Tennis Instruction Malpractice?

Nostradamus

Nostradamus

Bionic Poster
Cindysphinx said:
My sister is a 3.0, and she was in a 3.0 clinic. The topic was overheads. The pro was teaching overheads in the standard way -- telling the players they need to turn sideways. It was not going well -- lots of missed overheads and frustration.

After a while, he called them all together and said something like this (as relayed by my sister):

"OK. The correct way to hit an overhead is to be in Continental grip and turn sideways. You ladies are struggling because you are in your forehand grip instead of Continental grip. If you use a forehand grip and turn sideways, you will be directing your ball off the court.

"You have two solutions for your overheads. You can use Continental and turn sideways. Or you can stay in forehand grip, but you will need to remain facing the net and not turn sideways."

My sister reported that when the ladies began hitting their overheads while facing the net in forehand grip, they were able to hit stronger and more consistent overheads. My sister wanted to know what I thought of this.

I said I thought it was horrific advice and this pro should have his teaching certificate yanked. Better, I said, is to emphasize all of the reasons why these relative beginners should get in the habit of using the correct grip. I said that hitting overheads while spreadeagle to the net will prevent the ladies from moving backward for overheads safely and effectively. It will reinforce the idea that the forehand grip is appropriate when moving inside the court when the Continental is the better choice. If they later start volleying correctly in Continental, they will develop grip confusion when the ball starts moving faster at the higher levels and they don't have time to toggle between Continental and Eastern. And it will prevent them from learning all sorts of transition shots that use Continental -- transition volleys, half-volleys, low volleys, slices.

What do you think? Is the pro's advice a reasonable work-around for 3.0s who are struggling with overheads? Or should he have continued to urge Continental + sideways?
Click to expand...
your sister is wrong. you can't hit overheads like your sister does. that is beginner overhead and works if the ball is easy lower short short overheads. but it is anything deeper or better lob and you have to go back a good distance, your sister's way will probably make her miss 8 out of 10 times.
 
Cindysphinx

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
FedererExpress said:
7-8 years. I'm no pro by any means. Just what I have noticed, and what some of my teaching bosses has emphasized. Do you also think rigorous emphasis on technique is the way to approach casual rec players who will probably never get past 3.5 in a group setting (15-25 players)?
Click to expand...

Here's the thing:

There is a difference between *tolerating* wrong technique and *teaching* wrong technique.

Second, I think if you are really teaching clinics of 15-25 players, I don't even know what to say. It is not possible to teach anything in that setting. And if you are teaching 15-25 players spread across five courts with five pros, there will be no consistency no matter what you do. You and your bosses have to come up with a teaching plan and you just have to go with it, frying pan grip and all.

Next, and I mean this in the nicest possible way . . . I have an issue with the way you speak about your students. I imagine my early teaching pros figured I would top out at 3.5. They could have dismissed me and figure it was a waste of effort to show me the difference between right and wrong. But they didn't, and I have been a 4.0 for four years now. Sure, there are players who just want you to blow sunshine up their skirt. But there are plenty of players who genuinely want to move up (as a captain I hear this so much I am sick to death of it). Granted, they may not be taking clinics with 25 students in them, but they are out there and want to actually get something for their money.

Isn't part of the reward of teaching anything the pleasure that comes from seeing your students get better? Why would a pro actively teach and demonstrate frying pan technique, secretly harboring a belief that these students will never amount to much? Why not go find another way to make a living rather than endure such unrewarding work? I remember something my current pro said to me some years ago. He said it pained him to see his students play badly. He would be horrified to see me waddling backward for an overhead and would never think the solution was to teach me better waddling technique.

Further on the subject of professional pride . . . keep in mind that veteran players see you. We see how you interact with your students. We see if you can run a good lesson. And we talk about you. If we see you teaching jacked up technique, if we see your students never getting better, word of mouth won't go well for you and your book of business may suffer. Over the years, many people have asked me which pro to use at XYZ club because I played a lot and captained a lot or because they wanted to learn something they saw me do. I promise you I won't recommend the one teaching spreadeagle overheads.

Finally, we need to take a minute to chase a straw man out of the building. You wrote, "Do you also think rigorous emphasis on technique is the way to approach casual rec players . . . ." No one is saying that you should have rigorous emphasis on technique. But come on. Waddling backward for an overhead with a frying pan swing? That's downright dangerous because people can easily trip and fall and get hurt. If the players are going to do that when you are telling them to turn sideways, there is nothing you can do. I would think a pro's conscience would preclude them from actually pausing the clinic to demonstrate the spreadeagle and offer it as a viable option.
 
F

FedererExpress

Rookie
Cindysphinx said:
Here's the thing:

There is a difference between *tolerating* wrong technique and *teaching* wrong technique.

Second, I think if you are really teaching clinics of 15-25 players, I don't even know what to say. It is not possible to teach anything in that setting. And if you are teaching 15-25 players spread across five courts with five pros, there will be no consistency no matter what you do. You and your bosses have to come up with a teaching plan and you just have to go with it, frying pan grip and all.

Next, and I mean this in the nicest possible way . . . I have an issue with the way you speak about your students. I imagine my early teaching pros figured I would top out at 3.5. They could have dismissed me and figure it was a waste of effort to show me the difference between right and wrong. But they didn't, and I have been a 4.0 for four years now. Sure, there are players who just want you to blow sunshine up their skirt. But there are plenty of players who genuinely want to move up (as a captain I hear this so much I am sick to death of it). Granted, they may not be taking clinics with 25 students in them, but they are out there and want to actually get something for their money.

