Throwing Like a Girl... Fixes? Cures?

[SystemicAnomaly]

I guess it depends on what you mean by equal, but Imo, if you take away the size and strength differences (which is saying quite a lot) then ladies can learn to throw equally well. When serving I think they can swing a racket close to the best of them, but suffer in the 'launch' execution phase due to lack of vertical ability.

One of the points that I brought up in the OP is that teen and pre-teen girls who had no or very little throwing & catching experience when younger will often experience significant problems learning it at an older age. This is often a large % of them. Sure, the same can happen with boys but the vast majority of boys that come to me already have this type of experience when they were younger or will have played some other sports. Has not this been your experience as well?

There could very well be a ‘nature’ aspect as well which is one reason that we see a much smaller % of exceptional female athletes than male athletes. The other prime reason is the ‘nature’ aspect I’ve brought up before. Babies/toddlers probably start some real hand-eye exploration & development around 18 months or so. But the real meat of learning the overhand throw skills might happen around 5 to 8 years of age. Don’t hold me to these numbers tho. This is the WOO I mentioned in the OP. Girls appear to miss this much more often than boys.

How much throwing have you had them do? Imo they have to do it once or twice a day till it looks and feels natural to get it, but I've had great success with the football throwing and have found nothing even close so far. Good luck and let us know how it goes...

These are students who only take an average of 4 private classes per month. I ask them to practice shadow swing and play catch outside of class if they can’t get out to the courts for actual play or practice. A few will do this but many are involved in so many other activities, I suspect that they rarely do much in the way of tennis, outside of class. Of the 2 I mentioned in the OP, one practices outside of class, the other one, only occasionally.

 

[Raul_SJ]

If their serves are getting clobbered maybe underhand serves are an option for them? Although kids may be embarrassed to serve underhand.
I know a guy playing 4.5 and serving underhanded due to injury and he told me most returners do not attack his serve and many have more trouble with his serves than fast serves.
He aces me on the AD with his wide spinning underhand serve.

 

[kramer woodie]

PC is only meant to educate people so their narrow, previous lack of education can include what others have experienced, gone through in life. The sociopath lacks empathy for others, in line with this some lack empathy for others who are different than them or their group. Making a conscious decision to inflict negativity onto others or turning your back on others in need isn't illegal its just plain weak.

Hmgraphite1

O' my feelings are hurt, I may need a safe place. (major sarcasm intended) It is nice to see, hear from, someone with an Elite Education (brainwashing). You definitely have passed with flying colors and have become a useful tool for the Superior Elite who taught you.

Now, I want you to keep posting. Why, you might ask? For the simple reason, I take great delight in reading your advocating for Political Correctness. Every time you post, I get the opportunity to laugh at you as you demonstrate Your Hypocrisy.

You remind me of those old tired cliches: "my way or the highway...do it the way I tell you, not the way I do it". Get my drift? Please, o' please
keep it coming!

Aloha

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

It's not nitpicking. You're not using the misogynistic phrase in the same context as the NY Times, which I have read.

Even for the NY Times, if they used the phrase in an op-ed article in their sports section to comment on a sportsperson, they'd be grilled hard for it. But here they use it in a research article which makes it ok.

You however have no context to hang your usage of the statement on. Your unnecessary repeat of the phrase only reinforces the misogyny against women.

How many times did I repeat the phrase (other than the thread title)?

It is an observable phenomenon as several of the sources have indicated. The trend or general characteristic is undeniable if you observe large groups of teen and pre-teen girls and boys. A lot of this is nurture, and to a lesser degree, nature at young ages. Acknowledging this phenomenon is not an act of misogyny in my book. No more than saying, “on average, men are taller than women” as several posters have mentioned.

How many teen and pre-teen boys and girls have you coached in tennis? This trend or phenomenon is clearly visible to those of us who have taught or coached a large number in these age groups. It is when these trends are strong that these stereotypes come about. Statistically, the phenomenon becomes readily apparent. To acknowledge it or mention it is not misogyny— it is reality.

