lol
!!!
Only way to beat tennis is to have big weapons
I have seen him play and he plays with excellent controlled aggressive and is a super competive
I would want to play him one day in Vegas but he would win
Let's not make tennis complicated.
- Thread starter Steady Eddy
- Start date
lol
!!!
Only way to beat tennis is to have big weapons
I have seen him play and he plays with excellent controlled aggressive and is a super competive
I would want to play him one day in Vegas but he would win
TimeToPlaySets
Legend
Damn, what a great post. Best post of the year (that is not a post of mine)
Yes, the pusher builds their game based on a fundamentally wrong foundation.
Ugly grotesque strokes that are reliable (and win matches)
This is why competing too early is toxic for true development (like 3.0 and 3.5 USTA, where pushing wins, and people learn to not swing out)
They practice an aggressive style, but then play grandma ping pong for the match!
I like your golf analogy of people using abbreviated bunty swings.
They will learn to hit thew ball straight, but never truly strike the golf ball right.
They might even perfect their game and hit into the 80s some days, with their decades consistent bunty broken strokes.
We've seen the old guy who drives with a 5 iron dead center fairway, and scores in the 80s.
Meanwhile, the bashers are blasting drives OB and scoring +2.
Consistent and reliable, but he will rarely hit par on a 4 or 5 par hole.
To not be a pusher means relearning the entire game. TIme and money.
That is opposite to human nature, and why so few ever jumps paths once on it.
there you go... let's not make the toss complicated... just throw the ball up.
unfortunately that doesn't work, does it.
and no, the serve is not more complicated than golf.
pro compares pro, the pro golfer practices that 1 swing all his life... the pro tenniser practices the serve maybe 15% of his time.. the point is, tennis as a whole is probably more complicated, but not with just 1 of the components.
ByeByePoly
Talk Tennis Guru
Tennis swing vs golf swing ... difficulty/complexity:
I lived next door to a 4.0 Physics major my first two years in college. He knew I played tennis, and commented one day about the complexity of hitting a tennis ball (not specifically about serve ... all strokes). He said when you take into account a moving ball, and influence on trajectory (spin, etc), hitting a tennis ball was more complex than almost any other sport. I think his class had just run the numbers as a class project, or assignment.
Having played baseball until 15 (switched to tennis at 15), golf and tennis ... I would put hitting a golf ball sitting on the ground, and hitting a fastball with a bat at the top. If you measure difficulty by the amount of profanity produced, golf wins easily.
If you want a great laugh, find a bunch of high school jocks that have never played golf. Put a ball on the ground and have them try and hit it. The ball is just sitting there not moving, and they are all gifted
athletes. After 5 minutes there is 100mph swings, cussing, sweating and embarrassment. {this was a story told by one of our golf/tennis friends on a golf trip. He was a high school football player that was one of those jocks that couldn't get the ball airborne. He was our lowest handicap on our trip ... 5ish). The big ball (earth) greatly complicates golf. It 's always fun to watch a new golfer have to "play it where it lies" the first time.
I played baseball from little league to 15. When I quit, I was just getting a preview of what a real fastball pitch looked like from a couple of guys that matured early. All I can say is the guys who stand at the plate and hit MLB pitchers deserve mad props ... I can't even imagine.
I lived next door to a 4.0 Physics major my first two years in college. He knew I played tennis, and commented one day about the complexity of hitting a tennis ball (not specifically about serve ... all strokes). He said when you take into account a moving ball, and influence on trajectory (spin, etc), hitting a tennis ball was more complex than almost any other sport. I think his class had just run the numbers as a class project, or assignment.
Having played baseball until 15 (switched to tennis at 15), golf and tennis ... I would put hitting a golf ball sitting on the ground, and hitting a fastball with a bat at the top. If you measure difficulty by the amount of profanity produced, golf wins easily.
