MEP vs ET Players - Original TT Epic

S&V-not_dead_yet · May 15, 2021

GuyClinch said:
Sigh. The ceiling for a player with good technique is going to be higher then that with poor technique. This is not controversial it is obvious to all.

I don't know if anyone's even arguing against that.

For me, I'm arguing that learning and executing good technique takes a lot more work and maybe people plateau long before they can realize that potential. So maybe good technique is no guarantee of better results.

All other things being equal, I would suggest someone use good technique, no doubt about it.

If an adult learned tennis later in life and has had success with his current style, I would not push him to strip everything down to the foundations and relearn. In the long-run, that change might be beneficial but how many would have the fortitude to pursue it?

But if your athleticism is very low - you will cap out much earlier in levels then a better athlete. A quick rise like MEP confirms what most believe - all athlete - marginal tennis. He is like the Ben Wallace of 4.5 tennis.

So is it your argument that everything before and after the stroke is athleticism but the stroke itself is all technique? Hmm, I'll have to think about that one. I tend to view them both [as well as other factors] as part of an integrated whole.

S&V-not_dead_yet · May 15, 2021

GuyClinch said:
What does that have to do with anything? MEP would play better with fundamentally correct tennis strokes.

Is that assuming he started young with lessons? If so, that doesn't prove much, only that starting young and having lessons is better than starting late without lessons.

Maybe he wouldn't have lost to the 4.0 doctor. I am not saying that if you had to get an athlete to the highest level of rec tennis in the shortest level of time you would spend time teaching them correct strokes. Quote me where I said that?!

I never claimed that learning proper technique has less of a learning curve. Obviously. Ben's strokes are what most untrained people start out with. They come naturally. There is zero learning curve..

I am saying you shouldn't equate Ben's success with his poor strokes. He wins in spite of them not because of them.

That's where we disagree. I can't so easily make that conclusion. I see it as being a lot more complicated than that.

We don't want tennis to go down the pickleball route here. Pickleball has a very low learning curve and you don't really need as much technique to play it well. Tennis is more technical then pickleball - this is a good thing because technique is something we can work to improve.

If it's all about athleticism and fitness we have only to look forward to age related death.. And BTW no btw then 70 year old won't beat the self-rated new to tennis 3.0 hacker - because he won't make any errors. (I should have made my example more clear) That's the point of being a bunter - you can reduce errors because you don't add much energy to the shot.

This is why the pancake serve is so popular you can aim it really well... its very reliable. So people new to the game always start with that stroke..

The pancake serve might be a better choice for those who struggle with the serve and DF away matches rather than dogmatically sticking to the traditional serve that is obviously difficult for them.

zipplock · May 15, 2021

FiddlerDog said:
I know a lot of overhitting error machine 3.5's who have been 3.5 for 20 years.
Tons of double faults, tons of balls hit 6 feet long.
Maybe their true potential is MEP style at 4.5 ?

This holds true for 4.0. This starts to go away at 4.5 as players get "smarter", like @GSG

ByeByePoly · May 15, 2021

travlerajm said:
You are making the assumption that he has poor technique. But if his forehand is more accurate and reliable than a typical 4.5 forehand, doesn’t that mean he actually has superior technique compared to a typical 4.5?

That was my point in an earlier post. Don't we have to include UE, accuracy, shot tolerance, etc ... wins in the definition of technique.

Maybe not ... I could make the case for technique defined on the unit turn spectrum, and length of swing, grips, swing path, rf orientation at contact, classic vs WTA vs ATP w/flip, ATP without flip. But if we are talking in terms of the avg adult rec player fh (for example), I would say that is the superior technique that will lead to inferior result (on avg for adult player taking up tennis late). It's not a straight line from fuller/longer baseline strokes and best adult rec player lifetime tennis results.

That said ... if you gave me 100 male players of avg athletic ability starting tennis at age 25, with the goal of most making it to 4.5 or higher, and I could only pick one "technique":

I would pick more fundamental strokes than Ben, but definitely not the full length ATP ... and no flip/lag release. I make this choice based on experience, watching lots of age group (35s, 40s, 45s) finals matches of players ranked top in the state. This was when I was in my 20s playing 4.5 (we called As). I have seen nothing that makes me think today's 4.5s are superior to my "era"

... poly and Nadal ts quest did not change rec 4.5 level ... imo.

This was typical technique of those top age group players:

- stingy with UEs ... gave away nothing, had to beat them
- no bunting
- adequate unit turn, always follow through but nothing like catching fh over shoulder with left hand
- some flat hitters, most moderate ts, pretty much none with heavy ts
- serves ... accurate, rare double faults, pretty much no one going for aces
- no constant s&v ... but almost all comfortable in approaching net and finishing points
- everyone moving each other around, sideline to sideine, lots of dtl, many with good drop shots, hit to targets/patterns that worked in their age group
- conservative grips, I doubt if any used a sw grip
- most had 1hbh ... some 1hbh slice, some flattish drives. Maybe a few 2hbh ... but not common.

I think a classic fh (or any fh with moderate lag) with an eastern grip would be a good bet for those 100 males. In terms of Ben, Topher and Ian as my model ... it would be Ian.

Obviously a lot of holes in this fictional contest ... players that pick up full baseline strokes fast but still can't volley after 10 years. Players that will never have good looking groundstrokes no matter how much they work on it, but great hands at the net, and natural throwing motion on serves and overheads. That said ... my bet is with the repeatable "long enough non-bunting strokes".

heninfan99 · May 15, 2021

Raul_SJ said:
When did Ian stream the Topher match? And why is Ian now acting like nobody knows the result?

