Discussion in 'Tennis Tips/Instruction' started by Golden Retriever, Aug 18, 2006.
After that kickass all I need to know is - where is kiteboard?
Good to hear you're OK !!!
Did you know RalphEhni, the psychedelic airbrusher for LocalMotion?
He was part of the SanFrancisco crowd growing up, we all threatened to kill ourselves by 27, and he was the first glasser for WiseSurfboards. He glassed about 200 of my shapes, moved to Oahu, bought into KuilimaCondos, and PeeWee took over and glassed about that many of my shapes for WiseSurfboards.
I think I went over to that glassing apartment countless times when the surf was big enough to make the less crowded with SouthShore'ers. I was there winters, '77, 78.
EricForgerson, another Sunset regular, bought a house up above Sunset, on the hill where they ride MX bikes..... ComstockHill ???
EdMcDouna was part owner, along with Rory, of the house just left of Pipe looking towards shore. I grew up surfing with him in SF, and he's currently hiding out at Stinson...from the law.
I went over for less than a month winter years from '75 thru '83 for the SurfDoc's Medical Convention at Sunset (3 buildings right as you look out), and later on, my buds TomCastleton and JohnHill lived at the OopulaSt. condos right at Backyards...I had a key into there so I could surf Velzy, but only windsurfed 'yards and Revelations (outside Velzyland).
Hope you're doing well.
KIDS ?? Congrats.
Funny how most people here can't seem to ever get his name right.
It's BUNGALO Bill, not "Bungalow".
welcome back bb
That's because he's got called so many different names in here. :twisted:
I just call him bb, not even capital b, to save some keystrokes. hehe
I think it might be because on the old boards my nickname was Bungalow Bill. For some reason when they switched everyone to this board, my nickname was lost and I had to resubmit it without the "w".
I have been called worse.
It has been a long time Lee. My memory of Hawaii is now distant. after our house was condemned (it really was a little rat hole we called home), I worked for my roommate up in Wahiawa and silkscreened the decals and t-shirts for Local Motion. It is about all I remember besides the surfing, parties, and "faces" I met over those years.
Thanks everyone for the greetings back here. I dont know how much time I can spend here but it really does feel nice to be appreciated even when I know I can be a grumpy old man.
What they said!
Welcome back, BB!
welcome back, BB. Hope u stay and provide instructions. LeeD has been polluting the board with all sort of crazy things. hehe just kidding, LeeD.
wow...that really got to you, didn't it? that was me. remember me? i used to be under CertifiedJatt; don't worry, the mods know. i was banned because i forgot my password and the email to which my password would've been sent....so i had to create a new account in consultation with a mod.
i said it before, Bungalo and I'll say it again ( i'll start off civil but i'll count on you to make it otherwise):
1. footwork is about efficiency. in tennis, efficiency means getting to the ball exactly when you want to get there with the least amount of effort. footwork drills MAY do that, but efficiency is not INHERENT in footwork drills. players move differently. and teaching them a finite number of drill does not make them move better. it's exactly like memorizing the formulas for a math test, instead of understanding the fundamentals.
2. the problem with coaching is that coaches aren't held accountable. they can make whatever claim they want, without showing a CAUSAL link between what they're saying and how it's helping a player. providing examples of players is not proof. that's like saying "if you wear a red shirt, you will win" and then pointing to federer winning in hamburg wearing a red shirt and saying "see, he wore a red shirt and he won."
beyond teaching how to hold the racket (which itself can be learned through a page out of a book, through trial and error, etc.) coaches do nothing. they may serve as shrinks at the professional level. but at the non-professional level, they exist merely out of tradition.
no coach has invented a shot; players invent it. and players invent shots when they go AGAINST THE CONVENTION, i.e., against what is taught. therefore, coaches inhibit progress by teaching everyone the same nonsense day after day.
