|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
08-10-2012, 01:58 PM
|
#381 | |
|
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,699
|
Quote:
 Shalom - the nicest word you will know. |
|
|
|
08-10-2012, 05:43 PM
|
#382 | |
|
Semi-Pro
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 456
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
08-10-2012, 06:25 PM
|
#383 | |
|
Professional
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 883
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
08-10-2012, 06:55 PM
|
#384 | |
|
Professional
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,261
|
Quote:
and you immediately make derogatory remarks about him in the next post...... Tom Walker, btw, who makes part of his living hosting tournaments and yet is willing to stand up on principle and say what is rights and what is wrong with the USTA in a well written articulate, a little long, letter. The only actual argument you have made (bc most of the time you are taking cheat shots at Hannity, such as: "Hannity is an arrogant liar who will say anything, true or not, to put another buck in his pocket" and that over the top remark that I won't repeat) is when you stated about the 2014 changes: "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." Well, no.................. it won't add any depth to the section. Funny thing is the very elite players in the small sections don't live in their states.... Thus, the need for so many wildcards as entrance to nationals will be based on sectional rankings. So, all you have done is kept the same players in a small section and the elite players still live elsewhere and still don't play in their small sections. And your other idea is that if players can't get into national tournaments as well, we will only have two in 2014 and they will be reduced - is that you suggest that the player travel to international events...... Wow. Yes, that is much cheaper than flying in one's own country. Now, you have listed your resume above. Which is really helpful because I was wondering why you are on this junior site telling us why the 2014 national tournament schedule is good for JUNIOR players as I was confused by one of your earlier posts in this thread where you stated: "I have no kids who aspire to be national player, not in tennis anyway." So, GREAT.............. state your name as a coach and tell us who you brought up that is a nationally ranked player and WAS at the "top" ironically under the old system which doesn't work. It shouldn't be a secret if you are a "well respected" coach. And then post your own letter under your OWN NAME AS A WELL RESPECTED COACH and put it on Hannity's website explaining in actual words and reasoning and factual evidence WHY the 2014 changes are good for tennis players in this country instead of just saying that tennis parents are "whiners" .... Because most folks actually need hard core information, facts, examples, numbers in order for a real debate to occur. But, I guess not....... You are a coward who would rather remain hidden on a tennis board and take cheap shots at a pretty great guy who has the balls to list his name. Last edited by tennis5 : 08-10-2012 at 08:04 PM. |
|
|
|
|
08-10-2012, 09:33 PM
|
#385 |
|
Semi-Pro
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 675
|
I like the new USTA direction.
Last edited by t135 : 08-26-2012 at 01:06 PM. |
|
|
|
08-10-2012, 11:18 PM
|
#386 | |
|
Professional
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,261
|
Quote:
Yes.... I did read your previous posts on this thread........ Where do you think I am getting the quotes from? I ask you for facts, and you state now - "Blah, blah, blah, I don't owe you anything and I don't care if you disagree with my comments" And then you ask me, "How does one debate with a whiner?" And why would I "call you a name back"? Isn't this site suppose to be about sharing information, and helping juniors and parents with tennis knowledge. How could name calling further or promote the goals of what a board should be about - knowledge. I have sent a letter to the USTA with my name and cc it to everyone in my inbox who cares about junior tennis in this country. When did I do that? When the vote was about to be counted in March and I was asking folks to call their sections. There is no anonymous email letters to the USTA or to folks across the country. I did call my section...... ( they were voting against it, until their funding was threatened to be cut, and then elite junior tennis was considered a small section of the pie, which interestingly another poster said here in a