Stop Whinning about not being Sponsored

[UpTheT]

I was listening to some kids at the club whine about a thread they read in here-- Didn't think it was that popular. Anyway, they were complaining about how hard it is to be sponsored and they sounded like a bunch of ugly girls complaining about not being asked to the school dance. So here is my two since about sponsorships. Sponsorships aren't worth much unless you're like me and even if you are - you can survive without one.

I was a top 10 player in california from age 11-18 (Now 31) which gave me the opportunity to take advantage of a Wilson sponsorship. Only one thing good came from being sponsored-- It kept my parents from being involved in my tennis. If it wasn't costing them anything, they didn't care what I did in terms of performance. If I didn't want to practice- they didn't care. Did being sponsored save me a ton of money? NO!!! I could have paid for my own rackets with my work money (even if I did my parents would have blamed me for wasting money if I didn't practice). Are rackets expensive-- HELL NO. Tennis is a very affordable sport. I still have three Prostaffs from 1990 ($90 each) that are still playable. I played on those sticks for 3 years at 200 days a year, which equals .15 a day per racket. That is well worth the price and I'm being conservative time spent on court. If my parents had to pony up for rackets- they would have been all over me with that "are we paying for those rackets to just sit there" crap. My advice to anyone jonesing for a sponsorship is, don't worry about free rackets - worry about your game and style of play. 99.9% of you will never make it to the tour, so why worry about sponsorships and rankings. Focus on your style and hope that you can play tennis until your 80. That means lose that open stance pancake grip crap - you can't play that way forever-- and its the wrong way to play anyway-- Come on and try to prove its better --YOU CAN'T
Close stance rules - pancake grips suck.

Look at McEnroe-- he's almost dead and his style of play allows him to beat younger retirees who use a more modern open stance crap style of play. Yes, Mac could beat most of the top 100 players TODAY. He could beat a good portion of the top 20 if it were a one set match.

 

[johnmcc516]

I agree with your post about kids complaining about sponsorships. It is an honor to be sponsered, not your right. What are you calling a pancake grip? Western?

 

[UpTheT]

I agree with your post about kids complaining about sponsorships. It is an honor to be sponsered, not your right. What are you calling a pancake grip? Western?

Extreme Western

 

[Jonnyf]

i'd think it would be an amazing priviladge proving that all the hard work you have done is (although fun) really has done something for you

 

[Chopin]

Mac is still good, but I don't think he could beat a “good portion” of the top 20 in a one set match. You never know, but all things being equal, I don't think he would beat more than a couple guys. For example, Ancic pretty handily took care of Mcenroe when they played in a one set exhibition. Of course, you never know for sure with tennis. And there is no "wrong" way to play tennis, that's the beauty of it.

 

[fantom]

Sounds like a rant to me (wrong section?). Did you lose to a junior w/ a Western grip yesterday or something?

Kids are always jealous of things that they don't have......clothes, money, sponsorships, xbox games, whatever.

 

[UpTheT]

It's just frustrating seeing juniors being taught a sport the wrong way. They are so inconsistent because of the whippiness of the new style. They can't hit a low ball to save their life. They stroke is so inefficient- everything is moving all at once, head, shoulders, hips, racket not to mention the hand, wrist then the elbow. They are all late - ball is struck when its almost right next to them as opposed to being in front. The follow through takes the racket behind their head -- which puts it out of position. All for what-- pace that is negated by this extra spin they don't need.

 

[johnmcc516]

I prefer a semi-western grip personally. I can hit it flat, or I can whip it depending on the shot.

 

[Venetian]

Dang UpTheT you must be the greatest player/coach ever. At least that's what it sounds like with dumb rants like this. Claiming that Mac could beat top 100 players now. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Just another "everyone should use wooden rackets, a closed stance, and a stupid eastern grip because that's how I learned to play tennis a hundred years ago" posts. You're just so much smarter than those juniors I guess, Mr. "I was this and that" and nobody cares.

 

[UpTheT]

Dang UpTheT you must be the greatest player/coach ever. At least that's what it sounds like with dumb rants like this. Claiming that Mac could beat top 100 players now. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Just another "everyone should use wooden rackets, a closed stance, and a stupid eastern grip because that's how I learned to play tennis a hundred years ago" posts. You're just so much smarter than those juniors I guess, Mr. "I was this and that" and nobody cares.

Eastern grip for a forhand-- No. -- Funny - most couches today don't play with the new style. HMMMMMMM fad maybe.

 

[UpTheT]

Let me guess- you're a junior

 

[Venetian]

Negative. I am not. But I've seen plenty of them and played them. They play just fine.

 

[pchoi04]

Look at McEnroe-- he's almost dead.

LOL!!! AHAHAHHAHAH!

