Readers Write

TennisOne,

I agree, support, understand and admire the way you break down the serve and "jump" in your article "To Jump or Not to Jump?" The only adjustment I would make is your advice about "No Man's Land" ("NML"). As a teacher I find that new players tend to avoid "NML" as a general rule they've heard countless times on television or read in magazines. Some will even avoid going to the net, for fear of going through "NML." Or possibly "NML" is one excuse not to go?

I find that my students free up a bit when "NML" is described as a place that one must go through to get where they want to go (the net?). I even advocate taking ground-strokes and volleys in this area as a practice. To maybe practice another angle, half volley or a shorter stroke? The theory is, if you can volley from "NML," then I believe the volley a few feet farther becomes that much easier. And the bonus? They seem less encumbered by the "rules" and the proverbial "don'ts." One student has even started calling that area "Oz," a magical place he may want to go and explore. He seems looser. And isn't that what we want as teachers, tennis players and humans?

Kevin West 

Kevin,
 
Thank you for a great post with excellent comments. I agree (and teach) as you do. I only used the term in the article as a common identifiable area that most people can understand since most, as you have mentioned, have been 'conditioned' by the remarks of pros, television commentators, and the like. Of course, many people will associate NML as an area to avoid, (based on such remarks), which is simply not true as you pointed out.  
 
I agree 100% that players need to not only NOT fear the NML area but, in fact, learn to execute shots from this area to take advantage of situations, instead of avoiding the area as a general rule.
 
I think that the bottom line is the idea of camping out in NML as so many beginners tend to do, that such advice is perpetuated.
 
Thanks again for the comments and the spot-on advice you offer,  
Dave Smith, Senior Editor TennisOne

Letters in response to Kim's Shanley's "The Quirky Side" newsletter.

TennisOne,

First, you nailed it on rituals, second Sharapova GAVE AWAY the match with double faults (got to feel sorry for her coach, all the time he must spend on that, but serve has Improved much lately!) because if you double fault there is NO chance to win the point and she went BIG again!, underhand (kidding) might be better. Certainly the other PRO can jump all over a weak second serve but as a 4.0 hacker I can spin in 99 out of 100 seconds so I can go big on the first and back power down if its long on the next one, at least there is a chance to win the point. If I double once a day in three sets it’s a lot and I still prevail 75% of the time. So I don't have to worry because the second is going in because it’s just a deep spin or if the opponent is great a low slice that is hard to blast for the returner but there is little risk in it. Why Shara can't just slice low at a match-losing point is amazing bad. Most have some brief ritual, even I have a little loose racquet swing before the toss.  

Skip

Hi Skip,

Yes, all the work on service routines and mental toughness, and seemingly poorer results, that’s the irony. Why some of the women haven’t been able to master a safe second serve, so they don’t have to worry so much about the first, I don’t understand either. Yes, we all need some rituals, but aren’t some of the women over-doing it? Thanks for your comment.

Best,
Kim

TennisOne,

I enjoyed your article on the topic.

Mr. Bhalla would do himself and his work a great service by deepening his research on Mental Toughness Training.  He should re-read in-depth all of Dr. Jim Loehr's books and underline all references to The Challenge Response.  While Mr. Bhalla is correct in pointing out that "Western" approaches focused on achievement do create tension, there's no escape out of the Challenge in a competitive situation.  Not acknowledging that anthropologically sports are a sublimation of "the chase" or "hunting behavior" for survival would be as wrong as assuming that there's an "Eastern" way that allows people to compete better.  Question: How many Asian players can you find at the top of the rankings, especially those who might acknowledge that Eastern or "Holistic" mental training got them there?

The Challenge Response is a normal, physiological response to pressure that implies "loving the fight" to access a state of "flow" or "The Ideal Performance State."  No one teaches players to do this.  The perception of Pressure does and their bodies respond accordingly.  What Dr. Loehr has done is deconstruct the process by which you can learn, enhance or improve how to coordinate the physical and emotional responses to attain and sustain such state. 

It amazes me how people continue to make Pressure the core issue in competition rather than the response to it.  Training in any form is nothing but a way to increase capacity, skillfulness and versatility to respond to as many challenges as the game requires.  "Not feeling pressure" is not the goal: Loving it and winning regardless is.

Thank you,
Carlos

Hi Carlos,

First, let me say I enjoyed your letter and you opened up several avenues of discussion I thought were very interesting. I invite you to submit a piece to TennisOne, as you seem well informed on these areas. So thank you.

Secondly, my (hopefully) lighthearted piece I don’t think I did full justice to either Dr. Loehr’s body of work, or Happy Bhalla’s. And Happy can certainly represent himself and his views quite fine at this own. However, since I cited his work, I don’t want to leave the mistaken impression that Happy Bhalla thinks the goal of training is not to feel pressure. Rather, to see from a different perspective, one where results and winning don’t inhibit access to the peak athletic performance state.