I will text him and let you know

FiddlerDog · May 15, 2021

GuyClinch said:
Sigh. The ceiling for a player with good technique is going to be higher then that with poor technique. This is not controversial it is obvious to all.

Sigh? No. You have tried to learn correct technique, and you can't get past 3.5
Clearly, correct technique is not working for you, and has been a quest of failure.
At 3.5, you are exactly as good as someone with little technique, training, or lessons, or basic understanding of tennis principles.
Maybe even worse, in fact.

With standard modern strokes, your ceiling is 3.5. after almost 20 years of posting here. It is safe to assume you've reached your limit.
As you get older, you will drop in rating, as well. So, your true potential is 3.5?

What I am suggesting is that maybe you could have gotten farther if you did not attempt technique that are beyond your grasp.
Perhaps, if you played like MEP, maybe you could have reached your true potential of 4.0? or maybe even 4.5 ?
Not being stuck at 3.5 for 20 years trying to play a game style that is beyond your abilities ?
If you rewind the clock 20 years, and learned to play hacker strokes like MEP, I am suggesting you would have had a much higher chance of reaching 4.0 (ie: better player)

navigator · May 15, 2021

What a wonderful thread. I went back and watched a bit of the matches. I love how it clearly bothers lots of folks that someone with GSG's non-traditional (and to some, optically disturbing) technique can win at a pretty decent level (~95th percentile of tennis). Very entertaining. Technique schmechnique... the first principle that eludes most rec players is that the ball needs to make it over the net... many, many times.

FiddlerDog · May 15, 2021

navigator said:
What a wonderful thread. I went back and watched a bit of the matches. I love how it clearly bothers lots of folks that someone with GSG's non-traditional (and to some, optically disturbing) technique can win at a pretty decent level (~95th percentile of tennis). Very entertaining. Technique schmechnique... the first principle that eludes most rec players is that the ball needs to make it over the net... many, many times.

The other thing to learn from MEP is how focused he is on the opponent. Most topspin hackers just try to hit the ball and ignore everything going on in the match. Half the time, they don't even know the score, let alone the opponents mental state.

ByeByePoly · May 15, 2021

navigator said:
What a wonderful thread. I went back and watched a bit of the matches. I love how it clearly bothers lots of folks that someone with GSG's non-traditional (and to some, optically disturbing) technique can win at a pretty decent level (~95th percentile of tennis). Very entertaining. Technique schmechnique... the first principle that eludes most rec players is that the ball needs to make it over the net... many, many times.

I find it much more enjoyable now watching it than way back when trying to get past it in 4.0. Ben violated the agreement ... I thought it was understood this kind of pain ended at 4.0.

navigator · May 15, 2021

FiddlerDog said:
Sigh? No. You have tried to learn correct technique, and you can't get past 3.5

I think his statement is *generally* true but, as with most things, it depends on a number of factors. Also, there are degrees of "correctness," and for a lot of folks, getting 60% of the way there is going to be more effective long-term than trying (and generally failing) to get 90% of the way there.

Two extreme examples. If you're starting with a kid with above-average athleticism his ceiling will almost certainly be higher if he learns and practices "proper" technique early on. It will generally pay off long term. If, however, you're dealing with someone who learned as an adult and already has some (dubious) ingrained habits, it may be harmful to introduce this "proper" technique; it might be best to just maximize the return on what they're already doing.

The younger the player and the more inexperienced the player, the greater the long-term gains from introducing proper technique. Generally. The older the player and the more tennis they've already played (so the more ingrained whatever technique they have is), the smaller (if any) gains from introducing proper technique. Generally.

There are exceptions to every rule.

AnyPUG · May 15, 2021

travlerajm said:
While what you are saying here is controversial, I agree 100%.

Most rec players get stuck at 3.5 or 4.0 because they focus on trying to refine a topspin forehand. The problem is that if you didn’t start hitting topspin forehands as a kid, it’s very difficult to reach a topspin forehand technique that you can hit with 100% reliability.

The real key to advancing up in level is having strokes that you can hit with 100% reliability to controlled targets. Instead of wasting time on the usual doomed goal of learning a great topspin forehand, MEP started with a punch stroke that is biomechanically very simple. Due to its simplicity, he was able to reach close to 100% reliability on that stroke very rapidly.

Once he had that, he could ignore technique pains and focus his growth energy on strategy patterns, tactics, and shot selection. By honing these in match situations, mental toughness naturally follows.

Can all 3.5s become 4.0s by training harder and becoming better players? They have to beat others in the group and only one player can beat everybody else(no matter how good others are) and advance to the next level.
There's always going to be a lot more at the bottom than the top - like a pyramid structure. No matter how good the players are, you can only place 4 in the semis and 2 in the finals.
People get stuck because it's "natural" and the path allows only one at a time to move up.

FiddlerDog · May 15, 2021

ByeByePoly said:
I find it much more enjoyable now watching it than way back when trying to get past it in 4.0. Ben violated the agreement ... I thought it was understood this kind of pain ended at 4.0.