Isn't part of the reward of teaching anything the pleasure that comes from seeing your students get better? Why would a pro actively teach and demonstrate frying pan technique, secretly harboring a belief that these students will never amount to much? Why not go find another way to make a living rather than endure such unrewarding work? I remember something my current pro said to me some years ago. He said it pained him to see his students play badly. He would be horrified to see me waddling backward for an overhead and would never think the solution was to teach me better waddling technique.

Further on the subject of professional pride . . . keep in mind that veteran players see you. We see how you interact with your students. We see if you can run a good lesson. And we talk about you. If we see you teaching jacked up technique, if we see your students never getting better, word of mouth won't go well for you and your book of business may suffer. Over the years, many people have asked me which pro to use at XYZ club because I played a lot and captained a lot or because they wanted to learn something they saw me do. I promise you I won't recommend the one teaching spreadeagle overheads.

Finally, we need to take a minute to chase a straw man out of the building. You wrote, "Do you also think rigorous emphasis on technique is the way to approach casual rec players . . . ." No one is saying that you should have rigorous emphasis on technique. But come on. Waddling backward for an overhead with a frying pan swing? That's downright dangerous because people can easily trip and fall and get hurt. If the players are going to do that when you are telling them to turn sideways, there is nothing you can do. I would think a pro's conscience would preclude them from actually pausing the clinic to demonstrate the spreadeagle and offer it as a viable option.
Click to expand...

So it's my fault for mis-using terms: I teach "classes" not necessarily "clinics." Perhaps they are very different. I would also disagree that you can't teach anything with 25 students.... as we have successfully done so in my opinion.

I'm curious what your issue is about how I speak about "my students..." as I mentioned some want to learn just to have fun, some want to become really good players... I never said it was a "wasted" effort to show them correct technique. I said I show them correct technique but also mention until they learn it correctly they can incorporate frying pan so they can get some beginner experience in playing points/games/matches. It seems people think I glorify frying pan saying everyone should use it and we spend hours on frying pan technique... please read what I wrote: It is ok to use it UNTIL they learn the proper methods. It's hilarious to me that you are so insistent that I believe in "Teaching" frying pan when I merely said it is acceptable to use UNTIL they learn the proper way...


It does pain me to see students play badly. Hurts me so much during the first few years that I had to let go to a certain extent, and realize that everyone's goals are different and they are HAPPY just hitting around and their happiness is what's important. I think it's arrogant/pompous to think playing perfect tennis is the "only way" to enjoy themselves on the court.

Again different teaching philosophies. At this point in my life, I've come to realize not everyone wants to be pros. People want to hit some tennis balls and have fun. Why is "tolerating" frying pan such a big deal? I never even said I teach it. I said its ok for them to use it temporarily until they learn it correctly. Please read what I wrote and quote where I said I was teaching it and stating it was the "proper" way to play.
 
F

FedererExpress

Rookie
Cindysphinx said:
Here's the thing:


Next, and I mean this in the nicest possible way . . . I have an issue with the way you speak about your students. I imagine my early teaching pros figured I would top out at 3.5. They could have dismissed me and figure it was a waste of effort to show me the difference between right and wrong. But they didn't, and I have been a 4.0 for four years now. Sure, there are players who just want you to blow sunshine up their skirt. But there are plenty of players who genuinely want to move up (as a captain I hear this so much I am sick to death of it). Granted, they may not be taking clinics with 25 students in them, but they are out there and want to actually get something for their money.
Click to expand...

Hilarious, like I said, please reread what I wrote.... I teach EVERYONE proper technique, good or bad. I don't judge anyone in class and say
"Oh that guy/girl defintitely doesn't want to get past 3.5" HOWEVER I understand there is some people who don't want to get past 3.5 Realizing that some don't want to get past 3.5 is OK. THE BAD MENTALITY IS ASSUMING EVERYONE WANTS TO GET PAST 3.5. Again please go and reread what I wrote, as you are going on tangents on things I never stated.
 
S

sureshs

Bionic Poster
Cindysphinx said:
Waddling backward for an overhead with a frying pan swing? That's downright dangerous because people can easily trip and fall and get hurt.
Click to expand...

But that is often the only real reason something should be corrected. There are women and men with pancake grips who WILL not change. I know a 74 year old man who is a very decent 3.5 whom we have been trying to convert to conti on the serve for years, and it hasn't worked. There are many many veteran women players at my club who use pancake grip. Generalizing this further, rec players need to understand that good technique will not necessarily produce any wins at their level, because it doesn't help if the stroke is not effective. Old school players with flat strokes have started losing when they started trying topspin, men who tried conti on their serve ended up losing their serve, etc. They should understand that injury prevention is the only outcome that they can bet on if they use proper technique.

Ultimately, most coaches go with the approach that with adults, do some tweaking, but do not attempt to correct fundamentals after testing the waters a little. Suggest gently that a conti is a better choice. If there is no response, forget it. In fact, there is one major world-wide coaching coaching chain whose philosophy for rec players is that we will work with what you bring us, and will not do major changes.
 
