"The Inner Game of Tennis" is Genius

[Bungalo Bill]

I was responding to your post, which stated, "Yes, I am not into the ying-yang stuff and do not think mindless play is my cup of tea which a lot of readers go to the extreme on, but he does have good things to incorporate in anyone's game."

You used the term mindless, not me.

Good, you brought it to me. Next time, quit beating around the bush and call it out. Don't be such a weak-knee'd sister and say "someone said, whaaaaaaaa".

Yeah, that is true but not what I meant. The book as I said has good things to incorporate in one's game. You failed to read that one.

But I should have clarified what I meant by "mindless". I meant it as someone who goes out there and takes the book entirely wrong and just wants to think happy thoughts. They forbid constructive negative feedback and forbid positive constructive feedback as they play their game. They just move into an area of stupidity.

As for Roddick, I believe he's a really great player who would realize more of his potential if he were more relaxed.

Roddick is Roddick. He plays right along with the best of them. He is simply not as good as Federer! Wow, who knew!

He should be more relaxed, needs a new backhand, his serve is flawed, he doesn't smile enough, doesn't **** enough, doesn't jump high enough, he tries too hard, geeez, join the list of other arm-chair tennis players that aren't worthy to even carry his bag.

Commentators I've heard including both McEnroes, Gilbert and others have noted that his body language is tight and negative over the past year or two. Same for Federer during the French final against Nadal when he started missing balls. This is not a criticism or being a Monday morning quarterback, and I'm not deluded into thinking I could beat Roddick. I'm just stating facts as I see them. Do you think that these players' coaches could beat them? If not, how do they presume to give Roddick (or anyone else) their points of view? Why should players at this level even listen to coaches and others who never reached the same heights?

Ever try to change a habit engrained in your system for years? Do you think VooDoo mystic crap can instantly relax an already Type A guy? Even if you Dr. Phil got him to relax to the level you think he needs to be at, he still has to hit his backhand, and still needs more than a one-dimensional game. How do you change that Dr. Phil?

I love this line of argument, to wit: "if you're so smart, why aren't you out there" or "why don't you take them on" or "let's play and I'll show you who's boss." More ego posturing. I supsect that IGOT, David Ranney's terrific site, Ron Waite's suggestions, and other helpful tools (to some of us) must be worthless since none of us could beat Roddick. Maybe we just want him to do better and (at least look like he's enjoying himself). Is winning everything? What about enjoying oneself? What about growing up?

No, I just think your stuff is worthless. What is wrong with being serious and intense? It aint your cup of tea but it may be someone elses. Did it hurt Conners? Mac? Nadal? Give me a break.

 

[looseswing]

What is wrong with being serious and intense? It aint your cup of tea but it may be someone elses. Did it hurt Conners? Mac? Nadal? Give me a break.

I agree with you on this point. When I see my fellow juniors play when they play great they are serious and intense but they do not mantain it for the course of a match, practice etc. I think that if people approach the game with a particular mindset they should always play with that mindset because then they will slip into that mental state more easily during a match.

 

[harryz]

Intensity, seriousness, graciousness and relaxation

are not mutually exclusive. I admire Nadal and Hewitt for their fighting spirit, and I also admired Edberg and Rafter for theirs. They were exceptionally gracious and fair competitors, in contrast with McEnroe and Connors. I saw the latter several times live at different stages of their careers. Spoiled, arrogant brats who never got the spankings they deserved as kids, apparently. McEnroe's talent and genious were incredible, and Connors had great fight (although I could never forgive his clear cheating against Barazutti at the US Open-- does anyone else recall how he ran around the court to rub out a mark left on the clay?). Why can't a person be tough, competitive, intense AND gracious, fair and a gentle- person? Too bad that these qualities aren't all valued equally by some, huh Bill? Shouldn't we teach young athletes to be both, or as that too "old school" and "sissy" for you? If so, that's pathetic.

I'll stop while I'm behind. I had an instructor who wisely taught his students to "never argue with someone who knows less than you do." I should have heeded his words, again, in this case...

 

[redtennis55]

Why can't a person be tough, competitive, intense AND gracious, fair and a gentle- person?
QUOTE]

I'm not sure whether this was ever in question unless if I seriously misread something.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

There are lot of ways one can improve their focus , concentration and mental aspects . The book offers nothing new. A similar opinion has been echo'd by a friend of mine who i sold this book.

I am a strong believer that Coaches, Forums offer better stuff. Tennis is best learnt by playing more and seeking and following right advice.