When @GSG executes a surgical slice pass or dropshot or lob,
or laser beam slice, that has taken a decade to refine, the ignorant 3.5 (tautology) calls it hacker strokes.
When an ATP player executes the same stroke, it is literally called genius.
John Mac won 8 grand slams using slice FH, flat FH, slice BH, drop shot, lobs.
Fed gets a standing ovation for his slice winners

heninfan99 · May 15, 2021

I think online coaches owe Topher a thank-you for had he lost I think the rec technique teaching industry would take a hit. Does he take lessons from Ian or does he simply study Surshses posts?

S&V-not_dead_yet said:
I don't know if anyone's even arguing against that.

For me, I'm arguing that learning and executing good technique takes a lot more work and maybe people plateau long before they can realize that potential. So maybe good technique is no guarantee of better results.

All other things being equal, I would suggest someone use good technique, no doubt about it.

.

navigator · May 15, 2021

travlerajm said:
The real key to advancing up in level is having strokes that you can hit with 100% reliability to controlled targets. Instead of wasting time on the usual doomed goal of learning a great topspin forehand, MEP started with a punch stroke that is biomechanically very simple. Due to its simplicity, he was able to reach close to 100% reliability on that stroke very rapidly.

A lot of rec folks don't grasp this. (Although I'd say you want 90% reliability, as 100% is unattainable, but that's just a nit.) Under pressure, a lot of rec folks with fancy strokes just can't reproduce them - they fall apart. Far better to have simple strokes you can rely on (virtually) all of the time as opposed to fancy-pants strokes that are *only*, say, 70% reliable. The exception to this rule might be a first serve (only because you get a second one). Execution in warm-up and practice is totally different from execution in a match. It's far better to have maximum confidence in sub-optimal strokes than to have modest confidence in optimal strokes.

navigator · May 15, 2021

FiddlerDog said:
When @GSG
John Mac won 8 grand slams using slice FH, flat FH, slice BH, drop shot, lobs.

Sure, but, let's be clear: Mac could - and did - rip topspin FHs and BHs at will. He had those shots at his disposal whenever necessary.

chetrbox · May 15, 2021

S&V-not_dead_yet said:
I don't know if anyone's even arguing against that.

For me, I'm arguing that learning and executing good technique takes a lot more work and maybe people plateau long before they can realize that potential. So maybe good technique is no guarantee of better results.

All other things being equal, I would suggest someone use good technique, no doubt about it.

If an adult learned tennis later in life and has had success with his current style, I would not push him to strip everything down to the foundations and relearn. In the long-run, that change might be beneficial but how many would have the fortitude to pursue it?

TLDR; MEP style tennis doesn't age well, and doesn't work well in doubles (i doubt even for MEP). unlearning is tough, so learn something you don't have to unlearn.

All adult learners I know (everyone was 22+ and started on public courts, as opposed to group clinics) started with no idea of tennis technique. This was in the pre youtube instruction era (around 2009), so there was no easily available/consumable information on tennis technique. Everyone was just focused on winning by being a better 'athlete' than the opponent, and by placing the ball in the least convenient location for the opponent. Obviously, none of the players that played 'proper' tennis would play with us. But as we got better with that style, each of us eventually reached the limits placed by that style of play. The limits were most obvious to me in USTA doubles, where our team would win both singles every time at 4.0, and lose doubles almost all the times it mattered. I was lucky that I hit the ceiling imposed by the hacky style at 32 - I still had enough neuro-plasticity to unlearn old muscle memory and relearn new technique. While the primary motivator for changing technique was winning in doubles, i found that it greatly improved my singles game as well.

I think it was Tomaz who said technique is about using the body most efficiently to achieve the desired ball trajectory. MEP probably has optimal technique for the trajectories he imagines, but those trajectories are not going to win matches for people who aren't as athletic as MEP. And in doubles I doubt even MEP himself does well at the 4.5 level with those trajectories. Since athleticism reduces with age, it makes more sense to learn a style that improves with age as opposed to degrades with age. I don't know if there's a certain age past which it is harder to relearn your strokes, but it seems likely that it gets tougher as you grow older. Thus, even if you're athletic like MEP, it makes sense to attempt to learn the conventional style as soon as possible.

Tennis is a journey of self improvement. I'm sure each and every one of us has something about their game they still want to improve. If fitness the main thing we wanted to improve about ourselves, there are far more time efficient ways to do that than playing tennis. While MEP style might work for younger players, they will most likely regret not learning the conventional way at some point, even if it is when they turn 50 and their athleticism can't prop up their style anymore. MEP style tennis is likely tougher on younger bodies as well, and might cause you to stop playing tennis altogether after your knee's cartilage wears out, cutting the journey short. I appreciate the efforts of some here to keep pointing out the negatives of MEP style tennis without being personally negative towards MEP.

MyFearHand · May 15, 2021

A lot of the posts in this thread indicate what I think is a fundamental flaw in people's outlook on playing good tennis. If you want to win more at your level it's tactics, not technique, that you should be focused on. It's loads easier to develop better tactics than it is to try to overhaul an entire stroke.

ByeByePoly · May 15, 2021

FiddlerDog said:
When @GSG executes a surgical slice pass or dropshot or lob,
or laser beam slice, that has taken a decade to refine, the ignorant 3.5 (tautology) calls it hacker strokes.
When an ATP player executes the same stroke, it is literally called genius.
John Mac won 8 grand slams using slice FH, flat FH, slice BH, drop shot, lobs.
Fed gets a standing ovation for his slice winners

Almost everyone that has played 4.0 singles tournaments have run into the frustrating human backboard player. It's kind of a right of passage thing ... that is what my reply referred to. I knew in 5 minutes (because of so many past tournament singles hours) watching Ben why he was unique in this category. Net play ends most human backboard player fun and games, but Ben has skills to counter it. Also ... many with a similar style of play simply keep getting the ball back with little targeting ... in is in. In this regard alone ... Ben really doesn't fit in the backboard category ... his targeting skills is offense. As a past tournament player ... got nothing but respect for anyone who figures out how to win under pressure. That said ... "laser beam slice" ... really ... that is as much hype as the music dubbed into the match videos.

