'The Inner Game of Tennis' and 'Winning Ugly' - Who uses them?

[fuzz nation]

Most players seldom make it past the 3.5/4.0 level anyway...

That's probably why Dave Smith put out Tennis Mastery. He effectively pitches his blueprint for the "advanced foundation" in that book - proper fundamentals enable players to progress beyond 3.5 purgatory.

 

[fuzz nation]

I just bought and read both of these books more or less simultaneously, and it was a totally fascinating experience. In some ways, they're contradictory—one book is encouraging you to completely silence the ego-self in favor of the instinctual self, while the other is basically encouraging you to out-think your opponent. (I had to laugh after reading an Inner Game chapter about basically turning off your self-analytical brain followed by a Winning Ugly chapter where Gilbert encourages you to take notes during changeovers about your strengths and weaknesses.)

On the other hand, I think they're at least a little complementary. I can say I greatly enjoyed both and hope to take something from each. Gilbert's advice is self-explanatory and super helpful on a practical level, and I hope to take some of the abstract ideas from Inner Game and apply them on court, especially when it comes to frustration and, my big weakness, concentration lapses (especially after winning a first set). Who else has read and put into practice some of the theories and advice from these books?

Haven't read Inner Game, but I did read Winning Ugly a while back. Gilbert's book was enjoyable and interesting enough that I crunched through it in a hurry. I think his book helped me to appreciate the different dimensions of any competitive setting. As a high school coach, I believe that considering these dimensions helps me to give some of my kids more to work with instead of just trying to do their best against opponents who seem to be generally "better".

Sometimes a seemingly stronger opponent may also turn out to be rather impatient. Simply keeping a couple more balls in play can push these players to pull the ripcord too soon too often and make more errors. That can be enough to put them into the downward spiral that tips the match against them. Basic enough, but I think that Gilbert points out how valuable some of these basics can be, even at the highest levels.

One book that I recommend all the time is Mental Tennis by Vic Braden. This book has easily been the most valuable for me, both as a player and as a coach. Braden was a long-time tennis guru and also a licensed psychologist with a rather fun sense of humor. His writing is easy to take in and the issues covered in this book are easily to relate with - I could put his wisdom to work right away. Several of my tennis pals - players and also a couple of teachers, too - have also enjoyed this book. I've read it maybe three times and I'm sure I'll go through it again pretty soon.

 

[GuyClinch]

Well I mean how do you define a level of skill/talent without some level of success? Like you take a pro player and say he's losing a ton of matches at the ATP world tour level so his ranking is dropping, and he's not qualifying for main draws at events. Conventional wisdom would dictate that he or she might need to go down to the Challenger and Satellite level to play more of those events to get their confidence back and get their ranking back up. Similar thing at the rec level. Some seasons you might be 3.5, some 4.0, and maybe if you keep at it and work hard enough, you can work your way up to a 4.5 or 5.0 level.

You define success but what level you play at. But this just sidesteps the main argument against something like winning ugly..

Yes you will win more - but eventually you will outplay your game. This is imho essentially what most of the players called 'pushers' do. They play better then the strokes they have. They play smarter. They are craftier. They are better at gamesmanship and pick shots that are better percentage plays. They play the lines shall we say 'tighter'..

The problem with this - is that from a rec perspective this guy is NOT popular. Tennis at the club level is a social sport. While you don't want to play against 'stupid' players or reckless ones - the 'winning ugly' guy isn't a dream either.

People bashed Sureshs earlier in this thread but generally speaking rec players in singles play 'smart enough'. Could they play more craftily and competitive to win a few more matches like Brad suggests. Absolutely. Should they do this instead of improve their basic fitness, strokes and athleticism?
Often the answer is no.

Now in doubles OTOH - something that I don't really remember Brad addressing - THAT is something that people are woeful at strategically and play absolutely dumb. it also way more important at the rec level.. at the low levels in doubles people don't even move from their spots.. Its awful..haha.

 

[GuyClinch]

That's probably why Dave Smith put out Tennis Mastery. He effectively pitches his blueprint for the "advanced foundation" in that book - proper fundamentals enable players to progress beyond 3.5 purgatory.

