First USTA 8.0 match of the year
- Thread starter dsp9753
- Start date
except in chess if I start again playing chess, i will not have to sit in the 1200-1400 range toiling for years against trappers. Or really have to worry about playing tons of trappers at the 1500 level. That is why make my point that in tennis there needs to be something besides W/L because you guys have a thread of a guy playing like this...and those with his strokes glorifying him, then in a second thread someone else is posting how some other team is bringing on ex juniors with modern strokes and sandbagging. How can you sit there and say how great OSG is then whine that someone else is bringing on guys OSG should be crushing??? or those with OSG lack of tennis strokes but great win numbers. Pick your complaint. Either you let OSG kill this wannabe ex pros like all you say he should and you cease to whine about them. Or you admit that OSG is a talented hack. Nothing wrong with being a hack with no skills, just admit it. Underhand all day or whatever you need due to injuries. But then again, you complain about junior 3.5s sandbagging while you have 4.5+ foot faulting every serve.
You can admit someone is an hack without taking it personal just because your strokes match his. Own being a hack.
BallBag
Professional
The forum is not a hive mind. Some people have issues with one thing and other people have issues with a different thing.
You keep saying that OSG is a "hack with no skills". He has skills that you are not seeing. Try playing like him next time you are a set a break down and see if you can turn it around. I have and I couldn't. Any jagoff with huge serve and a big reliable forehand can be a 4.5. This dude is doing it without all that and that takes skills.
What you are missing is that there is no one right answer. Because people play for different reasons. Some play for the thrill of competition and the rush of winning. Some play for the pleasure of hitting a good ball and hearing / feeling the thud of the shot. Some play to get a good workout under the sky rather than on some machine indoors. All are valid reasons. Play however it is that makes you happy but don't judge how others play - their motivations could be completely different to yours.
Mark one more for OSGs in 8.5
I actually wore my orange shirt tonight, OSG’s hadn’t make it out of laundry yet,
You're a great partner, strong play again, with a lot of terrific winners from baseline and active at the net! It was a lot of fun--great match!
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
I assume this is because you already have established a rating above 1200-1400 some time ago but stopped playing competitively?
The reason this works is because your rating does not decline over time due to absence of play. The USCF made that change to prevent people from sandbagging by not playing for some time, have their rating decline, and then enter a tournament at the lower rating level.
Now the opposite problem: if someone hasn't played for years and is rusty, they're going to get clobbered for a few tournaments until their previous rating comes down to their current level.
Very similar argument tennis players make about playing against pushers. As NYTA famously wrote, "Pushers are the gatekeepers of 4.0". Translated to your chess example, "Trappers are the guardians of 1400."
The only reason I'd have to toil for years against trappers is because I haven't developed the skills yet to play the correct line that would reveal the weakness of the trap. While I develop those skills, I absolutely belong in the 1200-1400 range.
The rejoinder in chess is similar to tennis: "I play so much better against players who play 'proper' chess."
The fault isn't my opponent's; it's mine.
What do you propose? That there be a monitor for every USTA match to judge levels? Should that replace W/L? Supplement it? If so, what ratio of each?
And where are you going to find all of these monitors? And how are you going to verify they know what they're talking about?
And while you reject NTRP, you accept UTR...which is also purely based on results. How are the two systems so different that you can reject one and accept the other?
Are you sure it's the same poster who is taking both positions?
For those of us who defended OSG, we all agreed he had funky strokes. Our argument was that stroke "style points" doesn't win matches. OSG's decision-making process was excellent. But if I'm only looking at aesthetics, I'll miss that.
Your logic is hard to follow. For myself, I never whined about any of what you mention. OSG did well at 4.0 Nationals and therefore, he is competing at 4.5. That makes sense to me.
Define "hack". I suspect your definition has to do with stroke aesthetics. Keep in mind that relative to the pros, we're all "hacks". It all depends on to whom you're comparing.
I have no idea how you tie in sandbagging 3.5 juniors and 4.5+ FFers.
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
There's a reason why some have likened a tennis match to a chess game. You're concentrating only on the differences but if you change your perspective, you might see the similarities.
I can play 1. e4 equivalently to Magnus Carlsen. I cannot serve like Roger Federer. That's a difference.
However, I can try to plan my game and exploit opponent weaknesses like Carlsen [obviously not as well] and I can try to construct a point like Federer [also obviously not as well].
You play the trappers in chess and the hackers in tennis the same way: patiently. You don't overreact to the trappers unsound piece sac or pawn storm; you calmly defend and when the smoke clears, you have the vastly superior position. If you can't defend, then you obviously have a weakness to improve.
