TTW Current Top 10

And to answer your 2nd question, it depends!

A 40 or 50yo beginner tennis player can learn technique and improve faster than a 20yo... but note im saying CAN.

My coach talks alot about her kids and there are vast differences between them, some are much more coordinated naturaly and learn faster while others dont.

So yes a 50yo can learn tennis much faster than a 20yo depending on their innate talent and coordination.

Ever heard of maldini? Ex soccer tried tennis reached a pretty high level fast?

Now if your saying if 1 INDIVIDUAL, say you for example would start at 20 or 50, then yes, YOU would/should learn and improve faster at 20.
 
Fine you can disagree if you want, but ur wrong in saying that a 40 year old rec player is way past his physical prime lol, there are ton of pros that play extremely high level in their 40s also and if you look at performance in times for example and compare the 20s 30s and 40s u wont see a big difference.
No. See: https://www.wired.com/2011/07/athletes-peak-age/

Athletes peak in their late-20s. Federer, for example, is still winning in spite of being in his late-30s, not because of it - physically, he's been on a slow decline for some time. His superior skills allow to keep competing at the top of the sport.

Yes, rec players can still compete in their 40s, 50s, etc, but... all else being equal (which it never is), they would all compete considerably better at 28. What percentage of pro athletes are still competing at the highest level past 40? 1%? How about 45? 0.5%? Yes, they can still perform well... but their physical prime is many years behind them (unless they were terribly out of shape during their late-20s).
 
I did not mean tennis when i said 40year olds in sports, you have them in other sports.
But we're talking tennis here, no? Why bring up other sports? Explain why you rarely see (or don't see) any tennis pro who still plays at high level in their 40s. Yeah, because they're not as physically fit to sustain such intense individual sport like tennis.
How in shape is ur average 40 or 50 year old? Most likely overweight, didnt do much physical stuff, so basically far from his physical peak.
Now if he starts going to the gym, lose weigbt, work on strengthening, explosiveness.. he can gain alot of physical attributes and get much faster, stronger, explosive since hes far away from his physical peak.
2 things:
1) Ask yourself why most 40,50 yo are out of shape. Do you ever consider the fact that 40 year old people don't have as much free time as young people as they have jobs, family and other things to worry about? This alone can tell you 40s is not the prime age for any sport, let alone tennis. Now it's easy to criticize them for being lazy and making excuses for not working out because you're not them and you don't experience the same life (yet).
2) Even if the 40 yo guy has as much free time and has the same workout routine as the 20 year old guy, he won't be as physically fit as the 20 year old. It's basic anatomy and biology. Your bones got weaker and more prone to injury as you get older, it's a biological FACT and there's nothing you can do about it. Also, do you realize that to be as strong as a young guy, the old guy has to work 10x harder? The process is more difficult. (first he has to lose weight then work on flexibility then strengthening,.... whereas a young guy doesn't have these problems in the first place)
Thus saying 40s is the prime age for rec tennis is pretty ignorant.

Yes
 
And to answer your 2nd question, it depends!

A 40 or 50yo beginner tennis player can learn technique and improve faster than a 20yo... but note im saying CAN.

My coach talks alot about her kids and there are vast differences between them, some are much more coordinated naturaly and learn faster while others dont.

So yes a 50yo can learn tennis much faster than a 20yo depending on their innate talent and coordination.

Ever heard of maldini? Ex soccer tried tennis reached a pretty high level fast?

Now if your saying if 1 INDIVIDUAL, say you for example would start at 20 or 50, then yes, YOU would/should learn and improve faster at 20.
Well you can't really use maldini, an exception to the rule, to backup your statement.
If you take 100000 individuals with different age groups, it will be fairly obvious the 20s will do best.
 
No. See: https://www.wired.com/2011/07/athletes-peak-age/

Athletes peak in their late-20s. Federer, for example, is still winning in spite of being in his late-30s, not because of it - physically, he's been on a slow decline for some time. His superior skills allow to keep competing at the top of the sport.

Yes, rec players can still compete in their 40s, 50s, etc, but... all else being equal (which it never is), they would all compete considerably better at 28. What percentage of pro athletes are still competing at the highest level past 40? 1%? How about 45? 0.5%? Yes, they can still perform well... but their physical prime is many years behind them (unless they were terribly out of shape during their late-20s).
You have a good point, but thats precisely what i meant.

