Inefficient Looking Strokes but Work!!!

[user92626]

Hi all,

I start to look into how I play and I must say I look like those who I thought looked..amusing when I first saw them. I'm not demeaning anyone, God NO! Obviously your eyes are more keen on detecting what's efficient or not though your body not necessarily could perform the tasks.

Good looking in a stroke is a sign of efficiency & right direction. If you watch Federer or Nadal or any pro, none of their moves looks out of place or awkward. Strangely, there's so much variety at city court and yet it doesn't seem to bother anyone!

So, how is it that city court players (and to an extent club, league players, too, because I know many city court players are in) are able to keep up and even play, compete extensively with such inefficient strokes? It boggles the mind.

[dozu]

you don't need efficiency to enjoy tennis.

all you need is an opp at the same level.

so sucky vs. sucky = fun

[Spin-A-Lot]

Originally Posted by dozu

you don't need efficiency to enjoy tennis.

all you need is an opp at the same level.

so sucky vs. sucky = fun

That is so true...I think the only time efficiency is called for is at the higher levels where awkward shots get punished!

At the club level, people are more concerned about getting the ball back in play any way they can..so any way they can do it is fine for them..and sometimes, when there's betting involved any shot that can get the ball over the net and in or cause an error for the opponent is more than welcome! In those cases winning matters more than efficiency..

[Tennis Is Magic]

Originally Posted by user92626

Hi all,

I start to look into how I play and I must say I look like those who I thought looked..amusing when I first saw them. I'm not demeaning anyone, God NO! Obviously your eyes are more keen on detecting what's efficient or not though your body not necessarily could perform the tasks.

Good looking in a stroke is a sign of efficiency & right direction. If you watch Federer or Nadal or any pro, none of their moves looks out of place or awkward. Strangely, there's so much variety at city court and yet it doesn't seem to bother anyone!

So, how is it that city court players (and to an extent club, league players, too, because I know many city court players are in) are able to keep up and even play, compete extensively with such inefficient strokes? It boggles the mind.

Sometimes strokes aren't as inefficient as they look. Look at the result i.e. Jump Man DP's forehand. He looks like a bear swiping at something, and yet his contact is as clean as my car fresh out of the drive thru wash. It's really about those few milliseconds the ball is on the stringbed that matter.

[goran_ace]

Originally Posted by user92626

So, how is it that city court players (and to an extent club, league players, too, because I know many city court players are in) are able to keep up and even play, compete extensively with such inefficient strokes? It boggles the mind.

Their strokes may not be the prettiest, but ultimately what makes a stroke effective is the ability to put the ball where you want it and do that consistently. Most likely they have been playing regularly and quite a bit of match experience between playing matches against each other, random pick up matches, and league play. So they've learned how to work with what they've got. They're crafty players who can execute a game plan and think on their feet and that can go a long way in 4.0 tennis.

[fruitytennis1]

Originally Posted by dozu

you don't need efficiency to enjoy tennis.

all you need is an opp at the same level.

so sucky vs. sucky = fun

idk...i feel tennis got so much more fun as I got better
This more relates to Table tennis where one can suck and still "seem good"

[phnx90]

Funnily enough, I find Djoker's (and to a more limited extent, Murray's) strokes to look extremely awkward; it's as though he has the wrong body for tennis, which can't be any further from the truth. I'm probably the only one who thinks so though.

[ProgressoR]

I think you find the awkward looking strokes much less often the higher level you look at.

Meaning awkward and unorthodx strokes can take you to a certain level, but usually would slow down or prevent progress beyond a certain level.

Not always the case, there are exceptions, but I think this is the case in most sports.

[KenC]

We see those weird looking strokes mostly from self-taught people. They ultimately learn how to hit a ball back in a certain way and commit it to muscle memory. I can't imagine this being very effective at the 4.5+ levels as efficiency starts to be very important.

There are exceptions, Santoro and Gilbert come to mind. But for the greater majority of players I bet the lack of real solid, efficient strokes prevents them from getting to the upper intermediate and beyond levels. The problem is, once they realize that their inefficient strokes are holding them back and go to a good coach to correct them, they have to undo many years of muscle memory. Very difficult to accomplish.

[user92626]

ProgressoR used the word that I thought of but failed to come up with -- unorthodox. That's exactly what I'm talking about, and unorthodox stroke looks very inefficient and out of place.

Take for example, the extending of nonhitting arm for balance, no one at the park that I know really does it. Almost no one starts the take back with the racket face at chin height, like Federer and all other top pros do. Everyone uses a straight, low take back. They all seem to do fine. That tells me we're playing at a very VERY low level where efficiency is irrelevant.

For some reasons I don't see this with city court basketball games. They play with "correct looking" techniques but slower and lower jumping.

I completely agree with the statement (or equation) "so sucky vs. sucky = fun"

[LeeD]

Short, choppy, straight takeback strokes CAN work up to very high levels, depending who the player is. AnkeHuber was the second best German woman, reputed to have the second best forehand in women's pro tennis.
If your typical tennis courts don't have pretty players, probably the overall level is very low.
Our courts, like out of 50 players, TWO have fluid, full strokes, and they happen to be better than all the rest, and easily 5.0's. The rest can be beaten by old farts who are injured and can't run.
Very few choppy strokes, coupled with slow running and non athletes, can play better than 4.0 tennis.

