Yeah, but is that the secret of his spin? Some of his forehands were spinning and bouncing away like crazy and the opponent could do nothing.
Big changes coming to coaching certification
- Thread starter sureshs
- Start date
Yeah, but is that the secret of his spin? Some of his forehands were spinning and bouncing away like crazy and the opponent could do nothing.
I think the USTA should be declared a monopoly and split into 3 parts, like what was done to AT&T and other companies:
- A part which runs the US Open (and only the US Open, with the US Open Series being disbanded and becoming just regular tournaments as before)
- A part which runs High Performance coaching for American pros, college students, and high-level juniors.
- A part which runs recreational leagues.
Each should be an independent entity and offer services to the other two entities on the same terms as any other client, and be independently financially responsible.
While the first part would be free from any competition, the second and third parts would have to compete. The HP part would need to compete with private academies, and the rec part with UTR and other private leagues.
I think it is very difficult due to this reason: the USTA was deemed the governing body of US tennis by an act of Congress. Which moron thought tennis was important enough to have a government stamp on it and allow one body to decide the future of the sport?
At this point, only the USPTR can issue a legal challenge, but from what I read, they are trying to get accredited too.
Quite brilliantly, the USTA has hyped-up SafePlay as a reason for uniform standardization, and that is sure to appeal to the tennis parents who are always paranoid about child molesters and so forth, ignoring the fact that many clubs require background checks already.
Last edited:
Topspin Shot
Legend
Hopefully clubs run UTR tournaments instead and the USTA loses money.
rogerroger917
Hall of Fame
Simon_the_furry
Hall of Fame
That's just outrageous.
tennisjunky
Rookie
Nothing new, they have been doing his for years...… ask yourself why your dues and price of tournaments keep going up.
US(R)TA just trying to build a system that has a guaranteed revenue stream.
US(R)TA just trying to build a system that has a guaranteed revenue stream.
This IS new, because it directly affects employability.
The other news is that, apart from USTA-controlled clubs, there is a new campaign to convince all private clubs to also hire only coaches coming out of the new system.
Mrs.Weasley
Rookie
Wow. Can you post the source for this? This is ridiculous. Thanks for the info.
I threw away the magazine. I will try to find it online
Partial info:
- Finally, USTA Member Org Clubs with four courts or more will be required to hire tennis-teaching professionals and coaches from an accreditation organization; which is US starting January 1, 2021! This step is critically important because it will influence the job market for USPTA members.
https://www.uspta.com/USPTA/Membership/Member_Resources/USTA_Accreditation.aspx
Under the USTA Accreditation, USTA member organizations and tennis facilities will look to hire USPTA tennis-teaching professionals exclusively
https://www.uspta.com/USPTA/Membership/Member_Resources/USTA_Accreditation_FAQ.aspx
heninfan99
Talk Tennis Guru
1,500 hours before you can take the test. The test includes basic things like grip types which is a lot of hours for something a college player would already know. I guess those hours were set to filter out weekend warriors from becoming certified pros.
Most of the hours can overlap with your job. After an initial training period, you can use your regular job hours towards the 1500 hours. Basically, it filters out people who were getting a certificate without doing a lot of actual coaching. Of course, the USTA then becomes responsible for finding them jobs with mentors to complete the 1500 hours. What cannot be done anymore is to get the certificate first with minimal time, and then look for actual coaching jobs. Many coaches were in other professions (one I know was a baggage handler for an airline) and got the cert on the side, and then decided whether they wanted to pursue coaching. That flexibility will be lost. Much more commitment towards full-time coaching will be required.
Again, that is not the real issue. The real issue is why clubs should be pressurized to hire only those who go through the process. Tennis is not a critical profession, like law enforcement, medicine, public accounting, or civil construction to justify interference with private sector capitalism.
Smarticus523
New User
They should also have to come to agreements with towns and cities that require a tennis pro acquire a license to coach.
heninfan99
Talk Tennis Guru
It's absurd to me that one would need 1,500 hours to take a test about basic things like grips. However, the PlaySafe aspect is a great idea as there are a lot of weirdos teaching tennis.
Last edited:
To repeat, only a portion of the 1500 hours is training - rest is just usual work which can be charged to it. The test is over after the first part, I assume.
What kind of weirdos are teaching tennis? And there are lots of them? Seems like an urban legend.
heninfan99
Talk Tennis Guru
Pedos mostly
How do you know? And how do you know there are many of them?
