Discussion in 'Junior League & Tournament Talk' started by Number1Coach, Feb 1, 2013.
Coming from TCF this is just great. This is TT classic.
This is not intended to be an insult to TCF.
I think his point that at age 17 you can get a very accurate idea of the pro projectablity of a player who is physically mature and has dedicated his entire junior career to serious tennis training........by comparing track records of similarly situated juniors............is, well, underwhelming. I cannot understand why there is so much push back to this rather simple-minded (again not intended to be an insult) observation.
Some posters....we had one yesterday...even try to denigrate this observation by asking about his daughter's tennis results!! Non-sequitur City. What can be the motivation and logic behind that one?
Projectablility of an athlete is not an exact science. Of course there can be exceptions. But still, the resistance on this Board to the points TCF is making is very surprising and fascinating to see.
I am dying in laughter great eye thanks for pointing it out , TCF is seriously live entertainment for me
Talk about pots and kettles!
Unless you are Abigail Desiatnikov, then it's your size.
Not sure about TX , I know he is playing 2 or 3 tourneys coming up here in Ca . As for this last week he has been cruising taken days off to recover from and injury on the mat some tenderized ribs haha then ended up taken off this whole weekend so I know he was not gearing up to play TX .
I wondered if I was the only one seeing his math and thinking , raising the bar , contradicting what Quincy's dad said , ect , your right he makes it up as he goes , did you read his post about these crazy good tennis players in far off lands he admits he has never see yet he swears they are coming??
TCF: I heard interviews with Karlovic and Stepanek. They both said they were not top ranked juniors, but had to work their way up through the minors. Karlovic was emphatic in saying how everyone said it was impossible for him to make it as a pro. Claimed he toiled for years in the futures. Now here is the puzzlng part. Karliovic said his breakthrough didn't come until he was 28, but if you look him up on the ATP site, it happened when he was 25-26. Something does not jive.
Can't wait to hear how he re-tells this one his version !
I am not sure if I understand your post. Are you agreeing with his premise?
I actually agree with TCF on DB’s chances of making money on the ATP tour (poor to none). The number of people who make money is so small it is almost impossible. There are 30 16 year old and 32 17 year old junior players with ATP points. It could be argued and all of them are ahead of DB on the curve. How many people per age group can even fit in the ATP top 100? … My guess would be 15 or so in their peak year.
My resistance is to the fallacious arguments that are made. DB is nowhere near his top game. If he continues to play he will improve for at least 8 more years. If he does continue to play I feel certain he will be an ATP ranked player, rare air indeed for tennis. I have known some incredible players who never succeeded in getting a point.
Can he make a living? The odds say no, but you don’t need to make crazy assertions or specious arguments in the debate.
For me this is simple, no need to continue any further after this...
TFC, If you think that coaching matters AND you think Brad is NOT the 'number one coach' he claims to be, then you must also admit that Deit has NOT reached his ceiling, not even near (depending how miserable coach #1 is)
And vice versa: If you say he has reached his ceiling you admit #1 coach really is #1
So...maybe this is not a classical win-win situation but...which one is it?
Please be more specific about my crazy assertions or specious arguments so I can better respond to you.
Once again, based on all the information I've seen here, I think it is more of a long shot than a sure thing that the player projects as a successful pro. I also think that sometimes long shots come in. I'd be happy to respond in more detail if you can be more specific about your question
I think we are in complete agreement.
I was referring to TCF’s crazy assertions and specious arguments. Sorry I was not more clear.
Surely we know that TCF can speak for himself.............but if you cut through all the verbiage........I'd be willing to wager (maybe no more than a box of candies) that he agrees with this too!!!!!
I have not disagreed with the simple statement. “Odds are very very high DB will never be a money making pro.”
I did disagree with some of the arguments you have made to prove that assertion.
It may seem like splitting hairs but there it is.