You say that Dr. Loehr’s Challenge Response approach also trains athletes to access the flow and the zone. Fair enough. And that body of work deserves a much fuller treatment. At the same time, you didn’t address my central point of skepticism: why are all these athletes trained (seemingly) in the Loehr’ system breaking down mentally? They are certainly not anywhere near the “flow” when serving under pressure. Could it be that too much conscious ritualization of these processes to meet challenges is actually counter-producive? So, some rituals good, too much ritual bad? I don’t know the answer, just observing what I see and raising the question.

I think we’re in agreement that “loving” the challenge (pressure) is something of the ideal athletic state. How we prepare ourselves to get there, well, let’s talk some more. Thanks again for your thoughtful letter.

Best,
Kim

Carlo Responds to Kim's response.

Kim,

Key word:  "Seemingly" (Which players are we talking about here?  Who falls into the "seemingly" category?)
Answer #1: It would be interesting to address the existing research on players formally and systematically trained in Dr. Loehr's approach. Just by talking to Jim and reading his books, anyone will discover that the success stories abound and that especially world-class players from 1985 onwards credit Loehr with a radical shift in how they can achieve and sustain peak performance.  It's not about the rituals: the rituals ensure the physical and energy management.  It's far more complex yet integrated than that...

Answer #2: Peak performance is the result of a constellation of factors that starts with recognizing what constitutes the Ideal Performance State, how to attain it and how to sustain it on cue, under pressure. If you look at the world rankings, anyone beyond #12 is an inconsistent competitor regardless of gender.  What could be the reasons?  Here are a few: Players change coaches and training methods frequently.  They don't adhere to a systematic approach or perhaps they are too rigid (they don't make stress/recovery waves in their training schedule properly, a key factor in periodization training).  On the mental side, very few players have the discipline of Federer, Nadal, Henin or Clijsters to stay within their Ideal Performance State physiology and behavior under pressure, regardless of the score. Those who break through once or twice, might still not understand what it takes to sustain that high positive emotion they achieved once or twice.

Answer #3: Any coach can teach Dr. Loehr's in-between-time routines and create some pressure drills.  Yet, unless they understand and apply Sport Science principles throughouth the yearly planning of their players, they certainly have no clue about what will make and break their players. Mediocrity will rule because training implies desire, understanding, sense of purpose, intentional dedication to the task, repetition to perfect and a sense of joy as a result of becoming "Best Under Pressure."  As I explained before, "not breaking down" is the end result of the entire training process, not just the behavioral learning of "acting the behavior you want to feel."  The sequence goes "Think > Feel > Act" yet the best competitors can also "Act how they want to Feel > Shift their Thinking" - This is at the core of "Flow" or the IPS and it doesn't happen by wishing it does.  It happens as a result of a well-integrated training plan that covers all fundamentals.  You won't find many coaches or players in tennis that can do this well. (Amazing, isn't it?  Check it out, research it... The tennis world needs a good shake up)  And that's why we have the Tennis we have...

All the best,

Carlos Salum

TennisOne,

This is a great topic…and definitely good points made about the poor results which follow the rigid routines or ceremonies.  The other problem that stems from this is the slowness of play that results.

 I still cannot figure out why Nadal gets 30 to 35 seconds between serves and sometimes longer to go through his routine.  Federer, Roddick, and Murray to name a few get it done in about 20 seconds 90% of the time.  I don’t know why the players and their coaches have not picked up on this and complained enough to make the officials do their job.  It must be very aggravating waiting an extra 5, 10, or 15 seconds for the server to serve. 

In Nadal’s case I could be wrong, but it does go back to Loehr; he seems to need extra time to be able to organize his serve mentally.  It would be great to see if he can come up with some of the serves he hits if were forced to serve in 20 or 25 seconds.  I have my doubts.  The so “greatest match in history” , Wimbledon 2008 final, lasted 30 minutes longer than it should have and ended in the dark,  for the sole reason that Nadal takes more time than anyone to serve.

 While you are bringing up Jim Loehr, the fist pump punctuated with the ever present “come on” has progressed way beyond obnoxious at junior tournaments.  This all detracts from the game and does not seem to be helping us to develop better players.

Thanks,
Dave

Hi Dave,

I agree that slowness of play detracts from the enjoyment of the game. I also agree that Nadal (and some other players) have benefited from the time-rule not being enforced. And I also agree with your thrust of your question why his opponents (and their coaches) have not raised this issue more strenuously. Prior to the NBA basketball championship, do you think Lakers coach Phil Jackson would hesitated to inform the league if the Boston Celtics committed a foul each and every time they went down the court? Don’t get me wrong, I love Rafael Nadal, his passion, his courage, his will to fight. But shouldn’t tennis (and its stars) have the respect for the sport—not to mention their own best interest at heart—to see that basic rules are enforced?

