what defines tennis athletic talent?

[stockboy]

In most (if not all) professional sports, there are certain physical and genetic traits that are selected. in cycling for example, it's aerobic capacity, vo2max, lactate threshold, fast twitch muscle activation, all of which translate into how much energy/oxygen an athlete can theoretically convert, and whether the athlete's naturally inclined to climb, sprint, etc. These are genetic traits that can't really be changed, and this is why some people are considered naturals and rise to the top easily, while others are late bloomers and plateau. What are the specific physical traits that make a talented tennis player, aside from the generic "athletic" label?

I've only dabbled with this sport, along with some others. But what I notice about tennis is nearly all of my limitations have originated from "between the ears". Maybe this is why I enjoy tennis so much since picking it up again a few weeks ago. It's a game of the mind, and you can be as good as you want to be, provided you have the mental agility to improve and time to spend. I feel like this is a sport where technique developed through practice trumps raw physical talent, which is the case in any sport, but it's especially true in tennis. Curious to get others thoughts on this.

 

[yossarian]

I can guarantee you that lack of raw physical talent is what stops everyone here from being as good as they’d like to be

 

[travlerajm]

I can guarantee you that lack of raw physical talent is what stops everyone here from being as good as they’d like to be

Speak for yourself. I would have won Wimbledon at least 3 times if Mike Agassi had adopted me at age 2.

Edit: and Ben Johnson’s pharmacist was my pediatrician.

 

[ZanderGoga]

It’s a game of speed, acceleration, quickness, full body kinetic technical proficiency, endurance, strategic facility and adaptability, power, and finesse. It challenges virtually every traditional athletic criterion except raw strength, though there’s even an element of low-capacity/high-volume speed-strength involved in the sheer number of power generating kinetic chains involved in a full match.

It demands an athletic profile different from most other popular sports in this regard. Though in terms of those demands, I’ve seen studies putting basketball and boxing “closest” in terms of having similar menus of overall athleticism.

 

[travlerajm]

You need a body type like these two guys:

 

[PKorda]

You've only 'dabbled in the sport' and have already determined that nearly all of your limitations are between the ears? Thinking this post has to be trolling...

 

[Dartagnan64]

For most people, road cycling is akin to running and doesn't require innate athleticism. You can train fitness. You can't train coordination and speed. At the highest levels, it requires a lot more athletic skill because it's not easy to cycle 6 inches away from someone in a peloton at 45 mph. But of course the highest levels of all sports are achieved by guys with coordination and speed.

I come from a family that has several athletes in it and they were all more coordinated and fast from a very young age. I can only beat them in tennis because they don't play tennis and its still surprisingly close as they just naturally hit the ball on the sweetspot every darn time. But in sports they do play actively they are at a level I could never compete at (hockey, baseball).

Every one knows an athlete when they see one. They move differently, they show advanced hand-eye coordination, they are agile for size.

For tennis , since there is a net and you get two shots at the serve, you tend to split tennis athletics into two groups: 1) Servebots that have size, power and hand eye coordiantion and 2) Rallybots that have speed, fitness, agility, hand eye coordination. Occasionally you get guys that are great at both but that's not common.

 

[PKorda]

For most people, road cycling is akin to running and doesn't require innate athleticism. You can train fitness. You can't train coordination and speed. At the highest levels, it requires a lot more athletic skill because it's not easy to cycle 6 inches away from someone in a peloton at 45 mph. But of course the highest levels of all sports are achieved by guys with coordination and speed.

I come from a family that has several athletes in it and they were all more coordinated and fast from a very young age. I can only beat them in tennis because they don't play tennis and its still surprisingly close as they just naturally hit the ball on the sweetspot every darn time. But in sports they do play actively they are at a level I could never compete at (hockey, baseball).

Every one knows an athlete when they see one. They move differently, they show advanced hand-eye coordination, they are agile for size.

For tennis , since there is a net and you get two shots at the serve, you tend to split tennis athletics into two groups: 1) Servebots that have size, power and hand eye coordiantion and 2) Rallybots that have speed, fitness, agility, hand eye coordination. Occasionally you get guys that are great at both but that's not common.

Sounds like you kinda suck at tennis.

 

[Blackwellacad]

Tennis is one of those sports where you can "outperform" your natural athletic levels, due to there being so many different moving parts in tennis and the relatively small amount of ground you have to cover on a tennis court. How much athleticism it needs at a rec level (non-pro) is not a question anyone can really answer, because at the rec level it doesn't matter due to USTA and UTR rating placing people in their weight class, so to speak.

