How far can you go in tennis with pushing?

#2
Pushing as in with push strokes? Probably 5.0. I don't know any 5.0s like that, but if you had a guy who was super fast and consistent and could place the ball, it's theoretically possible. But pushing as in hits everything soft and high percentage? There are pros who play like that. I remember when I was a UTR 10, I got trucked by a 12 who didn't hit a ball, including serves, over 80 mph. His groundstrokes had little spin and barely broke 60. He was also a 40ish year old USTA 5.5 who played #1 singles for Harvard right before Blake got there. And he wasn't going easy, he really plays like that. Probably hit a little harder when he was younger though.
 
#3
I agree with @Topspin Shot

There are "pushers" at every level, meaning players who play ultra defensive and are all about safety and long rallies and outlasting the opponent.

But at different levels there are different types and different skill levels of pushers.

A 3.5 pusher just bunts the ball in and keeps it in and all he does is try to bunt it in and make no errors.

A 6.0 pusher has heavy deep spin and keeps the ball in but his ball is heavy, and unlike a 3.5 pusher he is not limited to just defense and keeping the ball in play, but he actually knows how to attack and finish short balls, overheads etc.. its just that his main strstegy is defense and outlasting the other player.
 
#4
Certainly falls apart in doubles pretty quickly at 4.0. Competent net men devour pusher strokes for breakfast. Moonball groundstrokes just don't get it done like they do in singles. And I don't care how fast you can run in doubles I'm just hammering that weak stroke at your net person's feet.
 
#5
Certainly falls apart in doubles pretty quickly at 4.0. Competent net men devour pusher strokes for breakfast. Moonball groundstrokes just don't get it done like they do in singles. And I don't care how fast you can run in doubles I'm just hammering that weak stroke at your net person's feet.
I haven’t hit a topspin forehand in doubles in years (I push every forehand return with slice, usually as a lob), yet according to TLS I’m a borderline 5.0 based on my doubles results from this year.
 
#6
People always say, "Yeah, that can work, but not at the higher levels."

How high is that level?
Dude, in this place, if you can hit two shots in a row against someone who messes up on their 2nd shot, you're a pusher.

Nadal is a pusher for hitting too many shots. After he turns 35, he'll be qualified as one of those old geezers at weekend courts who always lob the ball high.
 
#7
I haven’t hit a topspin forehand in doubles in years (I push every forehand return with slice, usually as a lob), yet according to TLS I’m a borderline 5.0 based on my doubles results from this year.
And then you wait back at the baseline for the moonball return and moonball another slice back CC?

You aren't fooling anyone T. You follow that return in like the solid doubles player you are and take the next ball out of the air. That's not pusher doubles.

True pushers quickly learn to lob just as good doubles players quickly learn to develop their OH's to deal with this pusher default. Once the true pusher has failed with his groundstrokes and failed with his lobs, he has nothing left to fall back on. He either remains a 3.5 doubles player forever or takes the time to learn a net game.

I play these singles pushers all the time in doubles. It's rarely even close to competitive.
 
#8
And then you wait back at the baseline for the moonball return and moonball another slice back CC?

You aren't fooling anyone T. You follow that return in like the solid doubles player you are and take the next ball out of the air. That's not pusher doubles.

True pushers quickly learn to lob just as good doubles players quickly learn to develop their OH's to deal with this pusher default. Once the true pusher has failed with his groundstrokes and failed with his lobs, he has nothing left to fall back on. He either remains a 3.5 doubles player forever or takes the time to learn a net game.

I play these singles pushers all the time in doubles. It's rarely even close to competitive.
Why can't he learn 4.5 level groundstrokes and lobs and continue to be a pusher?


I think that's what I did :) I continued to push with very high quality groundstrokes and lobs. I won all important matches last weekend. LOL.
 
#10
Why can't he learn 4.5 level groundstrokes and lobs and continue to be a pusher?