I think you are just repeating the usual stuff that goes around without any real knowledge of whether it is true or false.
heninfan99
Talk Tennis Guru
Just do a search. The list is far too long, so many placed in jail as well.
Maybe, but promising juniors already seek out good private coaches with a proven record.
ChaelAZ
G.O.A.T.
It strikes me that the big money from the U.S.Open has completely wrecked the culture of the USTA. For years now they've been sliding into a corporatist promote-your-pals mentality, building a moat around their castle, paying absurdly big bucks to a leadership that has mis-construed the way national champions are developed.
In the U.S., the greatest champions were developed within regions, and not just by devoted coaches, but by notably devoted students who sought understanding and put forth effort. I think such students thrive best in their home region, accruing recognition for their efforts, and staying in contact with the motivating coaches or parents. The USTA system appears to me to present frustrating roadblocks to talented eager students who want to become excellent without traveling outside of their regions. A few regional commuting-distance tennis centers would have produced as many champions (and did in the past) as a huge center built under an airport departure path and in a horribly humid weather system. The Jack Kramer Club comes to mind, as well as several major East Coast clubs. Look at how Arthur Ashe was encouraged and trained. His coach/mentor was no Patrick McEnroe acolyte. For that matter, look at how John McEnroe, himself, developed: locally, with a brief stop in California.
A few clubs and regional juniors programs in the U.S. have produced more champions than the USTA's boost programs. Devoted parent/coach individuals have done very well, from the Williams sisters to Marion Bartoli. If Lennart Bergolin hadn't protected Björn Borg from the Swedish Tennis Federation in Björn's desire to keep his strokes and technique as they were, Borg would not likely have accomplished what he did. And so on. Most of the best male "products" of Bolletieri were already great when they showed up in Bradenton.
Have you been to Lake Nona? The area is a relatively high-crime cultural wasteland. Southern California, San Diego region perhaps, would have been a better choice. The USTA cited the lower cost of land and the airport as major drivers of the selection, as if a cheap swamp and quick airport shuttle were keys to a good tennis center. Unbelievable. Champion tennis players aren't built via a corporate training ladder. They are built by early attentive personal coaching relationships and local motivation.
In the U.S., the greatest champions were developed within regions, and not just by devoted coaches, but by notably devoted students who sought understanding and put forth effort. I think such students thrive best in their home region, accruing recognition for their efforts, and staying in contact with the motivating coaches or parents. The USTA system appears to me to present frustrating roadblocks to talented eager students who want to become excellent without traveling outside of their regions. A few regional commuting-distance tennis centers would have produced as many champions (and did in the past) as a huge center built under an airport departure path and in a horribly humid weather system. The Jack Kramer Club comes to mind, as well as several major East Coast clubs. Look at how Arthur Ashe was encouraged and trained. His coach/mentor was no Patrick McEnroe acolyte. For that matter, look at how John McEnroe, himself, developed: locally, with a brief stop in California.
A few clubs and regional juniors programs in the U.S. have produced more champions than the USTA's boost programs. Devoted parent/coach individuals have done very well, from the Williams sisters to Marion Bartoli. If Lennart Bergolin hadn't protected Björn Borg from the Swedish Tennis Federation in Björn's desire to keep his strokes and technique as they were, Borg would not likely have accomplished what he did. And so on. Most of the best male "products" of Bolletieri were already great when they showed up in Bradenton.
Have you been to Lake Nona? The area is a relatively high-crime cultural wasteland. Southern California, San Diego region perhaps, would have been a better choice. The USTA cited the lower cost of land and the airport as major drivers of the selection, as if a cheap swamp and quick airport shuttle were keys to a good tennis center. Unbelievable. Champion tennis players aren't built via a corporate training ladder. They are built by early attentive personal coaching relationships and local motivation.
I get your plug about San Diego, considering how some of the top players are from there, like Maureen Connolly, Rod Laver, sureshs, Coco Vandeweghe, Taylor Fritz etc.
But San Diego already has Balboa Park and Barnes, both huge tennis places. To find another big place will be very difficult. There is no place to expand. That is why the airport is so constrained.
Remember also that the clay courts will require lots of irrigation. With the Southern California droughts, getting permits for them will be very difficult.
Considering that the USTA, and now the USPTA, both have staff living in Orlando, San Diego would be a much more expensive place to live home-price wise.