To play at the world-class pro level, you need world-class athletic gifts, same as any other world-class pro athlete. Except you don't need freakish height.

 

[RVT]

I think there are a lot of different components to athletic talent and tennis, but to reach a very high level, you need to have all of them in varying degrees. In my case, I have a lot of them, but was missing the high level reaction speed to compete against guys in the top 1,000. You can overcome some things--but that is probably the hardest one to overcome... In my own case it's pretty clear that it came down to a preponderance of Type 1 muscle fibers. That's why when I quit tennis and started bike racing, I hit a significantly higher level despite starting in my 20's.

As far as the comment about "being able to train fitness" as it related to road cycling, I will say that the limitations in road cycling are similar in that regard to tennis. Everyone has a ceiling. I think anyone can become a 4.5-5.0 level tennis player with enough training, and anyone can become a decent Cat 3 cyclist. To get above that, you need a specific genetic profile, IMO.

 

[giantschwinn]

You can put someone in a sport they've never played and see how well they do. It's pretty easy to spot an athlete from a non-athlete.

 

[sureshs]

You can put someone in a sport they've never played and see how well they do. It's pretty easy to spot an athlete from a non-athlete.

I suck at pretty much any sports-related activity. Then how come I do so well in tennis?

 

[stockboy]

I think there are a lot of different components to athletic talent and tennis, but to reach a very high level, you need to have all of them in varying degrees. In my case, I have a lot of them, but was missing the high level reaction speed to compete against guys in the top 1,000. You can overcome some things--but that is probably the hardest one to overcome... In my own case it's pretty clear that it came down to a preponderance of Type 1 muscle fibers. That's why when I quit tennis and started bike racing, I hit a significantly higher level despite starting in my 20's.

As far as the comment about "being able to train fitness" as it related to road cycling, I will say that the limitations in road cycling are similar in that regard to tennis. Everyone has a ceiling. I think anyone can become a 4.5-5.0 level tennis player with enough training, and anyone can become a decent Cat 3 cyclist. To get above that, you need a specific genetic profile, IMO.

nice. yea i'd say mostly everyone who had ancestors who ran away from tigers and wolves should have the genes to make it to cat 3 . And I'd argue that I've seen quite a few cyclists make it to cat 1-2 who weren't particularly gifted, but had other levers to pull to get them up there, like cycling iq, and just sheer hard work, but those are trainable.

For most people, road cycling is akin to running and doesn't require innate athleticism. You can train fitness. You can't train coordination and speed. At the highest levels, it requires a lot more athletic skill because it's not easy to cycle 6 inches away from someone in a peloton at 45 mph. But of course the highest levels of all sports are achieved by guys with coordination and speed.

I come from a family that has several athletes in it and they were all more coordinated and fast from a very young age. I can only beat them in tennis because they don't play tennis and its still surprisingly close as they just naturally hit the ball on the sweetspot every darn time. But in sports they do play actively they are at a level I could never compete at (hockey, baseball).

Every one knows an athlete when they see one. They move differently, they show advanced hand-eye coordination, they are agile for size.

For tennis , since there is a net and you get two shots at the serve, you tend to split tennis athletics into two groups: 1) Servebots that have size, power and hand eye coordiantion and 2) Rallybots that have speed, fitness, agility, hand eye coordination. Occasionally you get guys that are great at both but that's not common.

I feel the opposite is true but maybe we're both right. with respect to fitness, there's a limit to how much energy you can convert aerobically or anaerobically. lance armstrong had an unnaturally high lactate threshold. michael phelps had really good efficiency in getting rid of lactic acid. I'm sure these genetic gifts played a large role in helping them be champions. and I agree that fitness can be trained, but everyone reaches a plateau, and that plateau is defined by your genes. That's really the crux of my question, what defines the plateau for tennis players. From the responses, it seems like big ones are size, reaction time, hand/eye coordination (which i think is highly trainable), and type 1 muscle fibers.

And I suppose by size, I mean more body composition, like being lean has a lot of advantages.

 

[giantschwinn]

I suck at pretty much any sports-related activity. Then how come I do so well in tennis?

Nurture can overcome nature. My son is really good at tennis for his age but I wasn't sure if it's due to him playing a lot or by natural talent. But I noticed that he is also really good in soccer, a sport we never practice and I never put any pressure on him to perform. So based on this, I think he is athletic. Were you always the first kid to get picked in PE when kids are forming teams?