And as to fist-pumping, yes, I concur that that’s being over-done. You see some players giving a double-pump with a vociferous “come-on” after the first point in the match! Come-on, lay-off the come-ons until, well, at least you’ve won your first game.

Thanks for your letter, appreciated. Kim

Best,
Kim

TennisOne,

Very entertaining article,,,,,and good timing,,,,I couldn't believe Bartoli's routine.   She has to be the Queen of Quirks,,,I passed her walking around the women's event in Charleston ,,,might have been in 09,,,she had either a full tennis ball,,or one cut in half,,,taped to the bottom of her tennis shoes,,while she was walking around the grounds.  I think she had it taped to the front,,or under the ball of her foot (pun intended).

What a convoluted service stance and routine!!    

In my humble 4.5 player opinion,,,most of them that get the yips,,,,decelerate the racquet head,,trying to "guide it" in,,,,and none of them appear able to put much spin on their serve,,,so their margin for error is less,,,hence the guide.

thx,
Will

Hi Will,

Yes, I had heard about Bartoli walking around with tennis balls taped to her feet. This is one more reason to induct Bartoli into the Quirky Hall of Fame. And I didn’t even describe her actual service routine, which you rightly (and perhaps kindly) call “convoluted.”

Certainly the women having problems with their serve aren’t able to impart enough controllable spin and introduce enough margin of error on their serves. And I agree that many are trying to guide their serves. Which again speaks of too much conscious interference in an action which should be primarily unconscious and automatic. Much more to be said on all this. Thanks for your note, appreciated.

Best,
Kim

TennisOne,

Kim, as concerns your article on "The Quirky Side", these repetitive routines do nothing but delay the inevitable-a first serve at 30-40, or even 40-30. These routines don't eliminate the apprehension we all feel at break point or match point. All of us must step up there and think about what is required to deliver an effective serve, one that will not give your opponent an offensive return. The women pros seem to be trained on having some routine that will neutralize this panic. In my opinion, this routine does not neutralize panic but increases the apprehension. In my opinion, the answer is to hit a good second serve as your first serve. I do this all the time in my doubles matches. It seems to work in the majority of critical points! At least it gives you a chance to hold or win.

Tom

Hi Tom,

In my wise-acrey (is that a word?) approach, I hope I provided a somewhat balanced view of routines. I do see their value, and I have some of my own, as do almost everyone. But after thinking about all this for a while, and observing the women here in Cinci all week, my point was that over-ritualization, over-concentration and focus on rituals, “seems” to be counter-productive all too frequently. Watching the men playing all day yesterday in Cinci (at the same Mason,OH venue the women played in), the men display none of the rigid, robotic routinization of preparing for the serve as the women do, and they seem much more into the flow of the game, with fewer (to my eye) signs of the service yips.

I think your advice about hitting second serve as your first serve is good advice in pressure situations. But I also think it depends on the level your playing. On the tour, you need weapons to hurt your opponents, and you can't continously forsake the use of those weapons for fear they will misfire.

Thanks for your note.

Best,
Kim

TennisOne,

That was the funniest article I have ever read on tennis. I loved the description of Marion Bartoli's service routine! I howled with laughter and cried all the way through it! It was pretty funny.

And as for the routines, I can relate. I have developed my own quirky routine. And, if i make it through the whole thing, my serve often goes in, and my opponents are so bored and flat-footed that it's often a service not returned;)

Phenomenol good writing. Loved it!!!
Kim

Hi Kim,

Sometimes we lose our objectivity in watching anything repeatedly. Now we just take it as normal that the #1 player in the world picks at his bottom between each point. And we don't see that an awful lot of players seem to be following a mechanical, near Charlie Chaplin routine, that ironically or comically doesn't seem to be doing an awful lot of good. Thanks for the comment, appreciated.

Best, (this) Kim

This video with the clock and sticks showing angle is showing you defining the contact point as inside your body, not out in front. But your actually hits are out by the front foot. Are you teaching a contact point inside the body, between the shoulders, the sticks meet at your body center? This is what I took away from this video.

The second thing I took away was the racquet face turning over before and after contact. I think that winding up of the forehand/wrist muscles and the unwinding of those muscles approaching impact is what generates the additional velocity. We traditionally talk of the distance a racquet travels while accelerating that equals the velocity at impact. It was the racquet head distance traveled (single factor) from backswing to end of follow through. Now we add a second factor, the racquet face movement, the accumulation of distances traveled while accelerating is what produces the final velocity at impact.