[user92626]

LeeD,

"like out of 50 players, TWO have fluid, full strokes, " is about the same ratio that I see at the courts I play. However, there are many that play very good doubles. Good in the sense that they can get to all shots, do decent placement and keep points going. One thing missing for sure is the decisive powerful putaway.

Anyway, one of the things that I wanna get out of the topic is I need to get on with the correct perspective. I can't get hung up on expecting an environment of advanced tennis.

[LeeD]

Only "enviorment of advanced tennis" is during tournaments, 4.5 or better. Figure 90% of the world's tennis players are worse than 3.5.
1% is better than 6.0.

[pushing_wins]

Originally Posted by user92626

Hi all,

I start to look into how I play and I must say I look like those who I thought looked..amusing when I first saw them. I'm not demeaning anyone, God NO! Obviously your eyes are more keen on detecting what's efficient or not though your body not necessarily could perform the tasks.

Good looking in a stroke is a sign of efficiency & right direction. If you watch Federer or Nadal or any pro, none of their moves looks out of place or awkward. Strangely, there's so much variety at city court and yet it doesn't seem to bother anyone!

So, how is it that city court players (and to an extent club, league players, too, because I know many city court players are in) are able to keep up and even play, compete extensively with such inefficient strokes? It boggles the mind.

sacraficing long term growth for short term results, its the path of least resistance

easiest way to get to a rallying stage is by hitting short, hack strokes


match point.......are u going to push? most people will push. and this reinforces the whole idea

[dozu]

Originally Posted by LeeD

Only "enviorment of advanced tennis" is during tournaments, 4.5 or better. Figure 90% of the world's tennis players are worse than 3.5.
1% is better than 6.0.

1% is way too high.. more like 0.1%

[hawk eye]

Originally Posted by KenC

We see those weird looking strokes mostly from self-taught people. They ultimately learn how to hit a ball back in a certain way and commit it to muscle memory. I can't imagine this being very effective at the 4.5+ levels as efficiency starts to be very important.

There are exceptions, Santoro and Gilbert come to mind. But for the greater majority of players I bet the lack of real solid, efficient strokes prevents them from getting to the upper intermediate and beyond levels. The problem is, once they realize that their inefficient strokes are holding them back and go to a good coach to correct them, they have to undo many years of muscle memory. Very difficult to accomplish.

I bet you're a tennis teacher..
For the pre-youtube area you could even be right but i believe that you can achieve a lot with the help of the stuff that you can watch on the internet nowadays.

[user92626]

KenC is probably right about self taught people and 4.5 max-out.

I recall one time there was a young girl between 16-19 practicing groundstrokes in the adjacent court where I was playing. She hit HARD and unbelievably consistent. Her backhand shots cleared the net under 2 feet, landed in and hit the back fence, consistently. And she did that for over an hour.

[LeeD]

Please don't lump BradGilbert into the realm of "inefficient strokes"......
He grew up in Piedmont, EastBay of SanFrancisco, very affluent hood, played at DaviesTennisCenter, had all the instruction imaginable and affordable, was a top junior all the way thru, got coaching all thru juniors, and had simple efficient strokes, EVERY stroke.
He chose to hit sidespin to take away pace. He chose to slice whenever he could get away with it. He chose to hit short angles and teasing shots. He could hit a ton when he wanted to.
I watched him play from 15 thru pros, dated his sis Dana, and know for sure he could play aggressive first shot tennis WHEN HE WANTED TO..

[hawk eye]

Brad Gilbert was not what one would call a flashy player, but sure his strokes can't be looked upon as inefficient by any means. If anything, his game should be labeled as crafty.

What Ken C says about self taught people topping out at 4.5 may be correct, but I think that's also largely due to the fact that self taught people generally start to play at an older age. When you start to play at 6-12 or even earlier, there's often some youth program at the local club you can join. At a lot of clubs you even have to, otherwise it's hard for a kid to stay involved and play a lot. Parents play a large part in this. I think it's hard to find an 8 year old who's watching FYB vids to make up for lost lessons after his mum and dad have made clear the won't pay for those.
When you start out as an adult, pro teachers have lost a little interest, of course you can join lessons but a lot of the time that's more expensive than with the juniors. Let's just put it this way, that maximising your potential isn't a priority anymore, but making money always stays a priority.
For teens/adolescent's, it something in between. Just my 2 cents.

[KenC]

For the record, I am not a coach and I do not teach tennis professionally. In fact, I am still a student of this game. I started playing tennis at 10 and took lessons almost every day for 8 years. Today I am 46 and spend 2 hours twice or three times a week with my hitting coach. I get the best results out of my tennis with proper teaching and coaching.

I see how the Internet is helping people to understand the strokes better, but I see it as a compliment to good solid training from a good, professional teacher/coach. A good coach teaches the big picture, not just creating good form on a backhand. A good teacher teaches good form, good footwork, good shot placement, strategy and hopefully fitness as a complete integrated package. Hard to get that from the Internet. That is what helps people go above the 4.0 ceiling.

As for Brad Gilbert, I always admired his tenacity and ability to win even though he wasn't the easiest player to watch. Even he himself states in his book Winning Ugly that he knows he didn't have the killer strokes that his opponents had but he did have the right mentality which pulled him pretty far. That being said, I don't think his strokes were anywhere near as bad as those I see from untrained players. All I am saying is that in comparison to his peers at the time he wasn't anything like a Roger Federer.