 

[wtennis206]

It's just frustrating seeing juniors being taught a sport the wrong way. They are so inconsistent because of the whippiness of the new style. They can't hit a low ball to save their life. They stroke is so inefficient- everything is moving all at once, head, shoulders, hips, racket not to mention the hand, wrist then the elbow. They are all late - ball is struck when its almost right next to them as opposed to being in front. The follow through takes the racket behind their head -- which puts it out of position. All for what-- pace that is negated by this extra spin they don't need.

Number one...there is no wrong way to play tennis. Just because people don't play your style dosen't mean it's wrong. Number two...if you hit with a lot of spin the right way and practice, it IS consistant. You CAN EASILY hit a low ball, and heavy spin can be more efficent than your style of play (which by the way is the way my 74 year old grandpa plays). I don't know what juniors you have been watching.

P.S.
I don't think people who still play in long pants and button up shirts should be allowed to post here.

 

[esrb]

What's wrong with eastern grip?? It depends the pace and position on court to use it...i change from semi-western and eastern....am i doing something wrong??

 

[schaefferm46]

.

 

[Marius_Hancu]

Extreme Western

Some might want to read this:
http://www.lansdorp.com/
Creating Champions

 

[Venetian]

You can always count on Marius to post a link to something. Lol.

 

[Dopke]

Just let kids be kids. They talk about that kind of stuff, and that's what they do. You expect them to come up to each other and greet each other and start a conversation about how the weather is or how the stock market is fairing for them? Let's take it a step further, do you expect a baby/infant to sit quietly at a tennis match and clap when a good shot is made? No. So let babies do what babies do, and kids do what kids do.

 

[Datacipher]

If those kids read this post........ their not going to be to happy with you.

LOL. That is true. Actually your post is weird for a lot of reasons. Why would you care enough about some kids at your club doing some annoying whining that you would run back here and tell all of us? So what if they don't realize being sponsored is not that great? Some kids want some free stuff...big deal?

I'm also a little surprised your so huge on closed stances, most of the top level juniors of your era, which you claim to be, used the open stance a great deal, really the tennis of top juniors from the late 80's early 90's was very much like the tennis today. Courier, Agassi etc....are older than you. Not to mention Lendl, Borg etc. Besides, open stance strokes have been around for nearly as long as tennis has been around, they just weren't "taught".

But then you're the guy that wrote that silly post everyone laughed at about being the 6.0 player who plays with wood:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=46263&page=1&pp=15

Funny, because now you say you used Prostaffs....

 

[NoBadMojo]

Open stance is a fairly recent development as far as being a mainstay groundstroke, especially as evidenced by all the pros with hip problems. Now open stance backhands are becoming prominent on tour. I'll teach open stance, but only to those players skilled enough for that..i really dont think that is the right way to start people playing tennis..it is something to advance into..i dont teach closed stance to anyone tho either because that is really from another generation....square works as a starting point and then if i stay with them i work them into something more open as their skillset advances to that point. Disagree that the tennis of the 80's and 90's was open stanced like today..it wasnt even close..the tennis of the 80's and 90's was alot more Federer like from the ground as opposed to the hit off the backfoot spin out of the shot way early forehand of many of the players of today (Roddick, et al). my .o2

 

[Dopke]

Uh-oh. Datacipher is on to you!!

 

[Datacipher]

It's a misconception that regular open stance hitting is a recent development. Numerous players were using open stance groundstrokes on the forehand in the late 80's and early 90's. Lendl, Wilander, Agassi, Courier, Krickstein, Jarryd, Mancini, Chang, Sampras, Becker, Bruguera, Muster, Sanchez and on and on, all regularly used open stances. Just like the players today, they used open stances regularly and occasionally used square stances. In the early days of tennis(EDIT: just trying to figure out what Nobad's problem is....by "early days" in this sentance, I'm referring to back around the 50's and 60's), top players tended to use square stances but would occasionally when pressed hit with an open stance. The close stance was actually never used much in pro tennis, no matter how far back you go.

On the backhand side, open stances became more common with the 2 handed backhand. Although, even now, most players 2 handed or 1 handed tend to use a square stance when given a choice. Open handed 1 handers are rarely seen except on return of serve and Lendl and Becker were hitting 1 handed open stance backhand return of serves in the 80's as well.

Federer uses an open stance the vast majority of the time when he is not stepping into the court to receive a shorter ball or on the run.

 

[Datacipher]

Uh-oh. Datacipher is on to you!!

Heh, just a few observations...

 

[Venetian]

I like you Datacipher. Tell it brother!

 

[Exci]

Some might want to read this:
http://www.lansdorp.com/
Creating Champions

Interesting link, might deserve it's own topic, but it's related in a way to this topic, so I'll post it here.

I find the article very contradicting. The author states for example:

I wrote back and came up with 20 kids that potentially showed something, that had good grips: players like Agassi, Sampras, Chang, Capriati. Kramer was wrong about the early 90's, but only barely, and I think greatly because of teaching pros like myself. There were a lot of really promising kids coming up.

He wants us to get rid of the extremer grips, but names Andre Agassi? Agassi definately has a semi-western forehand and his natural wrist snap has been controversial in the past, yet he is in this very list of "good gips"?

