Collegiate player first picked up racquet 4 years ago: What does that mean for us?

[HunterST]

First of all, I have to give credit to JohnnyS&V for posting about this kid in another thread. I was so impressed by the story, I thought it deserved its own thread.

John Warden is a 4 start recruit and now plays division one tennis for the sooners. Amazingly he didn't start playing tennis until he was 14. This seems to challenge all the beliefs we've held about becoming a high level player. The fact that Warden is a 4 star recruit indicates that he is at least a 5.0 and probably 5.5 level player. For those of you that will argue this point, I know a guy that was a two star recruit, now plays collegiate tennis, and would wipe the floor with most 4.5 players. Warden is a MUCH higher rated player than the two star gentlemen I know.

What interests me is what this indicates about what we can accomplish. If a 14 year old can become a 5.5 level player by the time he's 18, why can't a 20 year old reach 5.5 by 24? Why can't a 30 year old do so by 34? Obviously Warden has exceptional talent that most do not possess, but his story at least suggests that it is possible for late starters to reach a very high level.

 

[nadalfan4life]

One of the coaches for my high school team didn't start playing tennis untill after high school and is now a teaching pro at a local indoor club. I thought that was pretty amazing. I think if you are a pretty good natural athlete you can go pretty far in tennis.

 

[prattle128]

I think that it is safe to assume that this kid is not your average person picking up a racquet. He obviously is very athletic, and talented- something that most people probably aren't, especially the older they get. But that is very nice to hear, and it sure makes you wonder that if he was able to achieve such a high level so quickly, how high his level would be if he had started playing at an even younger level. I guess all you can do is wonder though lol.

 

[HunterST]

I think that it is safe to assume that this kid is not your average person picking up a racquet. He obviously is very athletic, and talented- something that most people probably aren't, especially the older they get. But that is very nice to hear, and it sure makes you wonder that if he was able to achieve such a high level so quickly, how high his level would be if he had started playing at an even younger level. I guess all you can do is wonder though lol.

I completely agree that he's not the average person. All I'm saying is that this kind of improvement in that time frame is POSSIBLE. Popular belief seemed to always be that in order to reach a high level you had to start by 8 or so at the latest.

I made a thread awhile back about what level would Roger Federer reach if he hadn't started playing tennis until he was 18. Consensus seemed to be 4.0-4.5. I believe this story proves it would be much higher.

 

[Kick_It]

How can a 14-year old do it? Lots of free time that 20 year olds or older don't have.

As others have said, clearly this is a talented individual.

 

[Jonny S&V]

Glad someone read my post.

Saw him play in person (same section), and he's the real deal. Now that Jack Sock is out of our section, he's one of the contenders for the top spot in MO Valley tennis.

 

[raiden031]

The average (active) adult player probably plays 3-4 matches per week. The average junior tournament player probably spends 3-4 hours a day working on mastering their strokes. Big difference there.

And Federer would definitely reach 5.0, 5.5 if he started playing at 18 and went through significant training. I know a 37 year old who reached 4.5 in 2 years.

 

[HunterST]

Glad someone read my post.

Saw him play in person (same section), and he's the real deal. Now that Jack Sock is out of our section, he's one of the contenders for the top spot in MO Valley tennis.

That's cool, man. I tried to find some videos of him youtube but there weren't any. It's not too surprising though, there are hardly any videos of Jack Sock or Ryan Harrison.

 

[sureshs]

One of the coaches for my high school team didn't start playing tennis untill after high school and is now a teaching pro at a local indoor club. I thought that was pretty amazing. I think if you are a pretty good natural athlete you can go pretty far in tennis.

Is he an exceptional player though? One of the pros at my club retired as an airline baggage handler, and then learnt tennis and is now a successful teaching pro and a competitive player in senior leagues at the 4.0 level. But that is about all.

 

[mike53]

What interests me is what this indicates about what we can accomplish. If a 14 year old can become a 5.5 level player by the time he's 18, why can't a 20 year old reach 5.5 by 24? Why can't a 30 year old do so by 34?