Which reminds me ... what rec match wouldn't benefit from music and sound effects?

S&V-not_dead_yet · May 15, 2021

navigator said:
A lot of rec folks don't grasp this. (Although I'd say you want 90% reliability, as 100% is unattainable, but that's just a nit.) Under pressure, a lot of rec folks with fancy strokes just can't reproduce them - they fall apart. Far better to have simple strokes you can rely on (virtually) all of the time as opposed to fancy-pants strokes that are *only*, say, 70% reliable. The exception to this rule might be a first serve (only because you get a second one). Execution in warm-up and practice is totally different from execution in a match. It's far better to have maximum confidence in sub-optimal strokes than to have modest confidence in optimal strokes.

Very astute observation. I think a lot of the argument centers around the "theoretical" ceiling of "proper" vs "improper" strokes. Yes, my proper strokes might have a theoretical ceiling of 8 out of 10 but if I can't consistently execute at an 8 but drop down to a 4 occasionally, is that going to beat someone with 6 strokes that's highly reliable and reproducible? Maybe not.

And yet the argument appears to be "of course I'm going to win because I have better strokes". And if I lose, I'd be told to just get better at executing.

People don't consider the possibility that there are other ways up the mountain.

S&V-not_dead_yet · May 15, 2021

chetrbox said:
TLDR; MEP style tennis doesn't age well, and doesn't work well in doubles (i doubt even for MEP). unlearning is tough, so learn something you don't have to unlearn.

I agree that technique is easier to maintain than physique. And also the part about unlearning. However, it's not as if someone is doing a 10-year plan when mapping out their tennis development. A lot of people just gravitate towards either what they enjoy and/or what works. So when doing a post-mortem on someone's choices, it's easy to point out where they could have done things better. But in foresight, it's a lot tougher.

I think it was Tomaz who said technique is about using the body most efficiently to achieve the desired ball trajectory. MEP probably has optimal technique for the trajectories he imagines, but those trajectories are not going to win matches for people who aren't as athletic as MEP. And in doubles I doubt even MEP himself does well at the 4.5 level with those trajectories. Since athleticism reduces with age, it makes more sense to learn a style that improves with age as opposed to degrades with age. I don't know if there's a certain age past which it is harder to relearn your strokes, but it seems likely that it gets tougher as you grow older. Thus, even if you're athletic like MEP, it makes sense to attempt to learn the conventional style as soon as possible.

Not looking specifically at 4.5, I'd think that MEP's style could very well be a fit for at least some of the people struggling with more traditional strokes. We probably will never know because so few will actually attempt it; they'll likely continue playing at their current level & style or quit and find something else more enjoyable.

Tennis is a journey of self improvement. I'm sure each and every one of us has something about their game they still want to improve. If fitness the main thing we wanted to improve about ourselves, there are far more time efficient ways to do that than playing tennis. While MEP style might work for younger players, they will most likely regret not learning the conventional way at some point, even if it is when they turn 50 and their athleticism can't prop up their style anymore. MEP style tennis is likely tougher on younger bodies as well, and might cause you to stop playing tennis altogether after your knee's cartilage wears out, cutting the journey short. I appreciate the efforts of some here to keep pointing out the negatives of MEP style tennis without being personally negative towards MEP.

According to Brent Abel, who has won something like 10 gold balls [national championships], he had to overhaul his game in his 60s when it became apparent that S&V wasn't working enough anymore [this was especially significant to me]. But he did not follow your philosophy of deciding on that new style 30 years ago [and neither did I]: it worked well for him so he stuck with it.

I suppose it boils down to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" vs "adapt or become extinct": it's tough to switch from the former to the latter when the former is so successful [as you alluded to when talking about your plateau at 32 with your previous style].

S&V-not_dead_yet · May 15, 2021

navigator said:
What a wonderful thread. I went back and watched a bit of the matches. I love how it clearly bothers lots of folks that someone with GSG's non-traditional (and to some, optically disturbing) technique can win at a pretty decent level (~95th percentile of tennis). Very entertaining. Technique schmechnique... the first principle that eludes most rec players is that the ball needs to make it over the net... many, many times.

It's akin to the 5 stages of grief:

Stage 1: Denial
"Ain't no way MEP is going to win."

Stage 2: Anger
"MEP won? His opponent must have been terrible."

Stage 3: Bargaining
"He only won because of x, y, & z. Any 4.5 in my club would have crushed him."

Stage 4: Hopelessness
"If this is good tennis, I don't want to play tennis anymore."

Stage 5: Acceptance
"Tennis, anyone?"

travlerajm · May 15, 2021

S&V-not_dead_yet said:
It's akin to the 5 stages of grief:

Stage 1: Denial
"Ain't no way MEP is going to win."

Stage 2: Anger
"MEP won? His opponent must have been terrible."

Stage 3: Bargaining
"He only won because of x, y, & z. Any 4.5 in my club would have crushed him."

Stage 4: Hopelessness
"If this is good tennis, I don't want to play tennis anymore."

