It is quite impossible for us to even come close to hitting like a pro but.........

[Golden Retriever]

it is quite possible for us to run as fast or even outrun a pro. It is much easier for an amateur to attain good speed than good strokes. For example, lets say David Nalbandian can run 100M in 12 sec(which I really doubt he can but well) but with some training most young men can come very close or even top that quite easily. However most young men can never serve or hit a forehand half as good as David Nalbandian with just some training.

So what does that tell you? Even at the amateur level you could be dealing with near-pro-level or even pro-level speed. No wonder it is so hard for amateurs to beat fast pushers, you are trying to hit winners against someone with pro-level speed with your amateur level strokes!!

[burosky]

Just with players having pro-level speed, there are also players who have specific pro-level strokes. How many times have you seen players who can hit "world-class" forehands or serves but nothing else? Of course the consistency is not going to be near pro-level but nonetheless the result is pro-level. Some people are just "blessed" with such attributes.

[WildVolley]

There's probably some truth in what you say, but you're probably exaggerating the potential of most people. Most people will never run as fast as most of the top pros. When I was in college, I could run under 11 seconds in the 100 meters and was notably quick. That probably puts me in at least the top 3% in the world at 100 meters. Blacks of West African descent dominate the sprints, so a higher % would be able to run under 11 seconds. They won't have the potential to be great tennis players unless they have exceptional eye-hand coordination and are able to put in the years developing their technique.

So, the top pushers are usually excellent athletes who will never be great tennis players. Your analysis shows the secret to beating excellent pushers is superior court positioning and placement. The fastest man in the world is going to have difficulty with a well placed volley or overhead.

[Rpp]

I doubt running well 100m has much meaning for tennis...but running well 10m or 10k means a lot more.

[cstephenson]

Its not how fast you are its how well you anticipate. It helps to be fast but if you already know where the ball is going you can be a true tennis Jedi. You can play lots of people with pro level speed but only pro's have pro level anticipation.
Work on your anticipation first and then work on your speed. It won't matter how fast you are if you are running to the wrong place.

Clint

[tricky]

No wonder it is so hard for amateurs to beat fast pushers, you are trying to hit winners against someone with pro-level speed with your amateur level strokes!!

Hmm, sounds like rationalization for losing to pushers. At the 4.5+ level, the players are both really fast and can pound the ball without much effort. In fact, the former facilitates the latter, because they need to be quick enough and need to be able to read the ball soon enough to set themselves up for the next shot.

If you refuse to volley, your technique has to be frigging great to consistently beat pushers at the baseline. If your technique isn't great and you don't want to attack the net, then you have to outpush the pusher. If your technique isn't great and you don't want to attack the net and you can't run . . .

[cghipp]

Originally Posted by burosky

Just with players having pro-level speed, there are also players who have specific pro-level strokes. How many times have you seen players who can hit "world-class" forehands or serves but nothing else? Of course the consistency is not going to be near pro-level but nonetheless the result is pro-level. Some people are just "blessed" with such attributes.

So true - my serve is even better than Dementieva's!

[Golden Retriever]

Originally Posted by tricky

Hmm, sounds like rationalization for losing to pushers. At the 4.5+ level, the players are both really fast and can pound the ball without much effort. In fact, the former facilitates the latter, because they need to be quick enough and need to be able to read the ball soon enough to set themselves up for the next shot.

If you refuse to volley, your technique has to be frigging great to consistently beat pushers at the baseline. If your technique isn't great and you don't want to attack the net, then you have to outpush the pusher. If your technique isn't great and you don't want to attack the net and you can't run . . .

I can't agree with you more, except the rationalizing part. So what level would you call "frigging great"? 4.0? 3.5?4.5?

[Venetian]

I don't know why some people have the idea that it's impossible to come close to hitting like a pro. These are not superhuman athletes with 12 extra senses or anything; they are simply average people who have worked hard at developing their tennis skills, most likely from a young age.

I do agree that it would be quite hard to reach the level of play of say, the top 50 guys, but remember, the professional rankings go up to something like 1,200. I'm sure plenty of people could get to this level if they felt like expending the time, money, and energy to do it. It's just takes the right number of oppurtunities coming together. Most people don't want to sacrifice money, education, and say family life just to have a slim chance of making a decent living as a professional player in any sport.