Yes your absolute peak is not at say 45 anymore, but if we are talking rec tennis, how many rec players are even remotely close to their athletic peak?

Unless someone is a serious gym and sport addict and also has amazing nutrition and dedication with both (how many are like that 0.3%?) most are not even near their athletic peak (lets number that peak 100%).

So if a say 45year old's potential athletic peak is only 90% of what it was at his best age, if hes dedicated with gym, nutrition etc and reaches something close to that 90%, he is in better athletic shape than most 20year old rec players, because most probably fall in around 40-60%, and very few are at 90% or above.
So not only in experience and skill, the 45yo also has an athletic and physical advantage against the majority of rec players in their 20s, apart from very select few who really work extremely hard on it.
But thats assuming the 45yo also works extremely hard on it.

Remember im talking potential not how the average 25 or 45 or 55 is, im just talking potential, because the diacussion was that its a fact that a 20s guy will improve much faster and have many advantages over a 50s guy in terma of fitness, learning ability, athleticism...

And thats just wrong, because of what I just said.
The 20s guy would only have those advantages if he worked his butt off and gave 100% amd really strive to be in the best shape possible, and extremely few people are like that... so if a 40s/50s guy would be like that he would at least be equal but probably have an advantage against a big number of average rec players in their 20s.
 
But we're talking tennis here, no? Why bring up other sports? Explain why you rarely see (or don't see) any tennis pro who still plays at high level in their 40s. Yeah, because they're not as physically fit to sustain such intense individual sport like tennis.

2 things:
1) Ask yourself why most 40,50 yo are out of shape. Do you ever consider the fact that 40 year old people don't have as much free time as young people as they have jobs, family and other things to worry about? This alone can tell you 40s is not the prime age for any sport, let alone tennis. Now it's easy to criticize them for being lazy and making excuses for not working out because you're not them and you don't experience the same life (yet).
2) Even if the 40 yo guy has as much free time and has the same workout routine as the 20 year old guy, he won't be as physically fit as the 20 year old. It's basic anatomy and biology. Your bones got weaker and more prone to injury as you get older, it's a biological FACT and there's nothing you can do about it. Also, do you realize that to be as strong as a young guy, the old guy has to work 10x harder? The process is more difficult. (first he has to lose weight then work on flexibility then strengthening,.... whereas a young guy doesn't have these problems in the first place)
Thus saying 40s is the prime age for rec tennis is pretty ignorant.


Yes
You rarely see players in 40s playing high level tennis mostly because of 1 thing (yes physical decline is a factor but not as much as this).
Because high level sports are brutal, 4-6hours of intense hard work and physical grind and in time wear and tear of the body starts piling up.
In rec tennis there is not such insane physical demands or loads so the wear and tear is not as big.

1.This point is ridicilous, because you did not say "you most likely improve faster and more than curious so its likely and probable that you reach a higher level in the same timespan"
You said "Its a FACT that you improve faster" and to make things worse u even claim its a fact that i should reach a higher level in 2 years than he did in 6 (3 times longer playing time), did you make that difference up? Where is the limit in your imaginary thought up difference? 6 times longer playing time until the footing is equal? Lol

My point is you did not say that its most likely and most plausable that i would improve faster but that its a fact, which means absolute.

So that means you also have to argument in absolutes now, not relatives.

An 50yo not having the same amount of time is not an absolute, its relative.
A 50yo might have more time than a certain 20yo, so you cant base ur argument on this.
You also cant base ur argument that the majority of cases are like this, because thats also relative.

An 50yo having more or less time, having better talent and coordination or less, having more money or less or more or less oppurtunity to play etc... those are all relative things that depend on each individual and not facts.

What if a 50yo guy had more time, more money, more oppurtunity to play, more coordination, better athletic background etc... than a 20yo, would it still be a fact that he would progress slower?

So you cant say this is a fact, you can say that most likely the 20yo should progress faster which I agree, but it doesnt mean that its certain that thats the case.
 
Sigh...Face palm.
Did I say every single 50yo on earth will improve slower than a 20yo? Did I say every single 50 yo on Earth has less free time than a 20yo.
I said this is true IN GENERAL.
Do you understand what's "general" mean?
What you're saying is, just because you can find a 50yo who can improve faster than a 20yo therefore I'm not allowed to say that 50yo people improve slower than 20yo people. I'm arguing that you CAN say that. You CAN say young people tend to improve faster than old people.