OrangePower

OrangePower

Legend
My 2 cents...
Sure, it's great to teach beginners correct technique from the get-go.
But, if they are unable to get the ball in play using proper technique, and then get frustrated over it, some at least are likely to just stop playing.
Yes, it's hard to 'unlearn' bad technique. You know what's even harder? Utilizing good technique when you're no longer playing the game ;-)
So I think it has to be a case by case decision, based on the interest / commitment / frustration tolerance of the student.
If the student is willing to stick with it and see it through no matter what, stick to correct technique from the get-go.
But if the student is going to give up unless they are having fun and keeping the ball in play, the first priority is to make sure they stay in the game.
 
S

sureshs

Bionic Poster
There is no point telling a CEO decompressing in a Caribbean resort to change his pancake grip. Yes it should be brought up at the beginning. The guy will hold it in conti and shadow swing the serve a couple of times, then give up. For the rest of the week, there is no point for the pro to get upset about this. The guy will ask for all kinds of help on the serve, but the correct answer is not "First fix your fricking grip."

It doesn't work that way. If a patient's basic problem is obesity, she can be told about this a couple of times, but the doctor still has to treat whatever issue is presented. Can't walk away saying come to me after losing 50 pounds.
 
Cindysphinx

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
FedererExpress, I suspect that we could be talking about different things (e.g. clinics v. classes). Let me ask it this way.

You are in a class/clinic and are teaching to a group of 3.0 women who play on a 3.0 USTA league team. You are feeding/teaching overheads. Some ladies are doing poorly and are getting frustrated.

Would you tell them if they turn sideways their smash will go off the court, so they can instead stay square to the net and hit with frying pan grip, and would you then model for them how to execute the spreadeagle frying pan overhead?

In other words, what would you do in the scenario I describe in the OP?

I predict that my own teaching pro -- who teaches a ton of women students that I describe -- would continue to tell them to turn sideways, would explain why, would show them the right grip if that is a problem, and explain why it is the right grip. He would demonstrate the bad things that can happen if you are spreadeagle and if you have a frying pan grip. He would applaud anyone who tried to do it right and gently challenge those who do not wish to change ("Why take lessons if you are going to play the same way? You come here to try new things!" he would say). He would say little to those who do not wish to change.

He has a huge book of business teaching this way.
 
Cindysphinx

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
FedererExpress said:
Hilarious, like I said, please reread what I wrote.... I teach EVERYONE proper technique, good or bad. I don't judge anyone in class and say
"Oh that guy/girl defintitely doesn't want to get past 3.5" HOWEVER I understand there is some people who don't want to get past 3.5 Realizing that some don't want to get past 3.5 is OK. THE BAD MENTALITY IS ASSUMING EVERYONE WANTS TO GET PAST 3.5. Again please go and reread what I wrote, as you are going on tangents on things I never stated.
Click to expand...
No reason to get upset.

You don't have to assume everyone wants to get past 3.5. 3.5 is just a number, right?

I think it is fair to assume that anyone who shows up for instruction wants instruction. They want to improve within their particular constraints (time, money, physical issues).

Why not assume the best of a student ("this student is coming here to learn!") until you some concrete reason to think otherwise?
 
F

FedererExpress

Rookie
Cindysphinx said:
No reason to get upset.

You don't have to assume everyone wants to get past 3.5. 3.5 is just a number, right?

I think it is fair to assume that anyone who shows up for instruction wants instruction. They want to improve within their particular constraints (time, money, physical issues).

Why not assume the best of a student ("this student is coming here to learn!") until you some concrete reason to think otherwise?
Click to expand...

I'm not upset at all, just think it's funny. Sorry I have dry/sarcastic/humor so it comes off as I'm upset when I'm not. Yes, I agree, everyone pays basically is there to learn, and I will teach the proper ways. But like I said if we are practicing playing points, I would never tell a student to double fault entire games away because they HAVE to serve continental. Clearly they can't yet, and having them "practice" continental serves in that scenario is only going to deter/and frustrate them. If they want to practice/learn more they can take another clinic or private lesson on their own time. Until they have learned continental they should use frying pan. What would you tell a highschool player who takes lessons once a week and has matches each week? Hey lose all your serves in your hs school match BC continental is correct and you HAVE to do it even if you don't get it yet? I would disagree.

Cindysphinx said:
FedererExpress, I suspect that we could be talking about different things (e.g. clinics v. classes). Let me ask it this way.

You are in a class/clinic and are teaching to a group of 3.0 women who play on a 3.0 USTA league team. You are feeding/teaching overheads. Some ladies are doing poorly and are getting frustrated.

Would you tell them if they turn sideways their smash will go off the court, so they can instead stay square to the net and hit with frying pan grip, and would you then model for them how to execute the spreadeagle frying pan overhead?

In other words, what would you do in the scenario I describe in the OP?
Click to expand...

I've already stated what I would have done several times in the previous posts.... I would teach them the correct method, we would drill and practice with the "correct" method, but mention if they are struggling, it's not that big of a deal to use the incorrect method in point play UNTIL we/they learn the proper method and are confident in it. I would also mention, to get better, they would have to eventually learn the correct method. I WOULD NEVER say the incorrect method is the right shot, but rather a substitute for now until they learn the correct way.
 
Last edited:
F

FedererExpress

Rookie
Cindysphinx said:
FedererExpress, I suspect that we could be talking about different things (e.g. clinics v. classes). Let me ask it this way.

You are in a class/clinic and are teaching to a group of 3.0 women who play on a 3.0 USTA league team. You are feeding/teaching overheads. Some ladies are doing poorly and are getting frustrated.

Would you tell them if they turn sideways their smash will go off the court, so they can instead stay square to the net and hit with frying pan grip, and would you then model for them how to execute the spreadeagle frying pan overhead?