This is probably why: laying the wrist back on the backswing, the western/semi western grips, and pronation produce a greater velocity at impact then the straight back single factor of distance times acceleration = velocity at impact. Mechanically the single factor would be swinging a racquet from a single rotation point versus a kinetic chain of rotation points.
 
What do you think?
Ray

Ray,

The point of contact is where the sticks intersect and that is in front of the body but also to the right of the body.The racquet approaches contact from the lower, inside edge of the ball with contact out in front of the body and to the right of the body. Players will alter this point to some degree with variations in grip and wrist flexion. Some players are closer to the body (Agassi, Gonzales, Djokovic) and some are more extended away from the body (Federer, Nadal, Verdasco) but basically it is pretty close to that spot and there angle of approach into contact is quite consistent.

That is correct that the winding and unwinding of the forearm muscles provides another element of speed into the movement. This motion causes a change in the angle of the racquet face through the stroke, but through the contact zone much of this twisting action of the racquet face is steadied and there is a moment of emphasis put on the target. This creates an awareness of the target and provides a moment of "drive" to the stroke, even when stroked with great speed. This increased emphasis on the alignment of the racquet to the target at the moment of contact represents a "hold" on the ball and becomes a "locking in" moment in the stroke. This is the why I contend that there is a feeling of planting the racquet into the ball and rotating the body against this contact point, much in the same way that a skier plants a ski pole and rotates the body on this point. I know that it is a very brief moment, indeed, but I think top players actually feel a heightened awareness of this point as a key point around which the entire stroke rotates.

This twisting action, or winding and unwinding, is similar to a service action (in fact why we use a Continental grip on the serve) and is even seen on karate punches. This adds ore torque, or rotation into the motion as well.

Thanks for writing and for your support of TennisOne.
Doug King

TennisOne,

I really enjoyed the 3 articles that you wrote on mastery. They were insightful. I have been chasing “zen-performance” for most of my life. My coach had me read the Inner Game of Tennis when I was a junior player. Recently, I’ve read the Inner Game of Golf and Zen golf (My body is now unfit for tennis). I have found that being “interested” in the shot at hand or the current situation leads to a more pleasurable experience in any endeavor (whether it be Scrabble or Golf or even work). Recently, while playing golf, I was on the 5th hole and I had yet to make a par…I wasn’t playing particularly well and I was feeling anxiety about my score. Then, I remembered the gems I had read…and I asked myself, “why are you out here?”. It was like a switch was flipped in my mind…I stood over a 20 yard pitch to a tucked pin, a delicate shot…I remember thinking, “Let’s hit this shot with absolute sincerity”…meaning no “Chicken golf” which is a term I have come up with to describe the kind of golf one plays when they are trying NOT to screw up. Chicken golf almost always leads to a terrible result. Anyway, I took a practice swing that I believed would give the ball the perfect amount of “check”. I took a fearless swing and the ball ended up about 12 feet from the hole. I missed the par putt, but I felt great about it…I pared 2 of the final 4 holes and played as close to fearless as I had all season. I have decided that that will be my goal each time I play. To play fearless, without anxiety over results (which are out of your control really). I have found that there are 2 players out there with me…one is always aware of the score. The other just enjoys each shot for what it is. My goal is to get rid of the first player.

T.J.

Hi T.J.,

Thanks for your note and sharing your experience with "that other player," the one that's more fearful. From my perspective, of course, you seem to be on the right track. Whether we can really be or play without fear, well, that's a tall order. I think there is some level of anxiety and fear in all doing; it becomes a matter of awareness of that anxiety/fear and then learning how to deal with it. I was reading a piece on an ultra-long distance runner, and she said that sometime during a long run she runs into what she calls the "beast." That is, fatigue, discouragement, wanting to quit. She's learned that it's okay for the beast to show up, and that she doesn't have to surrender to it. So I don't know what the tennis equivalent of the beast is, probably what we call choking. And as McEnroe says, everyone chokes; you just have to be aware that you did and then refocus without getting too disheartened. I guess this all by way of saying follow the Goldilocks principle in your mental training, a little stretch but not too much.

Best, Kim

TennisOne,

The articles on "Meditation on Mastery" also brought up some latent memories. I worked at the same company for 40 years, and we discussed the very ideas you mentioned in your articles. A few engineers, for example, are driven to accumulate ore money, but most want to design and build new products once their basic need are met. However I never connected that to Maslow's hierarchy. One of the things Maslow did for me was to emphasize that most people, whether they are from South Africa, Sudan, Estonia, or silicon valley, want roughly the same thing, starting with their basic needs. Actually tennis is a little like working in an industrial environment; if you make more money than your neighbor, you might feel a little better, but if you make less you feel really bad. Similarly in tennis, winning is good but loosing is really really bad.

