Do you do split step?

Born_to_slice

Hall of Fame
I really don't know what your point here is, but Paes was much younger 20 years ago and even then, top 100 isn't exactly amazing in singles.
First, top 100 is amazing, at least for me. More so if one is able to stay there. Second, he was no.1 and constantly in top 10 doubles then. But as years went by, his singles ranking plummeted while he was still on top of his doubles game.
 
First, top 100 is amazing, at least for me. More so if one is able to stay there. Second, he was no.1 and constantly in top 10 doubles then. But as years went by, his singles ranking plummeted while he was still on top of his doubles game.
Oh please, we were talking about top singles players and he was never one. Don't insult my intelligence, I know top 100 is amazing in absolute terms. That's not what we were talking about and you know it.
 

Born_to_slice

Hall of Fame
Oh please, we were talking about top singles players and he was never one. Don't insult my intelligence, I know top 100 is amazing in absolute terms. That's not what we were talking about and you know it.
You said only top singles players can win in doubles. In reality, it's the ones who are not good enough for singles who become best doubles players and are winning tournaments.

Btw, I also don't know exactly what are you arguing here about? That there's more footwork in doubles? That only split stepping at the net is footwork? That covering the baseline and whole court in singles is not footwork? :confused:
 
You said only top singles players can win in doubles.
No, I said the singles players who cross over and do well in doubles tend to be the top ones. Do you think Yuki Bhambri would do well in doubles, I mean, anything comparable to Paes? No way, Paes was a great doubles player who chanced his arm in singles with limited success. You intentionally ignore this fact to misconstrue me. If that is what you propose to do, I am done with this discussion.
 

SystemicAnomaly

Talk Tennis Guru
I really don't know what your point here is, but Paes was much younger 20 years ago and even then, top 100 isn't exactly amazing in singles.
Top 100 is not amazing! Wow, I've just gotta see some vids of your singles game. :happydevil:

Feel free to ignore me. I dropped into the middle of this sub-thread and have no idea how the discussion got to this point.
 
Last edited:

Fintft

Legend
I try to split step each time, but sometimes my hop is too high and lately the coach told me something among the lines "just move"/hop a little (I'll check with her tomorrow).
 
Top 100 is not amazing! Wow, I've just gotta see some vids of your singles game. :happydevil:

Feel free to ignore me. I dropped into the middle of this sub-thread and have no idea how the discussion got to this point.
That's not what I said at all. I meant relatively amazing (compared to top 10 players). Paes would hand me a golden set, period.
 

user92626

G.O.A.T.
At the slams, 60% of points (in singles) are of 1-3 shots. So yeah, coaches totally wasting players' time teaching them footwork. But wait, isn't footwork unteachable and only naturally acquired um maybe by watching the Marvel films that Marty hates?
First, give me a reference of where you got this statistic. "60% of points (in singles) are of 1-3 shots". Or, you're just talking out of your arrsse.

Second, even IF that statistic is true, so what in relation to recreational dubs? Even at pro level, dubs are pratically NOT tiring, ie some pros after singles match go into dubs. Recreational doubles are even more relaxing. Doubles is the last game that anyone at any ages can still play. Rec dubs is whatever players make of it. To suggest it takes more more footwork or more challenging footwork than singles is just dumb.
 

user92626

G.O.A.T.
Of course and never claimed otherwise. But it's not footwork that Paes lacks but groundies and strength generally.




...top 100 isn't exactly amazing in singles
AGain, you're talking out of your arrrse, like a few here, when you suggest you know what pro's have or lack.

So much bullssscraps lately. "top 100 isn't" blah blah.. hilarious.
 

user92626

G.O.A.T.
Thats wrong. Single players have different skill sets. Its not those can't play single play double. Double is a DIFFERENT game.
Then you are more like in agreement with Born_to_slice than disagreement, who suggests doubles is different. "I'd say doubles footwork is different." (Born)

Or you're just so crazy with hatred and trolling that you just disagree blindly. So much for education!
 

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
First, give me a reference of where you got this statistic. "60% of points (in singles) are of 1-3 shots". Or, you're just talking out of your arrsse.

Second, even IF that statistic is true, so what in relation to recreational dubs? Even at pro level, dubs are pratically NOT tiring, ie some pros after singles match go into dubs. Recreational doubles are even more relaxing. Doubles is the last game that anyone at any ages can still play. Rec dubs is whatever players make of it. To suggest it takes more more footwork or more challenging footwork than singles is just dumb.
I suggest you watch some Craig O'Shannessy.