In other words, what would you do in the scenario I describe in the OP?

.
Click to expand...

To reiterate one of my previous posts, the Pro in your OP, taught it the right way, but then realized most of the woman were struggling too much, and said "use what you are comfortable with." He taught them a new concept, and as long as he mentioned the other way is wrong, and that they should strive to learn it the correct way by taking more clinics or practicing, honestly I would be ok with that. At this beginner level, its all about sport retention imo. If they are frustrated they are less likely to return to the sport. Maybe it was the Pro's fault for introducing continental grips without enough progressions so that the women didn't get frustrated. However, it is too late for that. They got frustrated and he wanted to try to make it "fun" again. No biggi imo at that level (3.0 isn't even remotely close to decent play in the grand scheme of things. 3.0 is bare beginner imo).

Not some horrendous sin that needs to get him crucified or license revoked as you stated.
 
Last edited:
Cindysphinx

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
I know you mean no insult, but I would not call a 3.0 a beginner.

A 3.0 is a player who, for whatever reason, struggles against 3.5 players. Those reasons can be being a newbie. But the reason can also be simply infrequency of play, injury, lack of athletic ability, or age.

My sister has been a 3.0 for 12 years. She took up the sport as a 2.5, got bumped up, took a very long hiatus, then hurt her knee and had two surgeries, and now she travels so much and works such long hours that she rarely plays. And since she is my older sister, she is older. I think 3.0 suits her at the moment.

To my ears, then, this sounds needlessly dismissive: "No biggi imo at that level (3.0 isn't even remotely close to decent play in the grand scheme of things. 3.0 is bare beginner imo)." I say 3.0 is one of many stepping stones on someone's tennis journey, and it is no more or less worthy of respect than 4.0.

Anyway, you never answered my question, which is this: Is there any chance you would have actually demonstrated the spreadeagle frying pan smash if the 3.0 league ladies were getting frustrated at the direction to turn when going back for their smash?
 
OrangePower

OrangePower

Legend
Cindysphinx said:
I know you mean no insult, but I would not call a 3.0 a beginner...My sister has been a 3.0 for 12 years.
Click to expand...
I for one did assume your sister was a beginner - sorry.
But my assumption was not based on the fact that she's a 3.0. Agreed; there are many 3.0 players who are not beginners and I don't mean to be disparaging of anyone.
Rather, I made that assumption based on your story of her being in a clinic where the pro was teaching overheads etc, and I was thinking that an experienced player regardless of level would already know correct overhead technique (at least in theory, whether they apply it or not).
 
ARKustom93

ARKustom93

Professional
dominikk1985 said:
well the pro told them what the correct way is. correctly you use Conti, turn sideways and then pronate to hit. he was also right that sideways stance and frying pan grip does not work, if you frying pan you Need to face the net.hink he wanted to motivate them to do it right but also give them an Option for some immediate success because he saw they could not excecute.
Click to expand...


Where you there? (unless I missed something, Cindy never mentioned what exactly the pro said/demonstrated in order to prep the students ...)
 
ARKustom93

ARKustom93

Professional
sureshs said:
There is no point telling a CEO decompressing in a Caribbean resort to change his pancake grip. Yes it should be brought up at the beginning. The guy will hold it in conti and shadow swing the serve a couple of times, then give up. For the rest of the week, there is no point for the pro to get upset about this. The guy will ask for all kinds of help on the serve, but the correct answer is not "First fix your fricking grip."

It doesn't work that way. If a patient's basic problem is obesity, she can be told about this a couple of times, but the doctor still has to treat whatever issue is presented. Can't walk away saying come to me after losing 50 pounds.
Click to expand...

Goddamn man, when are you finally gonna learn rule #1: when you don't know what you're talking about, don't open your mouth ...
 
ARKustom93

ARKustom93

Professional
sureshs said:
That is how it works with adults.

If not, you tell me how it works.
Click to expand...

Here's how ... Bet you a 100 bucks, I could go to work on you and turn you into a(at least halfways) decent player;)

All about figuring out what clicks, inspiration, and most of all, trust.

Oh, and that type of sh=t makes me wanna throw up ...
 
Cindysphinx

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
ARKustom93 said:
@Cindysphinx: Did your sister mention whether the pro actually explained/demonstrated all components involved in proper execution, and addressed relevant questions before going into the first drill?
Click to expand...

sorry, I missed this.

I don't know. I only know what I wrote above.

If I were a betting woman, though, I would guess not. That's a lot of talking in a group setting, and students hate that.
 
ARKustom93

ARKustom93

Professional
Cindysphinx said:
sorry, I missed this.

I don't know. I only know what I wrote above.

If I were a betting woman, though, I would guess not. That's a lot of talking in a group setting, and students hate that.
Click to expand...

Depends on how concise you can be. But to get to the point, based on the pro's comments you quoted, sounds like he didn't get all his ducks in a row, and once 'disaster' struck, had to back-track and patch things up, so to speak.

Best way to avoid this kind of situation is actually quite simple: " So, we're gonna work on overheads, let me see you guys hit a couple. One run of 3 shots per player, and we'll take it from there ..." Tells me all I need to know to figure out what's what for this particular lesson.
 
Cindysphinx

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
ARKustom93 said:
Depends on how concise you can be. But to get to the point, based on the pro's comments you quoted, sounds like he didn't get all his ducks in a row, and once 'disaster' struck, had to back-track and patch things up, so to speak.