3. all you have to do ISSS run to the ball. tennis isn't hard to understand intellectually; it's hard to do, which is why so few actually do it well. if tennis could be taught just with reasoning and lectures, we'd all be awesome. in reality, natural talent will account for most of a player's success. sports require a great deal of intuition. do i go for the lob or do i go for the DTL? these cannot be taught. you can give a player a fixed number of scenarios in which one might be better than the other, but you cannot teach a player to react and improvise efficiently and effectively in every possible combination of occurrences.
Well that explains it.
Coaches don't invent shots, but they figure out a way to teach it! Thats what a tennis coach is for and if you believe on the pro tour that a tennis coach is only really a psychologist, you need to reassess your thinking.
I could make up a shot, but don't really know how I did it cause it came naturally to me and because I can't see myself but I coach will sit there, analyze, look at what I am doing and figure out how to teach it to others. Thats their job!
Good coaches watch juniors, they watch whats happening to the game. They are not thinking about how tennis is played now, but how tennis will be played 10 years from now! No one will be dead on in their analysis, and there are detours along the way but top level junior tennis is the future of how the game will be played and evolve. Coaches in any sport are always looking at whats changing and find a way to teach it.
If you believe all you have to do is run to the ball then once again you need to rethink your approach to the game. Any pro and any good coach knows that you need proper footwork and movement on the court. Its not just getting to the ball and swinging your tennis racket. At a lower club level sure, but at the top no effin way. Proper footwork regarding getting behind the ball, using your legs to load behind the shot, and having proper balance during and just as importantly after the shot is executed for recover is essential. If you teach just run to the ball and hit it, you'll spend the rest of your life as a coach working with beginners and old ladies. Have fun with that
note: see how civil it is when two canadians argue?!
granted, that coaches teach. i'm not saying coaches don't teach, or can't teach. i'm saying that because tennis isn't intellectually difficult, anyone can do it. however, very few can do it well. i'll try to illustrate my point using an example. Let's say you want to learn addition. I know how to add. so, i teach you how to add. then we get to a stage where you need to know how to carry numbers over. i teach you that. so now, you know how to add 3,45+6,578. What i''m saying is that once you learn the fundamentals (carrying numbers, etc.), you don't need me to teach you how to add 5678988798+9898756748. you know it. the only you get better at it is by doing it. and in the process of doing it, you will discover your OWN shortcuts; you will develop your own way of thinking through the problem.
this is how it is with tennis. a coach may teach you to move a certain way; however, that way may not be efficient for you. so, instead of listening to a coach lecture, play. i would rather play for 500 hours, than play for 250 and get lessons for the other 250. the concept i'm applying is the law of diminishing returns. coaches add very little value beyond teaching the basics. and, from what i'm seen, the people who use coaches are people who emphasize mechanics, and try to deemphasize natural talent. they'll quote einstein when hey said 'genius is 99% perspiration and 1 percent inspiration" or something like that to try to prove their point. truth is, einstein WAS smarter than most folks, at least in some contexts. same with athletes. my quarrel with coaches isn't their argument that they can teach. my problem is with them thinking they're fundamental to tennis. they aren't.
as i've said before. nick bollittieri, the preeminent tennis academy, has a success rate of less than 3%, i.e., less than 3% of people actually make it in the pros. and we're talking about a guy who's been doing this for decades, charging thousands/tens of thousands of dollars, video analysis. there's no accountability.
as far as ''running'' to the ball, after playing for hours and hours, you will learn the best way to get there. the most important prerequisite is that you have talent. it's that component that is being overlooked.
You like debating? You like being challenged? Someone asked if it made sense to pay for many lessons in advance and I replied that I didn't see how it made sense to the customer and you didn't like it. Maybe you were afraid that some student you had might reconsider paying you alot of $$ in advance. I didn't see how it made sense for the student then, and I don't see how it makes sense now. You never offered reasons other than "this is what I think, how dare anyone question me."
But really, you're not so bad BB. What totally disgusts me are your henchmen who defend your psychotic/rudeness and pretend it's not even there. You're at least your own man. Let's see the butt-kissers crawl out of the woodwork to defend your behavior.