Old people tend to improve slower than young people due to biological FACTS WHICH MEANS THEY HAVE A BIOLOGICAL DISADVANTAGE COMPARE TO YOUNG PEOPLE .
Now, does this mean a 50yo can't be better than a 20yo?
NO, he can overcome the disadvantage by working harder or he's genetically gifted than other young guys (which doesn't make the rule).
 
My point is you did not say that its most likely and most plausable that i would improve faster but that its a fact, which means absolute.

So that means you also have to argument in absolutes now, not relatives.
Who says when something is a fact, you have to argue in absolutes?
If you still don't realize the idiocy of your statement, think of it this way:
You know it is a BIOLOGICAL FACT that men are physically stronger than women, right?
Just because you can find a girl who's stronger than a guy, doesn't mean it's wrong to state the fact that "Men are stronger than women".
IT IS NOT WRONG TO STATE THAT.

And this is how @FiReFTW would respond:
- Oh but I've seen lots of girls who are stronger than men. Therefore it's relative and not absolute and your fact is incorrect.
B***S***

Essentially, the argument of young vs old is the same as that of men vs women.
 
Last edited:
And lol playing 2 years is not necessarily 3 times more than 6 years, you can play twice per year for 6 years and still play less than someone who plays everyday for 2 years.

You being an a$$hole to Curious and saying you and Curious have the same chance of being good at tennis, which is nonsense and anti-fact, is extremely annoying.
 
Last edited:
Your probably Curious 2nd account by the way your talking haha.

But at least you admit that a 50yo can improve more than a 20yo in the right circumstances, while before you claimed that its EXPECTED that I improved more than him and a fact.

And lol at me being an ****** to Curious.

He was the one being an *******, I only wrote my personal REAL LIFE experience from hitting with girls that are very high level players and guys aswell, and how they difference their ball has, and he said im clueless, arogant and think im an expert, and then pointed out im playing only for 2 years so im delusional.

He also claimed that I think I hit faster than WTA players when I never said anything even close to that and argued the opposite, and then when asked for proof he claims theres no proof but he just knows that its the case lol.

But 2 years play time or not, I have real life experience with what he was talking about while he does not or at least never pointed out he has, and yet hes saying im wrong and have no clue and calls me arogant and clueless.

But he is always like that, everything he claims on this forum he sticks by no matter what anyone else says, its the way he thinks it is period, thats the biggest reason that slows his improvement and not age.
 
It IS EXPECTED that you improved more than him because you're younger. The EXPECTED outcome is you improved faster than Curious given the same amount of time. Will that be 100% the case? No, but it is very likely due to biological disadvantage that he has as an old guy. That's why it's called "EXPECTED" and not "ASSURED".
The thing is, you said age is a lame excuse and age doesn't make any difference, which is the most ignorant thing I've ever heard. It's as ignorant as saying gender is a lame excuse when it comes to strength.
 
In any case, he was rude and insulting first not me, but conviniently you didn't even comment on that 2nd account of Curious :laughing:
lol I just don't pay attention to false accusation and you use it to avoid the arguments. (well at least that's one way to admit that you're wrong)
And you can ask any mods to verify that btw, I'm certainly not from Australia.
 
No. See: https://www.wired.com/2011/07/athletes-peak-age/

Athletes peak in their late-20s. Federer, for example, is still winning in spite of being in his late-30s, not because of it - physically, he's been on a slow decline for some time. His superior skills allow to keep competing at the top of the sport.

Yes, rec players can still compete in their 40s, 50s, etc, but... all else being equal (which it never is), they would all compete considerably better at 28. What percentage of pro athletes are still competing at the highest level past 40? 1%? How about 45? 0.5%? Yes, they can still perform well... but their physical prime is many years behind them (unless they were terribly out of shape during their late-20s).
I only started playing when I was 20, I'm 27 now. I worked out I'll hit my 10,000 hrs of practice around age 47 or so, playing around 6hrs a week. I hope to improve overall until then. I know my physicality will decrease, but hopefully my skill and understanding of the game increases more than that.
 