Best way to avoid this kind of situation is actually quite simple: " So, we're gonna work on overheads, let me see you guys hit a couple. One run of 3 shots per player, and we'll take it from there ..." Tells me all I need to know to figure out what's what for this particular lesson.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is sensible.

Let me ask you this. Of your six players of same 3.0 USTA rating, only a couple are having any success turning sideways for an overhead. They think they are sideways, but they are not (I'm guilty as charged on that one). What do you do at that point?
 
Fxanimator1

Fxanimator1

Hall of Fame
Cindysphinx said:
They think they are sideways, but they are not (I'm guilty as charged on that one). What do you do at that point?
Click to expand...
Film them, so they can see how "not sideways" they are. People tend to think they look like Roger when hitting their strokes and setting up and whatnot. Video doesn't lie or play favorites. Once they see themselves, they know how much more they need to exaggerate the motions.
 
JBH

JBH

Rookie
Cindysphinx said:
Let me ask you this. Of your six players of same 3.0 USTA rating, only a couple are having any success turning sideways for an overhead. They think they are sideways, but they are not (I'm guilty as charged on that one). What do you do at that point?
Click to expand...

Line them up 3 feet inside the service line and have them hit serves at the opposing service line.
After the idea that an overhead is really a serve sinks in, have half the players hit high,easy lobs in front of the others, allowing the ball to bounce before hitting the serve/overhead.
After the idea that the incoming lob is substituting for the service toss, have them try to take the ball out of the air instead of letting it bounce.

Again though, trying to teach overheads to a group that probably doesn't have firm serving dynamics is going to be an exercise in frustration.
 
MisterP

MisterP

Hall of Fame
He did explain that a forehand grip won't work if they turn sideways. So even though he's basically giving them a pass to do it wrong, his advice is technically sound.

I'd be willing to bet their volley grip is also jacked up and that if he put them into a continental grip they would fail to hit a single ball over the net using the strings.

It's not the greatest advice but time is money and it's unlikely that a group of 3.0 ladies would want to spend an hour lesson framing overheads just to appease the tennis gods. Better to work on that kind of thing one on one.
 
F

FedererExpress

Rookie
Cindysphinx said:
I know you mean no insult, but I would not call a 3.0 a beginner.

A 3.0 is a player who, for whatever reason, struggles against 3.5 players. Those reasons can be being a newbie. But the reason can also be simply infrequency of play, injury, lack of athletic ability, or age.

My sister has been a 3.0 for 12 years. She took up the sport as a 2.5, got bumped up, took a very long hiatus, then hurt her knee and had two surgeries, and now she travels so much and works such long hours that she rarely plays. And since she is my older sister, she is older. I think 3.0 suits her at the moment.

To my ears, then, this sounds needlessly dismissive: "No biggi imo at that level (3.0 isn't even remotely close to decent play in the grand scheme of things. 3.0 is bare beginner imo)." I say 3.0 is one of many stepping stones on someone's tennis journey, and it is no more or less worthy of respect than 4.0.

Anyway, you never answered my question, which is this: Is there any chance you would have actually demonstrated the spreadeagle frying pan smash if the 3.0 league ladies were getting frustrated at the direction to turn when going back for their smash?
Click to expand...

Like you said, not trying to be dismissive, but to me a 3.0 player is a beginner tennis player for whatever reason (doesn't matter what the reason). To me it can't be simply put as "they struggle against 3.5" because at the 3.0 level most if not all, will have GLARING fundamental problems and lack of overall tennis experience, knowledge, and strategy for whatever the reason. Would you not call a 2.5 a beginner then? Only say they are players struggling against 3.0? Imo if you were accomplished, but then got hurt, stopped playing etc etc. It would be very very difficult to fall back into 3.0 level unless you could literally not move at all, but that's a very rare exception.

Eg: I could have played basketball for 20 years, but if I have no concept of basketball strategy, plays, how to shoot, how to defend, how to dribble, I would still consider myself a beginner. My concept of basketball is "getting the ball in the hoop." That's a beginner haha. Not trying to insult, not trying to be dismissive, just calling it imo what it is. There's no shame in being a beginner. To me it's the players who are real beginners who think they are pros or think they are better than certain drills/progessions because "they are experienced" which really hurts the game.

And no, I would never have demonstrated frying pan smash, but it doesn't seem like your pro did that either? He just mentioned if they were doing frying pan smash they shouldn't turn sideways?

At my old work place we classified NTRP into general categories (assuming players were 18-25 years of age):

1. NTRP 2.5 - Never played a "absolute beginner"
2. NTRP 3.0 - Casually played, maybe middle school lessons (a beginner)
3. NTRP 3.5 - Highschool player, somewhat competitive (varsity in most cases)
4. NTRP 4.0 - Very competitive highschool player, occasional USTA tournament
5. NTRP 4.5+ USTA Tournament Junior, college etc.

Obviously that is not absolute rules, but I felt it was a great way to classify most people in a better sense. Obviously still lots of variation within, but I really liked it put like that.
 
Last edited:
S&V-not_dead_yet

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
OrangePower said:
My 2 cents...
Sure, it's great to teach beginners correct technique from the get-go.
But, if they are unable to get the ball in play using proper technique, and then get frustrated over it, some at least are likely to just stop playing.
Yes, it's hard to 'unlearn' bad technique. You know what's even harder? Utilizing good technique when you're no longer playing the game ;-)
So I think it has to be a case by case decision, based on the interest / commitment / frustration tolerance of the student.
If the student is willing to stick with it and see it through no matter what, stick to correct technique from the get-go.
But if the student is going to give up unless they are having fun and keeping the ball in play, the first priority is to make sure they stay in the game.
Click to expand...