 

[harryz]

I was responding

to Bungalow Bill's implication that being interested in the inner game is "crap" and that such interest suggests that a player isn't intense or competitive and doesn't value these qualities-- or aspire to them-- as an athlete, that's all. To me, reading IGOT and related books has made me more competitive and intense in the best way possible. It's not about beating the other player for it's own sake; winning is a natural consequence of better focus, discipline and concentration that come with understanding and practicing mental game goals. My two cents.

 

[GuyClinch]

He should be more relaxed, needs a new backhand, his serve is flawed, he doesn't smile enough, doesn't **** enough, doesn't jump high enough, he tries too hard, geeez, join the list of other arm-chair tennis players that aren't worthy to even carry his bag.

Honestly I have to say I think Bill might be onto something here. The whole field of "sports psychology" seems to lack the rigorous scientific support you would hope to see and I say this as psychology guy from a good program.

It's seems to boil down to alot of "gurus' who use anecdotal rather the true scientiific evidence to push this change in your thinking or that one.

I think it appeals to the player who thinks he is better then he plays. So in that way it's smart marketing as it seems SO many players think that. It's something about the nature of tennis I think.

It's funny because I don't know any say basketball players who tell me "Man I am so much better then that I just don't have the right "mental approach" to the game." This kind of thinking is alot less common in other sports, IMHO. I never heard say Adrian Griffin say "Man if I had the right mental approach I could stop Dwayne Wade.."

Pete

 

[harryz]

Do we just think that we're better than we really are?

Hi Guy-
Your points are well taken, yet I respectfully disagree with you on virtually all of them. I look at matters from the other side of the spectrum and I believe that Gallwey (and many others) do as well. Right brain/left brain thinking and differences have been scientifically proven, and centuries old practices like yogic breathing that have clear, documented benefits are not silly new age hokum.

More to the point, I believe that we're ALL better than we think we are. We all have the potential to play at much higher levels, and negative self talk, excessive tension, poor breathing patterns, mind chatter etc... tend to interfere with reaching our potential. As for this being "scientific," what would you accept as proof? Is anecdotal evidence worthless? I don't need to be shown something to know it exists, since there are so many ways of knowing things. When you're playing well and in "the zone," what does this look like, scientifically? What is different about you physiologically and emotionally? How is your thinking differrent? Or are these even worthwhile questions? I think that they are.

IGOT isn't gospel, but I think it's a helpful counterpart to "Winning Ugly," "Match Play and the Spin of the Ball," and many other books on tactics and technique. As a "psychology guy" (I am, too, by the way, and also from a very good program), do you think that it would it be healthier for players to believe that they're worse than they are? It seems to me that players of all levels may be drawn to this book and others like it because they aren't performing to their potential. Maybe they choke, tense up, and don't play as well in matches as they do when hitting or in practice. In the alternative, maybe they/we do have delusions of grandeur. Who knows? To compare basketball, which is a team sport, to tennis, however, is a bit fatuous since tennis (singles, anyway) is a solo sport....

 

[chess9]

Anecdotal evidence is almost worthless. It's the most abused form of "evidence" and is often the basis of fraudulent claims.

I have no opinion whether the book is worth the price of admission, but I do own it.

-Robert

 

[rounick]

Very Baager Vans stuff.

 

[harryz]

anecdotal evidence

may be worthless in a court or with the police. But elsewhere, it is as valuable as scientific evidence and both are flawed in their unique ways. The question is always, "what would you accept as proof?" A priori, first hand "objective" evidence is rarely that. On the contrary, the line between objective truth and subjective experience and reporting is quite grey.

In terms of tennis, are players' reports of "feel" and "momentum" or other intangibles worthless? Is confidence or any other desired emotion proveable and obtainable? Are specs and numbers all that matters? I think not.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

to Bungalow Bill's implication that being interested in the inner game is "crap" and that such interest suggests that a player isn't intense or competitive and doesn't value these qualities-- or aspire to them-- as an athlete, that's all. To me, reading IGOT and related books has made me more competitive and intense in the best way possible. It's not about beating the other player for it's own sake; winning is a natural consequence of better focus, discipline and concentration that come with understanding and practicing mental game goals. My two cents.

Did I ever say it was crap Harryz? Did I ever imply anything remotely close to your idiotic reasoning? I think I have posted and implied quite the opposite.

I thought I said the book has good things for a player too incorporate. I also indicated that some players take it to an extreme and play mindless tennis which I do not agree that the author meant that. Focusing on a shot but not dwelling on how to hit the shot is a good thing. A player should stay in tune with the point, the strategy of the point, and be able to think about how to better their opponent in position, shot selection, and tactics.

I'll stop while I'm behind. I had an instructor who wisely taught his students to "never argue with someone who knows less than you do." I should have heeded his words, again, in this case...