Quinzi had 10 years of tennis focus at age 16 …. There I go again
TCF: I re-read every post you contributed to this thread and I actually agree with most of what you said. My “crazy assertions” and “fallacious arguments” statement was just as over the top as the assertions in your posts that I took exception to. So first, allow me to retract those statements.
You spend too much time comparing DB’s results to the Nadals of the world. If everyone quits who does not have those kinds of results we will have a small number of juniors indeed.
If you start tennis at a very early age you continue to improve after age 17. The 12 year rule is great but let’s face it do we really count the kids starting at 5 or 6 equally to the kids starting at 8 or 9? There is a maturation process that happens for boys through age 22 or 23 that makes a big difference. Quinzi at age 24 would absolutely smoke Quinzi at age 19.
To answer your question above I absolutely believe you could go down through the ATP rankings of 17 year olds, add in a few of the top 17 year old ITF juniors, and assign a progressively falling percentage chance of being a “money making” pro. By the time you’re 17 I think you need to be top 30 in the world for your age year to have much of a chance. ( just my gut opinion, no facts to back this up). There will be very few exceptions. Totally non random.
How much or little these guys played from ages 5-12 we don't know. Sticking to the facts we do know Stepanek, Karlovic, Anderson, and Soeda - none were highly ranked juniors. All cracked the top 100 on the ATP tour after many years in the minors. In the cases of Karlovic, Stepanek, and Anderson- 6 to 7 years. Soeda spent 10 years in the bush leagues before his breakthrough. There may be others. I point out these 4 because their names have been bandied about on this Board. I heard Stepanek and Karlovic talk about their tennis odyssey in detail. They never mentioned they were busy with other sports- but maybe they were. Anyway- kudos to Soeda for putting in 10 years to crack the top 100! Certaintly it is more likely the top 5 ITF ranked juniors will crack the top 100 (still it is a long shot). For guys outside the top 20 ITF- more of a long shot but evidence shows not impossible.
Agreed, but that is a straw man argument. No one is saying DB should quit. There are people saying he should not throw away a shot at a college education that is largely subsidized by tennis, and that he should see how dominant he can be in college tennis, and see how he does in Futures during summer, etc.
The kid was at IMG at 8 years old and he wasn't serious about tennis? Lol.
If an answer to such a short question has to be that long........well you be the judge.
Have a laugh at yourself every once in a while. Lighten up.
I think 99 out of 100 would take a scholarship, which, incidentally, does not rule out a run at the pros after or during. The thing is, BB has made it abundantly clear that he not only doesn't want his son to go to college, but seems to despise higher education as a premise. He has no respect for education or educated people, as stated in post after post. He laid out his Plan A and Plan B for DB earlier this year. Plan A - top ATP player with dad at his side. Plan B, managing a few trailer park rentals left to him by an uncle. This is a true pro or bust situation. Make it to the top, driven by Pop from birth or be forced into life as a slum lord. The American Dream at it's best!
Agree that this is an accurate and concise summary.
Fascinating for me to read the outpouring of support in these threads for this version of the "American Dream". Never woulda thunk it.
Points well made by Misterbill and BMC. The path to the pros from juniors takes time, more time now than 10 years ago. What happens to the 99% that put in years in the minors and do not crack the top 100? Do they have the mental and intestinal fortitude to go back and attend 4 years of college after years in the minor leagues of tennis? My gut tells me no- that is too difficult a transition. What do you all think?
The average age of undergrads at the four year university where I work is over 25 and we are not that different from other institutions. Many people come back to school after a variety of other careers such as military service. I don't see why being a grinding tennis pro for a while would make the transition to being a college student more difficult. Why do you think so?
Barringer97 this guy makes it up as he goes , my favorite is that there are kids in far off country's training at a level that would blow our minds and he even admits he has never seen them but they are on their way !!!
My point is that you are comparing DB to a kid that you believe wasn't serious about tennis.
The kid who isn't serious about tennis just happened to be at IMG at 8 years old. Now great, he might have had another hobby like skiing once in a while or watching cartoons, but the pure fact that he was playing tennis at IMG at 8 years shows that your "example" is bunk...or a bad one.
