Do tennis coaches hate coaching adults?

I look outward on the Internet.

BTW, it is not just me. What I meant was that no adult player has improved his serve with lessons. If someone had, I would have run to that coach.
None? Ever? Even by your standards, that's an egregiously risible claim.

I could give you at least a half dozen names of players I've coached recently who have improved, and would be pleased to refute you.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
None? Ever? Even by your standards, that's an egregiously risible claim.

I could give you at least a half dozen names of players I've coached recently who have improved, and would be pleased to refute you.
I know. I am limited by what I see. My statements should not be taken literally.

And neither should yours, because many players don't study the Internet and then think that the coach has helped them. I once attended a 1-day camp by the late Vic Braden and there were old people for whom "hit low to high" was a revelation. They were like "Darn so this is what is topspin which I have been unable to hit for 20 years."
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
None? Ever? Even by your standards, that's an egregiously risible claim.

I could give you at least a half dozen names of players I've coached recently who have improved, and would be pleased to refute you.
Here is a challenge for you. Go to this recent thread:

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...ailable-for-rec-players.646523/#post-13475787

in which the OP sad:

My experience has been that all say "do it like this" and they show me how they do it. Great, that's not what I am looking for. I want someone to treat me as if I were 8 years old and they were teaching me how to serve for the 1st time. Progressions and everything.


And teach him the serve.
 
What I meant was that no adult player has improved his serve with lessons. If someone had, I would have run to that coach.
You better start ultra-run training, because I know a coach who can, but by the time you get fit enough to run to him you or he may not be kicking anymore--but, hopefully I may still be around.
"hit low to high"
Not a "REVELATION"--more the death-nell to anyone's game and the surefire swing path to tennis elbow. Watch any real player--it's called the take-back which in reality is the "take-up" or the "loop"
My statements should not be taken literally.
Thanks for the clarification, I'll keep that in mind for the future--I knew it was like Alice through the looking glass but at least you show some self-awareness.
I want someone to treat me as if I were 8 years old and they were teaching me how to serve for the 1st time. Progressions and everything.
You show awareness in this regard--that is the correct way to teach a new stroke.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
You better start ultra-run training, because I know a coach who can, but by the time you get fit enough to run to him you or he may not be kicking anymore--but, hopefully I may still be around.

Not a "REVELATION"--more the death-nell to anyone's game and the surefire swing path to tennis elbow. Watch any real player--it's called the take-back which in reality is the "take-up" or the "loop"

Thanks for the clarification, I'll keep that in mind for the future--I knew it was like Alice through the looking glass but at least you show some self-awareness.

You show awareness in this regard--that is the correct way to teach a new stroke.
LOL the last quote was not from me
 
LOL the last quote was not from me
My apologies--you did not put quotation marks around it so it appears to be yours--I withdraw what I said about you demonstrating a moment of clarity regarding tennis instruction methodology and your displaying a flash of self-awareness--it makes better sense now.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
My apologies--you did not put quotation marks around it so it appears to be yours--I withdraw what I said about you demonstrating a moment of clarity regarding tennis instruction methodology your displaying some self-awareness--it makes better sense now.
I bet you haven't taken lessons in 50 years and are just posting for fun.
 
If you come to a private lesson with zero knowledge of what needs attention (or even what you think needs attention) with respect to your game...then you are just as bad as the pro who asks you, “So what do you want to work on today?”
As with any professional relationship, the best advice is stating up front what you're hoping to get out of it. If you're hoping for a general improvement of your game, or if you just want them to tell you why you can't hit a backhand any more. Having those expectations set will make it easier on them, and hopefully increase the chances you get the feedback you wanted.

Of course, that's 10%. The other 90% is the hours upon hours of repetition - creating muscle memory, translating the shot to different situations, integrating it into the rest of your game, learning how to use it tactically, and so forth. But the 10% is what you pay for, and you should never come away feeling like you've wasted your money.
This is how I like to use my time for a lesson. Identify my problems, educate me on the adjustments, and I'll go try to make them on my own time with practice. Admittedly, a lot of my required 'help' is correcting a degradation of something I used to do much better.
 
I know. I am limited by what I see. My statements should not be taken literally.