 

[RVT]

One nice thing about cycling and tennis is there is enough variation in the sport that different body types can still be successful. Diego Schwartzman and John Isner are both successful pros, just like Andre Greipel and Egan Bernal. Still, they are all top level athletes--just in different ways.

 

[sureshs]

Nurture can overcome nature. My son is really good at tennis for his age but I wasn't sure if it's due to him playing a lot or by natural talent. But I noticed that he is also really good in soccer, a sport we never practice and I never put any pressure on him to perform. So based on this, I think he is athletic. Were you always the first kid to get picked in PE when kids are forming teams?

The last. I was picked out of pity. I also came last in every race and still cannot touch my toes.

But today I am an Internet Tennis player in high demand.

 

[giantschwinn]

I was never the first kid to get picked and since my son has my genetics, I also conclude he has no future in professional tennis.

 

[RVT]

I was never the first kid to get picked and since my son has my genetics, I also conclude he has no future in professional tennis.

You get your mitochondria from your mother, so there's still hope for him!

 

[giantschwinn]

You get your mitochondria from your mother, so there's still hope for him!

Lol. That's true. My wife is the best dancer in her Zumba class... Maybe there is hope afterall.

 

[user92626]

I suck at pretty much any sports-related activity. Then how come I do so well in tennis?

Define "well in tennis".


Tennis is a sport that basically anyone can play. Nobody cannot hit the ball over the net over half of their tries. LOL

You can't say the same for basketball or baseball. Alot of people simply can't shoot the ball into the rim or wack the ball with the wooden stick. You can't play water polo if you cannot swim.

 

[Rosstour]

Anyone can play it, and even 'non-athletic' people can excel.

Natural physical attributes come into play when determining how easily a player will pick the game up compared to another, or how well two equally skilled players will match up.

 

[sureshs]

Define "well in tennis".


Tennis is a sport that basically anyone can play. Nobody cannot hit the ball over the net over half of their tries. LOL

You can't say the same for basketball or baseball. Alot of people simply can't shoot the ball into the rim or wack the ball with the wooden stick. You can't play water polo if you cannot swim.

That is why tennis is for wimps

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

I suck at pretty much any sports-related activity. Then how come I do so well in tennis?

Courte Paume Savant?
Legend in your own mind?
Tennis Rain Man?

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Sounds like you kinda suck at tennis.

Don't we all [except @MaxTennis and @J011yroger, of course]?

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

I think anyone can become a 4.5-5.0 level tennis player with enough training,...

4.5 is a stretch. Even 4.0 is a stretch given how many fail to make it that high.

But 5.0, which starts around the 97th percentile?

 

[RVT]

4.5 is a stretch. Even 4.0 is a stretch given how many fail to make it that high.

But 5.0, which starts around the 97th percentile?

Yeah, I think so. What I mean by this is that almost anyone can hit that level before some sort of physical genetic limitations stop them from getting better. While that may be 97th percentile, I don't believe that genetic talent is the limiting factor for the 96%. When you get into the pointy end, sure. Not everyone has the genetics to be competitive at the >5.0 level.

It's cool if you disagree, but I wonder... for an able-bodied individual, what do you believe are the genetic limiters that will keep someone from getting to a 4.5/5.0 level?

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Yeah, I think so. What I mean by this is that almost anyone can hit that level before some sort of physical genetic limitations stop them from getting better. While that may be 97th percentile, I don't believe that genetic talent is the limiting factor for the 96%. When you get into the pointy end, sure. Not everyone has the genetics to be competitive at the >5.0 level.

It's cool if you disagree, but I wonder... for an able-bodied individual, what do you believe are the genetic limiters that will keep someone from getting to a 4.5/5.0 level?

Well, "able-bodied" to me means around the median. I'm not convinced someone with median athletic abilities [hand-eye coordination, fast twitch + slow twitch combination, reaction time, balance, flexibility, etc.] not to mention other huge factors like mental toughness and persistence, will make it to the 97th percentile.

Put it this way: I haven't seen anyone at 5.0 who was even median let alone below median in the above factors. They were all well above.

 

[RVT]

Well, "able-bodied" to me means around the median. I'm not convinced someone with median athletic abilities [hand-eye coordination, fast twitch + slow twitch combination, reaction time, balance, flexibility, etc.] not to mention other huge factors like mental toughness and persistence, will make it to the 97th percentile.