The one model we used extensively was called the Change Curve. When you make a change, things generally get worse until you reach the valley of despair where even the proponent of the change is beginning to think that the change was a disaster. But then things start getting better until you reach a new higher plateau than where you started. In tennis, when you change your game, things will probably get worse before they start getting better. One can limit the time spent in the valley of despair using your idea of Deliberative Practice. When you make a change it may take 21 weeks or 10 years, but things will eventually get better.

Larry W

Hi Larry,

Your idea of the Change Curve is interesting. When Dan Millman was the coach for the Stanford Freshman gymnastics team and he these highly-rated high-school athletes go back to learning basics at the beginning of their freshman year, they all swore they were getting worse. When Millman looked at the tapes of these athletes in high school vs where they were with him, they had actually improved--but the "felt" they had gotten worse. So there does seem to be this psychological valley that people go through before they get better.

And yes, we feel our losses more than our wins. In his book, Agassi says it's a dirty little secret. It seems consistent with all of us--we're wounded by the one criticism and ignore several people who praise us. Same thing.

In my earlier editorial on changing the ranking system, I was trying to find a way to minimize the negative effects when results become so dominant in people's thinking. This does have a negative effect on people's mental toughness, as they truly begin to fear losing, and this causes choking (and other negatives like cheating). I believe the way Sampras was brought into the game is a better model, where the goal was to be the best--eventually. He didn't treat wins and losses while he was developing with the seriousness of many other players (like Agassi, for example, who said every loss was like a funeral in his family). Consequently, Pete said he was never afraid of losing and never choked. And after witnessing all his major matches throughout his career, I agree with him.

Thanks for writing in.

Best, Kim

TennisOne,

Thank you very much for putting so much effort into your series on mastery.

It found me at a stage in my life that is incredibly open to the principles of self actualisation. My wife and I have two young children and we listen to our messages with a much more growth minded ear since studying Carol Dweck and many other similar authors and psychologists.

Thanks again, Simon

Hi Simon,

You're welcome. Many of my assumptions about motivation were based on "common sense," and it wasn't until I read Daniel Pink's "Drive" that I saw I had a lot to learn on that subject. When I read the autobiographies of Sampras and Agassi I realize the only consistent theme in their lives was about motivation. Funny, there's almost no discussion of technical issues in the stories of their lives--just all about their "drive." Thanks for writing in.

Regards, Kim

TennisOne,

Kim - I loved your exploration of mastery and the many elements you brought to it! It was indeed masterful, and I'm certain you felt some flow in writing it! Bravo!! Keep up the good work (play)! Jimmy P.

Hi Jimmy,

Thank you. It was a hope that the reader could get a little more from these meditations that a collection of intellectual concepts, and perhaps experience a little some of these concepts from the inside, so to speak. So I'm happy that it seemed to hit a few of the right notes with you. Thanks again.

Best, Kim

TennisOne

Subject: Mastery

I believe you were in the "Flow" when you wrote this piece. Very well done and read it all from first sentence to the footnotes. Something I will ponder for a long time.Looking to find my one thing (finger).
Ralph

Hi Ralph,

Thanks for your generous comment. Yes, perhaps I detected a trickle of flow when writing it--but you always have to be careful about that. Keep looking.

Best, Kim

TennisOne,

Dave Smith's explanation of the slice backhand is sorely lacking. Pro players left the stroke with the advent of so many players hitting a two-handed backhand. Few people understand the stroke and how it regulates the speed of the game. I do not think the playing public likes to be presented as less skilled players (club, hackers, recreational) just because they have realized something the mindless so called professionals and teachers have overlooked for years. Namely, the game of tennis is not complete if you, as a player, at any level, are not capable of using all of the strokes of the game.

I believe you have Nick Bollettieri to thank for this as he, not being a true tennis professional, taught players to get rid of defense and hit as hard as they could. The rest of the mindless instructors just followed him to nowhere as they still do today.

American tennis is in the pits because of the follow this leader mind set. Bill Tilden said it best – the optimum in tennis skills is when the player learns to correctly blend offense and defense. Today's coaches are not familiar with defense and condemn players for using it. American tennis will be in the pits until balance returns to the game. But you can listen to the tennis establishment cry for the need for players to play on clay so American players can become better at the game. What you are really saying is that American players need to learn defense. So good for Oudin and shame on the tennis teaching establishment and the pro players that can't hit a slice. 