And neither should yours, because many players don't study the Internet and then think that the coach has helped them. I once attended a 1-day camp by the late Vic Braden and there were old people for whom "hit low to high" was a revelation. They were like "Darn so this is what is topspin which I have been unable to hit for 20 years."
If you ever venture to the southeast, I'll do my best to help you improve your serve. I will not however massage your shoulders. And you have to help me pick up the tennis balls.
 
Maybe it's just the private lessons I've had but I always get the impression coaches really only want to coach juniors. Is this the case? Seems tough to find a coach that is invested in improving adult rec play.

Back to the original question...I am only a rec coach and have very few insteances of working with adults except in running cariod tennis or feeding balls. But I have worked with, and have a lot of mentors that I work with, who do coach adults on the regular in both private and groups classes, and in private, resort, and public settings. My observation is less about the coaches motivation to teach a particular student, but the students motivation and ability to learn.

Let's not kid ourselves that there are coaches that just are awful, no matter who they are with. I have seen plenty of those Chubbs coaches and can remove them immediately. They do nothing for any student.



But given a coach is interested in actually coaching, I see a large group of them working with kids. More that there are tons more kids that parents are pinning hopes on, or need activities to occupy them with, than adults looking to improve in something they do for fun. So simple opporuntities skew things there.

For those that do work with adults, that is where it comes down to the motivation and ability of the student. As was mentioned inthe thread, some students won't have the athletic ability to perform much better than they aleady do, or ability to improve technique. A good coach will work on tactics and other attirubutes to improve their game. Some students have been doing the wrong things for so long you really can't modify the behavior without extenisve work and many students will not understand that and blame the coach for not 'fixing' the issues in a lesson. And again as was mentioned, some seem to want to tell coaches what they need to improve over actually understanding what needs to improve, so the student won't progress like they can. Maybe there are coaches that just outright dislike working with adults because of the negative profiles of some adults like that, but I haven't found tht many myself. I have found those bad coaches, a large majority of good coaches, and then some elite coaches that I tend to try and hang around as much as possible to learn from.
 
Have you ever seen a 3.0/3.5 woman's 2HBH volley? It is the worst thing ever. And no, @Cindysphinx not baiting you ... I have half a mind to decline partnering with anyone using it. I hate it that much.

Almost entirely choppy, almost always swingy ... greatly limits the ability to properly slice the volley.

It limits reach, it limits proper turn (especially for top heavy women). Often gets the ball popped up or dumped in the net.

And most important, slows any reaction time in a reflex volley situation ... with two hands you just can't volley as quickly.
I'm a bit late to the party, but I see plenty of bad 1H BH volleys from 3.0/3.5 women. And switching a bad 2H volley into a 1H is not going to magically make their volley better.

Conversely, using two hands also doesn't automatically make the volley bad. There is a 4.5 lady who comes to this clinic for 4.0-5.0 players (mostly 4.0, some 4.5, occasional 5.0) and her BH volley is one of the best in this group, out of a couple dozen players who come to this.

All of its disadvantages can be mitigated one way or another. You can always take one hand off the racquet if reach is an issue, and the tougher shots to execute like low volleys or high volleys don't get much easier with one hand.

I reckon for most coaches, they feel the switch from 2H to 1H is just not worth the trouble since it's a perfectly functional shot when properly executed.
 
Last edited:
Back to the original question...I am only a rec coach and have very few insteances of working with adults except in running cariod tennis or feeding balls. But I have worked with, and have a lot of mentors that I work with, who do coach adults on the regular in both private and groups classes, and in private, resort, and public settings. My observation is less about the coaches motivation to teach a particular student, but the students motivation and ability to learn.

Let's not kid ourselves that there are coaches that just are awful, no matter who they are with. I have seen plenty of those Chubbs coaches and can remove them immediately. They do nothing for any student.



But given a coach is interested in actually coaching, I see a large group of them working with kids. More that there are tons more kids that parents are pinning hopes on, or need activities to occupy them with, than adults looking to improve in something they do for fun. So simple opporuntities skew things there.