Put it this way: I haven't seen anyone at 5.0 who was even median let alone below median in the above factors. They were all well above.

Well, persistence and mental toughness are things that are a bit outside the scope of "athletic ability", and particularly when it comes to "persistence", the less talent you have, the more you need...

For context, I've coached another sport for a number of years, and this question has come up forever. I've worked with world class athletes and with everyday Joe's. What I've observed is that when it comes to athletic ability, most folks fit somewhere on the fat bell curve. 5% are exceptional, 5% have a really low ceiling no matter what, and the rest fit somewhere on that fat curve in the middle.

Sure, there are TONS of other factors: limited time to train, age, limited resources. They aren't "excuses",they're real factors. But I think those factors have a far more significant impact on ceiling than athletic ability, until you get to the really elite level. In tennis I'd put that at over 5.0.

 

[PKorda]

Well, persistence and mental toughness are things that are a bit outside the scope of "athletic ability", and particularly when it comes to "persistence", the less talent you have, the more you need...

For context, I've coached another sport for a number of years, and this question has come up forever. I've worked with world class athletes and with everyday Joe's. What I've observed is that when it comes to athletic ability, most folks fit somewhere on the fat bell curve. 5% are exceptional, 5% have a really low ceiling no matter what, and the rest fit somewhere on that fat curve in the middle.

Sure, there are TONS of other factors: limited time to train, age, limited resources. They aren't "excuses",they're real factors. But I think those factors have a far more significant impact on ceiling than athletic ability, until you get to the really elite level. In tennis I'd put that at over 5.0.

What sport do you coach? Shuffleboard?

 

[Harry_Wild]

A person that can "win"! Tom Brady, Jimmy Connors, Rafael Nadal, Margaret Court, LeBron James, etc...

In high school there were many people who were faster, more athletic, able to turn sharper, jump higher but for one reason or another just did not fit in to a team or individual sport. Golf is another good example of that too!

The NFL draft shows this every year too!

 

[giantschwinn]

I can almost guarantee that those who got picked first in PE don't become tennis players. And most 5.0s didn't get picked first in PE.

 

[RVT]

What sport do you coach? Shuffleboard?

No, not shuffleboard. And honestly, I don't think it really matters. I've seen the same across all sports.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

Tennis Talent Wish List:

~ Hand-eye coordination
~ Aerobic + anaerobic endurance
~ Analytical aptitude
~ Mental toughness
~ Speed / Power
~ Visual skills
~ Flexibility?
~ Vigilance
~ Tenacity
~ Balance
~ Agility

Not an exhaustive list and Not in order of importance -- tho I would put Hand-Eye at the top of the list (as I did here). Tennis players do need a good mix of both aerobic and anaerobic stamina. Not enough to excel at one type of endurance but significantly lack the other. Need both.

Agility it's probably more important than flexibility. Moderate or modest static flexibility might be ok. Helpful to have some dynamic flexibility tho.

Power should not be confused with brute strength. The latter might be helpful but is not really all that important for tennis. OTOH power, the ability to move the muscles / joints and the racket quickly, is very important. We can think of power as "speed strength".

Visual skills does not refer to static acuity. It is not about having 20/20 vision. It's more about dynamic visual abilities. Visual tracking skills are important -- smooth pursuit tracking, saccadic tracking, etc. The ability to shift focus quickly is also important. Visual skills can also include visual RT, peripheral awareness (peripheral vision), convergence and the ability to adapt to shadows & glare.

I did not list it above but auditory perception / awareness is also a big plus for tennis. Auditory RT and awareness can provide useful information about ball spin, speed and possible trajectory that can complement / enhance the information our brain receives from the visual system.

 

[PKorda]

No, not shuffleboard. And honestly, I don't think it really matters. I've seen the same across all sports.

Lol

 

[hypercube]

Define "well in tennis".


Tennis is a sport that basically anyone can play. Nobody cannot hit the ball over the net over half of their tries. LOL

You can't say the same for basketball or baseball. Alot of people simply can't shoot the ball into the rim or wack the ball with the wooden stick. You can't play water polo if you cannot swim.

That's ********, tennis is one of the hardest sports to play, more so in terms of pure technique. You need to train for months and learn counterintuitive technique just to be able to hit the ball over the net (and into the court) with a minimum degree of consistency.