Same thing in tennis: you ignore his hacky strokes and defense and concentrate on hitting aggressively to large targets with big margins. You don't waste mental energy thinking "how can I be losing to this hack?? He's not even playing real tennis!".
As in chess, easier said than done. The better you get, the easier it is to do both.
Where you see differences, I see similarities.
People play for different reasons. I don't laugh at anyone's choice. If winning is what they care about, then fine. If they want to use that as their reason for not developing, fine.
Where I would criticize is if someone expressed interest in improving but refused to make any substantive changes because it would force them to step backwards for a time.
As I wrote above, people play for different reasons. I put winning far down on my list of reasons but that's just me. My most fun matches, those that keep me coming back for more, are those where the level of execution was high for both/all players, irrespective of the outcome.
That's fine as long as you don't criticize them for not approaching the game "the right way". No one cares what you [or anyone else] think is the "right way".
Which is a great story. Just don't delude yourself into thinking it will always turn out this way. I would think the more likely reaction would be "Don't tell me how to play; get lost" [or something to that effect].
Last edited:
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
There are "pushers" in chess as well as tennis: those who don't do much offensively but wait for your mistakes. Attacking and taking the initiative aren't inherently advantageous; they must be done intelligently. It's just as easy to over-extend one's attack/initiative in chess as it is overhitting vs a pusher in tennis.
As in tennis, you find fewer and fewer of these players as the skill level increases.
Moveforwardalways
Hall of Fame
There are pushers at life as well. It’s just human psychology.
GrassCourtFan
Legend
Same in tennis - you can basically always play up and find your right level pretty quick. I mean, at the rec level, you can self-rate anywhere up to 5.0, and you can enter "open" tournaments with no prerequisites, or if you want to start even higher you can enter futures qualies.
You only have to "sit in the 1200-1400 range" if you can't beat people in that range.
no i totally get that.. I have said over and over some play only to win or other reasons. Never judged anything other than to say he is a hack. He has zero strokes and does anything to win. In any sport those that do that are hacks. I think some here need to take their own advice. Admit its a hack and enjoy the thing you show up for... to win. Thats all i have been saying. Its not like he is injuring anyone. That style of play isn't even frustrating to me, I dont understand how he has fun playing but thats me, I want to play a different way, but it works for him. God help anyone he coaches. Being a hack is not a knock unless you want to take it that way. Dominic Hasek was a hack goalie, he made his own style that no one can duplicate and managed to win cups. HE won CUPS. Good on him. He had a shorter career than someone that played a less awkward and physically demanding style but hey he had fun and the diving saves were fun to watch. Of course its frustrating to see a goalie all but dive over top of the net and actually get the puck.
But it didnt take long for guys to figure out how to beat him and there will probably never be another like him. He is still a styleless hack goalie who went out there and gave it everything. That takes NOTHING away from his accomplishments.
I think Tim Tebow is a hack QB, good but not technically sound. I'd never hire him to coach my kid technique, I might want him on my team if we were playing guys that never played his style.
Last edited:
dsp9753
Semi-Pro
One day I will capture leech's hacking ways on video! It is quite impressive and unique style I dont really see anyone else do.
I mean it is entirely possible that there are NHL goalies way better than Hasek - but for some reason their stats are not documented. Because out of the goalies for which NHL does keep stats Hasek is like, the best as far as saving percentage goes.......
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
I assume you're talking about OSG. What proof do you have that he only plays to win? How can you possibly know that by watching his game? Because you've made a judgement based on his stroke aesthetics: hack strokes = only cares about winning.
It's a knock the way you describe it and then twist yourself into a knot to make it sound like you're not criticizing.
And what does coaching have to do with anything? He could teach players a thing or two when it comes to strategy, something you overlook entirely because you're fixated on his stroke technique.
I'd say all of us rec players have a bit of a hack within us.
I’ve always been an advocate for strategy it’s better to have than strokes. You guys just can’t admit anything because all you can hang a hat on is wins. I have as much fun just hitting with people and such than all about matches. I can’t see hitting a rally with him being fun.
here is OSG...first 30 seconds
In the clutch and grab era and he played 50+ games for about 8 seasons. The rest were spread out. He had great numbers over those 8 seasons the other he was average. However in the clutch and grab era he set such great numbers flailing he didn’t drag them down. I embrace Hasek. He makes my point that a hack can be successful. Serve and volley and whine and moan that i twisted being a hack but I guess it’s just an anomaly that few people have that technique means nothing.
The simple fact that you guys can’t just say. Awful tennis technique, but good winner. So what? imagine how good he would be if he took the time to learn to maximize his swing? Till then keep being blue shirt goalie (BSG)
GrassCourtFan
Legend
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
Similar threads