I think that's what I did :) I continued to push with very high quality groundstrokes and lobs. I won all important matches last weekend. LOL.
Because doubles forces you to hit to tighter windows than a pusher is comfortable with.

Some people are confusing pushing with consistency. Pushing is a mindset of always hitting a conservative low risk shot and never taking advantage of an offensive opportunity. Hitting solid consistent deep groundstrokes that keep your opponent back and then attacking weak balls is counterpunching and what most of you are likely doing.

If you tell me you won your 4.5 doubles by hitting TS groundstrokes 4 feet over the middle of the net and 5 feet from any line, never poached at the net, never moved in from the baseline, hit lobs to the middle of the court, spun all your serves in, etc., then I'm impressed. I've watched the good players at our club (mostly 4.5 and above) and their doubles is won at the net and they pounce on anything not hit precisely away from them.

yes a 4.0 pusher could learn to play doubles by learning different strokes, but most became pushers because they didn't want to develop their game but rather take the expedient route to victory by letting others implode. Pushing is a mindset. We all can become different people but we rarely do.
 
#12
Some opponents make me feel like a pusher. I got killed by this kid who has great topspin and always manages to hit everything near a line. I've got a vid where he lands a shot right on my feet. I dropped backwards and hit a high bouncing lob into his back hand corner I couldn't have hit it any better and he takes it as an inside out forehand winner into my backhand corner.
 
#13
Because doubles forces you to hit to tighter windows than a pusher is comfortable with.

Some people are confusing pushing with consistency. Pushing is a mindset of always hitting a conservative low risk shot and never taking advantage of an offensive opportunity. Hitting solid consistent deep groundstrokes that keep your opponent back and then attacking weak balls is counterpunching and what most of you are likely doing.

If you tell me you won your 4.5 doubles by hitting TS groundstrokes 4 feet over the middle of the net and 5 feet from any line, never poached at the net, never moved in from the baseline, hit lobs to the middle of the court, spun all your serves in, etc., then I'm impressed. I've watched the good players at our club (mostly 4.5 and above) and their doubles is won at the net and they pounce on anything not hit precisely away from them.

yes a 4.0 pusher could learn to play doubles by learning different strokes, but most became pushers because they didn't want to develop their game but rather take the expedient route to victory by letting others implode. Pushing is a mindset. We all can become different people but we rarely do.
What I was alluding to was it's always ridiculous to talk about PUSHING.

For example, take this characteristic that you describe "Pushing is a mindset of always hitting a conservative low risk shot and never taking advantage of an offensive opportunity." which begs these questions:

-If your opponents allow you to score with low risk stuff, why would a smart player take higher risk? I wouldn't. So you gonna call a smart player "a pusher"?
-If you constantly get destroyed by hitting low risk shots all the while you're capable of hitting better shots, aren't you describing stupid players? Or, he's normal intelligent but being outplayed because he cannot hit better shots. I don't see either choice being "a pusher"

See, you can describe a player as being outplayed per his level (more common), or capable but stupid (rarely see), stupid execution, which are all better descriptions than "pushing".

Well, you can get sadistic players who play down their level and readily destroy inferior opponents by doing things that look very low risk to themselves. That's just mean. Pushing is still not a good description for this group. LOL
 
#15
If your opponents allow you to score with low risk stuff, why would a smart player take higher risk? I wouldn't. So you gonna call a smart player "a pusher"?
I call that using pushing as a tactic, not being a pusher.

If you constantly get destroyed by hitting low risk shots all the while you're capable of hitting better shots, aren't you describing stupid players? Or, he's normal intelligent but being outplayed because he cannot hit better shots. I don't see either choice being "a pusher"
Pushers are incapable of hitting better shots. And that's the whole crux of being a pusher. They do it because it was the most expedient way to win in tennis. They did not evolve past that mindset.

There is a difference between a pusher and someone that uses pushing as a tactic in certain situations. We all face the erratic ball bashers where it becomes clear that just getting balls back at moderate pace will allow them to self destruct. That doesn't make you a pusher if you offer up this tactic as a strategy.