I think being flexible, not dogmatic, will work out the best for both student and teacher.

In addition to my analogy about Blackjack [trust me, there's relevance], I think about learning how to play the piano. You have the strict teacher who demands proper technique and does nothing but scales for 3 years until you know the pentatonic, multi-chromatic chords forwards and backwards and the looser teacher who asks the student "what do you want to learn how to play?"

I'd argue the former is more likely to produce a stellar player and will have a huge dropout rate. The latter would result in more people actually enjoying playing the piano. I would go for the latter.
 
ARKustom93

ARKustom93

Professional
Cindysphinx said:
Yes, that is sensible.

Let me ask you this. Of your six players of same 3.0 USTA rating, only a couple are having any success turning sideways for an overhead. They think they are sideways, but they are not (I'm guilty as charged on that one). What do you do at that point?
Click to expand...

Moderately high, but slightly short OH feeds, forcing them to move a couple of steps forward to hit the ball at full extension. Feels more natural to go into square or closed stance. In tough cases, I'd have them move forward with 2 -3 skip steps, which will force the turn. Try it, and you'll get the idea.
If you like I'll explain the entire progression into full-range directional movement ...
 
Cindysphinx

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
I guess we shouldn't get too caught up in semantics.

I would say a beginner is someone who is beginning something. They are new to this endeavor. If you have been doing the thing for years but are no good at it, you are not a beginner. You are just no good at it.

If you have been playing 10 years and have a USTA rating of 3.0, you are not a beginner no matter how awful your strokes are, IMHO. You are, for whatever reason, competitive with other 3.0 players but not strong enough to be competitive with 3.5s. People who play 3.0 tennis may not look great compared to higher rated players, but they are playing a competitive sport with rules and are doing it well enough to win or lose.

I remember when I was 3.0-ish that stronger players sometimes made little effort to hide their disdain and scorn. I suppose that is OK for other rec players, but I think teaching pros have to be very careful about this.

What I am gently saying is that if a teaching pro in a clinic of 3.0 USTA league women referred to them as "bare beginners" as you did in your post above, they would be offended. If you didn't know that before, consider yourself warned.
 
Fxanimator1

Fxanimator1

Hall of Fame
Cindysphinx said:
I guess we shouldn't get too caught up in semantics.
What I am gently saying is that if a teaching pro in a clinic of 3.0 USTA league women referred to them as "bare beginners" as you did in your post above, they would be offended. If you didn't know that before, consider yourself warned.
Click to expand...
Yeah, we really shouldn't get "caught up in semantics", but I consider the bold text above a threat. I mean, what are the consequences if he continues to refer to 3.0 players as beginners? Are you going to seek litigation...for "malpractice", tell his mom, write your representative? This is such a condescending post overall, it speaks volumes about you.
 
Last edited:
F

FedererExpress

Rookie
Cindysphinx said:
I guess we shouldn't get too caught up in semantics.

I would say a beginner is someone who is beginning something. They are new to this endeavor. If you have been doing the thing for years but are no good at it, you are not a beginner. You are just no good at it.

If you have been playing 10 years and have a USTA rating of 3.0, you are not a beginner no matter how awful your strokes are, IMHO. You are, for whatever reason, competitive with other 3.0 players but not strong enough to be competitive with 3.5s. People who play 3.0 tennis may not look great compared to higher rated players, but they are playing a competitive sport with rules and are doing it well enough to win or lose.

I remember when I was 3.0-ish that stronger players sometimes made little effort to hide their disdain and scorn. I suppose that is OK for other rec players, but I think teaching pros have to be very careful about this.

What I am gently saying is that if a teaching pro in a clinic of 3.0 USTA league women referred to them as "bare beginners" as you did in your post above, they would be offended. If you didn't know that before, consider yourself warned.
Click to expand...

Makes me sad to hear haha. But that is the reality of the sport. People are snobby and arrogant in tennis. I've been around it enough to completely agree it happens all the time. I try my best not discourage or to hit with any player of any skill if they ask as many times as you stated "they are trying, and want to get better" no reason to ever be snobby imo.

As for the women in the 3.0 clinic... I've learned enough tennis politics to understand that is definitely something you would NEVER say because people everyone gets offended over nothing nowadays ;)
 
Cindysphinx

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
Fxanimator1 said:
Yeah, we really shouldn't get "caught up in semantics", but I consider the bold text above a threat. I mean, what are the consequences if he continues to refer to 3.0 players as beginners? Are you going to seek litigation...for "malpractice", tell his mom, write your representative? This is such a condescending post overall, it speaks volumes about you.
Click to expand...
Sorry, poor choice of words on my part.

What I meant is your students would perhaps take offense if you referred to them as "bare beginners." Among teaching pros, this sort of description is probably common and not viewed as problematic. I can understand what Fed was trying to say -- but I can also see why a 3.0 league player would be cheesed off to be called a "bare beginner."

I am trying to tell you that students might view it quite differently and someone could complain if they knew you had said that. Or more likely, they would just not use you for lessons anymore and it would result in unhelpful word of mouth. Those are the potential "consequences."

Honestly, it is no skin off my nose if this teaching pro says anything that a 3.0 might find offensive. I have never met the guy and never will, and I am not a 3.0.