Stage 5: Acceptance
"Tennis, anyone?"

Good summary.

Dragy · May 15, 2021

S&V-not_dead_yet said:
I suppose it boils down to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" vs "adapt or become extinct": it's tough to switch from the former to the latter when the former is so successful [as you alluded to when talking about your plateau at 32 with your previous style].

The big issue with some posters claiming MEP style is to be copied is that they imply any player actually can do well with bunts and slices... While most cannot. They cannot get their bunts to be precise enough (depth, placement, consistency) to stand well against players above 3.5. And they lack fitness and stamina to win the war of attrition at 3.5, even if their bunts are serviceable. The reason topspin drives (including moonballs) work for many more is that it's easier to keep opponents from attacking with such shots without missing much. It's much easier even to be a "pusher" with topspin shots at 3.5, 4.0, 4.5 level.

If it ain't broke... but if it is? MEP is evidently unique to get to his high level and efficiently taking opponents apart with his shots, tactics and mental toughness.

PS many players seek for technique instruction after they stagnate and don't improve past basic level by just playing with self-made strokes.

travlerajm · May 15, 2021

Dragy said:
The big issue with some posters claiming MEP style is to be copied is that they imply any player actually can do well with bunts and slices... While most cannot. They cannot get their bunts to be precise enough (depth, placement, consistency) to stand well against players above 3.5. And they lack fitness and stamina to win the war of attrition at 3.5, even if their bunts are serviceable. The reason topspin drives (including moonballs) work for many more is that it's easier to keep opponents from attacking with such shots without missing much. It's much easier even to be a "pusher" with topspin shots at 3.5, 4.0, 4.5 level.

If it ain't broke... but if it is? MEP is evidently unique to get to his high level and efficiently taking opponents apart with his shots, tactics and mental toughness.

PS many players seek for technique instruction after they stagnate to improve past basic level by just playing with self-made strokes.

I strongly disagree with this. This way of thinking is exactly what keeps so many players stuck at 3.5-4.0. If you can’t control a bunt, then you have no business trying to hit anything more advanced than a bunt in the match. This idea that you should keep practicing the harder lower % shot because it will make you better in the long run is fallacy.

Unless... you care more about what your strokes look like than you do about reaching a higher competitive level.

I strongly believe almost any adult can reach 4.0 level or higher following the MEP route. They might not get to 4.5-5.0, but certainly can get past 3.5.

S&V-not_dead_yet · May 15, 2021

Dragy said:
The big issue with some posters claiming MEP style is to be copied is that they imply any player actually can do well with bunts and slices... While most cannot. They cannot get their bunts to be precise enough (depth, placement, consistency) to stand well against players above 3.5. And they lack fitness and stamina to win the war of attrition at 3.5, even if their bunts are serviceable. The reason topspin drives (including moonballs) work for many more is that it's easier to keep opponents from attacking with such shots without missing much. It's much easier even to be a "pusher" with topspin shots at 3.5, 4.0, 4.5 level.

Good point. Despite that, I think taking the defensive route, even if the shots aren't as good as MEP's, tilts the scales in their favor because the burden is on the offensive guy to finish the point and since the majority end with errors and because the defensive guy makes so few, the math is the defensive player's corner.

If it ain't broke... but if it is? MEP is evidently unique to get to his high level and efficiently taking opponents apart with his shots, tactics and mental toughness.

@chetrbox brought up the point of how well MEP's style ages: it requires an immense physical effort which means it will degrade in correlation with athleticism whereas someone with great technique can probably preserve that longer [we all know the players who aren't very mobile but if you give them something in their range, they hammer it].

So while that style ain't broke now, it will break eventually and probably faster than one centered around technique. Which is also why I brought up the Brent Abel story.

PS many players seek for technique instruction after they stagnate and don't improve past basic level by just playing with self-made strokes.

True enough; human nature, I guess. As long as one isn't stagnating, it's more work to seek improvement than simply staying the course.

S&V-not_dead_yet · May 15, 2021

travlerajm said:
I strongly disagree with this. This way of thinking is exactly what keeps so many players stuck at 3.5-4.0. If you can’t control a bunt, then you have no business trying to hit anything more advanced than a bunt in the match. This idea that you should keep practicing the harder lower % shot because it will make you better in the long run is fallacy.

Unless... you care more about what your strokes look like than you do about reaching a higher competitive level.

I strongly believe almost any adult can reach 4.0 level or higher following the MEP route. They might not get to 4.5-5.0, but certainly can get past 3.5.

It would be interesting to take a bunch of players who are defense-inclined to try that style. I suspect more might make it to 4.0 than the traditionalists, simply because errors dominate and the defensive style puts a premium on avoiding errors.

FiddlerDog · May 15, 2021

chetrbox said:
TLDR; MEP style tennis doesn't age well, and doesn't work well in doubles (i doubt even for MEP).

Sorry, but that is totally wrong. Slicing ages tons better than topspin, in every way.
Older people can't hit topspin without making tons of errors.
Older 4.0 players are often slicers. Older 3.0 players hit topspin.
Also, the junkers are never injured. Big hitters are constantly injured after age 50.

FiddlerDog · May 15, 2021

S&V-not_dead_yet said:
@chetrbox brought up the point of how well MEP's style ages: it requires an immense physical effort

No, it does not. That is why he outlasts his opponent. Watch his debut video against TennisTroll. TT is taking massive cuts at every ball, and MEP just chips it back. MEP barely breaks a sweat. That is why he is called MEP !

travlerajm · May 15, 2021

S&V-not_dead_yet said:
It would be interesting to take a bunch of players who are defense-inclined to try that style. I suspect more might make it to 4.0 than the traditionalists, simply because errors dominate and the defensive style puts a premium on avoiding errors.