Top players like Sampras have grips that allow them to drive through the ball. When the ball comes low and very fast, the underneath grip is very awkward. When the ball is low and skids, you can't hit through the ball. You have to rotate the racket over too quickly and you can't stay with the ball. Because the racket is no longer going through the ball, you can't hit the ball as hard.

Very true, but this only holds to certain boundaries. How much skidding do we see in the pro tour? On grass, yes. But what about other surfaces? Of course we see low skidding balls, but Safin sure handled Federer's slices on hard court very well.

If you want to be a club player and hit all topspin and moon balls, more topspin is fine. If you want to be a champion, forget it, and hit it. The way I work it, everybody has a chance to be a champion.

One name: Nadal

*cough* club player somehow capable of beating arguably one of the best players in the tennis era *cough*

At a certain level, it's fine to go for this reverse forehand shot, but I couldn't do that to a child, early because repitition of this shot could cause wrist injury.

Great, so he wants us to use improper use of the wrist to get more topspin drive? Don't see a problem then why you shouldn't drive it like Roddick with a western grip.. safety is not of his concern in the tour so it seems.
(anybody has some info on this "new" forehand? I'm really curious)

Further more, the author refuses to go into detail about Roger Federer. Interesting, because he uses some progressive grips as well. So maybe the article is only about extreme western then. Nevertheless, semi-western is still a big deal in the year 2000 and not everything is extreme western, I think semi is much more common among non-clay-courters.

As for the topic starter: I truly enjoy a squared / open stance with a semi-western forehand. No, it's not because I was taught like this. In fact, it wasn't until last week that I got special attention concerning this. I don't know how, when, or why, but all I know is that I've gradually evolved to this situation, coming from a closed stance. It's not all bad you know and my wrist has never been better..

They stroke is so inefficient- everything is moving all at once, head, shoulders, hips, racket not to mention the hand, wrist then the elbow. They are all late - ball is struck when its almost right next to them as opposed to being in front. The follow through takes the racket behind their head -- which puts it out of position. All for what-- pace that is negated by this extra spin they don't need.

Modern tennis isn't all about "whippiness". It might appear to you, but have you ever tried to hit a proper one? If they move that much, they're not hitting it properly? Your wrist is fixed with whatever grip and only released on contact, right? Head should be faced to the ball at all time, so nothing new there either. The power shouldn't come from the shoulders; they remain fixed and move just as much as they move when hitting an eastern forehand (for God's sake, do you freeze when you hit a ball or something?). Racquet.. no, let's keep this one fixed! We surely can't move the racquet, can we? Nooo... you might end up hitting the ball!

Then you come with the absolute best argument I have ever read for not hitting a (semi-)western forehand: they are all late! Yes! Everybody is the same! Yes, they have equal skill, they all handle the grip the same, so yes! They are all late! Marvelous, how did you come up with that? Classic!

I'll do one more and then you're free to enlighten me. The follow-through. You should know that the follow-trough is variably and more flexible. It's all about keeping your shoulders straight and getting your weight in the shot. Do me a favour and grab yourself a racquet. Now, grip it with a semi-western grip and slowly swing the racquet till you meet it's contact point, far in front of you. How do you continue from here? What feels right for you to do? Upwards over your shoulder? Downwards to your hip? Depends on the height? I prefer to rotate it to my hips as long as I am able to stretch out, but sometimes I end up over my shoulder to put away a high shot (Federer might be a good example here).

So we should all switch to that bloody eastern again then? Ah well, while we're at it, we might as well change all headsizes to 90sq inch or smaller, return to wood, allow for only 1 service, decrease the service box size, and play on grass all the time..

 

[NoBadMojo]

as always Datacipher you just twist everything around to make it come out like you are always right even though you make lots of patently erroneous statements..by your own admission you say those guys really only went open stance at certain times..i was speaking in generalities and there are always exceptions which you pull out of your hat when you are 'essentially' wrong <like now> i am not going to further this discussion as i've made my point..there are always exceptions. to say that open stance in its current form has been around since the 80's to any sort of magnitude like it is today is just wrong.

 

[Venetian]

Data didn't "twist" anything. What in the world are you talking about NoBad? Does anybody know?

 

[Datacipher]

Data didn't "twist" anything. What in the world are you talking about NoBad? Does anybody know?

I really don't know either Venetian! Apparently this is personal, this is the 2nd time in a couple weeks that NoBad has gone off on me like this. I guess he was mad the 1st time because I showed one of his quotes to be wrong....then on his first reply he suddenly goes off on a rant about how I am twisting everything and he has shown ME to be wrong, which he hadn't. Then he suddenly claims he won't discuss it further. I guess he hopes some will be whitewashed by it, but it doesn't work for anyone who has read the posts in the thread..... Weird. Up until that point, I had never had a problem with the guy.

Anyways, I think I've been completely consistent and clear in both threads.