[Rpp]

Originally Posted by Venetian

I don't know why some people have the idea that it's impossible to come close to hitting like a pro. These are not superhuman athletes with 12 extra senses or anything; they are simply average people who have worked hard at developing their tennis skills, most likely from a young age.

I do agree that it would be quite hard to reach the level of play of say, the top 50 guys, but remember, the professional rankings go up to something like 1,200. I'm sure plenty of people could get to this level if they felt like expending the time, money, and energy to do it. It's just takes the right number of oppurtunities coming together. Most people don't want to sacrifice money, education, and say family life just to have a slim chance of making a decent living as a professional player in any sport.

Well, they are defenitely not average people. They are very talented and ready to work hard...

[Venetian]

Originally Posted by Rpp

Well, they are defenitely not average people. They are very talented and ready to work hard...

I think they are just average people. There aren't many pros that can lift insane amounts of weight, or run incredibly fast, or jump over buildings in a single bound. The only thing they're exceptionally good at is tennis, and that just comes from playing a lot of tennis.

There are plenty of 4.5+ players in the world that have gotten there just by playing tennis a few days a week for fun, possibly in leagues, tournaments, etc...

If all those players can get to that level while having a family, a full time job, and probably other hobbies, imagine how far they could go if they did very little else but play tennis.

[Rpp]

Originally Posted by Venetian

I think they are just average people. There aren't many pros that can lift insane amounts of weight, or run incredibly fast, or jump over buildings in a single bound. The only thing they're exceptionally good at is tennis, and that just comes from playing a lot of tennis.

There are plenty of 4.5+ players in the world that have gotten there just by playing tennis a few days a week for fun, possibly in leagues, tournaments, etc...

If all those players can get to that level while having a family, a full time job, and probably other hobbies, imagine how far they could go if they did very little else but play tennis.

There are few miles from 4.5 to Top-50 pro...but you sure can have your opinion. In my opinion 99% of the people are born not to become top-1000 even how much they would practise, not have family, job nor pet.

[EricW]

Raw speed is important but i've run into people who covered the court exceptional well even though they weren't great athletes. Anticipation, experience, court positioning, and everything else is what puts the pros ahead of amateurs, even if they are comparable in a 100meter sprint. Still, you're right about very athletic pushers, it's very hard to hit winners on them at certain levels, but once you attain a certain level it becomes easy, even if it takes 3-4 almost winners, they don't have the shots to put you under any pressure

[spc9999]

Originally Posted by Venetian

but remember, the professional rankings go up to something like 1,200. I'm sure plenty of people could get to this level if they felt like expending the time, money, and energy to do it....

I think they are just average people. There aren't many pros that can lift insane amounts of weight, or run incredibly fast, or jump over buildings in a single bound. The only thing they're exceptionally good at is tennis, and that just comes from playing a lot of tennis.

How is it that you think the 300-1200 best tennis players on earth are somehow less talented than the 300-1200 best NFL, MLB, or football players?

For that matter, do you think you could become the 1200th fastest sprinter, marathon runner or 1200th best investment banker on earth?

If you do, why don't you do it?

[snapple]

If you are willing to put in the time and effort, I personally believe that you do not have to be an exceptional athlete or possess incredible physical skills to become a top 1000 ranked player. In general, IMO it is only the top 50 or so players that are truly gifted in a way that is out of the grasp of the rest of us mortals. Outside of this realm, I think if you are a very good athlete with solid physical skills, and you have the desire, discipline and committment (as well as access to proper training and coaching) you should be able to attain top 1000 status, and probably much higher than that. It is these latter qualities that really will determine the extent of your success.

[tricky]

I can't agree with you more, except the rationalizing part. So what level would you call "frigging great"? 4.0? 3.5?4.5?

About 4.0-4.5 or so. That's roughly the ceiling for a pusher because one's technique has evolved enough that they can comfortably beat a pusher at the net or just grind the guy down without worrying about UEs.

That technique isn't pro-level at all, but by then their mechanics are so well tuned that they look relaxed oncourt even though the ball is consistently penetrating and powerful.

Now, there's been a few threads on groundstroke technique vs. footwork (i.e. court movement.) I think the latter is more important, other people argue the former is more important for long-term success. Of course both are crucial the higher you go.