I guess I’m not really saying defense-minded vs offense-minded is best.

I’m saying tactics-minded first is superior to stroke-minded first.

In high school, when I taught myself how to play, I couldn’t hit a topspin fh. So rallying topspin from the baseline wasn’t going to win matches.

And because I still had an eastern forehand grip on my forehand volley still, forehand slice wasn’t really a useful option yet. So pushing wasn’t likely to win me any matches either.

I had a few tools to work with though. I was faster and quicker around the court than the other kids. And I could hit a pretty decent kick serve.

After watching Stefan Edberg win Wimbledon, a light clicked on. Suddenly I was a serve-and-volleyer, despite not having very good volley technique.

I charged the net every chance I got. Quickness and net coverage were my weapons. I was an
all-out attacking player, despite having a lousy forehand. My fh volley grip naturally shifted over to conti. And my fh slice emerged as an option.

My serve evolved into a big weapon after that because I was relying on it to win points.

Many years later, when I couldn’t trust the serve anymore, i started to lose to people I used to beat. I had to re-invent my game as a defense-first player. I developed a reliable forehand slice to make the style work. My serve atrophied, but my baseline patience and passing shots naturally improved until I started winning again.

S&V-not_dead_yet · May 15, 2021

FiddlerDog said:
No, it does not. That is why he outlasts his opponent. Watch his debut video against TennisTroll. TT is taking massive cuts at every ball, and MEP just chips it back. MEP barely breaks a sweat. That is why he is called MEP !

I was thinking about the retrieval needed to chase down balls. I sometimes play a retriever style when on the BL while defending and it's tiring.

Comparing MEP to Topher is incorrect: you have to compare MEP playing this style vs MEP playing a more traditional style.

EddieBrock · May 15, 2021

Something I don't understand when watching these matches is why players aren't able to attack MEP's serve or drop shot off it. He has a low toss with a lot of slice. After a while wouldn't players get used to it and be able to really put him on the defensive?

travlerajm · May 15, 2021

EddieBrock said:
Something I don't understand when watching these matches is why players aren't able to attack MEP's serve or drop shot off it. He has a low toss with a lot of slice. After a while wouldn't players get used to it and be able to really put him on the defensive?

No. It’s coming in just above the knees with more pace than a topspin baseline groundstroke would at that height. You can try to attack it, but unless you are 5.5 player or better, attacking it would be a low % shot with minimal payoff. The percentage play is to send it back deep with high margin, preferably to his bh, and start the point from there.

GuyClinch · May 15, 2021

FiddlerDog said:
Sigh? No. You have tried to learn correct technique, and you can't get past 3.5
Clearly, correct technique is not working for you, and has been a quest of failure.
At 3.5, you are exactly as good as someone with little technique, training, or lessons, or basic understanding of tennis principles.
Maybe even worse, in fact.

With standard modern strokes, your ceiling is 3.5. after almost 20 years of posting here. It is safe to assume you've reached your limit.
As you get older, you will drop in rating, as well. So, your true potential is 3.5?

What I am suggesting is that maybe you could have gotten farther if you did not attempt technique that are beyond your grasp.
Perhaps, if you played like MEP, maybe you could have reached your true potential of 4.0? or maybe even 4.5 ?
Not being stuck at 3.5 for 20 years trying to play a game style that is beyond your abilities ?
If you rewind the clock 20 years, and learned to play hacker strokes like MEP, I am suggesting you would have had a much higher chance of reaching 4.0 (ie: better player)

First of all - just because I try to use correct technique - doesn't mean I have it.

I also don't play enough to really advance.

MEP says he does well finance wise - makes his money from a side hustle - and thus he can play matches 4x a week. He is also fit in shape and can handle an extreme schedule with no problems.

Well if you can do that you can absolutely learn correct technique! Stop being ridiculous! Most people suffer from time problems, fitness problems or money problems.. He has none of these.

This idea that its so impossible to learn a topspin groundstroke and a fundamentally correct serve that we should all stick with bunting and pancakes...

Because - get this - IT WORKS FOR ONE GUY! ONE GUY!!! This is really the most ridiculous thread in tennis warehouse history. Frankly you should be ashamed for posting such a garbage argument.

It's beyond stupid. It's certifiable.

Peter Freeman is right - if MEP learned to serve correctly he would play much better. He is a big guy with a good arm. Right there he could easily punk a 4.0 like Topher just with his serve alone. If he took the time to fix it. Which he won't ..

Since yahoos like you think he is the greatest thing since sliced bread - simply because he didn't bother to learn correct technique and was athletic enough to win at 4.5. It's an impressive testament to his athleticism and fitness. But that's it. It's not some hidden secret way to play tennis that will garner the rest of the tennis masses great success..

The fact that a 4.0 with Ian's help beat him - should be proof enough of that. There are no shortcuts in life or tennis. Put in the work - learn to do it right and you can achieve your full potential. Don't and you might go far - but you will left short of who you could be.

mcs1970 · May 15, 2021

Guy...GSG is not bunting. Not sure why you keep repeating that. .

The technique might not be aesthetically pleasing but he varies direction and depth. Plus the way the opponent has to run, you can see it has more pace than what the camera is telling you.