Nobad says :

"you say those guys really only went open stance at certain times..i was speaking in generalities and there are always exceptions which you pull out of your hat when you are 'essentially' wrong "

What I actually said in the 2nd post was "all regularly used open stances. Just like the players today, they used open stances regularly and occasionally used square stances."

What I originally said in the 1st post was " most of the top level juniors of your era, which you claim to be, used the open stance a great deal, really the tennis of top juniors from the late 80's early 90's was very much like the tennis today. Courier, Agassi etc....are older than you."

Yeah, do I TWIST things. All of the guys I referred to in my 1st and 2nd post, did exactly what I stated, used the open stance "a great deal"(my 1st post) or "used open stances regularly and occasionally used square stances."(my 2nd post). Have you shown that to be wrong or even suspect? I haven't changed my contention one bit, nor have I pulled out any "exceptions", UNLESS you contend the players I mentioned were "exceptions", but you didn't say that and if that's what you mean, that's a pretty hefty list of "exceptions" and I could mention a LOT of others. I know full well you were speaking in generalities which is exactly why I disagreed with you, most of the players today use a square stance in certain situations, but GENERALLY they use the open stance for baseline shots.

I also see Nobad did not address the fact that he contends that players of the late 80's and 90's played more like Federer. On this we agree, except that as I pointed out, Federer's standard forehand is open stance. Nobad, you should try watching Fed's matches and simply observe his footwork from the backcourt, you will see that the majority of his backcourt forehands are hit open stance, as I mentioned, you see Federer hit with a square/stepping in forehand, more often when he is stepping in to take the short ball. Same as all those guys I listed above. All players past and present varied their footwork depending on the situation but generally all those guys used an open stance the majority of the time from the baseline.

If someone disagrees with that, no problem, but don't pretend you've shown evidence when you didn't. If somebody thinks I've been contradictory, no problem, quote it. Don't just try to confuse the issue and hope nobody read the earlier posts. People aren't that stupid Nobad. If I make so "many patently erroneous statements" as you say, then you shouldn't have any trouble showing it.

 

[LafayetteHitter]

If you don't like someones style of play, don't watch them. I hear people complain about this in my area of the country as well. But I cannot help but wonder why people care so much, unless you are their coach or parent.

 

[TennisD]

I was listening to some kids at the club whine about a thread they read in here-- Didn't think it was that popular. Anyway, they were complaining about how hard it is to be sponsored and they sounded like a bunch of ugly girls complaining about not being asked to the school dance. So here is my two since about sponsorships. Sponsorships aren't worth much unless you're like me and even if you are - you can survive without one.

I was a top 10 player in california from age 11-18 (Now 31) which gave me the opportunity to take advantage of a Wilson sponsorship. Only one thing good came from being sponsored-- It kept my parents from being involved in my tennis. If it wasn't costing them anything, they didn't care what I did in terms of performance. If I didn't want to practice- they didn't care. Did being sponsored save me a ton of money? NO!!! I could have paid for my own rackets with my work money (even if I did my parents would have blamed me for wasting money if I didn't practice). Are rackets expensive-- HELL NO. Tennis is a very affordable sport. I still have three Prostaffs from 1990 ($90 each) that are still playable. I played on those sticks for 3 years at 200 days a year, which equals .15 a day per racket. That is well worth the price and I'm being conservative time spent on court. If my parents had to pony up for rackets- they would have been all over me with that "are we paying for those rackets to just sit there" crap. My advice to anyone jonesing for a sponsorship is, don't worry about free rackets - worry about your game and style of play. 99.9% of you will never make it to the tour, so why worry about sponsorships and rankings. Focus on your style and hope that you can play tennis until your 80. That means lose that open stance pancake grip crap - you can't play that way forever-- and its the wrong way to play anyway-- Come on and try to prove its better --YOU CAN'T
Close stance rules - pancake grips suck.

Look at McEnroe-- he's almost dead and his style of play allows him to beat younger retirees who use a more modern open stance crap style of play. Yes, Mac could beat most of the top 100 players TODAY. He could beat a good portion of the top 20 if it were a one set match.

Wow, I really like how self confident you are. But for a man of such apperant wisdom, I don't see your name anywhere. Sorry, I'll trust my coach over you any day, loser. Also, you think Mac can hold a candle to anyone in the Top 100? Get a clue, old timer.

And moving on to sponsorships. Yeah, people shouldn't complain, but that's not the point. Having a sponsorship is worth a lot more these days than it was back in the 1800's or whenver you were growing up. 3 racquets? Sorry, I'm a travelling junior, I have at least 5 racquets, I need bags, clothes, strings and shoes. If I don't have to pay for this, my parents have more money to pay for my practice and travel. Top 10 in California? With no practice? Big deal, have a cookie. I bet I'd smoke you, my friend.

 

[TommyGun]

Believe it or not, I'm going to support NoBad on a point or two.