A lot of people asking this question, but I think the answer is pretty obvious (you're not 14). So why not a 33yo by 34? Guess this guy already knew how to play.
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=4859823

 

[mtommer]

Popular belief seemed to always be that in order to reach a high level you had to start by 8 or so at the latest.

And I think this popular opinion touted has always been BS. I think it's true in order to get anywhere (if you don't have a lot of money already) in professional tennis as the money is shuffled to promising juniors only. However, if one could have been pro when starting at eight years old then one could be pro starting at 30 years old. It's only a matter of putting in the work to get there. If one has the potential inside them, it stays inside them throughout their whole life.

BTW, I mean developing pro strokes and game. You would never actually get to be a pro, most likely, as nobody would fund you.

 

[Blake0]

I believe it's a matter of talent, and how you're taught. There are obviously many ways to learn how to hit forehands or backhands. Athletic ability and how fast the player learns is also a factor. Usually players who started at a young age (8 or younger), tend to be taught by good coaches. They're taught the fundamentals and it's ingrained into them. They also improve their coordination and anticipation and stuff and learn to recognize things at an early age. So by the time they're 14, they already have strong fundamentals, good athletic ability, and good anticipation. Other players that turned pro, are already using advanced techniques at this age and starting to master it. But for players who started at 14, they usually aren't taught with as good of coaches, and don't have the same amount of time to learn anticipation, reading the opponent, and tennis related coordination. Plus, at older ages it's harder to improve on balance and other coordination related things then at an early age. If you're taught properly, and learn very quickly, then it's possible too.

Not to mention mental part of the game.

 

[raiden031]

And I think this popular opinion touted has always been BS. I think it's true in order to get anywhere (if you don't have a lot of money already) in professional tennis as the money is shuffled to promising juniors only. However, if one could have been pro when starting at eight years old then one could be pro starting at 30 years old. It's only a matter of putting in the work to get there. If one has the potential inside them, it stays inside them throughout their whole life.

BTW, I mean developing pro strokes and game. You would never actually get to be a pro, most likely, as nobody would fund you.

I think you're right about not needing to start at 8, however there is a point where its too late because your body would be declining.

If a pro who starts at 8 y/o is already declining by age 30, why would you think that someone could start at age 30 and reach pro status? It would take probably 7 years minimum to get the number of hours of practice needed to reach pro status (up to ~10,000 hours of tennis).

The keys to reaching pro status are:

1) A healthy body that is not declining (age & fitness matter)
2) A significant amount of repetitions and court experience (time & money matter)
3) Proper knowledge on strokes, strategy, and practice routines ($$$$$)

 

[dozu]

it's really no big deal.

1 extreme hypothetical example. you take a junior champ in some other racket sport - squash, racket ball, badminton or even pingpong.

that person has got world class movement, reflex, balance, power, court sense... whatelse does he need to learn to play divI tennis? a topspin forehand?

you see it's really no big deal for an already developed athletes.

 

[LeeD]

Taking 4 years to make 5.5 is very exceptional. Dedication, natural athletic skills, plenty of coaching, plenty of $$$, and good physical size is key.
Most players with the attributes above only make 4.5, or B levels.
I'd think AlexClayton (#2 for Stanford) would just about double stick that guy.
I thought I was a fast learner, after 4 years, going multiple rounds in each of my two ProQ's. But I started fully grown, all the time, all the $$$, all the advice anyone could ask for, as well as more practice partners well above my own level from year 2. I also DID NOT qualify for first round of any pro tournament, but played many A (about 5.5) tournaments usually going multiple rounds.

 

[HunterST]

it's really no big deal.

1 extreme hypothetical example. you take a junior champ in some other racket sport - squash, racket ball, badminton or even pingpong.

that person has got world class movement, reflex, balance, power, court sense... whatelse does he need to learn to play divI tennis? a topspin forehand?

you see it's really no big deal for an already developed athletes.