For those that do work with adults, that is where it comes down to the motivation and ability of the student. As was mentioned inthe thread, some students won't have the athletic ability to perform much better than they aleady do, or ability to improve technique. A good coach will work on tactics and other attirubutes to improve their game. Some students have been doing the wrong things for so long you really can't modify the behavior without extenisve work and many students will not understand that and blame the coach for not 'fixing' the issues in a lesson. And again as was mentioned, some seem to want to tell coaches what they need to improve over actually understanding what needs to improve, so the student won't progress like they can. Maybe there are coaches that just outright dislike working with adults because of the negative profiles of some adults like that, but I haven't found tht many myself. I have found those bad coaches, a large majority of good coaches, and then some elite coaches that I tend to try and hang around as much as possible to learn from.
Haha what a classic. "Damn Alligator bit my arm off"
 
Last edited:
tennis tom

(So here we go Part 2.)
Now let us talk about how to use the off hand. It is an important tool in hitting the forehand. Most students drop the off hand down to their side. I
teach them to keep the hand up at shoulder height with the palm down fingers pointing to the side fence. The reason to do so is the off hand keeps
your spacing away from the ball, so that, the ball does not get inside your swing (throwing) path causing the elbow to bend. It is also a guide to hitting the ball out in front.

I also tell students not to look up and follow the ball's path across the net, to keep their eyes on the contact point, Don't Look Up! I will tell them where the ball lands. Their is a reason for this I will discuss later. So the student has hit 15-20 fed balls with the correct motion, I now ask them how did it feel and what do they think. The responses are positive. Therefore, I start to transition them from a neutral stance to a semi-open stance. Why? Semi-open is 1/2 way between full open and neutral. It is easy and quicker to step into a neutral hitting position from semi-open and it is equally as easy and quick to let the leading foot fall back into full open.

Now all rules are not written in concrete! Using a full open or semi-open makes it easier to hit high bouncing ball, plus from those footwork positions It is easier to use a more vertical swing path. Showing a young jr. high kid the correct swing path just last week, his instructor said show him and fed me balls. After about a dozen feeds his instructor laughed and said I had a swing path that look like Rafa Nadal. I am not claiming that
I can hit the ball as well as Rafa, just that I learned his method. To that comment, I ask he feed me more and I hit down the line shots. The instructor
then said you hit like Fed. (I really, really wish I could hit as well as Fed) I switched the grip from eastern forehand to extreme eastern forehand not
quite full semi-western, dependent upon stroke path, bounce height and the type of shot I wished to hit.

So now the student has advanced and become more consistent. The next step is to tell the students to focus on the ball coming at him, make contact and follow through then don't watch the balls path going back over the net, instead focus on the opponent's footwork and racquet face coming to contact. Why? Simple you can not change the direction the ball is traveling after you hit it with your eyes, but you can shifting focus to
your opponent anticipate their return before it happens getting you into position to return their ball. Any advantage you can use to take time away from your opponent is time well spent. Like in poker you are looking for any (what poker players call tells) that give you an advantage. Tennis is all
about time. More time for you to get into position and less time for your opponent to be in position to hit a heavy return.

Now at this point I will stop, other than to say, at this point in learning, really being able to learn tennis is now ready to begin!!!!!

O, as an after thought, I should mention that I have not charged any student money for lessons in the last 6 years. I give the knowledge away for free, if and only if they really want to learn. I have gone from 38 student per week, 7 days a week, to now 6 or 7, one to two days a week. However,
I will help anyone who walks up to me on a public court and asked me, "I been told you give lessons or I was watching you hit do you give lessons", I will try to help for free only if they are serious about getting better. Most have said to me that really works, more spin, more power, and more depth. If I don't see them playing or practicing what they have learned that works better, I usually give it another 2-3 tries to help them. However, if they don't practice and revert to playing with their old comfortable bad habits. I quit helping and tell them to go pay a teaching pro.

Aloha
 
Experiences of 5.0 players who hit with D1 women are not relevant here.
What about 3.0 that improved to 3.5? or 4.0? Or 4.0 players who hit with college, top state juniors, or past ATP players? What about 50+ year old players who still take lessons and over time have moved from 3.5 to solid 4.5? Or 60+ year olds? What about overweight players who went to a personal trainer and that improved them from 3.0 to 4.0 competitiveness?

What is the range of experience that qualifies as relevant?
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
Is it possible that tennis coaches hate coaching adults because adults hate themselves? Most adults suck and know it. Could it be that their self-loathing triggers others to also hate them?
 
Well, 50+ players that improve from 3.5 to 4.0 certainly exist ... I intend to be one of them ... and I know 3 women over 50 who have gone from 4.0 to 4.5 in the 2018 rating cycle .... those 3 all get regular coaching.