I get it that everyone seems to have their definition of a pusher. And I am happy to disagree with anyone that feels a pusher is someone that can pull out a high risk game but prefers not to do so. I don't encounter that kind of player in the 3.4-4.0 realm. The pushers I play don't have a plan B. When pushing doesn't work for them, they lose.

You are just as likely to see a pusher crank up his game and risk profile as you are to see an erratic ball basher crank down his game and start safely rolling balls in.

Most of us fall in between those extremes of player where we accept moderate risk and adjust aggression based on the scenario.
 
#16
Pusher is too often used as a term of abuse by aggressive players who make too many errors. A true pusher won't get far, someone who simply runs and blocks the ball. Not difficult to beat. A defensive player with proper technique, who plays percentage shots is a different beast.

I have bagelled aggressive players who have tried to hit through me because I can reach their attempted winners and get them back. Any player would struggle to hit flat out for 5-6 shots in a row. I am sure that those players complained about the damn pusher but if my opponent is going to self destruct, I am just going to give them the ball and let them destroy themselves.

Tennis is about a balance between attack and defence. It is about knowing when to be aggressive and when to be defensive. Someone who struggles with pushers does so because their game is out of balance. They are trying to play an overly aggressive game they a not really capable of.
 
#17
I haven’t hit a topspin forehand in doubles in years (I push every forehand return with slice, usually as a lob), yet according to TLS I’m a borderline 5.0 based on my doubles results from this year.
Not hitting TS FH does not equate to pushing: if you can place your slice well, it's effective.

I'm definining "pusher" to be someone who:
- hits with little pace
- hits into the fat part of the court
- hits high % shots
- does not like hitting passing shots because of increased risk
- stays on the BL
- doesn't go for winners except in the extreme case
- doesn't have a good net game or OH
- wins a lot due to opponent errors

I don't see much of this type of player at 4.5. There are 5.0s who could use this strategy to beat me but it's because they're 5.0, not because they're pushing [they could beat me myriad other ways as well].
 
#19
Some opponents make me feel like a pusher. I got killed by this kid who has great topspin and always manages to hit everything near a line. I've got a vid where he lands a shot right on my feet. I dropped backwards and hit a high bouncing lob into his back hand corner I couldn't have hit it any better and he takes it as an inside out forehand winner into my backhand corner.
That wouldn't make me feel like a pusher; that would make me feel like my opponent was pretty darn good.
 
#21
How do you define little pace since its based on an individuals perspective?

What is a fast heavy shot for you is an easy little pace shot for federer.
Slow enough that even a beginner and certainly an intermediate could react in time. A pusher's opponent does not lose because he's overwhelmed by the pace; he loses because of his own UEs.
 
#23
I agree with @Topspin Shot

There are "pushers" at every level, meaning players who play ultra defensive and are all about safety and long rallies and outlasting the opponent.

But at different levels there are different types and different skill levels of pushers.

A 3.5 pusher just bunts the ball in and keeps it in and all he does is try to bunt it in and make no errors.

A 6.0 pusher has heavy deep spin and keeps the ball in but his ball is heavy, and unlike a 3.5 pusher he is not limited to just defense and keeping the ball in play, but he actually knows how to attack and finish short balls, overheads etc.. its just that his main strstegy is defense and outlasting the other player.
A 6.0 might be a defensive specialist. But I wouldn't call that player a pusher just because his/her style is predominantly defensive. Someone hitting the tar out of the ball and keeping it in with a lot of topspin and clearance is not a pusher...at least not for me.
 
Last edited:
#24
A 6.0 might be a defensive specialist. But I wouldn't call that player a pusher just because his/her style is predominantly defensive. Someone hitting the tar out of the ball and keeping it in with a lot of topspin and clearance is not a pusher...at least not for me.
Thats why there are different definitions of pushers by people, everyone has his own definition, which is why its hard to really tell who is a pusher actually.
 