J
 

ptuanminh

Hall of Fame
Then you are more like in agreement with Born_to_slice than disagreement, who suggests doubles is different. "I'd say doubles footwork is different." (Born)

Or you're just so crazy with hatred and trolling that you just disagree blindly. So much for education!
He said double footwork is different, he didn't say anything about the game overall. You learn how to read and argue.
 

user92626

G.O.A.T.
He said double footwork is different, he didn't say anything about the game overall. You learn how to read and argue.
Nobody can say what "game overall" means. That's a vague concept.

We usually only can refer to something by its specific parts. That's a more concrete concept. Footwork, moving is a huge part of doubles, no?
 

ptuanminh

Hall of Fame
Nobody can say what "game overall" means. That's a vague concept.

We usually only can refer to something by its specific parts. That's a more concrete concept. Footwork, moving is a huge part of doubles, no?
Born said double footwork is different. You extrapolate what he said to: double is different. Is this clear enough???
 

user92626

G.O.A.T.
Footwork being a huge part of dubs. If a big part, if not the biggest part, of something is different, then its whole is different. Geez, learn logics.
 

ptuanminh

Hall of Fame
Footwork being a huge part of dubs. If a big part, if not the biggest part, of something is different, then its whole is different. Geez, learn logics.
This statement: "If a big part, if not the biggest part, of something is different, then its whole is different. " can be up for disccussion. And very likely i will agree with you to some extent.
What i am complaining about is : your extrapolation of what born said. For 2 reasons:
1. He might think double footwork is different. But he can be one of those people that play double just like single in smaller court. So for him, double and single are pretty much the same.
2. His definition of footwork is pretty different, at least from my understanding. So there is a chance that you and him dont even have same definition of footwork. Then extrapolation has no value.
 

Born_to_slice

Hall of Fame
Thats wrong. Single players have different skill sets. Its not those can't play single play double. Double is a DIFFERENT game.
All those great doubles players had their singles career dreams at one point. IMO, ones who are realistic concentrate on doubles because they know they're not good enough for singles. And yes it's a different game, but it doesn't require more footwork. Footwork is different and can be quite intense in small percentage of points. Greatest difference is teamwork though.
 

ptuanminh

Hall of Fame
All those great doubles players had their singles career dreams at one point.
I want to believe you on this. But do you have the credentials to make such statements about the world of pro tennis players? Did the Bryan brothers dream about a single career dream back then???
I doubt you know.
Can I also say, those single players concentrate on single because they know they are not good at double????
When I play double, i move just as much as single. Maybe you are playing differently in double?
 

user92626

G.O.A.T.
When I play double, i move just as much as single. Maybe you are playing differently in double?
You are an odd fellow here.

I play the kind of dubs that Born plays where there's substantially less movements than singles involved.

Other ppl at the court also cite that they do not have the energy to move in singles. Thus, they stick with dubs only.

Frankly i think you're trying to be arrogant and argumentative if you think typical rec dubs have as much movement as rec singles.
 

SystemicAnomaly

Talk Tennis Guru
@ptuanminh
Footwork being a huge part of dubs. If a big part, if not the biggest part, of something is different, then its whole is different. Geez, learn logics.
Time to shoot this thread and put it out of its misery? You guys appear to be arguing about dumb stuff. Arguing just for the sake of arguing? Mutual contempt for each other? Is there something else going on here that I missed?
 

Curious

Legend
@ptuanminh

Time to shoot this thread and put it out of its misery? You guys appear to be arguing about dumb stuff. Arguing just for the sake of arguing? Mutual contempt for each other? Is there something else going on here that I missed?
The thing is that nothing is quite absolute in life. We all need to be more flexible and tolerant about difference of opinions.
 

mcs1970

Hall of Fame
If you are going to use rec Tennis a basis, then even singles has very few long rallies. 2 or 3 strokes in , someone makes an error.

Again if it comes to pure aerobic exercise singles is the king. I personally love singles much more than doubles. However doubles requires much more mindful and precise movement.
 

tonylg

Hall of Fame
This thread has certainly gone off on a tangent.

Here's a question for the singles vs doubles argument:

Pair Medvedev and Djokovic as a doubles team. Give them a year to practice playing together. How would they go against the top doubles teams?

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
 

mcs1970

Hall of Fame
This thread has certainly gone off on a tangent.