different thread, but in a more contentious voice. Turns out he was right.) I did get over 100 letters the last week from folks who cared enough to write, and not one letter was for it. And yes......... I was called a whiner here in February on this board when I was trying to get folks to realize what was going to happen, and they needed to call their sectional office. When I ask you about providing actual numbers, percentages, facts, information to support your side? To have a real debate..... You state, " The "facts, examples, and numbers" are that I like the new USTA direction. " Really? You can't give ANY numerical evidence to support your decision? I repeat back the little actual information that YOU provided in a direct quote about how it would be great as player in 2014 - because ALL THE KIDS WOULD PLAY IN THEIR SECTION ( uh, not true at all, these kids don't even live in their section, hence the wc.....). Your other winner was that kids should travel to another country..... I don't know if you travel much........... but international travel is a bit more expensive than traveling in your own country. And most parents are pretty tapped out in this economy. Yes, my son does play the national tournaments, and he will be at the end of high school when the 2014 changes come in. I haven't met one parent at one national tournament that thinks the elimination of play is a "good thing". This week, one parent motioned to all the college coaches and said, "How do these coaches get to see players who live on another coast?" It is a good question...... The big national tournaments are an opportunity for coaches to see the players. In 2012, for the 16's, there are 4 national tournaments, and they are spread out geographically. Arizona, California, Florida, and Michigan. It is a big country, and while you think players can fly to another country........ some coaches are on a limited budget. 99% of the parents want their junior to play college tennis, they're not dreaming of the pros. But, the ELIMINATION of TWO of the national tournaments and the REDUCTION of the other two national tournaments is going to hinder a lot of coaches from seeing a lot of players. Anyway, you state in this thread that "I have no kids who aspire to be national player, not in tennis anyway." I was glad to hear that you are a "respected coach" that has trained state, sectional and national players.... So, again, why not state your case? Sean Hannity is providing an open, public, platform for any well known coach on his website. He seems like a fair guy that would put up your letter as long as you can hold off on certain words..... You state Tom Walker is just a "guy with an opinion", but he is putting it on the line in a very public forum with a lot to lose as he is affiliated with the USTA. He's got balls. And so, it seems very cowardly to me to be disrespectful to him, "The head of YMCA tennis in Michigan has spoken", when you are just a "guy with an opinion on an anonymous board" with no actual data, facts, examples, numbers to provide a basis for your argument. I don't think name calling is appropriate on a forum, so in the future just put me on your ignore list and that way you don't have to respond to any posts where I print someone's public letter. Good luck with your kids, and that is meant with the best wishes. Last edited by tennis5 : 08-10-2012 at 11:52 PM. |
|
|
|
|
08-10-2012, 11:40 PM
|
#387 |
|
Professional
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,261
|
Trying to get all letters in one thread:
http://www.hannity.com/article/anton...a-debate/15857
The following is an attempt to focus on the main issues discussed in the exchange between Sean Hannity and Tim Russell. It is less than two pages long and an addresses what I see as the most substantive issues raised by the USTA’s changes in the junior competitive schedule. While I believe those changes are well-intentioned, I am afraid there are a series of unintended consequences that will do precisely the opposite of what the USTA hopes to achieve. 1) “Meaningful Competition,” Best Playing the Best,” “Earned Advancement.” These phrases are used repeatedly in Tim Russell’s response to Sean Hannity and are the main philosophical reasons for the changes. Ironically, the quota system at the heart of the USTA’s changes directly contradicts that philosophy. If you want the best to play the best, then why is the USTA allowing for a “size component” when it comes to determining a section’s quota? Size should be irrelevant, if you want to be intellectually consistent and fair. Only a section’s strength should be considered if we are being honest about only rewarding kids who have earned it with the ability to play nationally. If, as Dr. Russell repeatedly says, we want all national matches to be competitive, for the best to play the best, quality should trump size. The size of a section should be irrelevant (see point #2). 