When you have a player who at any level varies pace, direction and depth, while not beating himself (s)he is always going to be a tough out. Next time while watching, block out GSG with a sheet of paper or your palm and just track the ball after it crosses the net. You can see the variations in depth, direction and speed. You are letting how he hits blind you to the problems he poses to his opponents once the ball leaves his racquet.

S&V-not_dead_yet · May 15, 2021

EddieBrock said:
Something I don't understand when watching these matches is why players aren't able to attack MEP's serve or drop shot off it. He has a low toss with a lot of slice. After a while wouldn't players get used to it and be able to really put him on the defensive?

Because it requires a degree of execution that most players don't have.

Think about the return: against most opponents, I rely on the momentum of the serve to minimize my effort. Against MEP's serve, you don't have that luxury: you have to generate more pace than you're accustomed to. And at a lower contact point. Not easy.

As for the DS, I like to think I have pretty good hands and I do hit DSs a lot more frequently than the typical player but it's easiest to do against mild TS. It's quite tough to do it against slice or backspin.

S&V-not_dead_yet · May 15, 2021

travlerajm said:
No. It’s coming in just above the knees with more pace than a topspin baseline groundstroke would at that height. You can try to attack it, but unless you are 5.5 player or better, attacking it would be a low % shot with minimal payoff. The percentage play is to send it back deep with high margin, preferably to his bh, and start the point from there.

@EddieBrock: Trav ought to know since he played MEP just recently.

PilotPete · May 15, 2021

MEP winning matches doesn’t involve beating the opponent. Instead the opponent beats himself.

travlerajm · May 15, 2021

S&V-not_dead_yet said:
Because it requires a degree of execution that most players don't have.

Think about the return: against most opponents, I rely on the momentum of the serve to minimize my effort. Against MEP's serve, you don't have that luxury: you have to generate more pace than you're accustomed to. And at a lower contact point. Not easy.

As for the DS, I like to think I have pretty good hands and I do hit DSs a lot more frequently than the typical player but it's easiest to do against mild TS. It's quite tough to do it against slice or backspin.

MEP’s serve is not that soft. He hits it harder than a typical 4.5 second serve. It’s that it is always to your backhand at knee height. I have an excellent 2hb return, but my strike zone is waist to chest. Against the MEP serve, I found myself blocking it back with slice, which i never normally do.

S&V-not_dead_yet · May 15, 2021

GuyClinch said:
First of all - just because I try to use correct technique - doesn't mean I have it. I also don't play enough to really advance.

MEP says he does well finance wise - makes his money from a side hustle - and thus he can play matches 4x a week. He is also fit in shape and can handle an extreme schedule with no problems.

Well if you can do that you can absolutely learn correct technique! Stop being ridiculous! Most people suffer from time problems, fitness problems or money problems.. He has none of these.

If he was starting Tabula Rasa, I'd agree 100%. If he has to unlearn many things cemented into place by years of repetition and success ["nothing succeeds like success"], it's not so easy.

This idea that its so impossible to learn a topspin groundstroke and a fundamentally correct serve that we should all stick with bunting and pancakes...

I, for one, never said it was impossible. I was weighing the effort needed and the potential payout and the chance of success.

"Bunting"? Clearly, Sean, Topher, and @travlerajm do not agree. Even Sean, who talked about the sitters, kept getting caught too far into the court [maybe anticipating the short ball] and having a lot of trouble with the slice that went deep.

And MEP moves it around; he doesn't just play the archetypical pusher shot of slow, high bouncers, in the fat part of the court. Look how much Topher had to maneuver to get the shot he wanted.

Because - get this - IT WORKS FOR ONE GUY! ONE GUY!!! This is really the most ridiculous thread in tennis warehouse history. Frankly you should be ashamed for posting such a garbage argument.

It actually works for many but their ranks thin out as one gets progressively higher.

But I'm not arguing one should emulate MEP's style because it works for him. I'm trying to explain why it works, what the relative benefits and costs are, and why one might choose to adopt certain parts for oneself. That really seems to annoy you that there could be anything redeemable in his game.

It's beyond stupid. It's certifiable.

Peter Freeman is right - if MEP learned to serve correctly he would play much better. He is a big guy with a good arm. Right there he could easily punk a 4.0 like Topher just with his serve alone. If he took the time to fix it. Which he won't ..

How many of us could Freeman analyze and point to something fundamental holding us back? Probably the vast majority. How many of us would be willing to make such a big change? Probably the vast minority. Why hold MEP to a higher standard? Why criticize him for failing to do something the rest of us aren't willing to do either?

And what if he changed his serve and, in the short-term, it became more attackable and less reliable? Sure, it's easy to tell someone else to suck it up and just keep persevering.

Since yahoos like you think he is the greatest thing since sliced bread - simply because he didn't bother to learn correct technique and was athletic enough to win at 4.5. It's an impressive testament to his athleticism and fitness. But that's it. It's not some hidden secret way to play tennis that will garner the rest of the tennis masses great success..

The fact that a 4.0 with Ian's help beat him - should be proof enough of that. There are no shortcuts in life or tennis. Put in the work - learn to do it right and you can achieve your full potential. Don't and you might go far - but you will left short of who you could be.

"Learn to do it right" implies there's only one right way. As tennis and life show, that's simply not the case.

You could point to all of us and conclude we haven't achieved our full potential. So what? That's reality.