Good tennis book - but most adults aren't going to have time to build any foundations. 3.5 is the 'diminishing returns' spot of tennis for men. it's 4.0 for women. a large increase in play/coaching/deliberate is needed to move beyond it. And for every step beyond that - again its even harder for all but the very athletic. For the less athletic - even 3.5 is not guaranteed.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

That's probably why Dave Smith put out Tennis Mastery. He effectively pitches his blueprint for the "advanced foundation" in that book - proper fundamentals enable players to progress beyond 3.5 purgatory.

I haven't read the book but I'm sure quite a few authors and coaches can pitch a blueprint for advancement beyond 3.5. And I think most of them would work...if the reader put into action the ideas. But, for whatever reason, they don't.

3.5 is the "fat part of the curve" so it's not surprising that's where a large segment of the population resides. I don't know if that makes it "purgatory".

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Haven't read Inner Game, but I did read Winning Ugly a while back. Gilbert's book was enjoyable and interesting enough that I crunched through it in a hurry. I think his book helped me to appreciate the different dimensions of any competitive setting. As a high school coach, I believe that considering these dimensions helps me to give some of my kids more to work with instead of just trying to do their best against opponents who seem to be generally "better".

Sometimes a seemingly stronger opponent may also turn out to be rather impatient. Simply keeping a couple more balls in play can push these players to pull the ripcord too soon too often and make more errors. That can be enough to put them into the downward spiral that tips the match against them. Basic enough, but I think that Gilbert points out how valuable some of these basics can be, even at the highest levels.

One book that I recommend all the time is Mental Tennis by Vic Braden. This book has easily been the most valuable for me, both as a player and as a coach. Braden was a long-time tennis guru and also a licensed psychologist with a rather fun sense of humor. His writing is easy to take in and the issues covered in this book are easily to relate with - I could put his wisdom to work right away. Several of my tennis pals - players and also a couple of teachers, too - have also enjoyed this book. I've read it maybe three times and I'm sure I'll go through it again pretty soon.

As a HS coach, you have a great view for how some of these ideas actually play out on the court.

I'm opportunistic and omnivorous: I will read a ton and throw away what doesn't make sense. I don't see any reason to discard *Winning Ugly* out of hand. The fact it's mentioned so often tells me it's probably worth giving a try.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

You define success but what level you play at. But this just sidesteps the main argument against something like winning ugly..

Yes you will win more - but eventually you will outplay your game. This is imho essentially what most of the players called 'pushers' do. They play better then the strokes they have.

I'll take a slightly different perspective by defining skill as something that includes things other than strokes. It's possible to have mediocre strokes but to have tremendous mental strength, for example. Just like it's possible to have a great serve but a lousy BH. In the latter case, you wouldn't judge the player to be playing better than his strokes by only looking at his serve. You'd judge the entire package.

So, while a pusher might play better than the strokes they have, they are doing it by drawing on other resources that maybe non-pushers haven't developed as much.

They play smarter. They are craftier.

Highly commendable for any player.

They are better at gamesmanship. They play the lines shall we say 'tighter'..

By "gamesmanship" do you mean things that aren't illegal but are designed to annoy/disturb/**** off your opponent? If so, I don't agree. They might **** their opponent off by getting everything back into play but this isn't gamesmanship in my book.

And I've seen no correlation between tendency to be a pusher and tendency to call lines more tightly. Then again, I don't play many pushers so my experience is limited.

and pick shots that are better percentage plays.

Again, this seems to be a valuable skill.

The problem with this - is that from a rec perspective this guy is NOT popular. Tennis at the club level is a social sport. While you don't want to play against 'stupid' players or reckless ones - the 'winning ugly' guy isn't a dream either.

But I don't think pushers are necessarily following what's in Gilbert's book. They just get everything back and that drives some people up the wall, especially those who can't deal with it.

People bashed Sureshs earlier in this thread but generally speaking rec players in singles play 'smart enough'. Could they play more craftily and competitive to win a few more matches like Brad suggests. Absolutely. Should they do this instead of improve their basic fitness, strokes and athleticism?
Often the answer is no.

But does it have to be a zero sum question? Could one do both?
Now in doubles OTOH - something that I don't really remember Brad addressing - THAT is something that people are woeful at strategically and play absolutely dumb. it also way more important at the rec level.. at the low levels in doubles people don't even move from their spots.. Its awful..haha.[/QUOTE]

 

[mightyrick]

What is funny is that I read "Inner Game Of Tennis" in order to improve my tennis game, but that book literally changed my life. There are a lot of life lessons in there about people, psychology, and relationships. IMHO, the best chapter in that book is the chapter which talks about the different "types of tennis" games we play. "Partner-O". "Spouse-O". Et cetera. That chapter made me think about the rest of my life and the "types of games" I played in other areas.