Classic, or closed stance is the proper way to teach strokes. If any coach out there is teaching "open stance" then he, in my opinion, is crap for a coach. All of us, or at least those of us who really know how to play AND teach, know that once you learn to hit properly opening up your stance for the appropriate shot is a natural happening. If you even watch "open stance pros" when they have time they square to the ball, and when they are rushed they open up.

The fundamentals of hitting an open stance shot are EXACTLY the same as with a closed stance shot, the only difference being that your trunk is rotated. To hit open stance you still have to square your torso to the ball, make the racquet travel up and through the ball in the direction of hit, and follow through. How the hell would you teach hitting an open stance shot any different?

I got into a fight with a local coach who was working with some better high school players when he was "teaching them open stance forehands." I challenged him to put his best student with "open stance' shots against my best player (I was only coaching one kid at the time and she was a mid level high school player.)

Do I have to tell you who kicked butt, and who, when the opportunity was there, naturally opened up and who, when the opportunity was there, closed to the ball and crushed the crap out of it?

Another poster here also talked about "frying pan grips". I agree that these things are killing the sport. Very little variety with extreme western grips, they are biomechanically bad on wrist and arm, and just about none of the players I see in the juniors can handle any low or short ball well.

 

[erik-the-red]

I agree with Tommy in a certain sense. It's a huge myth that the "pros use open stances ."

Take a look at Roger Federer or André Agassi. When they are planning to impose themselves in a rally, they SQUARE up big time. When they're rushed, that's when they open up; it's a defensive shot.

I like a semi-western grip for the most part. If it's a high ball, I go more western.

 

[Datacipher]

Believe it or not, I'm going to support NoBad on a point or two.

Classic, or closed stance is the proper way to teach strokes. If any coach out there is teaching "open stance" then he, in my opinion, is crap for a coach. All of us, or at least those of us who really know how to play AND teach, know that once you learn to hit properly opening up your stance for the appropriate shot is a natural happening. If you even watch "open stance pros" when they have time they square to the ball, and when they are rushed they open up.
.

Hi Tommy! I dont' necessarily disagree with you. I've been fighting the "hey, "all of a sudden" the pros are using open stances, let's teach it exclusively, it's sooo much better." fad for the last 10 years! Of course just like with the closed stance methodologies, what you end up with is overexaggerated versions of the model and stiff strokes with no flexibility.

Good players can do both. In fact, in today's fast paced game, you need to be able to hit, off the back foot, leaping backward, leaping forward, rearing to the side, and standing on one hand, at moments. If the student understands how to control the ball and produce the swing needed, his body will adapt around it anyways. He'll also find the stance most comfortable for him/her in that situation. Sometimes, though people will use the open stance as a crutch for laziness and that's no good! Better to get to the ball early and have all the options. Personally, I feel there are pros and cons to both. The open stance has the advantage of not sacrificing any power, and being much better able to disguise the direction. But a square stance generates power more efficiently in my opinion as the foward weight transfer can easily and naturally be transferred into the angular hip and shoulder rotation.

You're absolutely on the money when you say the fundamentals are the same! You know most top players (except maybe the recent academy generation) don't give even the slightest thought to their stance and whether they should use a closed or open stance in such and such situation. They simply use what is most natural and effective at that moment.

On the subject of injuries, I do think the extreme grips(semi western is not extreme in my mind) can be hard on the wrist and arm sometimes, they usually come hand in hand with extreme wrist positions and exaggerated external rotation of the arm at the shoulder. But as for hip injuries from open stances, I haven't seen evidence to convince me of that yet, I think increased hip problems are more attributable to the extreme racquet head speeds being generated these days. When you're swinging that violently into the ball, it simply takes it's toll in wear and tear. I dont' think it's because the open stance is unsound. Though I have had open stance players who sometimes trap their back foot by leaving it planted flat and pointed towards the sideline through the stroke while rotating foreward and that can be a stain on the hip of the hitting side for sure!

Erik, I disagree with you. Agassi and Federer absolutely will step into a short ball and they sometimes step into a ball they want to drive from the backcourt as well, but they hit many more of their forehands from an open stance both offensive and defensive.

 

[wtennis206]

Wow, I really like how self confident you are. But for a man of such apperant wisdom, I don't see your name anywhere. Sorry, I'll trust my coach over you any day, loser. Also, you think Mac can hold a candle to anyone in the Top 100? Get a clue, old timer.

And moving on to sponsorships. Yeah, people shouldn't complain, but that's not the point. Having a sponsorship is worth a lot more these days than it was back in the 1800's or whenver you were growing up. 3 racquets? Sorry, I'm a travelling junior, I have at least 5 racquets, I need bags, clothes, strings and shoes. If I don't have to pay for this, my parents have more money to pay for my practice and travel. Top 10 in California? With no practice? Big deal, have a cookie. I bet I'd smoke you, my friend.

right when i think TennisD is gone and I wont have to listen to his crap anymore, he comes back.