Sure, if a sportswriter uses the phrase, they might be viewed as sexist or even misogynist. But not because it actually is misogynistic, but because the phrase is not considered PC (even tho it may very well be true).

I suggest that you read more than just The NY Times article before you pass judgement. As I indicated, I looked at 6 or 7 articles before starting this thread. Some of this came from female psychologists and sports scientists. Misogyny? I think not. Please start another thread if you still believe I’m wrong after further reading.

 

[kramer woodie]

One of the points that I brought up in the OP is that teen and pre-teen girls who had no or very little throwing & catching experience when younger will often experience significant problems learning it at an older age. This is often a large % of them. Sure, the same can happen with boys but the vast majority of boys that come to me already have this type of experience when they were younger or will have played some other sports. Has not this been your experience as well?

There could very well be a ‘nature’ aspect as well which is one reason that we see a much smaller % of exceptional female athletes than male athletes. The other prime reason is the ‘nature’ aspect I’ve brought up before. Babies/toddlers probably start some real hand-eye exploration & development around 18 months or so. But the real meat of learning the overhand throw skills might happen around 5 to 8 years of age. Don’t hold me to these numbers tho. This is the WOO I mentioned in the OP. Girls appear to miss this much more often than boys.



These are students who only take an average of 4 private classes per month. I ask them to practice shadow swing and play catch outside of class if they can’t get out to the courts for actual play or practice. A few will do this but many are involved in so many other activities, I suspect that they rarely do much in the way of tennis, outside of class. Of the 2 I mentioned in the OP, one practices outside of class, the other one, only occasionally.

SystemicAnomaly

Interesting post. On a personal note, I started learning to throw at age 5, because I dreamt of becoming a pitcher. Thankfully, the neighbor behind my house at my age of 7 was a college pitching coach. I got the enjoyment of throwing to him everyday 7 days a week for 3 years. Curve
balls, screwballs, drops, sliders, and knuckleballs with a reprimand to wait until I was 13 before I started throwing those types of pitches in games.

Now one of my students is a very nice smart young lady of 14. Her serve is classic "throw like a girl". Her back foot comes around until her toes
of both feet are pointing directly at the net, her torso uncoils and her shoulders uncoil with her chest pointing directly at the net. Well, guess what
her arm is doing? Nothing. Her arm only moves after everything else is facing the net, then she hits a weak waiter's tray serve.

So, a week ago, I showed her what she was doing wrong and also demonstrated in slo-motion how everything in the motion is connected with
instructions for the shoulder to start moving the racquet. (I will keep this simple and leave out some of the instructions I gave her)

Her head dropped to gaze at her racquet. Myself, being a little short on patience that day, snapped at her saying, "Stop thinking about it and just
do it"! She, startled, immediately served with the most perfect form and control plus accuracy. That serve was a beaut. She turned around with a huge smile on her face and delight in her eyes. All I could say to her was, "see how easy that was, you got it now, practice that until it becomes
second nature".

The lesson was over, time had run out, and she ended the lesson on a very high note. Wow!!! I just wonder if I am brave enough to do that same tactic again. Quit thinking and just do it. So many think too much and all that thinking tires them and I out.

Aloha

 

[Dartagnan64]

Yeah agreed. My point is that I don’t think girls have any deficiency in terms of muscle, coordination etc to perform a proper throwing motion compared to boys. Differences in power and speed is a different matter obviously, which is not clearly the topic of discussion in this thread hence my objection.

The problem is, if you state: "That person throws like a girl", everyone knows what you mean and can make a mental image. If you say: "that person throws inefficiently", no one knows what you mean.

I instantly knew what SA was talking about when he posted the thread. It is true that the "girl throwing style" is common to all humans not taught to throw at an early age. It just so happens in the world we live in, that problem tends to fall down gender lines making stereotyping easy. The PC crowd rails against stereotypes but stereotyping is ingrained to survival. Even my dog does it. If she gets surprised by something, she remains suspicious of anything similar for a long time. We get through life alive by stereotyping. Not all bears will attack me but some will so if I encounter one in the woods I'll steer clear.