Great stuff.

 

[Bender]

All the strategy that a club player needs is: 1. Hit the ball where the opponent is not 2. Don't give the opponent a short ball hanging in the middle 3. Go to the backhand of an older male opponent with a single handed backhand 4. Try a drop shot once in a while

As far as mental strength and winning ugly goes, it is usually eclipsed much earlier by lack of fitness or stamina, or boredom, for the average club player. How to play 30-40 down versus 40-30 up in the 7th game of the 3rd set is not really the issue for these players.

I would also add: hit exclusively to the BH of an older male opponent who insists that his 1HBH is his weapon and his best shot.

 

[GuyClinch]

So, while a pusher might play better than the strokes they have, they are doing it by drawing on other resources that maybe non-pushers haven't developed as much.

umm agreed..

By "gamesmanship" do you mean things that aren't illegal but are designed to annoy/disturb/**** off your opponent? If so, I don't agree. They might **** their opponent off by getting everything back into play but this isn't gamesmanship in my book.

Eh. No not really. Pushing is not gamesmanship. But doing things like not giving a guy a good warmup - phony compliments to distract a guy. "I love that backhand - why don't you hit it more often". Phony injury timeouts - that's gamesmanship. brad gets it - that's why its called winning UGLY.

But I don't think pushers are necessarily following what's in Gilbert's book. They just get everything back and that drives some people up the wall, especially those who can't deal with it.

Let's keep it real - if you are below 4.0 pushing IS percentage tennis. Sure Brad didn't have to do what we would call pushing - but Brad certainly understand that the lesson talented players should push if THEY WANT TO WIN.

Buddy of mine just started playing tennis - he likes my serve as was like - wow if I could hit like that - I would always win. I told him - no just get it in if you want to win. That's more then enough. At 3.0 there is a considerable random chance that even on a slow roller the dude returning it will eff it up. So percentage play is to push.

But does it have to be a zero sum question? Could one do both?

No. You cannot do both. Here is why - guys who develop BIG strokes always are bit more reckless not crazy. Not crush the ball on every shot - just take a bit more risk. I have been around for a while now - rec player and I have seen the guys that come in at 2.5 - and in a couple of years are playing 4.0. And most of them do not play pure percentage tennis. This isn't to say they are absolutely reckless but they certainly attempt to put more energy into the ball on a regular basis.

if you playing pure percentage tennis you just will not develop that big hitting game. Famous story is how Pete S. lost and lost when he switched to his one hander. He sucked it up - played how he wanted to play and then started winning. This is common enough.

Now part of this is the players belief they athletic enough to harness this more aggressive game. But it always comes with some level of aggression. This is why if you REALLY want to improve - like if someone had some crazy bet on a guy..

I'd actually train that player by NOT having him play in any league or competitive matches. There is too much pressure to play very safe percentage tennis.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Pushing is not gamesmanship. But doing things like not giving a guy a good warmup - phony compliments to distract a guy. "I love that backhand - why don't you hit it more often". Phony injury timeouts - that's gamesmanship. brad gets it - that's why its called winning UGLY.

I guess I actually have to read the book: the only concrete thing I've heard mentioned is to hit the ball straight up the middle during warmup to see which stroke he prefers [which I think is smart]. But the other stuff you mentioned, yeah, those are all gamesmanship tactics. Did Gilbert advocate those?

Let's keep it real - if you are below 4.0 pushing IS percentage tennis. Sure Brad didn't have to do what we would call pushing - but Brad certainly understand that the lesson talented players should push if THEY WANT TO WIN.

I don't see the hard line dividing, say, < 4.0 from >= 4.0. I see it as a continuum.

And while pushing is high % tennis, high % tennis isn't necessarily pushing: a 5.0 could be playing high % tennis by hitting strokes that would not be defined by most people as pushing.

[QUOTE}
Buddy of mine just started playing tennis - he likes my serve as was like - wow if I could hit like that - I would always win. I told him - no just get it in if you want to win. That's more then enough. At 3.0 there is a considerable random chance that even on a slow roller the dude returning it will eff it up. So percentage play is to push.