Dr. Tennis

Dr. Tennis

While your summation of my slice backhand article as being "sorely lacking", is certainly a welcomed criticism, the main gist of the article was to help players understand why the slice is so prevalent among those who are indeed less skilled as well as identify more effective ways to execute the slice and when it can be a weapon against players who possess more severe grips on their forehands. (It was not meant to be a comprehensive study of the slice backhand which would take many pages to discuss.) While you make some good points about players needing to learn all the shots (in order to become more complete players), your comment regarding the reason players abandoned the slice being due to the two-handed backhand is a common misconception. This would be like saying the slice serve is not used because of the two-handed backhand: The slice backhand is not prevented in its use just because someone uses a two-handed backhand. Either a player learns to hit a slice backhand or they don't. The two-handed backhand in no way prevents a player from learning and mastering a one-handed slice backhand. And, if you haven't noticed, the slice backhand is very much alive and well among all pros, including the high number of two-handers that exist on tour. Watch any singles match today and there will be dozens of slice backhands in most all games, even among a pair of two-handers.
 
When players are identified as "less skilled" (invoking terms like "hacker, pusher, dinker"), these players inevitably rely on the slice as their main 'go-to' stroke. Why? Because, as I stated in the article, the slice is physically easier for players to hit with control...and it simply feels easier to hit.
 
I would agree to a minor degree that many of today's high performance coaches stress offensive tactics far more than defensive. However, the game has evolved to be a more offensive game in general and those who focus on a defensive tactic as a main stratagem will more often be controlled and attacked due to the bigger topspin game we see among the pros.
 
In recreational play, the slice game works great as both a defensive strategy as well as an old-school attacking strategy, (chip and charge, etc.)
 
All in all, I think an objective look at the game is always better than subjectively labeling today's pros as "mindless" or other negative labels. There are many other variables that can be looked at as to why the American players are not as dominant as they were in the past, (ie: tennis not being a big sport in the U.S., very few really good athletes go out for tennis, relative to the other more popular sports played by the younger generation today, and in my opinion, a very limiting approach by our own USTA in terms of developing tennis in this country.)
 
I do appreciate your taking the time to share your opinions and insights. It is always a great opportunity to discuss tennis...even if we don't all agree with each other!
 
Dave Smith, Senior Editor TennisOne

TennisOne,

I would like to know what Doug King's thoughts are on the hitting zone? In this article I understand that if you want to play faster tennis you need adjust orientation and swing path, you also use the rotation of forearm to create speed and all this using the poles comes together at the contact point, now looking at your swings it looks to me if the hitting zone is very short as you approach the oncoming bal and start to rotate the forearm short before contact.
 
I learned that you can create a longer hitting zone if you use weight transfer, rotate the shoulders to the net and flex your wrist. All this would help to have better control.
 
If you have to teach beginners, would you tell them what you say in this article? or would you explain to move the racket from 6 to 12 o clock to line up with the oncoming ball?
 
Many thanks in advance for your reaction.
 
Regards,
 
Fabian

Fabian,

You ask some excellent questions and address some key concepts.

Here is my opinion on this matter. You are correct in identifying that what I am describing is a smaller “contact zone”. As speed is increased in the stroke, either for spin or pace, the contact zone is naturally reduced. When the contact zone is lengthened we will end up with a “pushing” style stroke. This is true for all strokes and perhaps the easiest way to understand this is to consider the serve. Beginners will “push” the serve and create a long contact zone. This affords control but little pace. On the other hand a professional will have a much smaller contact zone. Still, even the top pros will “drive” through the serve to lengthen this contact zone to some degree. The rotational action of the forearm will create additional speed and spin as the larger muscles tend to drive through the contact zone for a longer period of time.

I have found that  how one should  introduce a player to the concept of contact and the contact zone is a very individual thing. Some beginning players will have a certain grip, an arm action, a physicality, and a history in sport, movement, and body awareness which allows them to control the more nuanced movements and timing of a shorter contact zone. One the other hand a player may not have these skills and they will naturally tend to stay more “lined up”, creating a sweep through the ball and out to the target. This will end up with a “pushy” ball and will also result in timing difficulties as the stroke will lack flexibility and acceleration. This is typical of a player who uses a very even paced, back to forward action that is common in the “racquet back-follow through” approach. This approach simply lacks nuance in many areas of the stroke.

The truth is that the ball is on the racquet for a brief moment and our belief that this can be something different is simply wrong and harmful. It is very true that less experienced players lack the timing necessary to pinpoint the contact consistently. For these players a longer, less dynamic contact zone may produce a more “consistent” hit but it will also encourage a “pushy” approach that will inhibit the development of flexibility, timing, pace and spin in the stroke. Ultimately the contact zone is best controlled through a nuanced rhythm between the body parts and the racquet that produces an almost magical “response” between the racquet, the body, and the ball. This is almost better described, in my mind, as a “vibration” and when this dynamics of this “vibration” are learned then the contact zone can be shortened or lengthened depending upon a player’s style or a situation. It is the ability to time the ball in this “vibration” that gives the feeling of the ball staying imbedded in the strings for an extended period of time. The more common ways that coaches encourage players to achieve this feeling of the ball staying in the strings (like hitting though the ball or hitting through a series of balls) will often times be counterproductive. Of course this is a generalization and there are exceptions, but one that is based upon my forty five years of teaching and playing the game.