#25
A 6.0 might be a defensive specialist. But I wouldn't call that player a pusher just because his/her style is predominantly defensive. Someone hitting the tar out of the ball and keeping it in with a lot of topspin and clearance is not a pusher...at least not for me.
I agree. Even the high level defensive specialists can turn on the offense when given the right situation. I don't know many guys beyond 4.0 you could rightly call a pusher since they all seem to have that capability to turn defense into offense. To me, that is counterpunching and not pushing. But I get that there are different definitions swirling about.
 
#26
Thats why there are different definitions of pushers by people, everyone has his own definition, which is why its hard to really tell who is a pusher actually.
I think if we are going to use the term in a derogatory manner we should restrict it too the more extreme definition of the 100% defensive low risk player with poorly developed technique.

If we are going to use pushing in a more open and accepting manner then its probably fine to include defensive counterpunchers. But since I only see the term being used in a negative manner in my tennis circles I'm not going to be throwing the term around so liberally.
 
#27
Thats why there are different definitions of pushers by people, everyone has his own definition, which is why its hard to really tell who is a pusher actually.
Yes..that's why I said not for me. A 6.0 has to do the following things to even play a defensive style...be able to serve extremely well against other 6.0s, return serves of other 6.0s, be able to neutralize the pace a 6.0 is throwing at him/her, and then have the footspeed and racquet prep to consistently be able to neutralize that pace to hit those heavy topspin shots. That's a lot of skill, blessed with rare athletic ability, which very few mortals have. That's why I wouldn't call that a pusher..again...just my pov.
 
#29
Slow enough that even a beginner and certainly an intermediate could react in time. A pusher's opponent does not lose because he's overwhelmed by the pace; he loses because of his own UEs.
In a truer match, the levels should be very close or similar, especially THE HITTING part.

Nobody should be overwhelmed by pace, if they are, it's a lousy mismatch and that's not what tennis competition is intended.

Pros don't lose to one another by being overwhelmed by pace. They're outplayed after many shots exchanged (strategies, skills, etc.) Likewise, a youngster shouldn't be playing against an immobile geezer.
 
#32
Anybody who doesn't come to the net on his own serve or on his serve return (first and second) is a pusher - only difference is the number of strokes you wait before pulling the offensive trigger, if at all. In the current tour, Karlovic might be the only true non-pusher.
 
#34
That's one of the aspects of tennis I find tough. Sometimes I get bageled by a big hitting young gun but every game had 3 deuces. He was 20% better but the score line looks like he was 100%.
 
#35
In a truer match, the levels should be very close or similar, especially THE HITTING part.
I assume by "truer" you mean "more closely matched"?

But just because 2 players have the same NTRP, for example, doesn't mean that all of their skills are closely matched: NTRP only measures outcomes, not individual skill sets. Player A might have achieved his through a big serve and FH and player B via pushing. The speed of GSs might be very different.

Nobody should be overwhelmed by pace, if they are, it's a lousy mismatch and that's not what tennis competition is intended.
Well, USTA league is by NTRP and within one level there is a wide range of skills. I've been overwhelmed by pace by someone at the same NTRP.

Pros don't lose to one another by being overwhelmed by pace. They're outplayed after many shots exchanged (strategies, skills, etc.)
I was talking about rec pushers.

Likewise, a youngster shouldn't be playing against an immobile geezer.
Why not? If their ratings are comparable, it's a fair matchup. The youngster has one set of skills and the oldster has a different set.

The point raised by @FiReFTW, which I replied to, is that a rec pusher will not overwhelm someone with pace. They will overwhelm someone by rarely missing.
 
#36
@S&V-not_dead_yet
No, a truer match is one that truly resembles competition. It's just a concept. "Closely matched" is just an effect.

