is more important at lower levels. But I'm still kinda undecided on which gives more power, because if you have the right stroke mechanics then your shot will be more powerful but if you are really strong and don't your shot will be powerful but won't land in. So I think the better question of my post should be which one is more IMPORTANT. Its not very hard to chase down balls at lower levels because the pace is rather moderate. Being able to consistantly hit the ball into the court to me seems more important. What you said is true assuming that the player CAN get every ball into the court and that means they need both. The reason I made this thread was because I wanted to know what should I focus in on more. I'm pretty athletic and I had a 7:20 mile time which is in the fit range of my age. But in the long run you really need both. Even in pro level you don't see them running their fastest to every single ball because they need to have their footwork right and be able to stop and hit.

O yea no need to vote anymore I've decided on what I need to work on right now. How do you close a thread??? Do I even have the power to do that???

[POGO]

I think you are born to have athletic potential, and skills is something that you acquire from repitition, but blessed with athletic ability can certainly help develop skills much faster since you have superb athletic movement.

[Grimjack]

If you have skill but absolutely no athleticism -- that is, if you train and train and train your whole life at tennis-specific skills, but never at anything else (no weights, no cardio, no other sports), and aren't naturally athletically gifted -- you probably peak out as a 4.5 or 5.0 player who hopes the match doesn't go 3 sets.

If you have athleticism, but no skill -- that is, if you train and train and train, lifting weights, doing cardio, plyometric training, cross training in sports other than tennis your whole life, but never pick up a racquet till that one fateful day -- you play like a 1.0.

Obviously, if you're such an athlete, and you start training, you progress at tennis awfully fast. But that's not the question here. The question is strictly either/or. And if one of the guys mentioned above meets the other on the court? The skilled guy beats the natural athlete 6-0, 6-0, every time.

Skill trumps athleticism every time in this game.

The question, as phrased, "at the X.X level, which is more important?", makes no logical sense. A level, be it 3.0, 4.0, or 7.0, is based upon results. If two players are at that level, they've both proven their worth at that level, no matter how they got there. If you have an ultra-elite athlete who plays 3.5 tennis vs a fat slug who plays 3.5 tennis...what you have is still two 3.5's, and so it should be close, no matter what their bodies look like.

[Stuck]

I'll take althleticsm over skill anyday. Skill can be learned!

[TennsDog]

Skill. I have seen perfectly strong and athletic guys hit balls that were not anywhere near the court, but also didn't go nearly as far as it should have for as much effort as they were putting into the shot. I think, though, that skill is based on athleticism. You can't really develop a lot of skill without being at least a little athletic. But knowing the game and using your skills are most important in not only hitting fast balls in play, but also making them faster.

[FREDDY]

dunno... why buti think it mattters. skill comes with athleticism. its a package.

[FREDDY]

I'll take althleticsm over skill anyday. Skill can be learned!

so can athleticism with the right kind of motivation, but yeah iguess its easier but some peopel just cant play for crap but have good physique idk. there was this one guy that was on the heavier side and he was skillful. but im not sure what athleticism means?

[POGO]

so can athleticism with the right kind of motivation, but yeah iguess its easier but some peopel just cant play for crap but have good physique idk. there was this one guy that was on the heavier side and he was skillful. but im not sure what athleticism means?
Athletic is your physical attribute, how muscular, how fit, how proportion you built is, and allowing you to move efficently with ease and very little effort.

Since you move so easily, learning the skills necessary for tennis would really help you develope it much faster because you are less tired and you can move your body so efficently.


On the other hand, an unfit person, may have a hard time learning the skills of tennis better because they are too unfit to move efficently to properly learn the skills.

Athletic is like th cake, and the skills is the icing.

You can learn all of the skills needed, but if your body can't handle it, then proper skills go down the drain. I think this is why people learn bad habbits to compensate for the lack of athletism.

[ZhangM58]

I said it before, I'll say it again. They are equally the same.