If you want a great laugh, find a bunch of high school jocks that have never played golf. Put a ball on the ground and have them try and hit it. The ball is just sitting there not moving, and they are all gifted
athletes. After 5 minutes there is 100mph swings, cussing, sweating and embarrassment. {this was a story told by one of our golf/tennis friends on a golf trip. He was a high school football player that was one of those jocks that couldn't get the ball airborne. He was our lowest handicap on our trip ... 5ish). The big ball (earth) greatly complicates golf. It 's always fun to watch a new golfer have to "play it where it lies" the first time.I played baseball from little league to 15. When I quit, I was just getting a preview of what a real fastball pitch looked like from a couple of guys that matured early. All I can say is the guys who stand at the plate and hit MLB pitchers deserve mad props ... I can't even imagine.
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
You repeated yourself. That's too complicated. Give me the executive summary and important takeaway points. Will the presentation be available for download?
ByeByePoly
Talk Tennis Guru
I think @r2473 said this. There would be no problem learning a stroke with an abbreviated backswing, but big problem with abbreviated follow through. You see beginner golfers try to guide drives off the tee by trying to control the swing through contact (bunt). Hence the expression ... trust your swing. The racquet and club have to square at contact, and nothing will match the repeatability of "trust your swing".
I would throw out one "complexity" in the idea of a rec player keeping their swing simple. For example, take a male 4 .0s FH. What would be their most simple repeatable fh ... a McEnroe, a Keys, a Goffin, a Federer? That becomes a complex question immediately. The most repeatable swing would be flat continental grip from pointing racquet at back fence no lag. Any swing with big lag (forearm/racquet) right before contact is a massive timing/repeatable element added to the swing. An easy way to say it is flat swings are more repeatable than low to high swings. The problem is that isn't the same as defining what is the "getting the ball in" most repeatable. You can't answer "what is the best fh stroke for a 4.0 player" without first answering "what style of play".
I came to the conclusion 99% of rec adult players ... say 4.5 and lower would never need the late huge lag (flip) at their level. Said another way, no adult rec player needs a FH beyond a typical WTA FH. It actually sounds ridiculous to say out loud you need a technique beyond Madison Keys.
I love me some ridiculous ... so I tried some flip. You could extend the question and ask would most rec 4.0 males end up as better players with racquet to back fence (Mac) FHs with cont/eastern grip, or "more modern". Do you end up a better 4.0 with better target control with less spin, or a game with more spin and all the benefits that come with the spin. I think it's your goals with spin and not pace that should guide your "what's my simplest most repeatable".
I don't find the terms "pusher" or "pushing" very useful, but questions:
Isn't high spinny shots high over the net to "anywhere in" a form of pushing?
Is "pushing" measured by 1) how a stroke looks ... or 2) where the stroke lands ... or 3) pace?
I would throw out one "complexity" in the idea of a rec player keeping their swing simple. For example, take a male 4 .0s FH. What would be their most simple repeatable fh ... a McEnroe, a Keys, a Goffin, a Federer? That becomes a complex question immediately. The most repeatable swing would be flat continental grip from pointing racquet at back fence no lag. Any swing with big lag (forearm/racquet) right before contact is a massive timing/repeatable element added to the swing. An easy way to say it is flat swings are more repeatable than low to high swings. The problem is that isn't the same as defining what is the "getting the ball in" most repeatable. You can't answer "what is the best fh stroke for a 4.0 player" without first answering "what style of play".
I came to the conclusion 99% of rec adult players ... say 4.5 and lower would never need the late huge lag (flip) at their level. Said another way, no adult rec player needs a FH beyond a typical WTA FH. It actually sounds ridiculous to say out loud you need a technique beyond Madison Keys.
I love me some ridiculous ... so I tried some flip. You could extend the question and ask would most rec 4.0 males end up as better players with racquet to back fence (Mac) FHs with cont/eastern grip, or "more modern". Do you end up a better 4.0 with better target control with less spin, or a game with more spin and all the benefits that come with the spin. I think it's your goals with spin and not pace that should guide your "what's my simplest most repeatable". I don't find the terms "pusher" or "pushing" very useful, but questions:
Isn't high spinny shots high over the net to "anywhere in" a form of pushing?