Here's a question for the singles vs doubles argument:

Pair Medvedev and Djokovic as a doubles team. Give them a year to practice playing together. How would they go against the top doubles teams?

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
I think the top doubles teams will still win. Put Fed and Nadal in there for a year and it might be a different story because they have great hands around the net too..
 

user92626

G.O.A.T.
@ptuanminh

Time to shoot this thread and put it out of its misery? You guys appear to be arguing about dumb stuff. Arguing just for the sake of arguing? Mutual contempt for each other? Is there something else going on here that I missed?
Yeah i get kinda bored arguing with ptua. Time to move on.

I should be able to get back to playing tomorrow as opposed to talking. TE feels gone :)
 

user92626

G.O.A.T.
@user9262 yeah no more arguing. I will be in LA area in 2 weeks. Maybe we can hit a bit????
Yeah, let's move on, bud.

Really, you wanna hit? We'll see if things line up.
Seriously, my "concern" is my sub 4.0 with atrocious movements won't make it worthwhile for anyone, especially travelers. But, ok we'll see. :)
 

Born_to_slice

Hall of Fame
I want to believe you on this. But do you have the credentials to make such statements about the world of pro tennis players? Did the Bryan brothers dream about a single career dream back then???
I doubt you know.
Can I also say, those single players concentrate on single because they know they are not good at double????
When I play double, i move just as much as single. Maybe you are playing differently in double?
Bryans are bad example, since they're twins. Still, I checked Mike's rankings history and he did try to be competitive in singles for several years, getting as high as top 300. I guess other bro did too, but I'm lazy to check.

I don't exclude possibility that some players specialized in doubles from early junior days or later because of their love for the doubles game but I think that's rare. Vast majority of juniors dream about being like their singles idols. Also, singles pays way more and is way more popular and is the essence of tennis. You can say that singles players focus on singles because they're not good enough for doubles, but that's not very reasonable.

I don't care for playing doubles now myself, only singles, but when I played it it was way less tiring. Looks to be that way on pro tour and in random videos of rec players of all levels. I guess if you swing for the fences on return and mostly S&V in singles, doubles can be more tiring...
 

tonylg

Hall of Fame
Low level doubles and high level doubles are completely different games.

I've seen low level, polite doubles. One (way) up, one (way) back, guard the alley, chop cross court and hit mid court lobs where the partners just switch sides and continue the theme, etc.

Contrast that to a battle to see who can control the net by taking balls early and forcing their way in, knowing they will make that low first volley and are rock solid overhead.

Singles, not so much. Lots of spin from the back of the court, just rally until the other makes an unforced error or leaves the court open. Modern professional singles and low level singles are much the same.
 
Low level doubles and high level doubles are completely different games.

I've seen low level, polite doubles. One (way) up, one (way) back, guard the alley, chop cross court and hit mid court lobs where the partners just switch sides and continue the theme, etc.

Contrast that to a battle to see who can control the net by taking balls early and forcing their way in, knowing they will make that low first volley and are rock solid overhead.

Singles, not so much. Lots of spin from the back of the court, just rally until the other makes an unforced error or leaves the court open. Modern professional singles and low level singles are much the same.
Pro Women's doubles is 1 up/1 back; in that sense, it's similar to low-level doubles. The difference ends there, of course, because the BL women are hammering the ball and both net women are just itching to poach.
 

ptuanminh

Hall of Fame
Yeah, let's move on, bud.

Really, you wanna hit? We'll see if things line up.
Seriously, my "concern" is my sub 4.0 with atrocious movements won't make it worthwhile for anyone, especially travelers. But, ok we'll see. :)
yah. i am working on my schedule. will send you a message.
its only playing for fun. i am travelling for biz and always want to hit.
 

mcs1970

Hall of Fame
Low level doubles and high level doubles are completely different games.
Modern professional singles and low level singles are much the same.
Everything in rec tennis is low level compared to pros.

Given that as a basis:

If you're talking about 3.5 doubles or singles, there is nothing common to pros.

If you're talking 4.5+ doubles or singles vs pro doubles or singles, there are certain elements in terms of positoning, footwork, strokes that are the same.

My take is you just haven't been part of or watched good quality rec level doubles. There are no constant lob fests at the 4.5 level doubles I've watched.
 
There are no constant lob fests at the 4.5 level doubles I've watched.
If anything, guys at 4.5 doubles ought to lob more to prevent their opponents from getting too close to the net. But the mentality at 4.5 from my experience is usually about hitting through or past the net team, not over them.
 
Top