Why Do Some Athletes Always Win?

marc45 · Sep 7, 2013

Here's a great recent article by Malcolm Gladwell that I think everyone here should read, especially those who continually hate on players who can't beat the top guys

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/criti...0909crat_atlarge_gladwell?mbid=social_retweet

romeo8880 · Sep 7, 2013

marc45 said:
here's a great recent article by Malcom Gladwell that I think everyone here should read, especially those who continually hate on players who can't beat the top guys

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/criti...0909crat_atlarge_gladwell?mbid=social_retweet

I'm not going to read that article because I already know. Some people are just mentally tougher than others. It all comes down to the mental aspect.

marc45 · Sep 7, 2013

romeo8880 said:
I'm not going to read that article because I already know. Some people are just mentally tougher than others. It all comes down to the mental aspect.

definitely the way to go about things...good luck

and my bad, meant this for the other forum..moderator can switch it if they like, sorry

bullfan · Sep 7, 2013

Because their inner self hates to lose and they battle more.

90's Clay · Sep 7, 2013

Because the athletes below the top 6-7 world ranking in this sport are pretty subpar at this moment in time

The conditions of the present day also make it much easier to be consistently dominant at this point in time.

Before you were dealing with polarized conditions and a different seeding system which made upsets to top guys more possible to occur

boramiNYC · Sep 7, 2013

because it's not random

ruerooo · Sep 7, 2013

My inner self hates to lose.
My outer self doesn't always oblige it and win, though.

NEW_BORN · Sep 7, 2013

Some men/women are just born winners, it's steeped in their blood.

KineticChain · Sep 7, 2013

The article has more to do with muscle and endurance sports than a skill sport like tennis. While now a days stamina and endurance is a lot more important in tennis, it is hardly the deciding factor in most matches. The biggest factor is mental toughness, the ability to hit corners and lines and not make unforced errors. Having your red blood cells replenished at a higher rate than anyone is great for a sport like cycling, long distance running, long distance swimming ect where muscle endurance is all the sport is. But that can only get you so far in tennis if you keep making unforced errors before your opponent or your opponent can hit winners on you regularly.

The dominant tennis players are just more mentally tough and confident than the rest. It could be in some part due to a genetically better tennis body, but like I said, you are only as good as your ability to keep the ball in.

Fedinkum · Sep 7, 2013

Think of it this way: is not that some players are always winners, it is the winners tend to win all the time.

martini1 · Sep 7, 2013

marc45 said:
Here's a great recent article by Malcolm Gladwell that I think everyone here should read, especially those who continually hate on players who can't beat the top guys

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/criti...0909crat_atlarge_gladwell?mbid=social_retweet

I haven't read it yet but I can summarize this in just one word - clutch. More so in tennis. If you can win the important points there is no way to lose.

cjs · Sep 8, 2013

romeo8880 said:
I'm not going to read that article because I already know...

Ignorance is bliss, isn't it?

New Daddy · Sep 8, 2013

KineticChain said:
The article has more to do with muscle and endurance sports than a skill sport like tennis. While now a days stamina and endurance is a lot more important in tennis, it is hardly the deciding factor in most matches. The biggest factor is mental toughness, the ability to hit corners and lines and not make unforced errors. Having your red blood cells replenished at a higher rate than anyone is great for a sport like cycling, long distance running, long distance swimming ect where muscle endurance is all the sport is. But that can only get you so far in tennis if you keep making unforced errors before your opponent or your opponent can hit winners on you regularly.

The dominant tennis players are just more mentally tough and confident than the rest. It could be in some part due to a genetically better tennis body, but like I said, you are only as good as your ability to keep the ball in.

I totally agree with this comment. You cannot explain why a mentally strong player like Nadal prevails with just genetic composition.

marc45 · Sep 8, 2013

New Daddy said:
I totally agree with this comment. You cannot explain why a mentally strong player like Nadal prevails with just genetic composition.