You don't need a coach to begin to enjoy tennis, if this is what you are getting that then I agree. Fundamentals are key but after that if the player chooses to just play on their own thats cool. Besides, at the club level not everyone can put what is needed into their tennis cause there are families to take care of, jobs and so on.
However, to get to a level where you're competing against top players or are a top junior player who wants to go to college or try and be a pro then a coach is a must.
The 3% Bollettieri example is true. I'm not sure on the exact figure but he doesn't produce Top 10 talent every year. He does however produce a lot of good college and ITF Futures/Challenger players. Accountability I don't understand what you mean. Are you trying to say that if a player fails its the coaches fault? Its not all up to the coach to take the player to the top, its up to the player. You can have the best coach in the world but if you don't want it enough, or aren't willing to work for it you won't get there. Talent will only take you so far, so will being smart on the court, but tennis is a grind. Not everyone can handle travelling from one site to another, one hotel room to another. Crap courts, bad weather, bad line calls, the competitiveness amongst the players and so on. Everyone has their limit, some can overcome and break through. Others say this isn't for them and go to college, no matter how good they were or their potential and hype as juniors. No shame in anything, its life but to say a coach shouldn't be accountable for that if I understood you correctly I don't agree at all sorry.
I'm wondering though if you've been bs'ed a lot by other coaches while you were learning tennis and have this sort of view. I wouldn't blame you, I see mistakes and bs'ing and some stuff that makes me roll my eyes from tennis coaches all the time. Just gotta find the ones that know what they're talking about want to help you and don't just want your money.
That was all for makesensenotbabies
Often, if not always, coaches are players. And often they used to be very good players. Throws a wrench into the argument, doesn't it?
Hey, Bungalow Bill
What did you kill
HE WENT out tiger hunting with his elephant and gun
In case of accidents he always took his mom
He's the all American bullet-headed saxon mother's son.
All the children sing
Hey Bungalow Bill
What did you kill
Deep in the jungle where the mighty tiger lies
Bill and his elephants were taken by surprise
So Captain Marvel zapped him right between the eyes
All the children sing
Hey, Bungalow Bill
What did you kill
The children asked him if to kill was not a sin
"Not when he looked so fierce", his mummy butted in
"If looks could kill it would have been us instead of him"
All the children sing
Hey, Bungalow Bill
What did you kill
Although I have no medical background, I've been around long enough to recognize anger and hate. I see a lot of it surfacing here and unfortunately its involving a game that means a great deal to most of us. This site is supposed to be about "tennis tips and instruction" and not about venting - there is a separate area for that.
If you disagree with various post, and you have every right to do so, provide some reasoning to support your position rather than just revert to blanket statements that are meaningless or name calling.
Whole lotta man love in this thread don't get me wrong I slap my bball buddies' butts too.
I was gonna try to say something smart bout this hate thing but papa just put something together very well and don't wanna ruin that. One thing though, if you say someone deserve to be banned and they're not... well they're not. You may say the mods are not right but they are the mods, let the refrees ref.
The Bollettieri thing? I just think that 3% is ridiculously high. To put it in perspective, with the same age group, not one high school can produce pro basketball players at that rate. Or look at top soccer clubs' academy, they're not that successful either. Some of us might have heard of the Manchester United Golden Generation - the academy produced 6 top flight players in a couple years, and it was considered the biggest success for a football school ever.
So, you don't have to be good to post, or coach? That's part of the problem here. Bad players driving off legit ones, like Dogherty. If I had the top cream of junior players, all the time, housed together, with multiple cameras, stringing machines, etc, substitute coaches, I wonder if the result would be lower than 3%? He means soccer (football).