So you agree that it's very possible for people who start tennis late in life to reach the upper levels of the game?

 

[HunterST]

Taking 4 years to make 5.5 is very exceptional. Dedication, natural athletic skills, plenty of coaching, plenty of $$$, and good physical size is key.
Most players with the attributes above only make 4.5, or B levels.
I'd think AlexClayton (#2 for Stanford) would just about double stick that guy.
I thought I was a fast learner, after 4 years, going multiple rounds in each of my two ProQ's. But I started fully grown, all the time, all the $$$, all the advice anyone could ask for, as well as more practice partners well above my own level from year 2. I also DID NOT qualify for first round of any pro tournament, but played many A (about 5.5) tournaments usually going multiple rounds.

You think Clayton would double stick him? Tony Larson who posts here took a set of Clayton and gave him a tough match. I would guess Warden and Larson are pretty close in their level of play. I could be certainly be wrong though.

 

[Jonny S&V]

You think Clayton would double stick him? Tony Larson who posts here took a set of Clayton and gave him a tough match. I would guess Warden and Larson are pretty close in their level of play. I could be certainly be wrong though.

Actually, Tony and John's games are very similar, mostly baseline/counter-punchers with decent serves and ok volleys. Both are fast and are more tacticians than power-players. Note, I'm just going off of Tony's videos, I could be completely wrong in my assumption of him.

 

[UnforcedError]

What interests me is what this indicates about what we can accomplish. If a 14 year old can become a 5.5 level player by the time he's 18, why can't a 20 year old reach 5.5 by 24? Why can't a 30 year old do so by 34? Obviously Warden has exceptional talent that most do not possess, but his story at least suggests that it is possible for late starters to reach a very high level.

A 14 year old taking 4 years to get really good does not mean it will be as easy for a 30 year old to accomplish the same thing. One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that younger people acquire skills faster and tennis is a very skill demanding sport. If you want to learn more about this I suggest reading "The Talent Code" or just googling "myelin" how myelin production relates to age. The older you get the longer it takes to develop skills. It is extraordinary that a 14 year old to accomplish this, for a 20 year old it would be more difficult and nearly impossible for a 30 year old. The 30 year old would have to be an exceptional athlete.

 

[HunterST]

A 14 year old taking 4 years to get really good does not mean it will be as easy for a 30 year old to accomplish the same thing. One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that younger people acquire skills faster and tennis is a very skill demanding sport. If you want to learn more about this I suggest reading "The Talent Code" or just googling "myelin" how myelin production relates to age. The older you get the longer it takes to develop skills. It is extraordinary that a 14 year old to accomplish this, for a 20 year old it would be more difficult and nearly impossible for a 30 year old. The 30 year old would have to be an exceptional athlete.

Very interesting stuff! I might have to buy the book.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dY7QNxXbziA

 

[basil J]

I did not pick up a racquet until I was 37. I was a lifelong hockey player and always had good eye hand coordination. I got to the 4.0 level within 4 years of playing 3-5 times a week, , with a pro at least 3 times a month, but I peaked at that level and now at 49 realize that unless I hit the lottery and triple my on court time, I will probably always be a 4.0. I can maintain my playing level fairly easily, but improvements nowadays are more focused on fitness and court movement. I also realized that I need to spend more time on my serving and really develop a good enough serve to get free points in matches so I don't have to work so hard. The avergae age of my opponents is 29-34, so I feel like I hold my own pretty good, but anticipation and foot work are things I need to stay focused on more & more as I get older. No dubs yet, but I see that coming down the road soon enough!

 

[Spinz]

Actually, Tony and John's games are very similar, mostly baseline/counter-punchers with decent serves and ok volleys. Both are fast and are more tacticians than power-players. Note, I'm just going off of Tony's videos, I could be completely wrong in my assumption of him.

Tony would whip Warden.

 

[Spinz]

I think a key difference here is that Warden has obviously been able to throw money at this issue. Look at his playing schedule! The parents must be seriously loaded - good for them - which helps a lot when you're trying to gain experience. Especially in a section like the valley. I am happy for him though and glad John Roddick signed a local. I think in some ways he is better off starting late because he might peak at the right time, this is always a challenge in college tennis.