The common denominator among all 50+ players that I know that are improving: Coaching and Fitness.
 
Well, 50+ players that improve from 3.5 to 4.0 certainly exist ... I intend to be one of them ... and I know 3 women over 50 who have gone from 4.0 to 4.5 in the 2018 rating cycle .... those 3 all get regular coaching.

The common denominator among all 50+ players that I know that are improving: Coaching and Fitness.
Yeah, I wasn't even counting several of the women I have played mixed with and watched them move from 3.0 up through even 4.5, or now playing 9.0 mixed. Coaching was a part of that and fitness too. Good call.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
Well, 50+ players that improve from 3.5 to 4.0 certainly exist ... I intend to be one of them ... and I know 3 women over 50 who have gone from 4.0 to 4.5 in the 2018 rating cycle .... those 3 all get regular coaching.

The common denominator among all 50+ players that I know that are improving: Coaching and Fitness.
A woman at our club regularly wins the 4.5 singles leagues and her name appears in various newsletters. She doesn't take a single lesson. She is extremely fit. She was certainly one of those who moved up, not down from high school or college level. She has a part time job and is on the court at 2 pm every day. I would not consider her a rec player as she probably treats tennis as more important than her job. A rec player is one who rushes in Friday night with his eyes still glazed from the computer screen and then swings his hands vaguely for some kind of stretching and then is on the court. He will never go from 3.5 to 4.5, with coaching or otherwise.
 
Last edited:

sureshs

Bionic Poster
I sometimes see some men playing 4.5 doubles who are more like a 3.5. They just hung in there and found long-term partners who can carry them. I would not consider them to be real 4.5s.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
Ignoring the surrounding discussion of age approriate ratings and competition/ratings by location, we have a few that play the 55+ leauges in 4.5 that played on our 3.5 team years ago.
I don't believe age group ratings. Federer is 5 years older than Nadal but does not play in a special group. If you are a 4.5, you should be a 4.5 at any level. In older age groups, you can find 4.5 players who are basically survivors. Tennis is tennis, there is no age group.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
Half of USTA league 4.5 men foot fault, so their rating is actually 0.0, since they are not playing tennis. Whether they take lessons or not is irrelevant as they don't play tennis.
 
I don't believe age group ratings. Federer is 5 years older than Nadal but does not play in a special group. If you are a 4.5, you should be a 4.5 at any level. In older age groups, you can find 4.5 players who are basically survivors. Tennis is tennis, there is no age group.
I am not talking about players that exclusively play their age group .... I am talking about players who are over 50 who play 18+ and typically every other league open to them and they have moved up as adult learners from lower rankings.


Half of USTA league 4.5 men foot fault, so their rating is actually 0.0, since they are not playing tennis. Whether they take lessons or not is irrelevant as they don't play tennis.
Now you are just being obstinate. Perhaps you are upset because although you don't foot fault, you are not a 4.5?

I will add that I don't see a terrible amount of foot faulting in any of the leagues I play or have played (3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 7.0 and 8.0 mixed).
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
I am not talking about players that exclusively play their age group .... I am talking about players who are over 50 who play 18+ and typically every other league open to them and they have moved up as adult learners from lower rankings.




Now you are just being obstinate. Perhaps you are upset because although you don't foot fault, you are not a 4.5?

I will add that I don't see a terrible amount of foot faulting in any of the leagues I play or have played (3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 7.0 and 8.0 mixed).
Every FF is illegal, there is no threshold of terrible amount. Women FF much less.

The true 4.5 singles male players in my club are either former D3 college or junior players, and a couple are coaches, both with D1 or D2 level kids. None of them take lessons. No one has moved up to 4.5 singles from below in my experience with 1000s of players in multiple clubs.
 
Every FF is illegal, there is no threshold of terrible amount. Women FF much less.

The true 4.5 singles male players in my club are either former D3 college or junior players, and a couple are coaches, both with D1 or D2 level kids. None of them take lessons. No one has moved up to 4.5 singles from below in my experience with 1000s of players in multiple clubs.
By "terrible amount" as in often not as in margin of how far across the line ....

And of the 3 that I know with certainty moved up to 4.5 over the age of 50, 1 plays exclusively singles, 1 plays both singles and doubles, 1 plays exclusively doubles. They all take lessons.
 
Every FF is illegal, there is no threshold of terrible amount. Women FF much less.