What do you think the reason Gilbert took Agassi and Roddick to #1? What do you think he would have done with Blake? He can't play that well, yet he won 20+ tournaments. The very fact that he could not play well, had a bad second serve, ("you are only as good as your second serve.), yet still amassed winning records over more highly talented competition, proved, he had the goods, tactically and psychologically. Can anyone say the same about Anacone? His big tactic was chip and charge, because he knew his groundies could not hang? Lets' see how that would play out in today's game. I don't like Gilbert, nor did I when he was a punk kid, but he gets results, and that deserves respect. Letting the fans vote to decide which guy wins? Who thinks that would be a good idea in the real world?
As with bollettieri- gilbert seems to be a good mentor.
i've never been coached, beyond a couple of ''diagnostic'' lessons i took to see what the coaches would say. what i have seen is a lot of coaching being done, and i've read a lot about coaches and their techniques/teachings.
what i'm saying is only this: there is NOTHING inherently difficult in tennis that requires a coach in order to be taught properly. as i said, coaches DO teach and do serve as intermediaries between the people who innovate and the people who can apply that innovation. however, you don't need a coach to TEACH you those things because they are based entirely on senses that we all posses; sight and sound. if i want to copy nadal's forehand, i can record it, take pictures of it, and duplicate it. if i practice for 1000 hours, i may a forehand that is comparable to his. however, i may never achieve the same level of proficiency because i may not be as talented as he is. same with footwork. i doubt it was a coach who said "hey, before returning serve or as a preparation tactic, what if the players did a split step?" the evolution of tennis happens without coaches, on the court, by the players.
the key here is a couple of things:
1. tennis isn't intellectually challenging, so, you don't NEED someone to teach it to you. you can learn it on your own. it isn't like other disciplines.
2. a person's success in sports depends FUNDAMENTALLY on his or her talent. talent probably makes up for 90% of a player's success. the other 10 is the discipline and off court labour. you have to be born with the right genes.
my emphasis has always been on providing a causal link between a coach's suggestions and a player's success, or even a strong correlation. most coaches do not look at college players for innovation and technique. they go straight to the pros. and even in the pros, they're aren't looking at guy ranked 153. they're looking at the top 5-10 guys. yet, these are the players that are inherently different from other coaches. look at nadal and his unique input to the game, and federer's. so, bollitieri may produce many college level players, but, who cares about them? what matters is the pros, because it is upon their tactics that coaches build their teachings. and if a "world class" coach has a 3% success rate with pros, it is a pretty good indication that there is a factor other than coaching that is responsible for success. coaching is valuable only marginally.
how so? the reason those who can't do, teach, is because they themselves lack that x-factor. and that x-factor is talent. in fact, it makes the argument stronger. the advice they're giving to players may be advice they applied to themselves, but did not produce desirable results. now, the same advice may effect desirable result in another player. it is disingenuous to assume that it was the advice that helped the player. the player may likely have had much more talent. and likely would have gotten to be successful with or without the advice.
coaches simply cling on to a player's success, and ride their coattails. players think the coach was fundamental to their success, but generally, players don't say things like "he helped me with my footwork" or my "forehand." usually, they comment on how the coach was with them through a trying time, helped them stabilize their emotions, impose disciplines, etc. and i never denied that.
This is so wrong it's more comical than usual. I've got two words for you: Ivo Karlovic. Career high, 14 in the world. On this board, Tonlars has clearly stated many times that he got to where he is through work, not that he was born with magic genes.
This is real life, not your fantasy world. Success is determined mainly by hard work, not whether you won the genetic lottery or not.
i'm surprised you have time to post. don't you have to practice your "strokes", just the way BB likes it?
and who the hell is tonlars?
what about ivo karlovic??? that he is super talented and got only to 14 or that he isn't super talented and still got to 14?
and how would you determine what his talent level is anyway. based on what he says?? or did you go inside his mind?
Well, Karlovic is very tall, and while the serving potential is off the charts for people like this, the movement is at a huge disadvantage. Pretty much any low ball is difficult to reach without bending at the waist. Volleys are especially tough. You don't have to go inside his mind. Although the average height of pro tennis players is increasing, 6'10 is not the ideal tennis build.
Tonlars is a 5.5-6.0 level player who plays the occasional futures tournament here and there.