 

[NoBadMojo]

Data I didnt go off on you, I just said you are wrong. and you mention guys like Lendl as being open stancers, and he was about as square to the ball as they come. The game has changed alot since the 80's stroke productionwise from the backcourt..it's power from a big shoulder turn against an open stance as opposed to how it WAS back in the 80's and such when most of the guys got their power from weight transfer instead..especially a guy like Lendl who rarely hit open. Even the tenns commentators made a big deal out of Guga's open stanced hip injury stating that 'with the open stance forehand now being popular, players are going to be more subject to hip injuries. it isnt impt you consider me right because you would never ever admit you are wrong..so this is all rather pointless...

 

[LoveThisGame]

I've wondered if many young players today will have abused their body enough that they will be unable to play later in life. I think many will fall by the wayside, and that's too bad because there is no finer way to exercise both body and mind than tennis, and it can be a lifetime activity.

Look at baseball pitchers. The ones who are pitching in their late 30's and early 40's are those with sound mechanics which have not over stressed body parts.

Yes, I'm ancient, but I still prefer playing on hard courts, hitting strong, and playing all court. And, I can still do it, even after 35 years of averaging at least three times a week of playing. I still can't get enough tennis.

 

[Datacipher]

Data I didnt go off on you, I just said you are wrong. ...

Yeah, right, you know just saying it won't make it so, you did the same thing as you did in this thread. I am the one who calmly stated you were wrong and you went on a bit of a tirade. Not a psycho killer tirade but a nice little hissy fit, which is ironic and creepy for a guy named NoBadMojo. Your reply here stands, here's how the other thread went in case anyone actually cares (to me it's not a big deal, but why should I let you lie about it? Sorry for the big post to those who don't care, which is I'm sure most ;-) :

DATACIPHER:
Breakpoint that was obvious to me as well watching the match. I said out loud in the 1st few games to my friends, "he's showing WAY too much respect for Nadal's forehand!"

Nadal has a huge weapon on that side, but when you're shots are as good as Fed's, you can afford to go there, Roger can unload into Nadal's forehand, if Nadal can consistently hurt Roger off of Roger's big forehand, then back off a bit, but LET HIM TRY. If Roger let's his forehand go, even Nadal, quick as he is, will be hard pressed to respond offensively.

Now, when you hold back, like Roger, you take away the instinctive play that makes Roger so great. You better believe he was itching to go there at times, that was no doubt his first instinctive thought, but instead he'd change his mind and conservatively go back to the backhand. When you do that, you usually don't even do the shot to the backhand that well.

so I felt:

1.He's was thrown by Nadal's heavy spin(but I don't buy into this nearly as much as many, there are many players who hit as heavy a spin as Nadal and pros are used to it, this alone will not throw Fed off that far for very long)
2.All the angles and patterns were reversed because he's lefty
3.He was holding back on obvious openings with too much respect for Nadal's forehand
4.He is totally unused to not letting his shotmaking flow naturally and magic happening
5.He is not used to being the one who is being less effective out there

I think all this combined to make him very out of sorts. Having said that, it's a great experience for him. All great champions have to have mechanisms and procedures mentally that they use when negative and difficult situations are encountered. I don't think Fed has fully developed in this area yet, if he can, it will make him better and turn him into a true champion.

I don't say any of this to take away from Nadal who did his job perfectly and played great.

NOBADMOJO:

it's easy to say all this stuff, but very difficult to change the direction of an uncoming ball that is spinning that violently and bouncing up that abruptly and no one handed back hander likes to have to deal with high bounding balls on that side..that is why roger couldnt work his usual i can put the ball wherever i want game and thats why he had so many errors IMO.

DATACIPHER:
"I disagree. Many players can hit as much, more, or nearly as much spin as Nadal. If it could render Federer that impotent, everyone would do nothing but that against him. It certainly didn't contribute to Fed's double faults, blowing easy sitters, whiffing overheads etc. One could argue that those were caused purely by Fed's frustration at being able to handle Nadal's spin, but I disagree. Every tour player can generate and handle huge spin, they may not like it much, but it doesn't explain Fed's play. Nadal is by no means unique in this regard.

You might also want to note, it's not at all unusual for a tour pro to hit heavy topspin that lands on the service line. Many do this regularly, including Agassi, Safin, Hewitt etc..."

NOBADMOJO:

"fed missed two overheads one which clearly was a sun problem. he missed volleys that werent sitters..they were radcally dipping diving balls, and like you said datacypher they dont like that much spin..go watch nadal live sometime and then say he doesnt have unusually unique crazy spin on is forehand..nadal IS very unique in the spin regard..first of all he is a lefty and secondly he puts mad crazy spin on his forehand and even federer says that if you listened to any of his interviews..he was very prophetic in that he said he might be down a set and a break before he can adjust to the crazy spins of nadal...so watch the dude live sometime and you will go whoa! crazy spin..it's just a case where fed doesnt like the nadal spin..its a matchup thing ..surely you must understand that"

DATACIPHER:

"I just don't think that is the case. I'm a bit surprised that you put so much weight into that. Nadal has fantastic spin, so does Flipper, Gonzales, Roddick off the forehand and many, many of the clay courters. Yes, compared to normal players, they all have insane spin, but all these guys can spin and kick the ball off groundies at just as high a rate or very nearly as high as Nadal if they choose. I disagree that Nadal's spin was enough alone to disturb Federer that much, do you think Fed is especially prone to this? Other Nadal opponents don't play that far off their normal games....we also saw that at times, for example when Fed settled down in the second set and seemed to shake off his tentativeness that he was able to play his usual phenomenal shotmaking and Nadal was not able to do much about it. As I said, I do agree that Fed doesnt' like these types of shots, but I simply think other factors were far more significant.

