View Single Post
Old 06-27-2012, 09:42 PM   #43
Alohajrtennis
Semi-Pro
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 468
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by t135 View Post
I'm as qualified as he is to mislead people who aren't smart enough to figure out the truth on their own.
I'll take you for your word on that. Is that what you are trying to do here ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by t135 View Post
As for the USTA tennis issue, which is what the real topic here is, I don't see a problem with the changes. The best payers will still make it through if they work hard and are the real deal. And it will add depth at the local and regional/sectional level instead of having players running all over the country. Creative sections can set up more sectional team events etc. Players can travel to international events. Tournaments and players will adapt.

The sky isn't exactly falling here. The USTA didn't ban strings from tennis racquets.
The problem with this statement is two-fold.

First is the contention that they will not be running all over the country. As has already been discussed, the way the regions are set up, they are not local, people are still going to be running all over the country, except to different places. In fact the way the Opens used to be evenly distributed through the country, the traveling may actually increase. For instance, there were lots of cases where there might have been an Open in the next state over, an hour across the border, and even if that state was in a different section, you could sign up for it. Basically, people were trusted to be smart enough to figure out what was closet, now, a bunch of higher ups are telling people in Seattle that they should play at a local event in New Mexico. Or telling people in Texas they should save money on travel by not playing in Louisiana, they need to play in Chicago instead.

For the second point, even if I were to concede that the best player will make it through, which I don't, there is a major, philosophical disagreement. It's genuine disagreement of the purpose of Junior Tennis at a national level. National junior tournaments don't (or shouldn't) exist solely to identify the next great American hope.

The schedule changes reek of elitism, basically trying to weed out the riff-raff out of the national tournaments. Should should be limited only to the very best, a tiny elite, that have the potential to be professionals, or should it be open to a more broader sate of players, as it is now ? The fact is, with the ten and under tennis program increasing the number of kids coming into the game, and general population growth, just keeping the number of national tournament spots the same would already in affect be making these already limited spots harder to come by.

Now before you say it, no, they shouldn't be open to everyone, you need to earn your way in. But that's the way it works now. The system was not broken, parents and player were not clamoring for changes, the current changes are a fix to a problem that didn't exist. It seems the only ones who have a problem with the system was the PD group and the upper echelon of USTA who are obsessed with lack of current American champions on tour so now hey have hijacked the national junior tennis program to suit here needs, no the needs or desires of kids. And they try to sell this plan to to those who no longer qualify by telling them "We are helping you, we are trying to save you money on travel. You can play a local regional event". Turns out that regional event could be 1,500 miles way in some regions.
Alohajrtennis is offline