 

[Jonny S&V]

Tony would whip Warden.

Of course, did I say otherwise? A 6.0+ player taking on a ~5.0 player? :roll:

 

[HunterST]

Tony would whip Warden.

You really think so? Absolutely no disrespect to Tony Larson, he's an excellent player, but John Warden was one of the top recruits in the nation. A 4 star recruit is a pretty damn good player, possibly 6.0. I'm not saying Warden would win (or lose), Just that he'd make a match out of it.

Maybe Tony will see this. I'm sure he has a much better idea how his game compares to top juniors and college players than we do.

 

[aphex]

it means that if he'd started at 8 years old, he'd be a world-class player now. what's your point?

 

[nadalfan4life]

Is he an exceptional player though? One of the pros at my club retired as an airline baggage handler, and then learnt tennis and is now a successful teaching pro and a competitive player in senior leagues at the 4.0 level. But that is about all.

From what I understand he is a very good player though, but I have never seen him hit for real because I am a freshman and have not even had try outs yet so...

 

[HunterST]

it means that if he'd started at 8 years old, he'd be a world-class player now. what's your point?

Well, saying what he would have done starting at 8 is completely arbitrary and hypothetical. My point is that this 4.5 bar all of us put on our game that started later in life seems less absolute after hearing this story. Maybe someone who has the talent and athletic ability to become a 5.0 player can do so even starting as an adult.

 

[aphex]

Well, saying what he would have done starting at 8 is completely arbitrary and hypothetical. My point is that this 4.5 bar all of us put on our game that started later in life seems less absolute after hearing this story. Maybe someone who has the talent and athletic ability to become a 5.0 player can do so even starting as an adult.

don't you think he would've reached much higher had he started early?

there are very big differences in talent between individuals...

this guy is obviously very, very talented. doesn't mean his rate of progress is achievable for the other 99% of the population...

my 2 cents

 

[charliefedererer]

Do you have any other sports background information on this player? That is was he a soccer, basketball, baseball three sport star up to age 14, then switching over to tennis? The running, agility, and hand/eye coordination from other sports may have greatly aided his meteoric tennis rise.

 

[charliefedererer]

I did not pick up a racquet until I was 37. I was a lifelong hockey player and always had good eye hand coordination. I got to the 4.0 level within 4 years of playing 3-5 times a week, , with a pro at least 3 times a month, but I peaked at that level and now at 49 realize that unless I hit the lottery and triple my on court time, I will probably always be a 4.0. I can maintain my playing level fairly easily, but improvements nowadays are more focused on fitness and court movement. I also realized that I need to spend more time on my serving and really develop a good enough serve to get free points in matches so I don't have to work so hard. The avergae age of my opponents is 29-34, so I feel like I hold my own pretty good, but anticipation and foot work are things I need to stay focused on more & more as I get older. No dubs yet, but I see that coming down the road soon enough!

Interesting.
Now lace up your skates and get out there and play some pond tennis today.

 

[freedomtennis]

First of all, I have to give credit to JohnnyS&V for posting about this kid in another thread. I was so impressed by the story, I thought it deserved its own thread.

John Warden is a 4 start recruit and now plays division one tennis for the sooners. Amazingly he didn't start playing tennis until he was 14. This seems to challenge all the beliefs we've held about becoming a high level player. The fact that Warden is a 4 star recruit indicates that he is at least a 5.0 and probably 5.5 level player. For those of you that will argue this point, I know a guy that was a two star recruit, now plays collegiate tennis, and would wipe the floor with most 4.5 players. Warden is a MUCH higher rated player than the two star gentlemen I know.

What interests me is what this indicates about what we can accomplish. If a 14 year old can become a 5.5 level player by the time he's 18, why can't a 20 year old reach 5.5 by 24? Why can't a 30 year old do so by 34? Obviously Warden has exceptional talent that most do not possess, but his story at least suggests that it is possible for late starters to reach a very high level.

this will inspire many kids.