 

[PKorda]

So much nonsense in this thread it's hilarious. Starting to realize most of the people on this board are lower level players that have no clue what it takes to be a high level player. And this is not to diminish that type of play at all. Personally like to see people enjoy the sport no matter who they are. Realize Not everyone has time, interest or ability to get there.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

That's ********, tennis is one of the hardest sports to play, more so in terms of pure technique. You need to train for months and learn counterintuitive technique just to be able to hit the ball over the net (and into the court) with a minimum degree of consistency.

I'd say tennis has a low bar of entry, which is what I think @user92626 was getting at. By the same token, it's easy to "play" the piano by hitting keys. It's much more difficult to make the same sounds with the flute or violin.

What you're talking about is the difficulty of playing well [however you define "well"]. And some people pick it up extremely quickly, either because in general they are very athletic or they're optimized for the skills required for good tennis.

But just like with playing a musical instrument, being able to play basic stuff [ie "Chopsticks" on the piano] is worlds apart from being a virtuoso.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

Tennis is a sport that basically anyone can play. Nobody cannot hit the ball over the net over half of their tries. LOL

You can't say the same for basketball or baseball. Alot of people simply can't shoot the ball into the rim or wack the ball with the wooden stick. You can't play water polo if you cannot swim.

Vehemently disagree. Most people give up tennis after just a couple of tires. Some may give her to go for a few months before they give it up for good. Have you recently watched two novice players trying to sustain a rally? A rally of more than 1 or 2 balls us rare. A novice player might be able to sustain a little longer rally against a coach who is giving them very easy, well-controlled balls. But two novice players???

Fuggedaboutit! If they persist, it will take months before most novice players can develop enough control to sustain a rally with each other. Even then, most players will never progress beyond a low intermediate level of 3.0/3.5 ntrp.

Contrast this with badminton, table tennis, racquetball, soft tennis, pickleball and numerous other sports. Inside of 20 minutes, novice players can sustain a reasonable rally. It won't take them weeks or months.

Granted, volleyball skills and hitting a baseball isn't all that easy either. But shooting basketballs into a hoop is much easier to learn than sustaining a decent rally in tennis.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

@yossarian

Sounds like you kinda suck at tennis.

Don't see how you came to that conclusion.

So much nonsense in this thread it's hilarious. Starting to realize most of the people on this board are lower level players that have no clue what it takes to be a high level player.

No, I believe there's more insight here than you are seeing if you really believe this.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Vehemently disagree. Most people give up tennis after just a couple of tires. Some may give her to go for a few months before they give it up for good. Have you recently watched two novice players trying to sustain a rally? A rally of more than 1 or 2 balls us rare. A novice player might be able to sustain a little longer rally against a coach who is giving them very easy, well-controlled balls. But two novice players???

Fuggedaboutit! If they persist, it will take months before most novice players can develop enough control to sustain a rally with each other. Even then, most players will never progress beyond a low intermediate level of 3.0/3.5 ntrp.

Contrast this with badminton, table tennis, racquetball, soft tennis, pickleball and numerous other sports. Inside of 20 minutes, novice players can sustain a reasonable rally. It won't take them weeks or months.

Granted, volleyball skills and hitting a baseball isn't all that easy either. But shooting basketballs into a hoop is much easier to learn than sustaining a decent rally in tennis.

Good points. I have very good hand-eye coordination and a reasonable amount of athleticism so tennis was not difficult for me to pick up as a beginner, no more so than any of the other myriad sports I played growing up. In fact, I never compared the difficulty of each sport to the others; I simply recognized that game A required skillset 1 and that game B might have some overlap or a lot.

 

[PKorda]

@yossarian

Don't see how you came to that conclusion.

No, I believe there's more insight here than you are seeing if you really believe this.

What insights am I missing?

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

Good points. I have very good hand-eye coordination and a reasonable amount of athleticism so tennis was not difficult for me to pick up as a beginner, no more so than any of the other myriad sports I played growing up. In fact, I never compared the difficulty of each sport to the others; I simply recognized that game A required skillset 1 and that game B might have some overlap or a lot.

I picked up tennis pretty late. Nearly 21 at the time. Except for recreational table tennis, I did not play very much sports as a kid. Undoubtedly, developed some hand-eye, RT/reflexes and use of spin from table tennis. But I'm sure I could have developed a lot more if I had played more sports in my youth.