I would be happy to hear more of your thoughts as I am sure you have them, based upon your excellent questions.

Best regards,
Doug

TennisOne,

I just wanted to say that Doug’s video on orientation and swing-path was brilliant.  Doug continues to put out really cutting edge ideas on teaching tennis time and time again.  As a former college player, coach, and overall tennis enthusiast, I really look forward to any and all of Doug’s articles, videos, etc… I hope to meet him in person some day.

Thanks for making his ideas available to me in the interim.
Ryu Iwai

Ryu,

Many thanks for your generous note.  It is good to know that other players out there are sharing some of the views that I find helpful and interesting. Please don’t hesitate to write to me directly regarding any of your own thoughts or concerns. It is always fun to bounce these things back and forth.

All the best,
Doug

TennisOne,

Just wanted to send a quick note on Doug's last article, "Orientation and Swing Path." 

Yet again, he has really presented things in a unique and effective way.  I maintain my membership with tennisone.com solely because of Doug's articles.

Thanks,
Matt

Matt,

Thank you very much for your kind comments. It is always rewarding to hear that we are connecting with the readers. I appreciate you taking the time to write in. Don’t hesitate to include topics or concerns that you would like to see covered in future pieces.

Best regards,
Doug

TennisOne,

Has a fresh breeze blown through the TennisOne website? Not that it needed it but, TennisOne has allowed an articulate and precise writer/tennis coach to expand, eventually, a tennis player's experience. Mr. McDowell's articulations are a marvel in the world of expertise in describing how well he understands the process of an inside out forehand at the highly professional level. Now. Now, however, how is the typical TennisOne member to benefit from this information 'Tsunami'? The information is correct in almost every way. The question is, I repeat: How can I use it? It is intriguing how many tennis 'professionals' like to promote an idea, and isn't it so easy and convenient, thinking, perhaps, that the sending of the message is the goal. With such a high falutin' (Hello, Granny Clampett!) stage would it not be befitting of TennisOne to strive to become the number one tennis learning website (dearly paid, I might add) as opposed to the site that raises on pedestals the most articulate 'teachers'?

Sincerely,
Bill Jenkins

Bill,

First of all, thanks for feedback. This is my first contribution to TennisOne and I appreciate the constructive criticism. Likewise, I appreciate your saying that I was "articulate, precise and correct in almost every way." As I put together this piece, I developed almost three times this amount of material -- which I tried to distill down as I put together the final product.

A good portion of this material spoke to exactly what you found to be lacking in my presentation; that is, the nuts and bolts of how I would suggest this great model (Berdych's inside out forehand) be used to help us become better players. I am still in a bit of a quandary as to how best to get this side of the story across -- perhaps a separate piece to which I could refer that lays out my approach to teaching and learning. Perhaps, as notes to the video analysis itself. Anyway, since you asked, let me lay out a few specifics that I will recommend to my students as I expose them to this analysis:

• Take a systematic approach to making changes in your game.
• How do you feel about what I identified as the #1 thing you could do to improve your game: Focus upon preparation and footwork. If you agree this is something from which you could benefit, set up a hitting session or sessions (and then a practice match or matches) exclusively for the purposes of concentrating on these issues. Because trust me, the other parts of your game will suffer. Below are examples of questions players should ask themselves along practice sessions that many of my serious players find beneficial:
  • Are you balanced, focused and ready to move when your opponent hits the ball? If not, forget everything else and make sure you split every time the ball bounces on the other side of the net. Don't jump in the air and land flat footed. Be poised on the balls of the feet and ready to make a unit turn to the right or left as you read the ball (or a reverse pivot, if you are practicing running around your backhand). If you have split too soon, split again to ensure you are ready to GO!
    
  • Do you prep your racquet (use the unit turn) to set the stage for what I have called stroke production backswing, forward swing, contact and extension)? If not, it will probably take some focused effort to break bad habits common at this critical juncture. Simplify and remember that less is definitely more at this stage of the stroke.
  • When do you take your first step toward the ball? Try to move toward the ball before the incoming ball reaches the net. Later see if you can take your first step before the ball reaches the service line.
    
  • Do you watch the flight of your shot as you recover? If not, buy a ticket...oh wait, practice appropriate recovery footwork for different areas of the court until they happen instinctively.

Of course the above changes are largely a matter of discipline and focus; but that is precisely why they are so difficult to master.