 

[dozu]

So you agree that it's very possible for people who start tennis late in life to reach the upper levels of the game?

certainly - granted that person has enough capital in his athleticism bank, where he deposits his years of training in power, balance, reflex, hand-eye coord. He may suffer some exchange-rate risk while transferring these deposits into tennis currency, but a sport is a sport.

true story, years ago I saw retired world class badminton player.... took up tennis for a couple of weeks, and was beating high-school team single players.... all he did was serve a big ball (same motion as baddie smash), and stand at the net to volley (same motion as the baddie quick exchanges at the net), and those kids can't pass him.

Thats' an extreme example.

but for an athletic person, tennis is for the most part just getting to the right spot and brush the ball with topspin... hitting the ball is easy... getting to the ball is 85% of the work.

therefore, this story about some kid playing for divI after 4 years is really misleading.. the real question is what his athletic background was before he took up tennis..... now, if you tell me that he has been a couch potato for his first 13 years of life, and he picked up a racket at 14 and made it to DivI, now that would be impressive.

 

[HunterST]

don't you think he would've reached much higher had he started early?

there are very big differences in talent between individuals...

this guy is obviously very, very talented. doesn't mean his rate of progress is achievable for the other 99% of the population...

my 2 cents

Right, I've said he has talent most do not have from the beginning. Because of that, he will obviously improve faster than the huge majority of people can.

My point however, is that before hearing the story I thought such an improvement was impossible. 99.999% of people starting at age 6 can't reach the pro level, but they dream about it, and know that they started early enough that if they DO have the talent, they can make it.

For late starters, there's really been no such hope. Most seem to accept the highest level they can reach is 4.0 or 4.5. This story, to some degree at least, gives us the hope that in the off chance that we DO have the talent to make it to 5.0 or so, maybe we can still do it.

 

[HunterST]

certainly - granted that person has enough capital in his athleticism bank, where he deposits his years of training in power, balance, reflex, hand-eye coord. He may suffer some exchange-rate risk while transferring these deposits into tennis currency, but a sport is a sport.

true story, years ago I saw retired world class badminton player.... took up tennis for a couple of weeks, and was beating high-school team single players.... all he did was serve a big ball (same motion as baddie smash), and stand at the net to volley (same motion as the baddie quick exchanges at the net), and those kids can't pass him.

Thats' an extreme example.

but for an athletic person, tennis is for the most part just getting to the right spot and brush the ball with topspin... hitting the ball is easy... getting to the ball is 85% of the work.

therefore, this story about some kid playing for divI after 4 years is really misleading.. the real question is what his athletic background was before he took up tennis..... now, if you tell me that he has been a couch potato for his first 13 years of life, and he picked up a racket at 14 and made it to DivI, now that would be impressive.

I don't think it's misleading at all. What person hasn't played a sport before? All I'm saying the article proves is that if you have the talent, you can reach a high level of the game even starting later in life that most, and in a relatively short amount of time.

I definitely disagree that getting to the ball is harder than hitting the ball. Developing good strokes takes years, no matter what sport background you have. I played varsity basketball and ran cross country. I have very little problems getting to most balls, yet I'm not 5.0. In fact, my sports backgrounds have sometimes led to me running into the ball and getting too close.

 

[ttbrowne]

IF this is the same guy. I play on the court next to him almost every Tuesday night. He's the real deal.

 

[aphex]

Right, I've said he has talent most do not have from the beginning. Because of that, he will obviously improve faster than the huge majority of people can.

My point however, is that before hearing the story I thought such an improvement was impossible. 99.999% of people starting at age 6 can't reach the pro level, but they dream about it, and know that they started early enough that if they DO have the talent, they can make it.

For late starters, there's really been no such hope. Most seem to accept the highest level they can reach is 4.0 or 4.5. This story, to some degree at least, gives us the hope that in the off chance that we DO have the talent to make it to 5.0 or so, maybe we can still do it.

i get what you're saying, although the difference between a pro and a 5.0 is gigantic...