This is Tonlars
a good coach is useful, even if you are very talented, you need a coach in a sport like tennis just to give you some fundamentals, i started a few months back and was beating most of my friends, i have had two lessons with a good coach (atp 200) and one focussed on forehand, other on bh, both times he showed me the fundamentals (what i thought were good strokes were techincally not good at all, although they were sound and consistent), and we hit, but not too much, he made sure i was listening to what he said, and he explained it very well to me, we hit a bit, then i left remembering two or 3 must remember things and apply them, beyond that a coach can accelerate development but you could argue a talented athlete might not need too many lessons. To say you can develop very god technique by watching videos is a bit nonsensical, you might get some of the way there if you have talent, but you need an experienced eye to tell you some pointers too.
at the top level of course a coach is not going to teach them how to hit a groundstroke, lets get real, its more on the mental side, of course.
so what does karlvoic's height have to do with anything???
and what's the point of tonlars? what does that prove? i'm no longer interested.
Hahahaha. Are you saying that height isn't a part of someone's all important genetics?
And before you deny saying that good genes are necessary.......
what??? i have no idea what the hell you're saying...you bring up ivo karlovic and ramble on about his height without making a point.
WHAT IS YOUR POINT REGARDING IVO KARLVOIC'S HEIGHT?
If a player does things on their own they can't see what they are doing, and not everyone will feel exactly where their racket head or arm or legs or body is at all times. Sure you can watch videos, look at photos, film yourself and see where you're at but you need direct and on the spot feedback so you know and understand what you're doing with the stroke so you can get to where you are. For some it'll be impossible or very time consuming to do this on their own. Thats where the right coach will excel. You might think you're doing it right, you might think its fine, but a good coach will see things you don't, will concentrate on aspects of your game you might of never thought of.
Seems to me you have a closed mind towards coaches, when you said you took lessons just to see what they'll say but hey thats fine thats what you want to do and I'm not here to try and change your mind. If you enjoy playing tennis and you play it at a level you're happy with then thats all that matters, but of course I do think you're wrong in your views and approach to tennis coaches in general.
If you believe tennis isn't intellectually challenging then you've never played it at a high level, cause you'll need all your wits and experience to get through matches time and time again. If tennis was so easy then everyone would be playing it at a good level, but they are not. Wonder why, and don't say its because tennis coaches make it difficult.
My post wasn't clear enough? OK.
You said that you have to be born with the right genes. Federer's height is said to be around the ideal height for a tennis player. Karlovic is 6'10, which obviously comes from genes. Therefore, he wasn't born with these "right genes". However, he was still able to reach #14 in the world.
The point: you don't need perfect genes to reach a high level of play.
Agreed. Honestly you don't have to be a rocket scientist to determine tennis success isn't just about the genes. Body types are good clue - guys with bodies like Davydenko or Chang to giants like Del Potro and Karlovic.. ..all do well.
Another is just the general barriers entry that come from being a skill sport. Every sport takes varying levels of skill - from being a sprinter (which really is closely related to genes - nearly all sprinters can trace their ancestors to a rather small part of africa) all the way to a golfer. Golf is almost pure skill sport in which practice and technique reign paramount. Even a top flight athlete like a Lebron James would make a fool of himself on the golf course without some practice.
Tennis is somewhere in the middle - while having genes like a Gael Monfils is probably incredibly helpful its not a prequisite at this point for tennis dominance. The "skill" factor still outweigh this aspect.
The "its all genetics" crowd frequently uses this to excuse to discredit succesfull individuals and even hide their own failures IMHO. The idea that hard work and the right opportunities (this is very important) play an equally important part in many fields of expertise. Tennis is no exception..
GuyClinch, speaking of your golf example have you ever seen a video of Charles Barkley playing golf and trying to swing a golf club? Its down right hilarious.