The true 4.5 singles male players in my club are either former D3 college or junior players, and a couple are coaches, both with D1 or D2 level kids. None of them take lessons. No one has moved up to 4.5 singles from below in my experience with 1000s of players in multiple clubs.
You must be terribly unlucky. I know quite a few players who started as adults and went from 3.0 to 4.5, and a couple who went to 5.0

I'm sure @schmke has the numbers nationwide
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
Everybody knows somebody like that, like everyone knows somebody who knows somebody who saw the Sasquatch.

I played with a new guy last week from a tennis website. He claimed to be a 4.0. He was more like a 4.5. He said he has just gotten into playing and plays at a community park. Then he lets on that he was on his high school team but did not pursue tennis for college as he wanted to study engineering.
 
I started getting into tennis 4 years ago. Previously tennis was a sport I played with my wife bunting balls around and running to get exercise. I had no serve other then a flat pancake serve to the middle of the box. I have always been scared to really swing at the ball because of prior shoulder surgery. I tried to just get the point started. Then I joined a club and decided I should try to learn this game. Watched a lot of videos on youtube, took a few lessons to understand the basics, and practiced with my wife 3x a week.

My serve has gone from a 30 mph bunt to a solid 70 mph (still a bit scared to really swing). I've learned to get power from the legs, core and forearm to compensate for the lack of shoulder input. I hit topspin, slice and flat serves and can direct to either corner of the box. It is possible to get better and improve your serve as an adult but it's taken a lot of practice.

No idea where my NTRP rating would be but I'd estimate i started as an average 3.0 and am now a good 3.5 - low 4.0 kind of player. I think getting to 4.5 would have been a possibility if I started this sport seriously at 30 or if I hadn't destroyed my shoulder playing football in my youth. But it would have taken a lot of work. Whereas golf I started playing at 15 and I got my handicap down to 7 without ever taking a lesson. I will always be a better golfer than tennis player. Starting something young really helps.
 

schmke

Hall of Fame
You must be terribly unlucky. I know quite a few players who started as adults and went from 3.0 to 4.5, and a couple who went to 5.0

I'm sure @schmke has the numbers nationwide
Yes, there are many players who start playing at a given level and move up several levels. I personally self-rated as a 3.5 and was a 3.5C for a few years but have now been a 4.5 for several years. I know a female that self-rated as a 3.5 and got bumped down to 3.0 but is now a 4.0 bordering on 4.5.

But looking at actual stats, just in the past 6 years, there are 264 players that have obtained a C rating at level X and moved up to level X+1.5. There are even 5 that moved up to X+2.0.
 
Yes, there are many players who start playing at a given level and move up several levels. I personally self-rated as a 3.5 and was a 3.5C for a few years but have now been a 4.5 for several years. I know a female that self-rated as a 3.5 and got bumped down to 3.0 but is now a 4.0 bordering on 4.5.

But looking at actual stats, just in the past 6 years, there are 264 players that have obtained a C rating at level X and moved up to level X+1.5. There are even 5 that moved up to X+2.0.
Wow, these numbers are a lot lower than I expected. Although, I guess going that far up in just 6 years is a tall order. I imagine the historical/lifetime numbers must be quite a bit higher

Does it change much if you include T and M players?
 
Wow, these numbers are a lot lower than I expected. Although, I guess going that far up in just 6 years is a tall order. I imagine the historical/lifetime numbers must be quite a bit higher

Does it change much if you include T and M players?
Note that he said that those that attained a C rating at level X (starting level). So there are likely a whole mess of folks that started with an S rating at their lowest level that then moved up
 
Wow, these numbers are a lot lower than I expected. Although, I guess going that far up in just 6 years is a tall order. I imagine the historical/lifetime numbers must be quite a bit higher

Does it change much if you include T and M players?
I'd say the numbers are what I expected. I wouldn't expect a lot of players to make huge strides. We all know people that did but was also know more people that stick within 1.0 NTRP their whole careers. There's a reason 3.0-4.0 make up the overwhelming majority of tennis players.

TBH, most of us adults just don't have the time to really commit to making big improvements. Jobs, family, other hobbies and sports. Only so many hours in a day.
 
I'd say the numbers are what I expected. I wouldn't expect a lot of players to make huge strides. We all know people that did but was also know more people that stick within 1.0 NTRP their whole careers. There's a reason 3.0-4.0 make up the overwhelming majority of tennis players.