LOL, well Harryz if you really think I have told players to go out and play robotically, cursing at themselves when they miss a shot, staying all tensed up living in the past in the history of their errors, cheating, etc….then you really are an idiot! LOL


So once again, let me clarify my first thread for “little yellow bus harryz”.

BB – “Yes, I am not into the ying-yang stuff and do not think mindless play is my cup of tea which a lot of readers go to the extreme on, but he does have good things to incorporate in anyone's game.”

Let me rephrase the above for you:

1. I am not into New Age or Ying Yang beliefs. Sometimes people can get pretty out their on this. It is like any religion, some people take their religion to extremes. Okay? Do you understand?

2. I think the book offers GOOD THINGS for a player to INCORPORATE IN THEIR GAME? Understand? Need time to think about this?

3. I think some players take IGOT too an extreme and interpret it as to go out and be mindless in the point, to go in a coma state and disappear only thinking to be happy. I don’t think the author meant that. I think some players take it that way. I do not agree with mindless tennis. I agree with the balance the author is trying to say and the degree in which a player wants to emphasize intensity and competitiveness. Get it? Too fast for you?

So a player can be tough minded, competitive, have a sense of urgency, and have a sense of relaxation to play the game. Geez man, get with it!

Harry - Why can't a person be tough, competitive, intense AND gracious, fair and a gentle- person? Too bad that these qualities aren't all valued equally by some, huh Bill? Shouldn't we teach young athletes to be both, or as that too "old school" and "sissy" for you? If so, that's pathetic.

LOL, looks like you need to read the book again. I got in your head easily!

A player needs to think but not think deconstructive or become too mechanical in their thinking. They need to be able to move accordingly and hit in a relaxed state. Get it?

So, if you think you know more, bring it on. I have no problem answering any of your threads - it is actually fun to see you unravel.

In fact, I will make it a point to answer everything you write!

 

[harryz]

voodoo mystic crap?

Bill-
Here's what you wrote. It's as plain as day:

"Ever try to change a habit engrained in your system for years? Do you think VooDoo mystic crap can instantly relax an already Type A guy?"

Why do you deny what you've written? I didn't misquote you or take your words out of context, either now or earlier when you made the comment about mindlessness. It was your writing that was misleading and unclear, not mine. I say what I mean, clearly and concisely.

Incidentally, the answer to your question is no, as far as I'm concerned. Type A guys aren't the intended audience for this book, and I don't think that changing a Type A guy is Gallwey's intention anyway.

I haven't read all of your posts and I'm not "unravelling," whatever the hell that means. It seems that you view this dialogue as a contentious, win/lose argument rather than conversation and that you must be right at all costs. Hence the pathetic and childish posturing and bullying attitude, as if your words are intimidating. Please, spare me. Every response you make proves my case. Witness the three numbered points you make (which echo my earlier posts). Since you clearly agree with me, it makes me wonder what I've written that is so illogical and "idiotic."

For what it's worth, I hardly think that IGOT is some "out there" new age religion (in contrast with old-time, idiotic religions). It strikes me as sensible and practical approach to focusing on the ball and developing relaxation in order to concentrate on the task at hand. This means playing with focus and concentration rather than thinking too much or about the wrong things.

I'm done here. Good luck with your chest thumping.

 

[harryz]

to Bungalo Bill, on re-reading your posts--

I just re-read this thread and I WAS taking your initial comments out of context despite my certainty that I was not. Your responses to JoeSch, in particular, make good sense to me.

This is humbling, and it seems that my judgments of your early posts, in retrospect, are unfair and inaccurate. A good reminder to read more carefully, more fairly, and more fully before going off. No harm intended. The buddhists have a great saying, "all judgment is self judgment." Another (****ing) learning opportunity...

 

[Bungalo Bill]

I just re-read this thread and I WAS taking your initial comments out of context despite my certainty that I was not. Your responses to JoeSch, in particular, make good sense to me.

This is humbling, and it seems that my judgments of your early posts, in retrospect, are unfair and inaccurate. A good reminder to read more carefully, more fairly, and more fully before going off. No harm intended. The buddhists have a great saying, "all judgment is self judgment." Another (****ing) learning opportunity...

Harryz,

I never meant the book was bad, I think it is good. I have seen people read this book and think they need to go out there and just "be happy". Never do they analyze a point or their opponent. They really do play mindless. They take IGOT to an extreme of which we both know the author didn't mean.

It takes a real man to say what you just said in the heat of fire. I have utmost respect for you, not because you made amends, but because you went back and researched the possibility that you misread something. Not very many people under fire do that.

You have my honor!

Proverbs 29:23
A man's pride will bring him low, but he who is of a humble spirit will obtain honor.