Is "pushing" measured by 1) how a stroke looks ... or 2) where the stroke lands ... or 3) pace?
ByeByePoly
Talk Tennis Guru
low to high only and cc only ... let's all play tennis like accountants. Got it.
tlm
G.O.A.T.
I think @r2473 said this. There would be no problem learning a stroke with an abbreviated backswing, but big problem with abbreviated follow through. You see beginner golfers try to guide drives off the tee by trying to control the swing through contact (bunt). Hence the expression ... trust your swing. The racquet and club have to square at contact, and nothing will match the repeatability of "trust your swing".
I would throw out one "complexity" in the idea of a rec player keeping their swing simple. For example, take a male 4 .0s FH. What would be their most simple repeatable fh ... a McEnroe, a Keys, a Goffin, a Federer? That becomes a complex question immediately. The most repeatable swing would be flat continental grip from pointing racquet at back fence no lag. Any swing with big lag (forearm/racquet) right before contact is a massive timing/repeatable element added to the swing. An easy way to say it is flat swings are more repeatable than low to high swings. The problem is that isn't the same as defining what is the "getting the ball in" most repeatable. You can't answer "what is the best fh stroke for a 4.0 player" without first answering "what style of play".
I came to the conclusion 99% of rec adult players ... say 4.5 and lower would never need the late huge lag (flip) at their level. Said another way, no adult rec player needs a FH beyond a typical WTA FH. It actually sounds ridiculous to say out loud you need a technique beyond Madison Keys.
I don't find the terms "pusher" or "pushing" very useful, but questions:
Isn't high spinny shots high over the net to "anywhere in" a form of pushing?
Is "pushing" measured by 1) how a stroke looks ... or 2) where the stroke lands ... or 3) pace?
Damn byebye you’ve got to much going on in this post. What is your point again?
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
I find it to be more revealing about the person who uses the term ["That guy's no good; he's just a pusher."] than his opponent.
Judging by the comments here, it's mostly based on looks.
I judge it by:
- risk tolerance
- ability/desire to attack when give a reasonable chance
- net play and OHs
- consistency
- pace and spin
- effect on the opponent [ie "Aaaagh! You're losing to a pusher!!!"]
ByeByePoly
Talk Tennis Guru
ByeByePoly
Talk Tennis Guru
SeeItHitIt
Professional
Tennis swing vs golf swing ... difficulty/complexity:
I lived next door to a 4.0 Physics major my first two years in college. He knew I played tennis, and commented one day about the complexity of hitting a tennis ball (not specifically about serve ... all strokes). He said when you take into account a moving ball, and influence on trajectory (spin, etc), hitting a tennis ball was more complex than almost any other sport. I think his class had just run the numbers as a class project, or assignment.
Having played baseball until 15 (switched to tennis at 15), golf and tennis ... I would put hitting a golf ball sitting on the ground, and hitting a fastball with a bat at the top. If you measure difficulty by the amount of profanity produced, golf wins easily.
If you want a great laugh, find a bunch of high school jocks that have never played golf. Put a ball on the ground and have them try and hit it. The ball is just sitting there not moving, and they are all gifted
I played baseball from little league to 15. When I quit, I was just getting a preview of what a real fastball pitch looked like from a couple of guys that matured early. All I can say is the guys who stand at the plate and hit MLB pitchers deserve mad props ... I can't even imagine.
I love tennis but think hitting a tennis ball with a racquet is the 'easiest' of the three sports too. Is it the easiest to be good at? I dunno. But Connecting with a 9" round ball using a round bat - 'squarely' - which is propelled towards you at something between 65-105 mph (you aren't told which) from 60'6", hmmm. Ding-ding-ding, we have a winner. The most difficult of the three because of the movement and the time the hitter has to execute a swing between the knees and 'letters'.