[OrangeOne]

Originally Posted by snapple

If you are willing to put in the time and effort, I personally believe that you do not have to be an exceptional athlete or possess incredible physical skills to become a top 1000 ranked player. In general, IMO it is only the top 50 or so players that are truly gifted in a way that is out of the grasp of the rest of us mortals. Outside of this realm, I think if you are a very good athlete with solid physical skills, and you have the desire, discipline and committment (as well as access to proper training and coaching) you should be able to attain top 1000 status, and probably much higher than that. It is these latter qualities that really will determine the extent of your success.

You're dreaming, as are many in this thread.

I'm a 4.5 to 5.0 player (I'm in Australia, we don't have USTA ratings here). Sometimes, I've played against 5.5 players, who have more natural talent in their little finger than I do in my body. Think of the best 5.5 in your area, and know that they had almost zero chance of making it as a pro, and there's thousands of them across the world. Ten's of thousands, even. Many of them played 5 or 6 days a week as a junior, and would have gladly gone pro if they could.

OR

Go to a pro tournament. Walk in, feeling confident. Wander past a pro or two, thinking "wow, they look human too". Then stand on the sidelines in the practice courts, during a training session. 10 minutes, any top male or female....and you'll know they're not only phenomenal, but that they're also playing what is almost a different sport.

[Rpp]

Originally Posted by snapple

If you are willing to put in the time and effort, I personally believe that you do not have to be an exceptional athlete or possess incredible physical skills to become a top 1000 ranked player. In general, IMO it is only the top 50 or so players that are truly gifted in a way that is out of the grasp of the rest of us mortals. Outside of this realm, I think if you are a very good athlete with solid physical skills, and you have the desire, discipline and committment (as well as access to proper training and coaching) you should be able to attain top 1000 status, and probably much higher than that. It is these latter qualities that really will determine the extent of your success.

I guess you have never seen a top-1000 player in a match?? Many more thousands tries to get there and they all likely have a desire...it is just not for everyone. Those players in lower rankings of professional game should get a bit more respect.

[Venetian]

Originally Posted by spc9999

How is it that you think the 300-1200 best tennis players on earth are somehow less talented than the 300-1200 best NFL, MLB, or football players?

For that matter, do you think you could become the 1200th fastest sprinter, marathon runner or 1200th best investment banker on earth?

If you do, why don't you do it?

Yes I believe I could actually. Do I know for certain that I would be the 1200th fastest sprinter in the world if I tried? No.

I was the fastest sprinter at the 100m and 200m in track at my school and the 2nd fastest went on to run well in college for his track team. Who knows how far I could have gone? But I chose instead to join the military and raise a family, because I consider that more meaningful than being a professional athlete. Had I really wanted to try though, I could have. Maybe I would have been a top sprinter, maybe not. There's no way to know what could have happened had someone made different choices in their life.

Again, I do not know how good I could have become at a number of activities because I chose to focus on other things, and I'm sure there are many people like me out there.

[burosky]

Originally Posted by OrangeOne

You're dreaming, as are many in this thread.

I'm a 4.5 to 5.0 player (I'm in Australia, we don't have USTA ratings here). Sometimes, I've played against 5.5 players, who have more natural talent in their little finger than I do in my body. Think of the best 5.5 in your area, and know that they had almost zero chance of making it as a pro, and there's thousands of them across the world. Ten's of thousands, even. Many of them played 5 or 6 days a week as a junior, and would have gladly gone pro if they could.

OR

Go to a pro tournament. Walk in, feeling confident. Wander past a pro or two, thinking "wow, they look human too". Then stand on the sidelines in the practice courts, during a training session. 10 minutes, any top male or female....and you'll know they're not only phenomenal, but that they're also playing what is almost a different sport.

I agree with OrangeOne on this one. The disparity is quite obvious even with the top 50 pros, man or woman. I would imagine as you approach 1200 the disparity gets less and less to the point that they look just like that great recreational player at the club. However, don't let their appearance fool you. They probably could run rings around the best open tournament player (non-pro) that you know even on their bad day. To be in the top 1200 is no joke. I bet there are hundreds of thousands of players who has pro aspirations and potential. Sadly, a vast majority of those will not make it. If I'm not mistaken, to get into that elite 1200 you need to have earned at least 1 maybe more ATP points. These players outside the top 128 fight for every ATP point they can get. They don't give away charity matches. This is what getting in that circle of 1200 and staying there so difficult.