That's true, and I understand the other comments above, but let me ask you one thing...is it indisputable that the Big 4 are also the best athletes on tour, the best combination of speed, strength, flexibility, size?...I don't think there's any doubt about that, none...What the article suggests is that those guys Were born with more than Ferrer, and Del Potro, and Berdych, and Wawrinka..people do need to consider that...It's not all just working hard, many guys do..it's not just mental toughness, though those guys are great...this is an incredibly physical and athletic sport and those guys were gifted from birth...I think considering that to some people means you're taking away from them, it shouldn't..but it also shouldn't be forgotten that so many others simply don't have that and never will

put it this way, do you think Serena's athletic ability has a little something to do with her success, especially lately?..can you imagine if she had 3 other players on tour with her physical abilities?..there's nobody even close, unlike the men

CoachSubway · Sep 8, 2013

marc45 said:
That's true, and I understand the other comments above, but let me ask you one thing...is it indisputable that the Big 4 are also the best athletes on tour, the best combination of speed, strength, flexibility, size?...I don't think there's any doubt about that, none...What the article suggests is that those guys Were born with more than Ferrer, and Del Potro, and Berdych, and Wawrinka..people do need to consider that...It's not all just working hard, many guys do..it's not just mental toughness, though those guys are great...this is an incredibly physical and athletic sport and those guys were gifted from birth...i think considering that to some people means you're taking away from them, it shouldn't..but it also shouldn't be forgotten that so many others simply don't have that and never will

put it this way, do you think Serena's athletic ability has a little something to do with her success, especially lately?..can you imagine if she had 3 other players on tour with her physical abilities?..there's nobody even close unlike the men

I agree. While the mental component in tennis is indisputably important - possibly the most important - it's absolutely the case that a player able to recover faster or last longer would find it easier to perform under tough conditions. The reason? Footwork. Doesn't matter how mentally tough you are, if your footwork isn't good, you're not going to perform well. And if you're not fit, your footwork isn't going to be good. So people who are genetically endowed with the ability to perform at a high level for a greater period of time will definitely be at an advantage.

marc45 · Sep 8, 2013

CoachSubway said:
I agree. While the mental component in tennis is indisputably important - possibly the most important - it's absolutely the case that a player able to recover faster or last longer would find it easier to perform under tough conditions. The reason? Footwork. Doesn't matter how mentally tough you are, if your footwork isn't good, you're not going to perform well. And if you're not fit, your footwork isn't going to be good. So people who are genetically endowed with the ability to perform at a high level for a greater period of time will definitely be at an advantage.

right, if given a choice would Del Potro choose to move like Nadal or Del Potro?..would Isner choose to move like Isner or Federer?...would David Ferrer like to be taller?...would Tsonga like to be not so thickly built?..would Berdych like to be quicker?...there's only so much these folks can do....I do give Murray a lot of credit, he seems a little less athletically gifted than the other three, though still more than these other guys, but he did make a transformation

spinovic · Sep 8, 2013

They always win because they are better. Djokovic is a better player than Stan. And, over the course of 5 sets, more often than not, he's going to come out on top.

marc45 · Sep 8, 2013

spinovic said:
They always win because they are better. Djokovic is a better player than Stan. And, over the course of 5 sets, more often than not, he's going to come out on top.

I should point out I put it in because some guy was just ragging on Isner for not getting it done, and another for all the same guys winning..btw, Isner has gotten himself into great shape, and it's still not enough and probably never will be

Crose · Sep 8, 2013

marc45 said:
I should point out I put it in because some guy was just ragging on Isner for not getting it done, and another for all the same guys winning..btw, Isner has gotten himself into great shape, and it's still not enough and probably never will be

Isner lost because he's a servebot with bad movement (despite working on his fitness) and the return game of a junior. He lost to a more complete tennis player in Kohlschreiber, a guy who relies on his overall game rather than one aspect of it.

