Originally Posted by BU-Tennis
The zones you speak of are the traditional type of thought which 5263 says are outdated, and not supported by actual play results. However, this is not meant to be accusery, since I thought the same as you before this thread started lol!
The biggest thing to take away from this diagram is to see that the shared zone is a triagnle, very similar in shape to the Smarter Targets. However, the big problem is that the zone leaves no margin for error. We are assuming you aim for a specific point within that one, so if you pick the line you can't miss that spot long at all without losing the point.
the Smart Zones provide an answer to this problem by providing a margin of error. If you aim for the deepest part of the zone then even if you miss it long by 3 feet, you're still one foot within the line!! (and Aim is improper when talking about tennis but no other word i can think of really captures the idea of trying to hit to a specific point...than aim?)
BU, you really get it. Aim may not be the best word, and I try to remember to say target an area, but aim is fine I expect as well.
An important thing related to Aim or targeting. I've found for myself and working with many students that having a specific target is much more effective than going for a large area. An example with golf/putting. When I putt to make the hole, I make it or miss quite close, but when I just try to get close to lay up, I tend to miss by a far greater margin which makes the final putt tougher. I now putt to make the ball stop in the hole, but not past it. This gives a nice layup when I miss. Like you mention, those larger areas have no margin for area and also less specific target/aim points. The Smart Target Triangles give us more specific targets and have a nice margin for safety.