I'm not talking about or narrowing my idea to NTRP or whatever specific. They're all artificial constructs to accommodate some purposes, and as any artificial construct people can win or lose pretty randomly. Eg. a 5.5 can manipulate his playing so he can forever play, "compete" in 4.0 segment. That's no competition, is it? So, I'm not talking about ntrp and whatnot.

Why I bring up pro level is that level reflects the most what tennis is intended/designed for.

Tennis isn't meant for someone to blow away an opponent with pace or even for someone to ace (that's speed serving) an opponent all day long despite there are many good servers. Tennis is meant to be competed on a whole: part speed, part strength, part skills, part trickeries, etc. And some luck, too. That's why someone like Nadal, a more complete package, is 100x more successful than Isner.

That's my point.
 
#37
@S&V-not_dead_yet
No, a truer match is one that truly resembles competition. It's just a concept. "Closely matched" is just an effect.

I'm not talking about or narrowing my idea to NTRP or whatever specific. They're all artificial constructs to accommodate some purposes, and as any artificial construct people can win or lose pretty randomly. Eg. a 5.5 can manipulate his playing so he can forever play, "compete" in 4.0 segment. That's no competition, is it? So, I'm not talking about ntrp and whatnot.

Why I bring up pro level is that level reflects the most what tennis is intended/designed for.

Tennis isn't meant for someone to blow away an opponent with pace or even for someone to ace (that's speed serving) an opponent all day long despite there are many good servers. Tennis is meant to be competed on a whole: part speed, part strength, part skills, part trickeries, etc. And some luck, too. That's why someone like Nadal, a more complete package, is 100x more successful than Isner.

That's my point.
I think both of you are right. Tennis, even among pros, is more about moving the opponent off the court slightly and then moving in for the kill on a shorter ball. Pace is applied judiciously. So you're correct there. '

However, S&V is also correct that a pusher (and again, I don't consider any high level players as pushers) are ones who are content to just hit the ball back into the court, and patiently wait for their opponent to make a mistake, even when they have a golden opportunity to move in and finish the point. That's why I've never categorized someone like Navigator as a pusher, because while he plays finesse strokes, he is actively forcing the issue whenever the opponent hits a short ball.
 
#38
However, S&V is also correct that a pusher (and again, I don't consider any high level players as pushers) are ones who are content to just hit the ball back into the court, and patiently wait for their opponent to make a mistake, even when they have a golden opportunity to move in and finish the point. That's why I've never categorized someone like Navigator as a pusher, because while he plays finesse strokes, he is actively forcing the issue whenever the opponent hits a short ball.
If you notice I never said or even implied that s&v was wrong. What you said here isn't wrong either.

There isn't wrong or right here. There's just what makes sense or not.

Rec tennis is completely wacky and weird, no boundary on weirdness and randomness that it's basically moot to argue about it. That's why I went with the pro level, or how TENNIS is intended to be played because at least we'd have some definitive idea. :)

Back to the original, weird idea of labeling winners as pushers. Rec level is so stupid that when a player fails to hit a ball on his own, it's the other guy that gets a denigrate name somehow implying it's his fault. It's convoluted.
 
#39
Rec tennis is completely wacky and weird, no boundary on weirdness and randomness that it's basically moot to argue about it. That's why I went with the pro level, or how TENNIS is intended to be played because at least we'd have some definitive idea.
I'm pretty sure the tennis forefathers had no desire or intent for the game to be played as it currently is played by pros. It was a gentrified recreational activity played on grass in full pants and dresses. The modern game is a significant deviation from what tennis was intended to be.

Nor does it make sense to use a game played by 0.000001% of the tennis population as representative of the "intended" game. Especially on a recreational tennis players forum where the vast majority of players are 3.5-5.0. The pros are playing an entirely different sport that for all intents and purposes is irrelevant to the vast majority of us.
 
#40
@Dartagnan64

It's true that pros are super minority but everyone (us, etc.) is gearing toward playing like them. Given opportunity we all want to serve, hit, move, act like them. So, at least everyone is going on the same track. Thus, that's how we define "tennis".