I just thought he (and other pros) would be interested in hearing what students think when they get a whiff of any teaching pro who appears to diss them in any way.
 
Cindysphinx

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
FedererExpress said:
Makes me sad to hear haha. But that is the reality of the sport. People are snobby and arrogant in tennis. I've been around it enough to completely agree it happens all the time. I try my best not discourage or to hit with any player of any skill if they ask as many times as you stated "they are trying, and want to get better" no reason to ever be snobby imo.

As for the women in the 3.0 clinic... I've learned enough tennis politics to understand that is definitely something you would NEVER say because people everyone gets offended over nothing nowadays ;)
Click to expand...
Great, thanks. That's good to hear. Good luck and good lessons.
 
Dartagnan64

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
newpball said:
On the other hand life without drama is just boring.

80762_home_hero.jpg


:D
Click to expand...

Life without action, challenges and some unpredictability is boring. Life without drama is joyful.
 
S&V-not_dead_yet

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
Fxanimator1 said:
Yeah, we really shouldn't get "caught up in semantics", but I consider the bold text above a threat. I mean, what are the consequences if he continues to refer to 3.0 players as beginners? Are you going to seek litigation...for "malpractice", tell his mom, write your representative? This is such a condescending post overall, it speaks volumes about you.
Click to expand...

I don't think it was either. I think Cindy was just offering some "words of wisdom", especially from a student's standpoint. And, based on what FedEx has said, he doesn't appear to be the condescending type to his students anyway.
 
L

LeeD

Bionic Poster
The instructor pointed out the CORRECT way to hit overheads, then provided the less serious students an easier alternative. Good.
And you don't teach a 3.0 short angle half volleys, nor do you teach a ATP serve stroke.
 
ARKustom93

ARKustom93

Professional
Cindysphinx said:
Sorry, poor choice of words on my part.

What I meant is your students would perhaps take offense if you referred to them as "bare beginners." Among teaching pros, this sort of description is probably common and not viewed as problematic. I can understand what Fed was trying to say -- but I can also see why a 3.0 league player would be cheesed off to be called a "bare beginner."

I am trying to tell you that students might view it quite differently and someone could complain if they knew you had said that. Or more likely, they would just not use you for lessons anymore and it would result in unhelpful word of mouth. Those are the potential "consequences."

Honestly, it is no skin off my nose if this teaching pro says anything that a 3.0 might find offensive. I have never met the guy and never will, and I am not a 3.0.

I just thought he (and other pros) would be interested in hearing what students think when they get a whiff of any teaching pro who appears to diss them in any way.
Click to expand...

How about this one(me, commenting on an over-ambitious shot attempt by one of my students, in a group setting): "Look girl, that sh=t ain't gonna fly in a million years, ... right now, you don't have that shot ..."
 
D

Deleted member 23235

Guest
Cindysphinx said:
My sister is a 3.0, and she was in a 3.0 clinic. The topic was overheads. The pro was teaching overheads in the standard way -- telling the players they need to turn sideways. It was not going well -- lots of missed overheads and frustration.

After a while, he called them all together and said something like this (as relayed by my sister):

"OK. The correct way to hit an overhead is to be in Continental grip and turn sideways. You ladies are struggling because you are in your forehand grip instead of Continental grip. If you use a forehand grip and turn sideways, you will be directing your ball off the court.

"You have two solutions for your overheads. You can use Continental and turn sideways. Or you can stay in forehand grip, but you will need to remain facing the net and not turn sideways."

My sister reported that when the ladies began hitting their overheads while facing the net in forehand grip, they were able to hit stronger and more consistent overheads. My sister wanted to know what I thought of this.

I said I thought it was horrific advice and this pro should have his teaching certificate yanked. Better, I said, is to emphasize all of the reasons why these relative beginners should get in the habit of using the correct grip. I said that hitting overheads while spreadeagle to the net will prevent the ladies from moving backward for overheads safely and effectively. It will reinforce the idea that the forehand grip is appropriate when moving inside the court when the Continental is the better choice. If they later start volleying correctly in Continental, they will develop grip confusion when the ball starts moving faster at the higher levels and they don't have time to toggle between Continental and Eastern. And it will prevent them from learning all sorts of transition shots that use Continental -- transition volleys, half-volleys, low volleys, slices.

What do you think? Is the pro's advice a reasonable work-around for 3.0s who are struggling with overheads? Or should he have continued to urge Continental + sideways?
Click to expand...
That's what I would've told them...
I might have added the pros/cons for why you want to hit either way (vs. describing implementation of both ways)
Frying Pan - Pro: easier to make contact, intuitive
Frying Pan - Con: less power, less mobility, less control (no spin), ultimately limits that particularly stroke to a lower level of tennis
Conti - Pro: power, mobility, control, and the "right way" to hit it...
Conti - Con: learning curve to hit (possibly negative benefit to start), requires much more practice to do properly (compared to frying pan).

At the very least it will weed out who really wants to get better. I might have also given a progression guide for FryingPan folks who want to slowly migrate to conti over time... but at that point, I'd be aware I was talking too much, and want to get back to just feeding balls...

I have had at least a handful of students (1-1 lesson) of varying ages 6-18 (and sadly even 1-2 adults), where we just spent a decent portion of the time (15-20m) , just getting them to move and catch the ball (forget about making contact with a racquet over their head).. now imagine that level of coordination in a group class... no way I'm teaching continental grip + turning sideways, when they can't even make contact.