[kevhen]

I know alot of little old ladies who play 3.0-3.5 who can rally nicely because of learned racquet skills but don't have much athleticism. So you can have skills without being an athlete but I like that I am an athlete first and now am developing my skills so I have more potential than most.

[GuyClinch]

Its skill that matters most in tennis. Even at the pro level the guys might be "pretty good" athletes but they are not going to clock 10 seconds on the 100 meters either.

Tennis is less of skill sport they say golf, but far more a skill sport they say track and field which comes down to almost pure athleticism. And I know people will protest.

But those "old" timers that use "slice" to beat some young guy. That's the skill in action. In any test of athletic ability - a shuttle run, bench press, flexibility etc the young guy will win.

It takes years to develop enough skill to be good at tennis. And that's a good thing for the less athletic people in the world. :P Otherwise some cornerback on the university of Florida football team would show up and just dominate an open tournament.

Yeah maybe eventually you could "make" a tennis player out of that cornerback. I mean if you could go back in time and give him a racket when he was 5. But guys like Agassi weren't the most athletic guys in the world - they just started developing their skills at a very young age.

Pete

[Grimjack]

On the other hand, the poll actually asks "which gives more power?" Weird question.

Are we to assume the power actually has to land in the court, somewhere?

[Boy Wonder]

I said it before, I'll say it again. They are equally the same.

I think this guy's got it.

[Grimjack]

I think this guy's got it.

I think he's dead wrong. Give me a fat slob with ten years of lessons, and you take your pick of any Olympic Decathlete who hasn't had any tennis practice, and me and my fat slob will walk home with a 6-0, 6-0 victory every time they play.

[Indiantwist]

It only matters if they are similarly skilled. for example if there are two 3.0/3.5's playing the game, one with slightly better strokes and one with slightly better athletic ability....Then the longer the match\points goes, the better the advantage to the athletic guy. However the better skilled guy can finish points fast due to his better skills. In the end it boils down to who is better on that day.

[Grimjack]

It only matters if they are similarly skilled. for example if there are two 3.0/3.5's playing the game, one with slightly better strokes and one with slightly better athletic ability....Then the longer the match\points goes, the better the advantage to the athletic guy. However the better skilled guy can finish points fast due to his better skills. In the end it boils down to who is better on that day.

Exactly true.

What weighs more: a pound of feathers, or a pound of lead?

If both are 4.0's, then how they got there is irrelevant. They'll be roughly even. If the skills guy is a 4.5, he kills the better athlete who plays at 4.0. That's how the levels are defined, after all. That same athlete kills a guy who has textbook strokes, but plays at 3.5.

This is why I said earlier that the question doesn't make much logical sense. The theoretical direction I prefer to take it is this: given equal amounts of either, would pure skills or pure athleticism be better? I figure athleticism for beginners -- the skills can't do enough to poke holes in the game of a guy who can get to everything, outhit you, and generally outperform you. Beyond the beginner level, though, all the athleticism in the world won't help you beat a 4.0 if you've never picked up a racquet.

[Boy Wonder]

I think he's dead wrong. Give me a fat slob with ten years of lessons, and you take your pick of any Olympic Decathlete who hasn't had any tennis practice, and me and my fat slob will walk home with a 6-0, 6-0 victory every time they play.

yes, I see what you're saying. I'm confused at his question also, "which gives more power?". Who do you think would win between a pro tennis player whose game has more athleticism and one whose game consists of more skill?

[ATXtennisaddict]

I voted skill.

He said which gives more power. Not which is more important. You could be the most athletic person in the world but can't hit a ball right.

There was a discussion here recently about how a skinny girl can hit heavy balls etc. Good stroke mechanics.

[kevhen]

But the more athletic person could probably hit with more power if they had been a baseball player but not get the ball in as much as a more skilled person.

[GugaGuga]

Power in tennis comes from timing and racquet head speed, which is a combination of strength and form. Similar to golf. Often, seemingly small players can drive BIG in golf--it's all about timing and club head speed.

Being flexible can be as big an advantage as being strong. Look at Guga or Justine H-H as examples. Wily and wirey.