If you're referring to the interview in which he said he'd be might be down a set and a break before he adjust, I believe he said that in reference to Nadal's left handed spins, not regarding some incredibly high spin rate. In his post match interview he said the same:

"Especially the first set, I don't lose sets very often 6-2 so this really shows you that I was struggling. But I think it's got a lot to do with his game. He's left handed, I had to get used to, and couldn't quite do that. Maybe played a little bit too aggressive in the beginning.

"So until I maybe got to actually understand how to play him, I was down a set and a break."

(ALL GOOD UNTIL....)

NOBADMOJO:
"one in the same Datacipher..now you are really dealing in misinterpretation and nuance and subtleties and nit picking so as not to appear wrong. so it isnt even good enough when fed sez the nadal spin bothers him, you have to declare your own personal twist on everyting. it's lefty spin! you cant process that? and its radical! you cant process that? this is pretty funny, and you;re wrong altho you never would admit to that..go hit with that bat he uses sometime too..it puts some crazy ass spin on the ball somehow..excuse me whilst i abandon this thread..pointless to have a discussion with a person who would never admit to being wrong."

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=46900&page=1&pp=15

Yes, you're a cool cat NoBadMojoJustBadTemperProblem...the first disagreement we've ever had and all of a sudden you're yelling about how I'm spinning it and can never admit to being wrong!??! lol. Same as this thread.

 

[TennisD]

right when i think TennisD is gone and I wont have to listen to his crap anymore, he comes back.

I suppose you're one of the fools that agrees with UpTheT, aren't you? Fine, be an idiot. Don't like what I have to say? Don't read it.

 

[Datacipher]

, I just said you are wrong. and you mention guys like Lendl as being open stancers, and he was about as square to the ball as they come. The game has changed alot since the 80's stroke productionwise from the backcourt..it's power from a big shoulder turn against an open stance as opposed to how it WAS back in the 80's and such when most of the guys got their power from weight transfer instead..especially a guy like Lendl who rarely hit open. ...

Now this was interesting, wasn't it you who accused me of picking out exceptions....now you have picked one guy off my list! lol.

OK, let's talk Lendl, I couldn't disagree with you more, Lendl used a HUGE shoulder turn against a frequently open stance. In fact, Lendl's shoulder turn was actually more than a lot of the guys today. In fact, the only thing that made Lendl's forehand a little different, was that he used an eastern grip. Otherwise, the essential mechanics were exactly like the forehands seen today. Like I said, before, Lendl and many of the others on that list, sometimes used a forehand to attack balls, particularly short ones, but all those guys used an open stance for baseline rallying the majority of the time. For example:

LENDL (vs Agassi USO semifinal 1989 (2nd and 3rd set))

OPEN STANCE FOREHANDS: 29 (Let's be clear, these were very open stance forehands with angle between the 2 feet at least 45 degrees in relation to the baseline or more....in fact I had forgotten how open Lendl often went, he actually hits on average from a much more open stance than Agassi, occasionally with the right foot nearly even with the left or once in while in front of the left!)

SQUARE STANCE FOREHANDS: 4 (including 1 forehand sidespin! drop shot)

ON THE FULL RUN FOREHANDS: 16 (forgot how good these were, frequently put Agassi on full defense)

RETURN OF SERVE: 5 (almost all with open stance but I did not count these as such)

STEPPING BACKWARD FOREHANDS: 3 (1 stepping backward, 2, stepping toward backhand side, trying to get around, you could possibly have counted a couple of these as square or actually closed)

SWING VOLLEYS: 1 (he stepped into a square stance!)

This was a popular match, I'm sure some here have it on tape or dvd, if anyone does and cares, they can watch these steps, and note Lendl's forehand stances. Note that I did miss a handful of points early in a few games as I missed taping them coming back from commercial.

 

[NoBadMojo]

man you need to give it up Data.two different discussions which have nothing to do with each other. again..i have no temper problem at all..i'm angry with no0ne and it is you attacking and insulting me..all i said was that you are wrong. you've got issues...i just scanned all that you wrote, but saw enough to not wish to participate..it's you w. the Bad Mojo pal..nobody is allowed to say the mighty datacipher is wrong

 

[Datacipher]

Yeah, you scanned enough to see our complete discussions posted eh? It's all out there buddy, on the record, not a word edited.