@stringertom who has an intimate knowledge of the area: Is Lake Nona as bad as described? I used to live in Orlando and loved the greenery and water, but always found it to be a cheesy and cheap kind of place, with rain and humidity all the time. But I liked it all the same, and it is also usually safe from hurricanes which die out by the time they come inland to Orlando.
ChaelAZ
G.O.A.T.
The worst is for the coaches who have brought the young players to fruition - to the point the USTA notice them and then steals them away to the new Florida campus to be marginalized in the not-so-effective prototypical mould the site casts. We have yet to see a top contender come out of there, but they are great for chruning out college recruits and many sub 100 tour players. And nothing to the coach who really had them on the right path for development.
Tennis Channel is showing a lot of NCAA tennis from the Orlando campus.
Like it or not, tennis in a big country demands a flagship center. Unfortunately, NYC the home of the USO does not qualify due to its lousy weather and lack of land.
stringertom
Bionic Poster
Lake Nona is as safe as any other upscale sector of Orlando but we’re not immune to hurricanes here...three in six weeks in 2004; one each in 2016 and 2017. They didn’t damage this area as badly as two of the three in 2004 but disrupted life for a few days each time.
Especially with you patrolling the place in your unique environmentally-friendly mode of transport.
@Curiosity probably confused it with the usual sleaze that exists close to any big airport and the nearby freeways.
Raul_SJ
G.O.A.T.
If visiting, note that the USTA center is just a short pedicab ride from such tourist attractions as Sea World .
Tom shall be happy to transport you.
The area is cheesy, devoid of culture (though Mickey Mouse is nearby, so apply your own aesthetics). The center does in fact sit under approach and departure flight lanes, which is apparently a USTA-mandatory site quality.
Regarding crime, I did not confuse the area south of Orlando airport with any other region. It attracted vast numbers of unskilled minimum-wage workers. The cheaper land (compared to the coasts) and warm winter climate ...will maintain that reality.
"The overall crime rate in Orlando is 126% higher than the national average. For every 100,000 people, there are 16.98 daily crimes that occur in Orlando. Orlando is safer than 5% of the cities in the United States."
"The chance that a person will become a victim of a violent crime in Kissimmee; such as armed robbery, aggravated assault, rape or murder; is 1 in 200. This equates to a rate of 5 per one thousand inhabitants."
As for San Diego: Bolletieri Academy was large enough for a major tennis finishing school. There are many excellent centers, for example in Spain, that find a much smaller piece of land suffices: It is the quality of the coaches (and climate) that make a difference. Supporting college tennis has little to do, on average, with producing world-class pros. For that matter, it has little to do with college. San Diego county offers many spots to plunk down twenty tennis courts and a few coaching/training buildings.
Suresh, why on earth does a big country "demand a flagship center"? It makes more sense to view the nation as a collection of regions. Each region needs a center convenient to the young talented players, one that will not pull them away from family, friends, and especially from the coaches who brought them to a high level of skill. It is true that most countries with much smaller populations and land areas have a center. If we modeled our country on Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, etc. then we'd conclude that we should have twenty or thirty "centers," and spread the US Open profits around to support coaches and players in those centers who proved their worth over time.
USTA Regional Training Centers
Currently, USTA Player Development is partnered with five Regional Training Center (RTC) programs across the country. Now more than ever, the very best coaching and instruction the USTA has to offer can be found closer to home.
- Junior Tennis Champions Center (JTCC) - College Park, MD
- Contact Point and Balance Drill with Coach Vesa
- Lifetime Athletic and Tennis - Peachtree Corners, GA
- Slice Shooter Drill with Coach Viv and Coach Torrey
- Tucker Tennis Academy - Tulsa, OK
- Ball Recognition Drill with Coach Trent and Coach Matias
- Northwest High Performance - Kirkland, WA
- Serve, React and Anticipate Drill with Coach Mark and Coach Filipp
- Smith Tennis - Indianapolis, IN
- Speed Singles Drill with Coach Bryan
National Training Centers
USTA National Campus - Orlando, Fla.
The USTA National Campus is a 100-plus-court, state-of-the-art facility serving as the touchstone for tennis in the United State is built over 63 acres of land in Orlando, Fla.
USTA Training Center East - Flushing, N.Y.
The USTA Training Center - East is located at the USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center (NTC) in Flushing, N.Y., one of the largest public tennis facilities in the world. Operated by the USTA for the city of New York, the facility opened in 1978 when the USTA moved the US Open from the West Side Tennis Club in nearby Forest Hills.
USTA Training Center West - Carson, Calif.