I'll save you the searching:
BB is back
See post #4 in the Pat Dougherty thread
Uhh...he's already posted in this thread like 3 days ago. TW Forum people just love to argue and take threads in new directions
this is the worst advice i have ever read.
i guess i'm not articulate enough to convey my message. my point, again, is not that coaches CAN'T teach, or CAN'T be important to the game. my point is that they are not NECESSARY for a player's success. in other words, to reach the upper echelon of tennis, the coach isn't a prerequisite.
if something is intellectually challenging, it means it's difficult to understand. that doesn't mean that, while playing tennis, you are not performing psychological maneuvers or that you aren't engaged in pschological warfare. there are only a limited number of aspects to tennis, such as, forehand, backhand, volleys, serve, score keeping, etc., and a combination of strokes.
the reason everyone can't play at the best level is because we aren't created as equals. and it has everything to do with genes. it takes a certain intuition to go with the right strokes at the right time. a certain intuition to go for the bomb second serve down the middle or a serve slice.
you can teach a person the components of a joke, and give them a formula for a good configuration of the components; you can have them watch hours and hours of brilliant standup comedy. but you can't teach them to be funny. that is essentially what i'm getting at. same with acting. tonnnnnes of people attend acting schools. how many of them do you ever hear about? 1%? .5%?.00005%? Same with tennis.
i think we'll have to agree to disagree....
genes aren't limited to physical makeup. the ability to apply fundamentals in certain combinations comes from a gene. the right intuition comes from a genes. let's stop using height to disprove my argument. it is only one gene. i'm talking about geneS. the key is the ability to improvise on the court; which, by nature, cannot be taught.
as you say below, tennis is in the middle, whereas golf is almost purely mechanical. as i've said earlier, a coach can be helpful in teaching fundamentals (although not necessary). however, once i know how to hit each of the strokes, i don't need a tennis coach. if i need discipline, i can hire an army general with absolutely no training in tennis. if i need personal advice, i can hire a fulltime shrink. it isn't the knowledge in 'tennis' that makes a tennis coach important to top players. the key is simply match play. the more comepetivite matches you play, the more exposure you get to different playing styles and how you can respond to them.
the problem with coaches and tennis academies is that everyone is taught the same nonsense. that's why, no matter where you go, you'll see a vast majority of people playing a 2hbh (which is generally their weakness), and grinding from the baseline. they're taught the same tactics and strategies. so it's like playing against yourself most of the time. so, while you may improve your forehand and backhand through practice, you aren't necessarily learnign anything new because the person you're playing against has the same strenghts and weaknesses as you do.
coaches teach you to be conventional. which is horrible for the game.
well, genetics are central. so, it's not an excuse. and who said hard work isn't critical???? the right genes give you the ability to create those 'right opportunities' becuase you see the world differently. it's the same in every discipline and aspect of life you can think of.
Really? What pros are on the tour that were largely self-taught?.. Tennis is a much more of a skill sport - so its pretty far from what your implying it is..
Football is much closer to the kind of sport your making out tennis to be. There was one running back from Nigeria that didn't play organized ball until the pros - and the Patriots had lineman that was a former Olympic wrestler..
So if you have talent you can switch to SOME positions in a sport like that. (QB isn't one of them though).. OTOH this kind of thing never happens in tennis. There is too much learning and teaching to catch up with..
The day that say some super athlete from the NBA or NFL drops those sports and strolls onto the tour - then maybe you will have some backup for your theory. Right now there are LOTS of superior athletes that could never excel at tennis because of lack of coaching and opportunity..
This is why a strong national program is so critical and some tiny countries can do so well..
Hahahahahaha, so we can't bring up something that disproves your argument?
i think you're bungalo bill because you repond with the same maturity level as he.
read the REST OF the sentence you copied and pasted before you start laughing like a freakin' hyena.
I read it, ya berk. Something about it only being one kind of gene. Fact is, you made a blanket statement about the right genes and we called you on it.
Potential is defined by four distinct areas:
1. Opportunity: court, racquet, balls, people to play, tennis to watch, etc., this is usually never the deciding factor but, without these opportunities, playing the sport at any level is nearly impossible!