Cindy you sound like an ideal student, with decent talent/experience and drive to practice, that coaches look for (ie. do this one tweak, a few reps, and boom, you're hitting a killer <fill-in-the-stroke>)... but that is not all students.
 
J

jhupper

Rookie
I'd say it's probably good management of the session. Pretty demoralizing to go through a session missing every ball. Likely to go home pissed and potentially unlikely to persist.

Little victories keep you coming back and you then tweak bit by bit till you get there. Very few people lift a racket and do it right straight away.

Also what chore for a group session. The coach has to keep everyone motivated and engaged and that's tough if you have a group of folk swinging wild with no success
 
Dartagnan64

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
Cindysphinx said:
Sorry, poor choice of words on my part.

What I meant is your students would perhaps take offense if you referred to them as "bare beginners." Among teaching pros, this sort of description is probably common and not viewed as problematic. I can understand what Fed was trying to say -- but I can also see why a 3.0 league player would be cheesed off to be called a "bare beginner."

I am trying to tell you that students might view it quite differently and someone could complain if they knew you had said that. Or more likely, they would just not use you for lessons anymore and it would result in unhelpful word of mouth. Those are the potential "consequences."

Honestly, it is no skin off my nose if this teaching pro says anything that a 3.0 might find offensive. I have never met the guy and never will, and I am not a 3.0.

I just thought he (and other pros) would be interested in hearing what students think when they get a whiff of any teaching pro who appears to diss them in any way.
Click to expand...

Would they be less cheesed off by being referred to as what they really are: ****ty players?

If you are a 3.0 lifer, you are a bad tennis player with limited skill. 3.0 should largely be a transitional state with 3.5 being the minimal goal. I've spent most of my life at 3.0 because I just never put any effort into tennis other than casual matches with friends and wife. Now that at age 50 I'e taken the sport more seriously, its not been hard to get good enough to beat most of the 3.0's and some of the 3.5's. My wife is beating most of the ladies near the top of the ladies league with her frying pan volleys and overheads.
 
F

FedererExpress

Rookie
Dartagnan64 said:
Would they be less cheesed off by being referred to as what they really are: ****ty players?

If you are a 3.0 lifer, you are a bad tennis player with limited skill. 3.0 should largely be a transitional state with 3.5 being the minimal goal. I've spent most of my life at 3.0 because I just never put any effort into tennis other than casual matches with friends and wife. Now that at age 50 I'e taken the sport more seriously, its not been hard to get good enough to beat most of the 3.0's and some of the 3.5's. My wife is beating most of the ladies near the top of the ladies league with her frying pan volleys and overheads.
Click to expand...

Lol, tennis politics... no one wants to really know how bad they are:
 
S&V-not_dead_yet

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
Dartagnan64 said:
Would they be less cheesed off by being referred to as what they really are: ****ty players?

If you are a 3.0 lifer, you are a bad tennis player with limited skill. 3.0 should largely be a transitional state with 3.5 being the minimal goal. I've spent most of my life at 3.0 because I just never put any effort into tennis other than casual matches with friends and wife. Now that at age 50 I'e taken the sport more seriously, its not been hard to get good enough to beat most of the 3.0's and some of the 3.5's. My wife is beating most of the ladies near the top of the ladies league with her frying pan volleys and overheads.
Click to expand...

Kind of harsh, no? Your advancement could be due to your athletic ability, which not everybody has. Maybe also a drive to improve. But you're trying to prove a point using 2 data points. That's anecdotal.

To be picky, everyone has limited skills because, by definition, no one is unlimited in skill. And 3.0 is a bit below average in the NTRP distribution but "bad"?
 
Dartagnan64

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
S&V-not_dead_yet said:
Kind of harsh, no? Your advancement could be due to your athletic ability, which not everybody has. Maybe also a drive to improve. But you're trying to prove a point using 2 data points. That's anecdotal.

To be picky, everyone has limited skills because, by definition, no one is unlimited in skill. And 3.0 is a bit below average in the NTRP distribution but "bad"?
Click to expand...

I think of myself as a "bad" tennis player. Nothing harsh about it. The 4.5's and higher are the good tennis players at my club and I'm nowhere near that level. I've improved because I tried, not because I was athletic. I know my ceiling based on my skills and likely will always be a bad tennis player. Cindy's sister will also likely remain a bad tennis player.

But bad tennis players can still have fun. They can get more consistent. But they don't have to learn the best technique for every shot. If they can make a shot simpler for themselves they can still play fun competitive tennis. In my league I see all sorts of bad technique goofy shots that are successful.

If I was coaching players I wouldn't worry about overhead technique until much later in the skills progression. It is perhaps the last skill enyone ever gets good at. The number one thing i'd work on with developing players is "learning how to make the ball go down" That one skill alone will open up the court to a million and one possibilities. With that one skill you can hit with more pace, more angles and can drive net players batty with dippers.
it's the one thing that changed my game from a non-competitive bad player to a competitive bad player.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BorisBecker1872
Warmup procedure in a doubles match
Replies
9
Views
1K
OrangePower
OrangePower
U
Volleying with Eastern forehand grip
Replies
17
Views
6K
siber222000
siber222000
M
Overheads/Smashes.
Replies
6
Views
1K
ffrpg
F
OnTheLine
Grip change during point
Replies
9
Views
548
RiverRat
RiverRat
P
Having trouble at NET, FH volley good -- but BH volley is unstable and not punching..
Replies
23
Views
4K
TennisCJC
T
Top