 

[HunterST]

i get what you're saying, although the difference between a pro and a 5.0 is gigantic...

Right, right. I just mean upper levels of the game but not quite pro. Obviously someone starting very late has no chance of being pro, but in the 5-6 range is possible if you have the talent.

 

[TonLars]

You really think so? Absolutely no disrespect to Tony Larson, he's an excellent player, but John Warden was one of the top recruits in the nation. A 4 star recruit is a pretty damn good player, possibly 6.0. I'm not saying Warden would win (or lose), Just that he'd make a match out of it.

Maybe Tony will see this. I'm sure he has a much better idea how his game compares to top juniors and college players than we do.

Hard to say what the score would be Ive never seen him play, but Ive handled a few blue chip players/ top 25 nationally without "too" much trouble. This guy doesnt appear to be on that level, yet at least. Id have to play well and id lose some games obviously but it could potentially be 6-2 6-1 or so. Still impressive that he improved so quickly but theres no limit to what you can do if youre in a good environment. Now that he will be in college, he might possibly improve alot more still. I wouldnt say a 4 star recruit is a 6.0 player, and really any star recruit but rather youd have to look at the individual player. This guy is going to OU next year then right? He is not currently in the roster. Alex Clayton beat their #2 player in straight sets recently.

 

[35ft6]

If a 14 year old can become a 5.5 level player by the time he's 18, why can't a 20 year old reach 5.5 by 24? Why can't a 30 year old do so by 34?

Because at that age you have more free time, and in the summers, you can play 8 hours a day if you want. This really isn't possible after high school unless you don't have to work during the summers in college.

I completely agree that he's not the average person. All I'm saying is that this kind of improvement in that time frame is POSSIBLE.

Playing college tennis is very possible. Not typical, but it's not impossible. Playing Challengers is a different story. He's good but he's not elite. On a website, I see he lost to the 23rd ranked 18 year old in the country 2 and 0. I think what he's accomplished is almost at the very limits of what one can accomplish in 4 years. I see he's been signed to Oklahoma. When they post a bio of him I'll be interested to see if it'll say he started playing tennis at 14, or if it was more like he started playing at age 5 but was a multiple sports kid until 14, at which point he gave up the other sports to concentrate solely on tennis.

 

[Jonny S&V]

When they post a bio of him I'll be interested to see if it'll say he started playing tennis at 14, or if it was more like he started playing at age 5 but was a multiple sports kid until 14, at which point he gave up the other sports to concentrate solely on tennis.

Ask and you shall receive:

Despite being one of the state’s top tennis prospects, Warden has only been playing tennis since the age of 14.

http://www.soonersports.com/sports/m-tennis/spec-rel/111609aaa.html

 

[ttbrowne]

He came out of this academy here in Tulsa.

http://www.grandhealthandracquet.com/packages.html

 

[HunterST]

Hard to say what the score would be Ive never seen him play, but Ive handled a few blue chip players/ top 25 nationally without "too" much trouble. This guy doesnt appear to be on that level, yet at least. Id have to play well and id lose some games obviously but it could potentially be 6-2 6-1 or so. Still impressive that he improved so quickly but theres no limit to what you can do if youre in a good environment. Now that he will be in college, he might possibly improve alot more still. I wouldnt say a 4 star recruit is a 6.0 player, and really any star recruit but rather youd have to look at the individual player. This guy is going to OU next year then right? He is not currently in the roster. Alex Clayton beat their #2 player in straight sets recently.

Thanks Tony. I hope it didn't sound like I was trying to disparage your playing level, it's just hard to judge what level high school/junior/college players are. Like I said I know a two star recruit that I feel like has to be above 4.5, but I have virtually no experience with starred recruits or NTRP levels for that matter.

What level would you guess the blue chips etc. you played were? Did they play about like 5.0s and 5.5s you play in open tournaments or were they not that good?