2) Section Strength. Making matters worse, the USTA is using its own rankings to determine the strength of a section. Instead, it should use a head-to-head ranking system such as Tennis Information that more fairly determines the ability of a player (a player is not penalized if injuries didn’t allow him or her to enter major tournaments and it does not reward players who have the financial wherewithal to play every national and regional tournament). Let’s use Florida as an example. The quota Florida will get for supernationals, based on the size/strength equation, is only 10 (it would have more if “size” were not considered). When I looked on July 10th, there were 13 Florida boys in the top 150 on the USTA 14s rankings and 13 in the 12s. But, if you look at the Tennisinformation rankings, there are 24 in the top 150 in the 14s (plus Stefan Kozlov, so it’s really 25) and there are 26 in the 12s, fully double the strength Florida is getting credit for in its quota by using the USTA rankings as the gauge. How can it possibly be fair to limit Florida kids to ten spots at supernationals? The injustice is such that the #61, 62, 63, 67 and 73 boys in the country on Tennis Information in the 14s (on July 10th) would not be ranked highly enough in Florida to get in under the quota. One of those boys who would miss out is part of USTA Player Development. 3) Wild Cards. Doesn’t increasing the number of wild cards also directly contradict the earned advancement that’s being preached? 4) Chasing Points. A lot of time has been wasted focusing on kids who chase points by traveling long distances as if this were an epidemic that somehow invalidates the ranking structure. That overlooks the reality that only a small number of kids do so and that none of those kids gets ranked very highly unless they win a lot of matches. The new 2012 point structure makes it even harder for “chasing points” to have any kind of significant effect because kids don’t earn many points unless they get deep into a tournament. Can anyone show me a kid in the top 50 in the country who hasn’t earned his or her way to that ranking? 5) “Increase” in Opportunities. I’m mystified by Mr. Russell’s argument here. There is no doubt that there are more opportunities for the super-elite players (top 20 in the country), but some of the added Level 1 tournaments only take between four and 16 applicants per category. The “majors,” the supernationals, will only take place twice a year instead of four. Level 2 tournaments are cut from four concurrent tournaments four times a year to only three concurrent tournaments only twice a year. Level 3 regional tournaments are slashed from eight tournaments four times a year to four tournaments three times a year. Again, I’m mystified at how that’s an “increase.” 6) Aging Up Decrease in Opportunities. An important point that is not addressed is that the new system will greatly delay the ability for even super-elite kids to play nationally in the years they age up, especially in the country’s most competitive regions. That can’t be good for their tennis. |
|
|
|
08-10-2012, 11:42 PM
|
#388 |
|
Professional
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,261
|
Continued....
7) Travel “Reduction.” By my count, a 14 year-old kid who plays a full national and sectional schedule currently plays 17 level 1-to-4 tournaments (four supernats, four national opens, four regionals, zonals and four sectionals). Under the new system (as I interpret the convoluted 2014 schedule), a kid who plays a full schedule (the super-elite) will play a similar number of level 1-to-4 tournaments, but they will have to play a far greater number of tournaments in their section in order to make sure to make their section’s quota. Home school anyone? The kids who are just below the super-elite will also play about the same number of level 1-to-4 tournaments they play today XXXXXXX (but they will be playing mostly level 3 and 4s)XXXXXXXX. For the super-elite and the next layer of top kids, the proposal does NOTHING to decrease travel. But the big issue is the flip side: even top kids who don’t make it into their section’s quota will have a travel elimination, with almost no opportunity to play outside their section, nationally OR regionally (see examples in #2 above).