S&V-not_dead_yet · May 15, 2021

mcs1970 said:
Next time while watching, block out GSG with a sheet of paper or your palm and just track the ball after it crosses the net. You can see the variations in depth, direction and speed. You are letting how he hits blind you to the problems he poses to his opponents once the ball leaves his racquet.

You beat me to it.

S&V-not_dead_yet · May 15, 2021

PilotPete said:
MEP winning matches doesn’t involve beating the opponent. Instead the opponent beats himself.

The "W" does not have an asterisk that indicates such. Winning matches with that style takes skill, just like winning via any other style. MEP said something like "I take opponents to places they don't want to go." Would I do that if I could? You betcha. But I'm not good enough at that to consistently execute [in my case, S&V], which is why I only have a ~50% win record.

Maybe what this shows is that defeating oneself is not so easy to avoid. The reason I don't defeat myself more often is because my opponent beats me to it and makes more errors than I do.

No one has ever accused me of being a pusher with my S&V attack style. But if you think about it, I encourage the same types of errors by hitting a decent approach and letting the opponent try to pass me. I didn't beat the opponent; he beat himself. The closest remark I hear is "I couldn't get into a rhythm", which is usually meant as a compliment; at least, that's how I choose to take it.

Dragy · May 15, 2021

travlerajm said:
If you can’t control a bunt, then you have no business trying to hit anything more advanced than a bunt in the match.

You can control a bunt. Not to a degree MEP does. Bunt with mediocre control becomes a meatball for decent player. Solid topspin shot leaves opponent less free space and time, even if placed conservatively.

I can beat a 3.0 just bunting. If I try against a 4.0, even though I don’t miss, he’ll make me run for my life - and it’s not a uniformly optimal strategy, to bet everything on my bunting and scrambling.

Dragy · May 15, 2021

mcs1970 said:
Guy...GSG is not bunting. Not sure why you keep repeating that. .

The technique might not be aesthetically pleasing but he varies direction and depth. Plus the way the opponent has to run, you can see it has more pace than what the camera is telling you.

When you have a player who at any level varies pace, direction and depth, while not beating himself (s)he is always going to be a tough out. Next time while watching, block out GSG with a sheet of paper or your palm and just track the ball after it crosses the net. You can see the variations in depth, direction and speed. You are letting how he hits blind you to the problems he poses to his opponents once the ball leaves his racquet.

That’s legit. He plays good game with good execution and tactical intention. These two matches so far on ET courts, maybe because of better filming and editing, show me much more of Ben’s ability than previous TT-hosted ones I’ve seen. I don’t know why people say it’s easy to execute those shots he does. Yes, there’s some lower energy consumption, but no, not easy!
And that’s on top of having great wheels and stamina to actually get to balls before having chance to execute another precise lob, passer or dropshot.

However, Topher, supposedly lower ranked player, managed to play toe-to-toe actually using conventional techniques and offensive tactics, and even come on top, thanks to mental fortitude. Not even speaking of those high 4.5 and above players who managed to beat MEP with their tennis quality before.

We have lots to learn from Ben, imho. We should learn how one can be very good with what he has techniques wise. But consciously switching to same technical approach - well, maybe if you want to exactly torture your opponents more than just developing all-round in tennis

ChaelAZ · May 15, 2021

navigator said:
What a wonderful thread. I went back and watched a bit of the matches. I love how it clearly bothers lots of folks that someone with GSG's non-traditional (and to some, optically disturbing) technique can win at a pretty decent level (~95th percentile of tennis). Very entertaining.

You can imagine some people trying to talk down an earned 4.5 rating...

PilotPete · May 15, 2021

S&V-not_dead_yet said:
The "W" does not have an asterisk that indicates such. Winning matches with that style takes skill, just like winning via any other style.

The asterisk comes in the form of weak 4.5 ceiling or possibly actually 4.0 as the loss to Topher indicated.

travlerajm · May 15, 2021

PilotPete said:
The asterisk comes in the form of weak 4.5 ceiling or possibly actually 4.0 as the loss to Topher indicated.

And if he earns a 5.0 computer rating, would his asterisk come in the form of weak 5.0 ceiling?

ChaelAZ · May 15, 2021

travlerajm said:
And if he earns a 5.0 computer rating, would his asterisk come in the form of weak 5.0 ceiling?

Dude, stop...

travlerajm · May 15, 2021

ChaelAZ said:
Dude, stop...

MEP has already earned usta match ratings in the 5.0 range on Tennis Record ratings site on 6 different occasions. It’s only a matter of time before these results become more consistent. And then...

PilotPete · May 15, 2021

travlerajm said:
And if he earns a 5.0 computer rating, would his asterisk come in the form of weak 5.0 ceiling?

As the great Nadal has said: if if if

S&V-not_dead_yet · May 15, 2021

PilotPete said:
As the great Nadal has said: if if if

It will be irrelevant because you'll find a way to asterisk that accomplishment also. Nothing he achieves will suffice because you don't believe the style has merit.

MEP vs ET Players - Original TT Epic

Who wins?

Ian to dish out bagel and a stick

Ian Wins

Ian just manages to win

Green shirt teaches Ian a lesson

Green shirt wins

Green shirt shocks the tennis world

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Talk Tennis Guru

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Professional

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

Legend

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

Hall of Fame

Talk Tennis Guru

Legend

Hall of Fame

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

Hall of Fame

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

Legend

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Talk Tennis Guru

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

Hall of Fame

Talk Tennis Guru

Similar threads