No. You cannot do both. Here is why - guys who develop BIG strokes always are bit more reckless not crazy. Not crush the ball on every shot - just take a bit more risk. I have been around for a while now - rec player and I have seen the guys that come in at 2.5 - and in a couple of years are playing 4.0. And most of them do not play pure percentage tennis. This isn't to say they are absolutely reckless but they certainly attempt to put more energy into the ball on a regular basis.

if you playing pure percentage tennis you just will not develop that big hitting game. Famous story is how Pete S. lost and lost when he switched to his one hander. He sucked it up - played how he wanted to play and then started winning. This is common enough.

Now part of this is the players belief they athletic enough to harness this more aggressive game. But it always comes with some level of aggression. This is why if you REALLY want to improve - like if someone had some crazy bet on a guy..

I'd actually train that player by NOT having him play in any league or competitive matches. There is too much pressure to play very safe percentage tennis.[/QUOTE]

Again, I will have to read the book so I can see for myself what Gilbert advocates.

I agree that I believe a pusher has a lower potential ceiling than an aggressive player. However, in reality, pushers succeed precisely because they don't try to hit the more aggressive shots and that is a formula for success...up to a point.

If I was teaching someone, I'd definitely advocate hitting with controlled aggression. But it's a 2-way street: the student has to be willing to put in the work and accept that, in the short-term, he may not be as good as his pusher friends.

 

[GuyClinch]

I don't see the hard line dividing, say, < 4.0 from >= 4.0. I see it as a continuum.

And while pushing is high % tennis, high % tennis isn't necessarily pushing: a 5.0 could be playing high % tennis by hitting strokes that would not be defined by most people as pushing.

No one disagrees with the idea that high percentage tennis is not necessarily pushing. It's not when you are good.

BTW If you watch league tennis 4.0 for men really is the dividing line. Guys who are even or better on winning 4.0 have strokes that look like 'real' strokes. They do things that 'real' tennis players do. They have tactics and strategies which are somewhat like 'real' tennis players. Men only. With women they look virtually the same till 4.5 - there again you start see playing that resembles good players. But you honestly cannot tell a league playing 4.0 women from a 3.5 women in warmups and short periods of play..

I agree that I believe a pusher has a lower potential ceiling than an aggressive player. However, in reality, pushers succeed precisely because they don't try to hit the more aggressive shots and that is a formula for success...up to a point.

If I was teaching someone, I'd definitely advocate hitting with controlled aggression. But it's a 2-way street: the student has to be willing to put in the work and accept that, in the short-term, he may not be as good as his pusher friends.

Well again we basically agree - that's my point. If you train someone to win right now - instead of training them to win at some point down the road - you blow some potential. It's not all bad because in my experience most adults don't really progress beyond the 'beginner bump' anyway. There is a reason why 80% of tennis player in league play are 3.0 and 3.5. Book is fine - just doesn't align with my goals. I do think it could help a lot of people win singles matches at their level (and thus get bumped half a level). Brad knows how to maximize limited talent. But like I said LOTS of people do not want to get bumped.

 

[user92626]

Any argument over "potential" tends to become very moot and resulted in extreme disparity. You can't even settle this kind of argument over serious issues such as kids' educational choice, career choice, let alone over non consequential, low priority thing like recreational tennis.

About pushing vs whatnot, the understanding of "pushing" by players is very fluid. There's no doubt most of you have heard that Nadal was called a pusher. And at the some point Murray also.

Playing high/low percentage largely comes from the player's personality. Even up to the elite level, you simply cannot expect Federer to base his game on long rallies the way Djokovic or Nadal does. Everyone wants to prevail in a point -- no one wants to be the first to screw up -- but his skill can only go so far!

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

No one disagrees with the idea that high percentage tennis is not necessarily pushing. It's not when you are good.

BTW If you watch league tennis 4.0 for men really is the dividing line. Guys who are even or better on winning 4.0 have strokes that look like 'real' strokes. They do things that 'real' tennis players do. They have tactics and strategies which are somewhat like 'real' tennis players. Men only. With women they look virtually the same till 4.5 - there again you start see playing that resembles good players. But you honestly cannot tell a league playing 4.0 women from a 3.5 women in warmups and short periods of play..

I think it's partially relative: every single 5.0 I've watched has great strokes...to my 4.5 eyes. Someone much better could observe the same thing and see all kinds of flaws that I cannot.