 Travel Costs and Distances. The truth is that the new system will not help much. It is sometimes far more time consuming and expensive to travel within a section than to go to a national open or regional elsewhere. Try to get from the Tri-Cities in Washington State to Oklahoma City (kids in region 2 will have to do that) or even from Miami to Augusta, Georgia… it’s cheaper and much quicker to fly to Dallas, Chicago or New York!9) Missing School. I find it ironic that after years where the USTA seemed not to care about this (January regionals not scheduled over MLK Birthday weekend, February National Opens not scheduled over President’s Day weekend, the Easter Bowl scheduled when virtually nobody has spring break, May National Opens not scheduled over Memorial Day weekend; I can go on with more examples), the Russell letter argues that the new system will be better on that score. It is, slightly. But it would have been awfully easy to make the old schedule work better. 10) Playing Styles and Surfaces. The Russell letter mostly skirts the issue of how the new changes will limit exposure to different surfaces and playing styles. As he says, the new system will provide opportunities for the super-elite to have that kind of exposure, but the reality is the enormous majority of our top kids will be hurt. When will top Florida kids compete indoors? When will most top kids in the country compete on clay? 11) Birth Year. Why in the world would Dr. Russell even raise the possibility of returning to the much-discredited (by “Outliers” and other subsequent research) calendar-year system? Is he actually arguing that, somehow, two wrongs (calendar-year system and only two supernationals) would suddenly make a right? I’ve heard the ITF is considering following the much fairer rolling-birthday system we have here. The USTA should exert its efforts to change the ITF, not to go back to a silly, discriminatory system. 12) “Lower Ranked Players.” Dr. Russell jumps all over Mr. Hannity for saying that “lower-ranked players will not get to play national events,” asking why “low-ranked players should play national events.” I can’t speak for Mr. Hannity, but he said “lower” not “low.” That’s an important distinction. Very, very good kids will not be able to play national events under a whole series of circumstances. While there is a certain inertia that keeps top players near the top from the 10s on, some kids do make progress over time and manage to soar to the top. Some kids do come out of seemingly nowhere to do very well in tournaments. The next Andre Agassi could be a kid who didn’t do well in the 12s and 14s but then grows a foot in the 18s. By discouraging that player by limiting his opportunities early on, we may lose him to lacrosse or baseball. 13) Psychology. Here again, I agree with Mr. Hannity and disagree with Dr. Russell, especially when he calls Mr. Hannity’s point “preposterous.” Kids getting the chance to play nationally, even if it’s only every once in a while, is powerful validation. Few things are more inspiring to young players than playing at the highest levels with the country’s best players. Limiting those opportunities will give far fewer players the chance to get that inspiration. Traveling around the country often leads to the kinds of friendships that are catalysts that encourage a lifetime of tennis. Again, fewer kids will have that chance. They and the sport will suffer for it. 14) Kids Playing Adults. I’m not sure what it’s like where Dr. Russell lives in, but I’m with Mr. Hannity in saying that that kids playing with adults just doesn’t happen. Maybe if a new rating system gets implemented that mixes everybody into the same tournaments, but spontaneous play with adults who aren’t their parents is uncommon in today’s world. Please don’t take away opportunities for kids to play with a wide variety of good kids, no matter what form of transportation they need to get to that competition. 15) “Consultation.” Even though I wanted to keep this email focused on substance, this is one non-substantive point that needs to be addressed. Dr. Russell talks about the legions of people who were consulted, but the process was anything but transparent, open and public as he claims. When the proposed changes were unveiled at the post-Christmas meeting in Texas, people there were told NOT to disseminate the proposals. When I sent a detailed analysis of the proposals to dozens of parents of highly-competitive kids across the country two months later in early March, NONE of them were aware any of this was being considered. Tom Walker recently addressed the lack of consultation this in a letter published on Zoo Tennis. I hope the USTA accepts Mr. Hannity’s offer to poll parents. It wouldn’t have to be unwieldy: if you poll parents of the top two hundred kids in each age group, you’re talking about less than 1600 people (some will be duplicates with multiple kids). I think the USTA will be surprised at the extent of the opposition to the changes. Finally, there are many positives in the changes approved, but there are an awful lot of negatives. I would hope the USTA could find an intelligent middle ground that would not slash the opportunities for kids to play nationally while still taking steps to help create new great tennis generations. In the interest of full disclosure, assuming all things remain equal, my son is not likely to suffer much from the changes and is highly ranked enough that some may benefit him. Dr. Russell gave his background, so I will too. I am a Harvard Law School graduate, with a lot of training and experience analyzing complex documents (both the approved changes and Dr. Russell’s letter certainly qualify as such). After practicing law in New York, I switched careers and became a broadcast journalist, earning a dozen national and local Emmy Awards. I am also a lifelong tennis player from a tennis-playing family that includes a brother who played on the ATP tour for years and two generations of Davis Cup players. I would urge everyone to be forthcoming with their names in whatever discussion ensues. It’s disappointing to see so many anonymous attacks from all sides in this important conversation and I would hope the USTA would not be vindictive against the children of those who express opinions the organization does not like. Sadly, many people are afraid to speak out because they believe that will happen. Thanks for reading. Antonio Mora News Anchor |
|
|
|
08-11-2012, 07:34 AM
|
#389 |
|
Semi-Pro
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 675
|
TAUT is an excellent program to pull new players into tennis.