On the other hand,
"Especially on a recreational tennis players forum where the vast majority of players are 3.5-5.0" is just pure guessing, man.

Have you seen any survey or statistics that says this? LOL. It might be that the majority of people here simply have a hobby of going on the Internet and posting incessantly about tennis and maybe once a week take their Walmart racket out to a wall and hit for 15 minutes. We simply don't know. We can't argue about what we don't know. Hahaha...


It's hard enough to talk about the tennis as we currently see, it's gonna be impossible for talk about "the forefather's version". Forget the past! man. Live today, man! :)
 
#41
On the other hand,
"Especially on a recreational tennis players forum where the vast majority of players are 3.5-5.0" is just pure guessing, man.
If you spend any time on these boards you learn where people are rated or at what competitive level they play. So its not guessing. It's trusting. I choose to trust most posters as being fairly honest people that are here to discuss one of their favorite hobbies.

I agree you can't take everything on the internet as truth. But why would I even bother to come here if I was so cynical to believe everyone here was simply a troll?

It's true that pros are super minority but everyone (us, etc.) is gearing toward playing like them. Given opportunity we all want to serve, hit, move, act like them. So, at least everyone is going on the same track. Thus, that's how we define "tennis".
I dream of playing like a pro but I'm not delusional enough to think it's at all a realistic thing. So I certainly don't "gear to play like them." I try to maximize my modest athletic skills and work on the shots I think I can realistically improve and the tactics that fit those shots.

It's my very strong opinion that everyone should learn to play like the best version of themselves and get their head out of the stars imagining they can serve like Sampras with a little more practice time. The people I see that work hard on small achievable goals always seem to get further than the delusional player with dreams of grandeur.
 
#42
I assert that we simply don't know (enough) about people here, lacking any statistics or surveys. You're equating my "don't know" assertion to saying people are trolls. :) Comon!

If you have an inkling of the desire to play better which about everyone does, you're indeed in the same track of the tennis that the pros do. Pros are just far ahead in the track, the same track. You, me and the next rec player guy are at step 1 or so. That's all. The point here is, we are gearing toward one definitive type of tennis (powerful, topspin, good placement hitting, more mph serving, etc....)


We want to play the tennis that pros play -- the ideas, the philosophies, the physics though we can only achieve a fraction of theirs. We do NOT want to play the "tennis" that rec players xyz, abc here play -- two bounces, FH grip serving, on and on...

THAT is what I mean about TENNIS.
 
#43
This pusher stuff takes up so much space it's ridiculous. I played 3 "pushers" at 3.5 USTA last year, all on har tru. Won all 3, but they weren't fun.

I define them as pushers because every shot was aimed 15 feet over the net to mid court. No matter what shot I hit to them, they hit the same shot back. 15-20 foot moonballs aimed just past the service line. Occasionally a drop shot, but nothing else. Serve was simply put in play. All 3 were virtually identical players...including their general look. I wont' go past that. :)

That's what I call pushing.

Hitting shots 3 feet from corners with moderate pace is not "pushing". It's consistent tennis. That can be boring too, but it isn't "why did I bother coming out here tonight" boring.

I also played 4.0 singles last year, and I didn't face a single player who hit like this. There were consistent ball retrieval guys, but not 20 foot moonball pushers. I got bumped so we'll see what I face this year.
 
#44
I assert that we simply don't know (enough) about people here, lacking any statistics or surveys. You're equating my "don't know" assertion to saying people are trolls. :) Comon!
If you want to know the stats, ask @schmke for a breakdown. Go to TR and pick any section with a reasonable # of people to do your own stats.

4.5 starts at about 85-90th percentile. So the bulk of players will be between, say 2.5 and 4.0.

The point here is, we are gearing toward one definitive type of tennis (powerful, topspin, good placement hitting, more mph serving, etc....)
I don't know if everyone would agree with your "one size fits all" definition of what we're gearing towards.

For example, I get plenty of TS on my BH; I'm looking to improve my consistency.