TBH, most of us adults just don't have the time to really commit to making big improvements. Jobs, family, other hobbies and sports. Only so many hours in a day.
Of course the overwhelming majority of players will float in the 3.0 to 4.0 range for their entire rec "careers"
But I expected more people to be able to make big jumps on a national level, even in a 6 year time frame

These stats actually make suresh's experience of not having seen anyone make the leap somewhat plausible. Especially if you don't hang out with players who are likely to do it (i.e.: relatively young and athletic)
 

schmke

Hall of Fame
Note that he said that those that attained a C rating at level X (starting level). So there are likely a whole mess of folks that started with an S rating at their lowest level that then moved up
Correct. I don't consider it a valid scenario if someone self-rates as a 3.0 and is DQ'd or bumped up to 3.5 at their first year-end. They were never a valid C and including them would skew the stats.
 

schmke

Hall of Fame
Wow, these numbers are a lot lower than I expected. Although, I guess going that far up in just 6 years is a tall order. I imagine the historical/lifetime numbers must be quite a bit higher
Yeah, originally I thought they were low, but it is just 6 years and a move from 3.0 to 4.5 in just 6 years is pretty significant so perhaps not so surprising.
 

schmke

Hall of Fame
These stats actually make suresh's experience of not having seen anyone make the leap somewhat plausible. Especially if you don't hang out with players who are likely to do it (i.e.: relatively young and athletic)
Well, perhaps I missed it, but @sureshs statement wasn't about 3.0 to 4.5.
The true 4.5 singles male players in my club are either former D3 college or junior players, and a couple are coaches, both with D1 or D2 level kids. None of them take lessons. No one has moved up to 4.5 singles from below in my experience with 1000s of players in multiple clubs.
This statement is clearly not true. There are thousands of . players that have moved up to 4.5 "from below" as being bumped up from 4.0 would count. Over 17K qualify here.

Even looking at at least 3.5 to 4.5 in the past 6 years there are over a thousand.
 
Is it possible that tennis coaches hate coaching adults because adults hate themselves? Most adults suck and know it. Could it be that their self-loathing triggers others to also hate them?
I think most adult players think they are much better than they actually are.
In general, people avoid playing down, so most have no idea how bad they are.

They also get demolished by junker pushers and complain,
since they don't even understand the rules of tennis.

They also get mad when they miss, unlike pros who know they only need to win 55% of the points.

I am now at a point where I see most 4.0 players, and think they suck.
MOST 4.0 players have ugly strokes, weak serves, BUT have been perfected gameplay and excel at their limitations
So, they can win matches, and are better than most tennis players, but they still look like they suck, despite reaching such a high level
(Winning tennis is not about pretty strokes, it's about hitting the ball in with whatever garbage you want)

No, most adults suck and have no idea.
 
Last edited:
I sometimes see some men playing 4.5 doubles who are more like a 3.5. They just hung in there and found long-term partners who can carry them. I would not consider them to be real 4.5s.
I've seen 4.0 dubs players who would be 2.5 in singles.
Literally can't hit a BH. They stand in the alley.
Dink serving. But, they can crash the net and win.

Singles and doubles are not even the same sport.
 
I know dozens of 3.5 players who are very serious about tennis. Regular lessons, playing 5x a week, etc.
I have never even seen one 3.5 player get bumped to 4.0

This talk about adults getting to 4.5 is laughable.

I would like to know the age at which anyone has witnessed a unicorn adult reach 4.5
The only case I have heard of in my life was NYTA, and I think it took him a decade to get to 4.0
and maybe another decade to get to 4.5. And NYTA is a freak outlier in terms of tennis development.
 
I know dozens of 3.5 players who are very serious about tennis. Regular lessons, playing 5x a week, etc.
I have never even seen one 3.5 player get bumped to 4.0

This talk about adults getting to 4.5 is laughable.

I would like to know the age at which anyone has witnessed a unicorn adult reach 4.5
The only case I have heard of in my life was NYTA, and I think it took him a decade to get to 4.0
and maybe another decade to get to 4.5. And NYTA is a freak outlier in terms of tennis development.
oldest that I know ... singles player 56 years old ... started as a 2.5 and just kept going

I know dozens getting to 4.0 just in the past couple of years ... 40s and over
 
Top