Last edited by t135 : 08-26-2012 at 01:07 PM. |
|
|
|
08-11-2012, 12:40 PM
|
#390 |
|
Semi-Pro
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 675
|
Thanks for the feedback.
Last edited by t135 : 08-26-2012 at 01:09 PM. |
|
|
|
08-11-2012, 03:47 PM
|
#391 |
|
Semi-Pro
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 401
|
The USTA proposed changes, good or bad, are not going to stop anyone from achieving a pro career or top college career. The game is the game. Play because you love the game and the competition. I don't personally care about the USTA tournament structure. Too many parents and their kids are obsessed with playing the "prestige" events and being seen by coaches at name schools.
|
|
|
|
08-27-2012, 12:58 PM
|
#392 |
|
Professional
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,261
|
Interview with Zoo tennis -
Interesting interview, although I do think he shot himself in the foot here with the political comment....
Q: What is your feeling about the junior competition changes? I’ve spoken out about them. I actually support the idea of finding the great American stars. I have a 10-year-old girl and a 13-year-old boy, and it seems to me that while they’re finding them, the USTA should do everything to nurture that and support it and help it along the way. But 99.9 percent of the kids are not going to be pros. But there’s fifteen, twenty thousand kids in any given year, five thousand new ones every year, that play college tennis. That’s a lot of college opportunities. For example, reducing this tournament draw I think is a big mistake.(It goes to 128 from 192 in 2013). What are the parents, the ones I speak to when I’m out with my kids at these tournaments looking for? We want to keep our kids out of trouble, it’s a pretty tough world. They learn a lot of life lessons—they learn about winning and losing; that the harder you work the better you’re going to do; they learn that sometimes life isn’t fair. Those are really good life lessons. There are a lot of college scholarships, and I’d like to see them go to American kids, more and more of which are not. I just don’t understand it. Nobody gets hurt if you keep it the way it is, nobody. Not one kid gets hurt. But a lot of kids get hurt when they change it. It’s a 75 percent reduction if you look at it between 2010 and 2014 and I haven’t gotten an explanation except some people can’t afford to travel. And as I suggested in one of my letters, that is a real concern. So let’s get JetBlue as the official sponsor of United States Tennis Association Junior Tennis, Marriott as the official hotel, Hertz as the official rental car and why don’t we add five dollars, ten dollars a tournament so everyone gets to help out and support all of our kids? Because it’s not about one kid. It’s about a sport we all love combined. And I think they’re making a big mistake. I also think they are going against their very own mission statement to increase participation and the love of this sport. By excluding kids and taking away their opportunities, we’re making a big mistake. When you look back at when they pulled the 12s Nationals, it took them ten years to correct that mistake. There was a girl who spoke up at the Girls 14s in Georgia, there were a lot of the USTA officials and I think Patrick McEnroe was there, and she is heading into her pre-college years now and she said, wait a minute, I’ve worked hard and my parents have sacrificed a lot so I can play tennis at a high level and you’re taking these opportunities just before I’m getting ready to go to college. I think it’s really unfortunate, and my hope is that they’ll open their minds. I have offered to help fund an objective poll of the people this will impact--Gallup, Pew, any legitimate polling organization. Let’s poll the people who are going to be impacted by this. I predict a minimum of 80/20 against the changes. And so far I have not gotten an answer that they would support that. One thing that I’m surprised at is that everybody’s a little intimidated by the USTA. They feel the wild cards are going to be taken away, their chance to go to one of the training centers is going to be taken away. Tournament directors fear their tournaments are going to be taken away. Here’s the question they’ve got to decide. Are they here to serve the desires of their membership or are they here to dictate what their members are going to get whether they like it or not? For me it’s pretty clear cut. The USTA is supposed to serve its members. The argument that Dr. (Timothy) Russell, (chair of the USTA’s Junior Competition committee) made to me was too bad, basically. Too bad for a 12-year-old who can’t get into a tournament? If you go through the waiting lists at tournaments, a lot