Scanned enough to see the Lendl open stance stats? Yeah, I knew you wouldn't want to touch that. OK, case closed. Falling back on your now tired insult of "I won't admit I'm wrong" lol, I'd love to but it's hard since you haven't come up with anything in either thread. Back to your accusations and run and hide and tactics because you've got no rebuttal to the real issues.

See what happens when you let your temper get the best of you because you can't handle a dissenting opinon but you've got nothing to back it up? You end up looking pretty bad. It's pretty clear in both threads who was willing to discuss it rationally and who made it confrontational. Let the posts speak for themselves!

 

[NoBadMojo]

good bye datacipher..way too much verbage for me to process..and like i said i am not angry nor was i before, so you've also got that way wrong...it really just is of no import in any sort of big scheme. have a nice day and write away as you like.

 

[Datacipher]

good bye datacipher..way too much verbage for me to process..and like i said i am not angry nor was i before, so you've also got that way wrong...it really just is of no import in any sort of big scheme. have a nice day and write away as you like.

Who can't admit they're wrong? lol. I could at least respect you if you said "gee, sorry Data, I guess I did get a little defensive and angry in both threads. You're right about the open stance...."

But yeah, too many words for you. Just pick the fights, then run.

 

[NoBadMojo]

i am not interested in fighting with you datacipher...i'm not interested in having a discussion with you..i'm not, nor was i angry, and i've no clue why you keep insisiting that i am/was. my non responsiveness means that the 'conversation' doesnt interest me, not that you are right..i've moved on, and i have no idea why you feel the need to spend al the energy regurgitatng old threads, and i am not interested in discussing anything with you because it is of no import and i dont really care if you think lendl hit open stanced or not..just because you wish to do all this does not mean that i wish to. thought that was pretty easy to tell..you're typing away essentially to yourself here, and i suggest it is you looking foolish..i'm not participating...cant you seee that? and why wont you stop? talk about BadMojo...tell you what, you may have last word as usual and be right as always and i am just not revisting this thread because it is a waste of my good mojo..now PLEASE say good-bye..thank you and have a nice day.

 

[wtennis206]

I suppose you're one of the fools that agrees with UpTheT, aren't you? Fine, be an idiot. Don't like what I have to say? Don't read it.

im just sick of your internet-ego...it takes up the whole damn page

 

[Datacipher]

i am not interested in fighting with you datacipher...i'm not interested in having a discussion with you...

TRANSLATION: I'm getting my rear kicked and I can't come up with anything, yet I can't admit I'm wrong.....oh...what to do...what to do!??

my non responsiveness means that the 'conversation' doesnt interest me, not that you are right..i've moved on,

Actually I haven't moved on...I haven't found any acceptable way to get out without looking like an idiot because when I try to evade and cloud the points, you keep calling me on it....

and i have no idea why you feel the need to spend al the energy regurgitatng old threads, ,

Shoot! I made claims about how what happened in the other thread and there you go actually posting what it...so now what. I have no idea why you can't just let me spin what happened and get out. Why can't you just get into an shouting match with me....why do you have to show everyone my actual statements.

and i am not interested in discussing anything with you because it is of no import and i dont really care if you think lendl hit open stanced or not..just because you wish to do all this does not mean that i wish to. ,

Uh oh...he called me on the Lendl stance also! HMMM....well I BROUGHT it up in the thread....damn I thought Datacipher made a mistake on that one....I was sure Lendl used a square stance....well...um....Oh I know...I'll go back to accusing him of being the one who wanted to discuss Lendl....that way people will forget I brought it up! Ohhhh me oh my...what to do...I never really even looked at Lendl's stance!!!! I hope nobody else knows what stance he used!

thought that was pretty easy to tell..you're typing away essentially to yourself here, and i suggest it is you looking foolish..i'm not participating...cant you seee that? and why wont you stop? talk about BadMojo...tell you what, you may have last word as usual and be right as always and i am just not revisting this thread because it is a waste of my good mojo..now PLEASE say good-bye..thank you and have a nice day.

Please, please give me a way out. I've spent so much time in the racquet forum trying to convince people I know tennis. Um....people won't notice the irony in this statement will they? No....they're stupid....hopefully they haven't read through the thread....

 

[TennisD]

im just sick of your internet-ego...it takes up the whole damn page

My internet ego? What are you on, my friend? Are you seriously under the impression that I have nothing better to do than give you the idea that I'm a big man over the web? Sorry, looks like you have self esteem problems. I have far better things to do (like, say, training 6 hours a day and travelling), than to convince you of something over the internet. How does it take up the whole page? I made one post about how I though the thread originator was ignorant, and that's it. Try, just try to give me some more examples of my internet ego, fool.

 

[equinox]

wtennis206 and TennisD, whoever else, rather than joining into a lame flamefest, please just use the ignore function.

 

[LafayetteHitter]

Nothing personal against anybody, but this is the lamest thread every, BORING!