Golf: the ball is still but is 1.68" in diameter. A strike of the ball lasts a whopping 1/200th of a second. Oh, and it's somewhere between 4 & 6' away from your breastbone at address. Club head speed? 100-130mph for a guy whether he's a hacker or a pro. Not to say a baseball player would be a good tennis player...most hockey players seem to be natural golfers...all are great athletes though.
tlm
G.O.A.T.
I have a tennis buddy who has played team and USTA tennis for a long time and he told me he has never heard a player say that ya I just beat this pusher. But he has heard many players say that they lost to a guy who is nothing but a damn pusher. Lol
tlm
G.O.A.T.
Another terrible big hair band from the 90’s.
tlm
G.O.A.T.
Okay another terrible big hair band from the 80’s.
tlm
G.O.A.T.
One of the tops? Okay that’s great for a band that did nothing but recycle music that has already been done thousands of times already.
For us that grew up in the late 60’s and 70’s we were treated to the biggest change in music history. Every band had their own sound and most bands made albums that were good from start to finish. Then later came the recycling copycats that did nothing original.
I’m talking Led Zeppelin, Rolling Stones, Jimi Hendrix, Neil Young, Pink Floyd, Eric Clapton, John Fogerty, the Kinks, Fleetwood Mac, Black Sabbath, just to name a few of the original bands that cannot be matched by the imposters.
navigator
Hall of Fame
I'm forced to disagree strongly here.
Van Halen may have ultimately become a parody of themselves (by the time 1984 came around), but... their first record (Van Halen - 1978) had no antecedent. It was one of the most original rock records in history - a Sgt. Peppers of hard rock, if you will. Prior to that record, no one had ever heard anything like Eddie Van Halen - his guitar playing on that record may as well have come from Mars. He was the prime mover of all of the cheap imitators that came after him. Outside of a handful of bands in the genre - Zeppelin, AC/DC, Van Halen and a couple of others - I'm not a huge hard rock fan, but that first Van Halen record... one of the most original sounds to come out of the 70s. Pure genius... and I'm a tough grader.
ByeByePoly
Talk Tennis Guru
TimeToPlaySets
Legend
Tennis swing vs golf swing ... difficulty/complexity:
I lived next door to a 4.0 Physics major my first two years in college. He knew I played tennis, and commented one day about the complexity of hitting a tennis ball (not specifically about serve ... all strokes). He said when you take into account a moving ball, and influence on trajectory (spin, etc), hitting a tennis ball was more complex than almost any other sport. I think his class had just run the numbers as a class project, or assignment.
Having played baseball until 15 (switched to tennis at 15), golf and tennis ... I would put hitting a golf ball sitting on the ground, and hitting a fastball with a bat at the top. If you measure difficulty by the amount of profanity produced, golf wins easily.
If you want a great laugh, find a bunch of high school jocks that have never played golf. Put a ball on the ground and have them try and hit it. The ball is just sitting there not moving, and they are all gifted
I played baseball from little league to 15. When I quit, I was just getting a preview of what a real fastball pitch looked like from a couple of guys that matured early. All I can say is the guys who stand at the plate and hit MLB pitchers deserve mad props ... I can't even imagine.
Yes, but in 1 year, the athletes will all make great strides in golf.
They will still be 3.0 hackers in tennis.
Golf is like fingerpainting compared to the complexity of tennis.
Left alone for a year or two, almost anyone can learn to play a respectable round of golf.
Left alone for a year or two, Almost no one will learn to be a good tennis player, even if given a lifetime. You see them at the park daily, with their grotesque arming strokes.
Last edited:
tlm
G.O.A.T.
I guess you never heard of Jimi Hendrix then? But then again Mr Jimi did all his work in the 60’s. So that one album made them great? If you want to call that a great album. Lol.
That was one of the most original rock records in history. As Johnny Mac used to say You Can’t Be Serious. ROFLMAO
Whatever there are all kinds of great guitar players out there many we’ve never heard of. There is a lot more to a great band than just a good guitar player those are a dime a dozen. The skill comes from writing great songs and music. Which is what separates the one album wonders like Van Halen, Guns n Roses and a thousand others from real bands like the Stones and Zeppelin.