Not all girls throw with poor mechanics but many do, so we definitely can make an immediate mental image when someone mentions "throws like a girl". It is somewhat sexist but not misogynistic since there is no demeaning attachment to the statement. It's merely reflecting a common mechanical inefficiency in a plain language all can understand.

 

[mcs1970]

It is somewhat sexist but not misogynistic since there is no demeaning attachment to the statement. It's merely reflecting a common mechanical inefficiency in a plain language all can understand.

Agreed.

 

[user92626]

The problem is, if you state: "That person throws like a girl", everyone knows what you mean and can make a mental image. If you say: "that person throws inefficiently", no one knows what you mean.

I don't know what that means, but then I don't have a pre-misconception or prejudice about this coming in. It helps that I'm only in my 40s.

In fact such statement would kinda confuse me.

I grew up around overwhelmingly guys and men. The courts that I now play at are dominated by men. I'm much more familiar with men and their actions than with girls and women. Naturally I have seen way WAY more incompetent men than women.

 

[Hmgraphite1]

I think this is a problem with formal logic. Logic only has categories like: all, none, or some. In real life those aren't very satisfactory. Statistics works better. Knowing things like the mean and standard deviation can be so useful.

If the understanding of those ideas became commonplace, it would end these kinds of exchanges. "Men, on average, are taller than women." "Not so Eddy. Yesterday I saw a woman who was 6'4"!" That doesn't contradict the claim. People will some up with, "Some women are tall, some men are short, and vice versa. You cannot generalize." But this won't do, as the difference in height is significant. So, on average, more boys care about sports, this does not imply that all boys care, or that no girls care.

Yes now u get it. See you put in the words "on average" to communicate a thought, in other words you qualified it. Logic is accurate. Statistics has a role, it can help you guess an outcome based on probabilities, but it doesn't define the outcome. See the flaw in your statement above is that one person said, "men are taller than woman", and the other said, "men on average are taller than woman", eddy was right in one of the cases. Personally I think statistics is crap, hated it in school, and I hate the bunk peddling used by so called experts trying to sell a load.....

 

[Hmgraphite1]

Hmgraphite1

O' my feelings are hurt, I may need a safe place. (major sarcasm intended) It is nice to see, hear from, someone with an Elite Education (brainwashing). You definitely have passed with flying colors and have become a useful tool for the Superior Elite who taught you.

Now, I want you to keep posting. Why, you might ask? For the simple reason, I take great delight in reading your advocating for Political Correctness. Every time you post, I get the opportunity to laugh at you as you demonstrate Your Hypocrisy.

You remind me of those old tired cliches: "my way or the highway...do it the way I tell you, not the way I do it". Get my drift? Please, o' please
keep it coming!

Aloha

"Elite education"? What makes you think that, i'm just not on the lame bandwagon.
"Tool of the Superior Elite", by gosh should I feel ...what? So much for free will.
Not sure what hypocrisy i'm demonstrating by advocating for PC, just standing up for what I believe, even if I stand alone. Not sure I told you to do anything, just explained why I did it. You can answer for your own shytte

 

[Steady Eddy]

Yes now u get it. See you put in the words "on average" to communicate a thought, in other words you qualified it. Logic is accurate. Statistics has a role, it can help you guess an outcome based on probabilities, but it doesn't define the outcome. See the flaw in your statement above is that one person said, "men are taller than woman", and the other said, "men on average are taller than woman", eddy was right in one of the cases. Personally I think statistics is crap, hated it in school, and I hate the bunk peddling used by so called experts trying to sell a load.....

Sorry you hated it in school. If I saw the class I'm sure I wouldn't blame you.

People would learn more from reading a non textbook, than taking a class. An old book, "How to Lie with Statistics" is still probably the best one.

 

[ByeByePoly]

Looks like the average screaming Beatles fan was a teenage girl