My serve would improve more with better placement and consistency, not more MPH.

"Good placement hitting"...well, who can argue with that?

We want to play the tennis that pros play -- the ideas, the philosophies, the physics though we can only achieve a fraction of theirs. We do NOT want to play the "tennis" that rec players xyz, abc here play -- two bounces, FH grip serving, on and on...
True. But there are plenty of rec players at the 5.0 & 5.5 level that I admire and I'd like to play like them [I use "rec" to mean "doesn't make a living off of winning tournaments"; ie not pro].
 
#46
Pros are just far ahead in the track, the same track
For all but a very few of us rec players, we are in a totally different track with an entirely different destination. There is no top pro that a) didn't start as a junior at a young age, b) show exceptional athleticism from said young age, c) was coached extensively and spent uber amounts of money and d) spent more time on the tennis court than in school. How many of us were ever on that track? Some of us were good juniors, some of us started as adults, some are multisport athletes trying something new, some of us enjoy competition at whatever level.

Every track is different and every destination is different. On this forum the common link is we all want to be better. But getting there will be a hugely different journey for us than the one's most pros took.

The point here is, we are gearing toward one definitive type of tennis
I don't think we are. If I tried to hit like a 20 something pro, i'd seriously break something. Lotta miles on this frame. My route to a better game won't be developing massive topspin groundstrokes with polyester strings and hitting 120+ mph serves. It will be developing consistent placement on my serve and improving my volleys and overheads.
 
#48
Certainly falls apart in doubles pretty quickly at 4.0. Competent net men devour pusher strokes for breakfast. Moonball groundstrokes just don't get it done like they do in singles. And I don't care how fast you can run in doubles I'm just hammering that weak stroke at your net person's feet.
Actually no, I've got a guy here I play with who is the ultimate pusher and we would kill every 4.0 team in the city and do well at 4.5 as well. However, at 5.0 it's a different story.
 
#49
For all but a very few of us rec players, we are in a totally different track with an entirely different destination. There is no top pro that a) didn't start as a junior at a young age, b) show exceptional athleticism from said young age, c) was coached extensively and spent uber amounts of money and d) spent more time on the tennis court than in school. How many of us were ever on that track? Some of us were good juniors, some of us started as adults, some are multisport athletes trying something new, some of us enjoy competition at whatever level.

Every track is different and every destination is different. On this forum the common link is we all want to be better. But getting there will be a hugely different journey for us than the one's most pros took.



I don't think we are. If I tried to hit like a 20 something pro, i'd seriously break something. Lotta miles on this frame. My route to a better game won't be developing massive topspin groundstrokes with polyester strings and hitting 120+ mph serves. It will be developing consistent placement on my serve and improving my volleys and overheads.
So pros don't have any use for these (bolded part)?
 
#50
We want to play the tennis that pros play -- the ideas, the philosophies, the physics though we can only achieve a fraction of theirs. We do NOT want to play the "tennis" that rec players xyz, abc here play -- two bounces, FH grip serving, on and on...

True. But there are plenty of rec players at the 5.0 & 5.5 level that I admire and I'd like to play like them [I use "rec" to mean "doesn't make a living off of winning tournaments"; ie not pro].

And the 5.0s, 5.5s don't want to play like the 6.0s who don't want to play like pro's?


What you and Dart don't get is, or still arrogantly refuse to admit is, if there's an aim for us to have -- and who doesn't if you compete--, it is to play higher tennis -- the same concept as the pro's. Now don't mistake that as the same implementation. Many of us never can.

In other words, we never, and can never, aim to play like, or learn from, some hackers. Rec hackers are deviations from tennis. They are rogue tennis. Niche tennis. Unimplementable.

Remember, a while back you guys were laughing and dismissing the two handed FH guy even though he has much success, even more success than many here? Or the FH grip serving guy even though his style is closer to rec level in term of achievable, cost/benefit, etc.?
 
Top