Last edited:
SeeItHitIt
Professional
...imagine Tommy Emmanuel in a band!? He does JB stuff in his sleep before JB dreams it. Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac, Sky Dog, a guy named Roy. Yes, many great g'tar players out there...1984 was a cool album and Eddie can rip it too but it falls short of great me thinks. Best VH line?
I like the way the line runs up the back of the stockings.
I've always liked those kind of high heels too. You know, I...
No no no no, don't take 'em off, don't take... Leave 'em on, leave 'em on.
tlm
G.O.A.T.
Ya Eddie can rip on the guitar and so can thousands of others. Big frigging deal and yes falls short of great by miles.
ByeByePoly
Talk Tennis Guru
Yeah ... I know how hard tennis is. I was one of those that had to work hard for any improvement, and was blessed with the headstart of footspeed. Tennis is frickin hard. I think if our ttw profiles showed our match and tournament count instead of post count it would prove the point.
I can tell you what really helped me early on when I wanted to make the high school team. I played singles against players better than me, and if I finally beat them, would find someone even better. I had no problem with the losing early on ... that came later.
Vanhalen
Professional
Yeah ... I know how hard tennis is. I was one of those that had to work hard for any improvement, and was blessed with the headstart of footspeed. Tennis is frickin hard. I think if our ttw profiles showed our match and tournament count instead of post count it would prove the point.
I can tell you what really helped me early on when I wanted to make the high school team. I played singles against players better than me, and if I finally beat them, would find someone even better. I had no problem with the losing early on ... that came later.
Yes that is true you have the physical element In Tennis which poses a problem for some people. I know a lot of fat beer drinking cigarette smoking golfers That can shoot in the 70s but if you put them on the tennis court they would not be able to get to one single ball
ByeByePoly
Talk Tennis Guru
lol ... you don't see to many cigars on changeovers. We did have one of the better senior tennis players (50s) that smoked cigarettes during a match... 95+ degrees ... was never winded. I can't remember exactly how he managed it at the baseline. From my memory, it was a combination of keeping it in his mouth during points, and throwing it down on court near back fence.
Phantasm
Semi-Pro
well, to be fair, i'd agree.. you don't need to develop "modern" strokes... in the end, you need to get the ball back in such a way to keep me off balance, to prevent me from counter attacking.
modern big heavy topspin strokes are just one tool - arguably an overused tool
up through the 4.5 level (maybe low 5.0?), i think it possible to use say only a conti grip... slice from the baseline, s&v, c&c, dropshot, etc... i've definitely lost to guys with some of the "ugliest" and "most non-modern" strokes around.
that said, even if i never played another point in my life, it's extremely satisfying to pound balls from teh baseline... i'd never get that satisfaction from just slicing the ball
Even at the highest level in the pros, we see that power isn't the only way. one of the more effective way sicne you hit it hard or fast enough, there's a lower chance of having the ball come back and having to hit another one.
Del Po went for a good year + only hitting slice backhands and still managed to compete at the highest level despite an incomplete arsenal. Then there's women like Flipkens who only hit slice backhands.
My thoughts.
To OPs point thread topic, tennis shouldn't be over-complicated. It's so easy to get in your own head and make the game harder than it should be. That's the pain and joy of an individual sport (at least singles is). Got no one but yourself to rely on and blame for the most part. Makes it more rewarding and annoying at the same time.
As you play stronger competition, I notice the usual tactics aren't working and start to try to do too much and over think things. Times like that I agree that you should try to simplify things and be consistent/focus on the basics and take it as a learning experience.