1. Could have had scholarship. Now not availlable. Will have to pay a lot more. Don't like to pay for what used to be free.
2. Instant gratification and feedback from tennis vs. 4 years with none.
3. Haven't picked up a book, read an article, done a math problem in years.
4. Parents are offering $75/hour to hit with their kids. Clubs offering job as a pro. Seems like an easy gig, easy money.
This kid he is talking about has been serious since he was 8 yrs old , he has been traveling around the world since he was 10 that has made are travels look amateur at best . This tennis world is a small one and through we have become friends with Quincy and his team , great kid , great goals. You are gonna reason with a guy that will re- adjust his position or stick to the one he has made up !
You say free ! Once again ignorance you are not one of the most sought after players in the nation at 16 because you have done nothing , DB has worked his tail off and all the top schools are asking him to come there but if you think it is free you need some education about what hard work earns you !
1. There are many non-athletic scholarships available. Tennis scholarships are generally not a full ride anyway.
2. Instant gratification from tennis? LOL. I guess we'll just agree to disagree on that one. People who attend school can still play sports and get "instant gratification" you know.
3. I don't believe players on tour are all like this but even so lots of students come back to school after extended periods away from their previous educational experience.
4. Coming back to school is a decision a person should make based on their own need for fulfillment. It is certainly not for everyone. If an ex-tour player gets more satisfaction from teaching kids then that is what they should do. However, they could do both. I've taken lessons from a former member of my university's D1 team who was out of eligibility but still here in grad school. One of my former students was a club pro here while going to school. Lots of students work and go to school and where I teach I believe probably the vast majority of them do this so the ex-player could still do lessons and go to school.
I will agree Quincy's level "ranking" is far above ours (he has traveled and chased points)so was Bornas its at the same "level" as Quincys but when it comes down to what they can do with a racket there is no difference and from what I saw in NY the kid blew a fuse losing 5 out of 7 baseline games to 11 and most were a 6 to 8 point difference and we saw what happen to the Croation left the court in tears , he never played a freight train before and as for Quincy no. 1 ITF I believe he lost the same round at the OB as DB 633 ITF ?
This is what I have already pointed out the educated with no common sense cant see the simplicity of what "LEVEL " means . Example Here is TCF " lets see the numbers say these guys are better but when that kid plays them he outplays them " there is no way he is better "my " numbers say different !!!!
I can't argue with your logic, but human nature is not always based on logic.
I agree with TCF that most pro tour washouts are looking to teach- a few but not many go back to school. Psychologically it's tough when top names schools were offering you 50% scholarships plus financial aid 5 years ago.
Now those same schools don't want you and the athletic scholarships are gone. Tough on the ego.
amazing the conclusion these guys jump to yeah ?
how many more post on the subject after this one ??
Quote from Quinzi’s Wikipedia page “Initially Quinzi applied himself to Alpine skiing, gaining a second place in the championships of the Trentino-Alto Adige; but at seven years old, after leaving other sports as well, he focused his efforts primarily on tennis. At the age of 8 he was noticed by the talent scout Nick Bollettieri who offered him a scholarship to his academy.”
I am going to guess that if he had actually won an Alpine Skiing championship at age 6 and 7 he would have put that in his Wiki page instead of he came in second. Not something you really forget.
Because the article says at seven he quit other sports to focus on tennis I kind of believe that more than your “if we say he started tennis only at age 8”. I am going to continue to speculate that if he was deciding between skiing and tennis he must have put some significant work into tennis and was good enough to pick that over skiing. This is all before the age of 7.
Because the article says he was found by a talent scout and given a scholarship to IMG I am going to believe he was pretty good tennis player at age 8 and Nick does not give a lot of scholarships to people who “had played tennis before” instead of your “His family had lots of money and they brought him to IMG."
Just so you know 7 + 10 = 17
Give me a break.
Separate names with a comma.