The USTA Training Center - West is located at the StubHub Center in Carson, Calif. The StubHub Center is a 125-acre development featuring state-of-the-art stadiums and facilities for soccer, tennis, track & field, cycling, lacrosse, rugby, volleyball, baseball, softball, basketball and other sports.
Clay and grass courts both would run into problems with environmental issues. Though there are some clay courts around here (2 in San Diego and 4 in Carlsbad), and the 2 new ones are really new and red clay, I am sure a big USTA center would attract more attention to its water usage.
The "regional training centers" get a drop in the bucket, financially. The selection represents neither a targeted funding of the best coaches nor the greatest density of rising national junior players. The centers chosen also seem to have a political criteria attached.
The three "national training centers" are simply the huge Orlando center, the pre-existing Billie Jean King facilities, and a 3-rd party (Anschutz) financed sop to California, which has fewer tennis courts than my suburban township. If you wish to recognize the nearby Cal State courts, my neighboring township has...more courts than that.
The financial commitment outside of the BJK NTC and the Orlando center is minimal.
My criticisms stand.
See https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...-college-coaching.644454/page-2#post-13454089 post #70 and #71
In my opinion, the new certifications should have an emphasis on the business side of tennis as much as on the on-court side. Today's coaches need to know how to build a business, a membership, run a facility, handle budgets and human resources, and raise and mange funds as much as teach how to hit a forehand. I would like to see what the curriculum is for the 1500 hours required to become certified. I would also like to see the specific, stated goals of this new program and policy. What are the purpose and goals of creating this certification? What is supposed to be taught/learned? Is the emphasis on coaching, or on business/management skills? What's the mix? How will this help the tennis industry and grow the sport of tennis? I see a need for training and a specialized, required course/degree/certification for someone interested in running a tennis/sports facility. What are the benefits to someone with these new training requirements and the people who want to hire them? What makes it worth the time/money/effort investment? What are the specifics? Is there a blue print, or is every PTM program at every college different? What, exactly are the requirements for the USTA/USPTA to certify a PTM program? How will coaches having this certification change the industry and the sport? How will having the certification change the employ-ability and incomes of coaches who have it? What are the goals, purpose, and benefits for member coaches, for employers, for the industry, and for the sport? What is the regional/local availability of these programs of study? What is the ratio of classwork to on-court work? Is the classroom learning available online? Is there a network of local/regional tennis facilities that can be contracted to provide the on-court portion of the requirements, or would a candidate have to move geographically to complete a legit PTM program? How have these issues been addressed? These are not criticisms. These are legitimate questions that members and future members would like to have the answers to. I am willing to work with the USTA and USPTA to help identify solutions to the issues regarding this certification effort, if some one will reach out.
Harry_Wild
G.O.A.T.
Teaching and coaching is big business worldwide now! IMG Academy, Rafael Nadal Academy, Justin Henin Tennis Aademy, etc... They are in competition with all the certifications outfits and in the U.S. with USTA in many respects. But USTA try to say they are working in coordination with these academies!
heninfan99
Talk Tennis Guru
Question: Should a 4.0 teach tennis?
I watched a 3.5/4.0 give a father and daughter a lesson this week. The guy volleys with a forehand grip but is pretty good at singles. Should he be teaching? Should there be some standard or just keep it as the wild west. I tend to side with more freedom but it's sad to see a kids get taught the "wrong" things.
I watched a 3.5/4.0 give a father and daughter a lesson this week. The guy volleys with a forehand grip but is pretty good at singles. Should he be teaching? Should there be some standard or just keep it as the wild west. I tend to side with more freedom but it's sad to see a kids get taught the "wrong" things.
ChaelAZ
G.O.A.T.
4.0 is the minimum to teach and the skill for technique and ability to teach can vary greatly in what I have seen. For par, I have seen some amazing players that should NOT be trying to work with anyone and seen 4.0 guys with decent strokes that can engage and teach like nobody's biznezz.
According to Inside Tennis mag, the enforcement date for the new coaching requirements has been moved to Jan 2021.
I am still waiting to hear whether the USPTR has been accredited by the USTA. Their first application was rejected.
I think this delay is because the USPTR is yet not on board. The USPTA is making the most of this by announcing "easy ways" for PTR pros to become USPTA ceritified. Remember that from Jan 2021, if you are not part of an accredited body, you are really not a coach according to the USTA. According to the article, the USTA is also "upgrading the job market" which I think is a way of saying that only those pros with the extended certification will eventually be expected to be hired by any club which receives USTA money.