Steady Eddy
Legend
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Not exactly, Steve Hackett was already using a lot of tapping. If you listen to Shadow of The Hierophant and make it past the faux opera verses, you will hear tapping quite similar to Eruption (except that Hackett album came out in 1976, so earlier than the VH debut). But Hackett used tapping beautifully and in an atsmopheric way, which went right over the heads of mainstream radio. So EVH 'only' popularised it, which is nothing to sniff at and hence I put the word only in quotes. And I wouldn't rate him higher than Uli Roth or Michael Schenker. But he was in the right place at the right time, which is frequently what determines popularity in popular music. The guitar was explosive but David Lee Roth's ironic delivery gave VH a cool quotient that Scorpions and UFO sorely lacked. I don't think DLR gets near enough the credit he deserves; he was like a hard rock version of Donald Fagen.
navigator
Hall of Fame
EVH was one of the most influential guitarists in history - not the most influential. The critics can argue about the latter. Guitar Player magazine has the highest readership of any guitar-focused magazine: "The 12 Most Influential Guitarists of All-time" (See: Van Halen, E.)
https://www.guitarplayer.com/guitar...arists-of-all-time-and-their-signature-styles
So, yes, I'm serious. This is not even a controversial opinion.
Personally, I only liked VH's first record and a sprinkling of other songs. A lot of their stuff was crap, but "one-hit wonder"? C'mon, they've sold almost 100 million records worldwide. Everyone's free to have their own opinion but based on the facts yours seems quite wide of the mark here.
navigator
Hall of Fame
Steve Hackett's great. What's funny to me, however, is the guitarist from Pearl Jam (a band I don't like at all) said almost the same thing about EVH, "It sounded like it came from another planet": (#8 in Rolling Stones' 100 Greatest Guitarists: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/...t-guitarists-153675/eddie-van-halen-3-159410/). Anyhow, just lists and opinions... everyone's got one.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
I am guessing the Pearl Jam guy, like many others in that era, didn't hear Hackett, at least not in his formative years. EVH himself believed he had invented tapping so he had never heard of Hackett either. There are a fair few such guitarists who are not very well known but who advanced technique or used guitar in an unprecedented way(s). Holdsworth died penniless but was one of the most unique guitarists out there.
tlm
G.O.A.T.
Well The Rolling Stones list is right what I was saying, Mr Jimi, Jimmy Page, Eric clapton and Keith Richards. But again a great guitar player does not make a great band.
tlm
G.O.A.T.
Where did I say one hit wonder? I said one album wonder. It seems the subject changed from great bands to great guitar player.
Last edited:
tlm
G.O.A.T.
This is totally true and proves exactly my point that there is a lot more to a band than a good guitar player.
navigator
Hall of Fame
Still incorrect. The debut has sold 17 million units worldwide. They've sold over 80 million units that were NOT the debut ("1984" has sold 17 million units as well). That's a sh1tload of records by anyone's definition. Not a one-album wonder. I'm no fan of most of their stuff but I can be objective about it.
tlm
G.O.A.T.
Well how many albums did Michael Jackson and Madonna sell? And don’t forget AC/DC and Kiss and the Great Bon Jovi. Lol
TimeToPlaySets
Legend
tlm
G.O.A.T.
Okay I give up Van Halen is the goat of all rock bands.LMAO
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Hmm, I was making a different point altogether, that there is more to music than the Billboard top 10. Billboard top 10 is just a reflection of the music that appeals to maximum people; it's not a meritocracy in any form. Now of course LZ were a good band but it's not because they sold tons of albums or because many big name musicians have good words to say about Page, Plant, JPJ or Bonzo. There's no because. Greatness in music is a subjective concept. What we can determine fairly objectively is influence and EVH was mighty influential without a shadow of doubt. It's not that he was like tons of other faceless shredders. It's the faceless shredders who imitated him and poorly. Unlike them, EVH did not jettison the blues so his own playing was full of energy and flavour.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Are you denying that these acts/bands were influential? Selling multiple multi platinum albums is the easiest way to exert influence. Is Justin Bieber influential? Unfortunately yes. Now does influence make a band great? Debatable. But I would say at least with Van Halen, AC DC or even Michael Jackson, the influence derived largely from what was different musically about them and not by jumping the shark.