 

[Spinz]

You really think so? Absolutely no disrespect to Tony Larson, he's an excellent player, but John Warden was one of the top recruits in the nation. A 4 star recruit is a pretty damn good player, possibly 6.0. I'm not saying Warden would win (or lose), Just that he'd make a match out of it.

Maybe Tony will see this. I'm sure he has a much better idea how his game compares to top juniors and college players than we do.

Yes, there is a HUGE difference from a junior that is Warden's level and a seasoned guy like Tony. I dont think Warden could give Tony anything he hasn't seen before. Warden is a great player obviously and he has accomplished a lot in a short period. But he has also played a lot of tournaments and spent a lot of money toward that ranking. Not many Valley kids have that luxury. When he faces one of the top juniors, he is not winning those matches. If he were, maybe he would give Tony more trouble but I kind of doubt it. I dont think it would be a double bagel but I also dont think Warden would be in the match. For a school like Oklahoma, he is the perfect pickup for them because he is a local. It is smart of John Roddick to recruit him especially in light of all of the foreign player hoopla. He'll be a solid player for them and may grow into playing a higher spot by his senior year.

 

[tyro]

Didn't Pancho Gonzalez take up the game at a relatively late age? Sorry, I don't have the facts at hand, but I recall reading that he was one of these naturals who showed up at the public courts one afternoon and, before long, was doing things with a racket that no one had done before.

http://tenniswire.wordpress.com/2009/12/28/ball-games/

--Tyro

 

[Spinz]

Because at that age you have more free time, and in the summers, you can play 8 hours a day if you want. This really isn't possible after high school unless you don't have to work during the summers in college.Playing college tennis is very possible. Not typical, but it's not impossible. Playing Challengers is a different story. He's good but he's not elite. On a website, I see he lost to the 23rd ranked 18 year old in the country 2 and 0. I think what he's accomplished is almost at the very limits of what one can accomplish in 4 years. I see he's been signed to Oklahoma. When they post a bio of him I'll be interested to see if it'll say he started playing tennis at 14, or if it was more like he started playing at age 5 but was a multiple sports kid until 14, at which point he gave up the other sports to concentrate solely on tennis.

I looked him up and he played 158 tournament matches last year. he was a full time player, almost a tournament a week. So he is definitely making up for lost time. My arm is going to fall off just thinking about playing that much.

 

[35ft6]

^ Wow, that's a lot of playing.

Ask and you shall receive:

http://www.soonersports.com/sports/m-tennis/spec-rel/111609aaa.html

Cool, thanks! Again, I see this kind of improvement for a person his age as within the realm of possibility. A two handed, fast, counterpuncher who wins on grit and tenacity, especially. A beautiful one handed all court game is still theoretically possible, but I would be even more amazed by that. Still, a remarkable achievement.

 

[TonLars]

Thanks Tony. I hope it didn't sound like I was trying to disparage your playing level, it's just hard to judge what level high school/junior/college players are. Like I said I know a two star recruit that I feel like has to be above 4.5, but I have virtually no experience with starred recruits or NTRP levels for that matter.

What level would you guess the blue chips etc. you played were? Did they play about like 5.0s and 5.5s you play in open tournaments or were they not that good?

No problem, just thought I would give you my perspective. The blue chip type players Ive played I would call 5.5 level. One in particular that I play with regularly gets sets off me every once in a while but I win about 7 or 8 out of every 10 sets or so.

 

[ubermeyer]

Really? Kind of makes me sad/jealous... Some people just have so much athletic talent.

 

[Kaptain Karl]

If a 14 year old can become a 5.5 level player by the time he's 18....

I agree with TonLars. Your guy is probably a 5.0 at best. You were overstating Warden's level.

The 2-time High School Champ in Colorado is a 5-Star ... going to Harvard, last I heard. I've seen MacMaster "routine" 4-Stars

This is not meant to diminish his achievement. Warden's rise is quite impressive. It will be interesting to see how much farther he can get....

- KK