As for your question, they win because it's a best out of 5. We see guys getting upset all the time in all the other tournaments, but it's different in slams. Anyone can paint the lines and get a set, and it's just one more to get a match. But in a BO5, the greats have plenty of time to get a read on the opponent, try things out, find out what works, and apply what they've learned. Save for massive collapses like Murray/Federer at this USO, it takes a lot to knock out the best.

marc45 · Sep 9, 2013

Crose said:
Isner lost because he's a servebot with bad movement (despite working on his fitness) and the return game of a junior. He lost to a more complete tennis player in Kohlschreiber, a guy who relies on his overall game rather than one aspect of it.

As for your question, they win because it's a best out of 5. We see guys getting upset all the time in all the other tournaments, but it's different in slams. Anyone can paint the lines and get a set, and it's just one more to get a match. But in a BO5, the greats have plenty of time to get a read on the opponent, try things out, find out what works, and apply what they've learned. Save for massive collapses like Murray/Federer at this USO, it takes a lot to knock out the best.

he's not just serve, he has a big and solid forehand..if he didn't have that he wouldn't even get to tiebreaks..it really doesn't help the argument to use terms like servebot...his other weaknesses are apparent, his forehand isn't one of them and denying he has a good one actually takes away from other players who beat him..btw, neither Karlovic (he has an excellent and effective slice) and Anderson (solid groundies all around) are servebots either, there are no servebots on tour.....terms like that I'm sure are why players probably have little respect for fan's knowledege...heck, there are even people who think Sampras was a servebot

New Daddy · Sep 9, 2013

CoachSubway said:
I agree. While the mental component in tennis is indisputably important - possibly the most important - it's absolutely the case that a player able to recover faster or last longer would find it easier to perform under tough conditions. The reason? Footwork. Doesn't matter how mentally tough you are, if your footwork isn't good, you're not going to perform well. And if you're not fit, your footwork isn't going to be good. So people who are genetically endowed with the ability to perform at a high level for a greater period of time will definitely be at an advantage.

There is no one single factor that separates a champion from the rest. All of what has been discussed are important: physique, mental toughness, training regimen, etc. I don't doubt genetic endowment is a huge advantage; I never said that.

What I object to about the New Yorker article is that the author talks as if the genetics were the invisible, secret advantage that the champions have over the ordinary. He talks about the Kenyan's inborn gift for running long distance. Ok, then what separates one Kenyan runner from another? A minute difference in the genetic composition? what about caucasian runners who win marathons? Yes, genetic advantage is just one factor, but I don't see it can be the ultimate or decisive factor.

Smasher08 · Sep 9, 2013

KineticChain said:
The article has more to do with muscle and endurance sports than a skill sport like tennis. While now a days stamina and endurance is a lot more important in tennis, it is hardly the deciding factor in most matches. The biggest factor is mental toughness, the ability to hit corners and lines and not make unforced errors. Having your red blood cells replenished at a higher rate than anyone is great for a sport like cycling, long distance running, long distance swimming ect where muscle endurance is all the sport is. But that can only get you so far in tennis if you keep making unforced errors before your opponent or your opponent can hit winners on you regularly.

The dominant tennis players are just more mentally tough and confident than the rest. It could be in some part due to a genetically better tennis body, but like I said, you are only as good as your ability to keep the ball in.

Um, no.

The knowledge that you will never fatigue is the source of tremendous confidence. And the fact that you will never fatigue will undoubtedly facilitate a game based upon grinding and retrieval.

For me, the most revealing part of the article was this:

“Dope is not really a magical boost as much as it is a way to control against declines,” Hamilton writes. Doping meant that cyclists finally could train as hard as they wanted. It was the means by which pudgy underdogs could compete with natural wonders. “People think doping is for lazy people who want to avoid hard work,” Hamilton writes. For many riders, the opposite was true:

EPO granted the ability to suffer more; to push yourself farther and harder than you’d ever imagined, in both training and racing. It rewarded precisely what I was good at: having a great work ethic, pushing myself to the limit and past it. I felt almost giddy: this was a new landscape. I began to see races differently. They weren’t rolls of the genetic dice, or who happened to be on form that day. They didn’t depend on who you were. They depended on what you did—how hard you worked, how attentive and professional you were in your preparation.

marc45 · Sep 11, 2013

here's a follow-up, another review from the Washington Post..loved the part about finding athletes to play particular sports..the us needs better athletes to play tennis http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...3-b9b6fe264871_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop

KineticChain · Sep 13, 2013

Smasher08 said:
Um, no.