It will be interesting to see what happens if the USPTR gives the finger to the USTA. Worldwide, it is bigger than the USPTA. The USTA will be in an awkward position of not endorsing (actually actively fighting against the employment interest of) the pros of the bigger worldwide organization headquartered in the USA.
Personally, I hope this happens and the USPTA also eventually realizes how spineless it has been and both organizations kick the USTA out of the teaching business.
Comparing tennis coaching in Europe and UK with the free-wheeling, flexible, capitalistic and entrepreneurial model of the US is not valid. Tennis is an expensive sport in those countries and a small number of over-educated teaching pros probably control the market and hold the clubs to ransom, at the expense of consumers who have to pay more.
I am still waiting to hear whether the USPTR has been accredited by the USTA. Their first application was rejected.
I think this delay is because the USPTR is yet not on board. The USPTA is making the most of this by announcing "easy ways" for PTR pros to become USPTA ceritified. Remember that from Jan 2021, if you are not part of an accredited body, you are really not a coach according to the USTA. According to the article, the USTA is also "upgrading the job market" which I think is a way of saying that only those pros with the extended certification will eventually be expected to be hired by any club which receives USTA money.
It will be interesting to see what happens if the USPTR gives the finger to the USTA. Worldwide, it is bigger than the USPTA. The USTA will be in an awkward position of not endorsing (actually actively fighting against the employment interest of) the pros of the bigger worldwide organization headquartered in the USA.
Personally, I hope this happens and the USPTA also eventually realizes how spineless it has been and both organizations kick the USTA out of the teaching business.
Comparing tennis coaching in Europe and UK with the free-wheeling, flexible, capitalistic and entrepreneurial model of the US is not valid. Tennis is an expensive sport in those countries and a small number of over-educated teaching pros probably control the market and hold the clubs to ransom, at the expense of consumers who have to pay more.
Chas Tennis
G.O.A.T.
Has anything been said about changing instructions on tennis strokes to recognize more biomechanics?
I am sure it must be part of the extended curriculum requirements. Not to mention that it creates a market for those who teach it.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
A teaching pro should be able to demo all strokes with a modicum of correctness. If the usta was really concerned about anything other then money and control they might do well to advance courses in bio mechanics and physiology of exercise that I took at Springfield college back in the dark ages. The biggest shortcomings I observe in teaching pros, is lack of understanding of analysis of strokes and ability to advance simplified methodologies in corrections. I watch kids that take rackets back to far creating 3 to 4 feet of negative swings , improper usage of the chain , a plethora of abnormal methods of teaching serve and mostly poor understandings of human behavior and how to best accommodate learning. The building up of the national ustpa and the attempt of negate the international PTR is purely political not based on any research. But then the USTA has fallen by the international wayside as a leader in tennis
The main reasons for US decline in tennis are well researched:
Best men go to other more lucrative sports
Players don't grow up on clay
Players don't crosstrain with soccer for footwork (Europeans and South America tout the above two as beneficial)
Rec players quit due to not finding people of their level to play with
I don't see how more onerous credentialing solves any of this.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Best men go to other more lucrative sports
Players don't grow up on clay
Players don't crosstrain with soccer for footwork (Europeans and South America tout the above two as beneficial)
Rec players quit due to not finding people of their level to play with
I don't see how more onerous credentialing solves any of this.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
haha what kind of demand is that. USTA tournaments are dead, one of the biggest ones around for 30 years just had one and couldn't even field draw in many popular divisions. Some only had 3 people registered so they played round robin. They will say ok whatever, we'll hold UTR events.
I wonder why the Jan 2020 deadline was moved to Jan 2021.
The tone of the USTA and USPTA has become very harsh. They seem to be saying that so far in the US any hack could become a coach (of course the irony is that it includes them), but no more.
Does anyone in the PTR know what the status of their accreditation is? Are they going ahead with it and just asking for more time? Or are there some deep divisions?
The tone of the USTA and USPTA has become very harsh. They seem to be saying that so far in the US any hack could become a coach (of course the irony is that it includes them), but no more.
Does anyone in the PTR know what the status of their accreditation is? Are they going ahead with it and just asking for more time? Or are there some deep divisions?
heninfan99
Talk Tennis Guru
It's just to give parents peace of mind that their little Taylors and Beckys will get junior training by someone who is credentialed. It won't help. If Taylor and Becky must go to Stanford via scholarship you cannot rely on the USTA for help.
Similar threads