of kids want to participate. They’re going to be away from home, they like to be in hotels, be around their friends. They’re developing healthy lifestyles, they’re learning all the good lessons tennis teaches them, so (the changes) make no sense to me whatsoever. This is not something I actually wanted to get into, I just want you to know. I’ve got a pretty busy job trying to defeat Obama. But I’m hopeful; the response from college coaches and tournament directors and players, top players, has been overwhelmingly supportive. As a matter of fact, not one person has come up to me and said they disagree with me. So that’s a good sign. But I think it’s going to take a lot of people speaking out and saying, wait a minute, this is not what’s good, what’s in the best interest of our kids. Nobody gets hurt if you don’t change it. A lot of kids get hurt, a lot of opportunities are gone (if it is changed). I’m only in Kalamazoo for a short time, but look at what this tournament means to these kids. And all these college coaches, I just talked to the Columbia coach and I know Dwayne Hultquist of Florida State is here, and all these really good coaches are here to see these kids. Maybe they see someone who is not quite the highest ranked, maybe had an injury a year ago, who performs well. You always have one or two kids, unseeded, who come out of nowhere and do pretty well. I’m hopeful they’ll be responsive to their membership, because if they’re responsive to their membership, they won’t follow through with these changes. |
|
|
|
08-27-2012, 01:02 PM
|
#393 |
|
Professional
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,261
|
Controversial letter to Hannity's interview with Zoo tennis
What's the objective ?
Is there only one ? Is it soley to produce the next us champion ? Or produce enough highy quality players capable of filling our available college spots ? Or to provide a great experience for a broad range of juniors so that they will have a life long appreciation of tennis ? If it's just to produce the net American champion, why don't they take the top 50 kids at 13-14 and screw all the others completely, becuase brewer and macenroe have gone on record is saying that by 13 or 14 you need to be top 50, so why I they even bothering with 128 ? Becuase when the first draft came out, they tied to cut the clays to 64 and everybody screamed bloody murder, that's why. Look this simple player development has taken over junior tennis for the sole purpose of creating new us champions. They are deathly afraid of what happens to the us open revenue stream when Serena and roddick retire and federer retires and ratings plummet bemuse we have Serbians fighting ukranians for titles. There position and attitude is very clear : national completion is for them to identify and grow pros, you are just hoping to get a couple rounds into the tournament and get a college scholarship, you are not welcome. |
|
|
|
08-27-2012, 02:36 PM
|
#394 |
|
Rookie
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 226
|
Make some points here...
[quote=tennis5;6838462]What's the objective ?
They are deathly afraid of what happens to the us open revenue stream when Serena and roddick retire and federer retires and ratings plummet bemuse we have Serbians fighting ukranians for titles. QUOTE] Must agree with this particular sentiment. |
|
|
|
08-27-2012, 03:09 PM
|
#395 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 40
|
Don't worry we've got Americans coming through...2-3 years and we will b back on top...
|
|
|
|
08-27-2012, 03:29 PM
|
#396 | |
|
Semi-Pro
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 456
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
08-27-2012, 03:56 PM
|
#397 | |
|
Semi-Pro
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 452
|
Quote:
I was heart-broken reading an article on prize money earned by the winner was lower than a chair umpire in the Futures circuit. It was posted on this forum before. How can the next star survive the system without solid financial support? Last edited by 10ismom : 08-27-2012 at 07:49 PM. |
|
|
|
|
08-27-2012, 08:23 PM
|
#398 | |
|
Legend
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Lebanon
Posts: 5,097
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
08-28-2012, 06:25 AM
|
#399 |
|
Professional
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,039
|
================================================== ==
Last edited by TCF : 10-25-2012 at 04:11 PM. |
|
|
|
08-28-2012, 07:09 AM
|
#400 | |
|
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,617
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
|
||||||
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
|
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:03 PM.