I did find that I was picking up tennis quicker than most people around me even tho I hadn't really played much sports previously. Seems that most people just don't have sufficient hand eye coordination and motor skills to reach even a high intermediate level of play.

 

[yossarian]

@yossarian

Don't see how you came to that conclusion.

No, I believe there's more insight here than you are seeing if you really believe this.

why was i tagged here

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

why was i tagged here

Since you gave it a Thumbs Up, looking to see if you really bought into PKs assessment... "So much nonsense in this thread it's hilarious. Starting to realize most of the people on this board are lower level players that have no clue what it takes..."

 

[yossarian]

Since you gave it a Thumbs Up, looking to see if you really bought into PKs assessment... "So much nonsense in this thread it's hilarious. Starting to realize most of the people on this board are lower level players that have no clue what it takes..."

I think most people on this forum are lower level players who have no clue what it takes. Obviously there are exceptions, but the majority of good players don't seek out advice on an internet forum.

I interpreted his point more so as an observation that many rec tennis players, for whatever reason, were not athletic as children and took up the sport because it seems like it's something that non-athletic people can do. I don't know why this is the case, or why it appeals to these individuals, but I've certainly seen it. In my experience, I've never come across a sport that has attracted so many people who are horrible at every other sport they play.

Almost every question that's posted here about practically anything (ex. why can't I serve this speed, why can't I hit my forehand like this, etc.) can be summed up by this answer: you're not naturally talented enough. Sorry

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Almost every question that's posted here about practically anything (ex. why can't I serve this speed, why can't I hit my forehand like this, etc.) can be summed up by this answer: you're not naturally talented enough. Sorry

However, that does not mean one can't improve. Philosophically, I'm receptive to the idea of improvement so that biases my outlook.

It's entirely another question how much more I could improve if I had natural talent and how much of it. But that's irrelevant to my actual progress.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

@PKorda

I think most people on this forum are lower level players who have no clue what it takes. Obviously there are exceptions, but the majority of good players don't seek out advice on an internet forum.

I interpreted his point more so as an observation that many rec tennis players, for whatever reason, were not athletic as children and took up the sport because it seems like it's something that non-athletic people can do. I don't know why this is the case, or why it appeals to these individuals, but I've certainly seen it. In my experience, I've never come across a sport that has attracted so many people who are horrible at every other sport they play.

Almost every question that's posted here about practically anything (ex. why can't I serve this speed, why can't I hit my forehand like this, etc.) can be summed up by this answer: you're not naturally talented enough. Sorry

Can say that I understand the mindset of jumping into a thread to insult the responses of other users rather than just providing some constructive input. Don't really need to tear down others to pass along your own insight.

 

[user92626]

I'd say tennis has a low bar of entry, which is what I think @user92626 was getting at. By the same token, it's easy to "play" the piano by hitting keys. It's much more difficult to make the same sounds with the flute or violin.

What you're talking about is the difficulty of playing well [however you define "well"]. And some people pick it up extremely quickly, either because in general they are very athletic or they're optimized for the skills required for good tennis.

But just like with playing a musical instrument, being able to play basic stuff [ie "Chopsticks" on the piano] is worlds apart from being a virtuoso.

It is along that thought but even further, too. It's quite common to see 2 people or 4 people wacking the ball with the consistency of 1 or 2 shots. Is that not a game? Is that any less fun, less workout? Less tennis than anyone else's here?

I don't know what @hypercube means by "hardest sports to play, more so in terms of pure technique".

 

[yossarian]

@PKorda

Can say that I understand the mindset of jumping into a thread to insult the responses of other users rather than just providing some constructive input. Don't really need to tear down others to pass along your own insight.

I didn’t. I just liked his post

I wouldn’t have posted what I just posted if I hadn’t been asked

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

It is along that thought but even further, too. It's quite common to see 2 people or 4 people wacking the ball with the consistency of 1 or 2 shots. Is that not a game? Is that any less fun, less workout? Less tennis than anyone else's here?

I don't know what @hypercube means by "hardest sports to play, more so in terms of pure technique".

I've heard that comment from more than one player. There are so many things to do wrong if one is trying to learn traditional strokes: "racquet back early", "bend your knees", "keep your eye on the ball", "unit turn", "hey, you're not bending your knees". It's enough to drive someone crazy.

When I was learning to juggle, I spent more time picking up balls than juggling them. But I stuck with it and got past that. But how many tennis players get frustrated in the "picking up" phase and move on to something else?