I hesitate to use phrases like "real strokes" or "real tennis players". Maybe that's just a personality trait.

Well again we basically agree - that's my point. If you train someone to win right now - instead of training them to win at some point down the road - you blow some potential. It's not all bad because in my experience most adults don't really progress beyond the 'beginner bump' anyway. There is a reason why 80% of tennis player in league play are 3.0 and 3.5. Book is fine - just doesn't align with my goals. I do think it could help a lot of people win singles matches at their level (and thus get bumped half a level). Brad knows how to maximize limited talent. But like I said LOTS of people do not want to get bumped.

I want to use every resource at my disposal. I think mental toughness is severely under-rated as a skill so I think it's a rich area for many to improve. That doesn't mean I will ignore the deficiencies in my strokes, however. I think a balance can be achieved.

 

[GuyClinch]

I want to use every resource at my disposal. I think mental toughness is severely under-rated as a skill so I think it's a rich area for many to improve. That doesn't mean I will ignore the deficiencies in my strokes, however. I think a balance can be achieved.

Most rec players don't get enough court time to both work on skill acquisition and playing mentally perfect tennis. Its one or the other. You can play within yourself - play it safe and win. Or you can let a little 'practice' mentality leak over into your game.

The rec players that I have seen advance do the latter. Go for the high power passing shot - not just hit lobs. Hit the occasional flat as hell serve even in doubles etc etc. Part of it is to simply practice hitting those shots in 'real world' situations. Like a Pete Sampras did with his backhand..

Call it cynical but I see captains and the like play a little 'loose' in the regular season then play percentage tennis in the playoffs. Might cost them a few wins or so - but prevents then from being bumped up - something a surprise number of players do not actually want.

 

[BounceHitBounceHit]

At advanced levels the mental aspects of the game and competition take on greater and greater significance....

 

[TimeToPlaySets]

The bulk of club players seem to be old ladies.
The indoor place I play at is predominantly interchangeable 2.5 old ladies with frying pan serves.

 

[TimeToPlaySets]

"Mental tennis" is a total moot point when you can't hit the ball over the net.
People focus on the wrong crap. Zone stuff doesn't apply to people who actually suck.
There are no actual skills to fall back on.

The Zone is only for people who have done their 10,000 hours.
I know people who yap about Inner Game, and then can't hit a backhand. LOL

 

[BounceHitBounceHit]

"Mental tennis" is a total moot point when you can't hit the ball over the net.
People focus on the wrong crap. Zone stuff doesn't apply to people who actually suck.
There are no actual skills to fall back on.

The Zone is only for people who have done their 10,000 hours.
I know people who yap about Inner Game, and then can't hit a backhand. LOL

Or 50,000 hours...... [emoji41][emoji106][emoji462]

 

[r2473]

All the strategy that a club player needs is: 1. Hit the ball where the opponent is not 2. Don't give the opponent a short ball hanging in the middle 3. Go to the backhand of an older male opponent with a single handed backhand 4. Try a drop shot once in a while

As far as mental strength and winning ugly goes, it is usually eclipsed much earlier by lack of fitness or stamina, or boredom, for the average club player.

How's all this working for you?

 

[sundaypunch]

it has everything to do with strokes and level. As a thought experiment imagine the smartest possible player. This man/woman always makes the percentage choice. He picks the percentage right side for the sun. He uses perfectly legal but annoying gamesmanship. (Warms up with a hitter before the match - does give his opponent a good warmup..etc) He can instantly weigh not only what shot would work on his opponent - but he can pick the best shot among all the possible shots he could hit with a given ball and picks that one. He isn't a 'super' player - as he is average this shot might often be a dink up the middle..

But this person is the smartest possible player. Well - this guy if he is low level (say under 5.0) not only plays smart - I guarantee he plays damn ugly.

I'm not seeing how any of this automatically equates to playing ugly tennis?

 

[GuyClinch]

I'm not seeing how any of this automatically equates to playing ugly tennis?

Playing smart is often ugly. Tim Duncan was pretty much the basketball equivalent of watching paint dry - but getting it to the guy was pretty smart - he was an efficient scorer. For rec players putting a higher value of consistency and a lower value on winners leads to tennis that many find 'ugly.' granted beauty is the eye of the beholder. Swinging out and shanking half your shots is pretty ugly too..

But brad thought pushing is ugly as well - that's why he calls his book 'winning ugly.' <g>