The knowledge that you will never fatigue is the source of tremendous confidence. And the fact that you will never fatigue will undoubtedly facilitate a game based upon grinding and retrieval.

For me, the most revealing part of the article was this:

"Um, no" right back at ya. You seem to have a hard time understanding that doping doesn't keep your ball from hitting the net or going out.. or that it doesn't subside competitive nervousness. It's not magic. I know I can't persuade you in any fashion because your mind has been locked in on the issue... probably because your favorite player has been beaten by someone. As I see it, the doping accusations on this forum are mostly driven by fanboy-ism. A poster's favorite player gets beaten and the poster wants an excuse as to why his favorite was beaten. This in turn creates enormous confirmation bias in order to support the argument that the only reason his favorite player was beaten was because the opponent cheated by using PEDS or doping.

Legend of Borg · Sep 13, 2013

marc45 said:
I should point out I put it in because some guy was just ragging on Isner for not getting it done, and another for all the same guys winning..btw, Isner has gotten himself into great shape, and it's still not enough and probably never will be

So you think Isner's loss has nothing to do with Isner but rather with the genes that Mama and Papa Isner gave him?

Like a genetic cap to how athletic you can get?

bullfan · Sep 13, 2013

marc45 said:
he's not just serve, he has a big and solid forehand..if he didn't have that he wouldn't even get to tiebreaks..it really doesn't help the argument to use terms like servebot...his other weaknesses are apparent, his forehand isn't one of them and denying he has a good one actually takes away from other players who beat him..btw, neither Karlovic (he has an excellent and effective slice) and Anderson (solid groundies all around) are servebots either, there are no servebots on tour.....terms like that I'm sure are why players probably have little respect for fan's knowledege...heck, there are even people who think Sampras was a servebot

I disagree about his forehand. There's a huge difference between Isner's forehand and DelPo's. DelPo has a powerful forehand, Isner doesn't. Isner is a servebot. The rest of his game is pretty subpar by comparison to his serve.

moonballs · Sep 13, 2013

NEW_BORN said:
Some men/women are just born winners, it's steeped in their blood.

Or they save some of their blood for the big match or add some juice...

Look at baseball, cycling, Olympics, any sports analysis on winning not providing for doping is useless.

marc45 · Sep 13, 2013

Legend of Borg said:
So you think Isner's loss has nothing to do with Isner but rather with the genes that Mama and Papa Isner gave him?

Like a genetic cap to how athletic you can get?

not nothing, but uh, yeah pretty much.....remember, with your username in particular, and Borg was my first hero, he said tennis is a running sport not a hitting sport...so, yeah kind of..not discounting mental and emotional aspects but it's tough for a guy like him

marc45 · Sep 13, 2013

bullfan said:
I disagree about his forehand. There's a huge difference between Isner's forehand and DelPo's. DelPo has a powerful forehand, Isner doesn't. Isner is a servebot. The rest of his game is pretty subpar by comparison to his serve.

well, it's tough to compare anyone's forehand to Delpo's when he's healthy and hitting it, let's be fair....although he rarely is and does like he used to

Isner's forehand looked quite good when he was going toe to toe with Rafa at RG in five sets....his weaknesses are obviously his backhand and movement and return...and yes, the mental and emotional part need to improve

bullfan · Sep 13, 2013

I think the winning aspect is more prevalent in individual sporting events, where winning and losing is based on the person. In US football, teams may be focused on the quarterback, but he doesn't control the defense or special teams. In tennis, it's down to who's on stage.

Why Do Some Athletes Always Win?

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Banned

Hall of Fame

Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Legend

Hall of Fame

Professional

Rookie

G.O.A.T.

Rookie

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Professional

G.O.A.T.

Rookie

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Similar threads