2. Athleticism: The ability to walk and chew gum at the same time is certainly a prerequisite to playing any skilled activity within a level of adroidness and aptitude, however, in my experience some of the most accomplished players were far from the most gifted in this department.
3. Desire: The desire to seek information, practice, drill, play, explore, invent, employ, travel, enter tournaments, read, and study the game, (not to mention dedication within such desire to go beyond the realm of the minimum and push beyond the natural inclination to give up or quit) is critical...However, as you will see, even having this may not equate a player into reaching their potential.
4. Education: This is the most important. Education refers to the understanding of correct patterns to work within, as it applies to the activity. If we teach playing the piano with our two index fingers for twenty years, we will fail to reach our piano-playing potential. (Unless we only had two index fingers!) This is where the argument of having a coach is discussed. Many players simply can't see what they should be doing, or, they can't emulate that which they see they should be doing. Coaches can guide players who might not have the ability to connect the how with their own body movements.
Yet, some players rely completely on the pro for their guidance. This can be detrimental to the player's progression. All players must be able to be critical thinkers both on and off the court. They need to take ownership of their game and not just rely on the pro to direct them. Otherwise, they will never be able to adjust to situations on the court as well as discover their own elements that contribute to their game.
However, the vast majority of players who are self taught, (who don't study the game and only go by what ever feels right), almost all never reach their potential. This is because advanced strokes and skilled play in tennis is seldom comfortable nor familiar to most all who pick up a racquet for the first time.
There is so much to this idea that I wrote my two books with these concepts discussed heavily. (What many have said separate my books from the rest.)
There are always exceptions to any rule. However, if we are considering helping the masses reach their potential, we should not focus on the exception and look at the rule to determine the proper path in which one should take to reach their potential. What is amazing is that if we train 1000 players exactly the same way, no two will end up playing alike. Human individuality, personality, perception and strengths and weaknesses will always evolve any foundation, (conventional or otherwise), and create individual differences between each player.
Something to think about!
Well, who is saying they are? Over the years there have been plenty of players who didn't have coaches or went long periods without coaches. Although I don't know the exact figures, my guess would be that most players outside the top 100 don't have coaches or use coaches to a very limited degree - cost is a major factor here.
I know some have argued that IMG only has a small amount/percentage of players that make it to the big time and that this factor alone should be viewed/taken as proof that even with excellent facilities, coaching, equipment, etc., only a small percentage succeed. The problem with this argument is that although many of IMG's players have made it to the top ten (male and female), hundreds of others have gone on and have had very successful college careers, become tennis teaching professionals, involved with the development of equipment, etc. So, IMO, I think we have to broaden our view of "success".
I have seen many coaches work with players, very good players who are in the top ten. The relationship is far different than that presented here or what the media says many times. This isn't Little League or High School - believe me, these people know what they are doing.
It's very hard to make it without coaching. Takes longer. A good coach is also many other things. A pscyh expert. A cheerleader. A friend. A hitting partner. A string/stick expert. A recovery expert. A rehab expert. A suggestion expert. Someone with a good eye for spotting holes/improvements. Someone with credibility, who can also play and win himself. Any top ten players out there who need me, I am also a massage expert, stringer, video expert, and have experience with sports hypnosis.
No one makes it to open, let alone pro levels, without coaching/instruction. Some drop the coach once they arrive, sure. Look at how Chang hired coaches for a week, pumped their brains, and dumped them, ala phil Dent and Higueras.
Arthur Ashe often said ...........
"Practice does not make perfect. Correct practice makes perfect"
You need the coach to show you what to practice.
That is if you want to be a top 100 player.
You want to be near the best.
^^^ Exactly. All the pros have been extensively coached - and MANY were housed at various academies or national programs.. Still others had family members who were coaches (Chris Evert)..
I'd be interested in the counter examples.. The Williams sisters maybe - that's about as close as I have seen and they still worked with alot of pros growing up..
Separate names with a comma.