I only started playing when I was 20, I'm 27 now. I worked out I'll hit my 10,000 hrs of practice around age 47 or so, playing around 6hrs a week. I hope to improve overall until then. I know my physicality will decrease, but hopefully my skill and understanding of the game increases more than that.
Some things improve with age, some things get worse. But if you are smart about it and recognize when you need to evolve your strategy, you can maintain your level or even significantly improve with age.
 
Some things improve with age, some things get worse. But if you are smart about it and recognize when you need to evolve your strategy, you can maintain your level or even significantly improve with age.
Doing the Myers Briggs personality type I got "INTJ" aka long term strategic planner mastermind.

I have already begun hitting flatter, working on an effortless serve and a high percentage ROS.

Tennis dominantion will be mine to be had in 2039

Muhahahah
 
You have a good point, but thats precisely what i meant.

Yes your absolute peak is not at say 45 anymore, but if we are talking rec tennis, how many rec players are even remotely close to their athletic peak?

Unless someone is a serious gym and sport addict and also has amazing nutrition and dedication with both (how many are like that 0.3%?) most are not even near their athletic peak (lets number that peak 100%).

So if a say 45year old's potential athletic peak is only 90% of what it was at his best age, if hes dedicated with gym, nutrition etc and reaches something close to that 90%, he is in better athletic shape than most 20year old rec players, because most probably fall in around 40-60%, and very few are at 90% or above.
So not only in experience and skill, the 45yo also has an athletic and physical advantage against the majority of rec players in their 20s, apart from very select few who really work extremely hard on it.
But thats assuming the 45yo also works extremely hard on it.

Remember im talking potential not how the average 25 or 45 or 55 is, im just talking potential, because the diacussion was that its a fact that a 20s guy will improve much faster and have many advantages over a 50s guy in terma of fitness, learning ability, athleticism...

And thats just wrong, because of what I just said.
The 20s guy would only have those advantages if he worked his butt off and gave 100% amd really strive to be in the best shape possible, and extremely few people are like that... so if a 40s/50s guy would be like that he would at least be equal but probably have an advantage against a big number of average rec players in their 20s.
There is something called age and it's real. That's why no one has beaten Father Time. I am 48. I'm not even asking to go back to my 30s. Just give me when I was 45 and that itself is a huge difference. Knees hurt so much these days it's not funny, despite all the exercise, stretching, rest,..etc. I know you are in your 20s and assume that people who age are not doing everything they can. I'm sure if you look at the percentages, yes the majority of adults probably are more sedentary. However, even among the minority who do everything you're asking for and are maintaining healthy habits, the physical decline is real and can't be avoided. You have a chance of making much more improvement at your age than does someone in their 40s.
 
That's why my HS coach always told me to BH slice like crazy against tall 2HBH players! (Exhibit 1: Federer vs. Zverev)
I usually go deep xcourt fh, then slice short xcourt so they always have to take a hand off.

Only threat is a deep up the line slice or a cross court drop shot. The line is pretty hard to hit so you guard the xcourt 70-30%. If they make it a few times make adjustment. But its by far the harder of the two shots.
 

IowaGuy

Hall of Fame
I usually go deep xcourt fh, then slice short xcourt so they always have to take a hand off.

Only threat is a deep up the line slice or a cross court drop shot. The line is pretty hard to hit so you guard the xcourt 70-30%. If they make it a few times make adjustment. But its by far the harder of the two shots.
I like that idea, is not currently in my playbook, will give it a try!
 
Fine you can disagree if you want, but ur wrong in saying that a 40 year old rec player is way past his physical prime lol, there are ton of pros that play extremely high level in their 40s also and if you look at performance in times for example and compare the 20s 30s and 40s u wont see a big difference.
And its becoming more and more the case as medicine, recovery, fitness advances further.
Lol, so young a naive :-D I'm only 35 and I feel like I move like Winnie the Pooh when I used to move like Tigger. Physically you decline a lot, but I still play better now as I have maybe 7 odd years experience behind me so my strokes have never been better
 
Nearly everybody in my age group wear somethin like this if not on both legs at least one. Untill the ”healthy” side gives in and is discovered worn and torn worse than the ill side.




——————————
No more on pain meds - all contributed matter and anti-matter are still subject to disclaimer
 
Top