• Stroke Production: So you see something you don't do with which you would like to experiment. If so, use a reasonable progression for change:
  • Start with shadow tennis and rehearse the movement and body positions without a ball or an opponent. Do them slowly at first and gradually increase the speed. See how it feels and work to
    find a degree of comfort with the mechanics. The use of a full length mirror or video is a great way to take this step to its logical conclusion. Here one is in the early stages of "learning
    the look" and "finding the feel."
  • Next try the technique with a self tossed ball or have a hitting partner toss you an easy ball to play. Ball machines are excellent at this stage. Once you have an idea of what you are trying to accomplish, repetition with progressively challenging balls will build confidence and help the student "find the feel" of the technical change being implemented. You may wish to consult a coach at this stage to ensure that you are building your stroke efficiently.
    
  • Next try to reproduce this technique with a random ball in a rally situation or while playing practice points or practice matches.
    
  • Finally, add the mental pressure by trying to implement the new approach during competition.
    
  • I know this is time consuming; however, I have found this to be a great way to make meaningful change and "own a new skill."

Okay, you're probably sorry you asked; but I hope this addresses some of your very valid concerns.

Best Regards,
Michael McDowell

TennisOne,

What about Laver winning the Grand Slam and then being forced to not play in Grand Slams as a pro and then winning the Grand Slam again when they let the pros play? How many Grand Slams would he have if he hadn't missed all those prime years? Take five years out of the middle of Federer or Sampras' careers and what would their totals be? I definitely feel all three are three of the greatest, but you have to almost say who is the greatest of his era and go with that.

Mike

Mike,

You certainly have a point. Comparing the eras is very difficult, and a player can only play against the opponents of their time in the conditions of their time.

In terms of dominance, of course, Laver is still hard to beat. People who talk about the lack of depth back in 1969 when ‘the Rocket’ won his second grand slam would do well to consider how many great players Laver had to beat to win those four tournaments. Okay, the first few rounds were hardly much of a trial, but to take home the trophy remained no small feat.

In assessing Laver, it is worth considering his ‘missed’ five years, 1963-7, during which he couldn’t enter amateur tennis tournaments (i.e. the slams). It is true that these were five of his most dominant and formidable years. It is also true that he probably would have won many of these tournaments had they been open. On the flip side, though, he would almost certainly not have won the six majors he accumulated between 1960 and 1962, the year in which he won his first ‘grand slam’. Remember that the best player in the world in 1962 was Ken Rosewall, not Laver. It was only really by 1965 that Laver had the edge against Rosewall, and even then he wasn’t exactly supreme–pros like Hoad and even the aging Pancho Gonzales were genuine rivals for most of this period.

Then, of course, there were great champions like Jack Kramer, Don Budge–the first man to win the ‘grand slam’ and Bill Tilden. Kramer and Budge had only brief amateur careers and totally missed many of their best playing years during WWII.

Perhaps, if anything, it’s possible to say Federer is the greatest player whose career has been entirely within the open era (Sampras has always been my personal favorite, and I think he played unbelievably brilliant tennis, but his results just weren’t as consistent as Federer’s or as good on clay). To think that there was a runaway best or greatest, though, is probably a mistake. Of course, if Federer keeps winning for another ten years I may have to eat those words.

Adam

TennisOne,

Simply can’t apply the ten year rule to tennis. Completely ridiculous. I was a decent street player, probably 3.5. Good backhand, not much of a forehand, pretty decent serve and volley game.Took three years of lessons and some practice to get to about a 4.8 level. Another year would have gotten to 5.0. If someone is a good athlete and picks up a racquet, could easily go from beginner to 5.0 in several years. Your point is well made, but ten years to get to a certain level in tennis is way too much. - Robert

Robert,

Perhaps at 5.0 I set the bar too low in terms of the 10 year rule. As you point out, you were able to get close to it in a relatively few years. The 10 year rule is really for world-class levels of performance skills, and that's probably a 6.5 or 7.0.

Best,
Kim

TennisOne,

As always, I have read with great interest your thoughts and find many interesting ideas and thoughts as they relate to our junior player development. I do find the mental visualizing interesting but doubt the usefulness on junior development.

I constantly use the 10,000 hour model when teaching young players. It is most helpful with parents that are expecting the development of their child too quickly. I tell many players that are experiencing disappointing results that the time will come when it all comes together. Usually it starts showing up piece by piece on the practice court and then they will find themselves winning a tournament they could not have imagined. I preach that "the winning will come when it is not important".

Question. I have developed numerous state, southern, and national juniors. Their time on the court is generally only 40% competitive play. Most of the time is spent on situational drills to enhance muscle memory on stressful points. Of course time is spent on stroke development too. I generally do not introduce the slice and drop shot until 13 years old because most juniors are not mature enough to know when to use the slice. In fact, any player missing two slices in a row have conditioning/running to reinforce that it is not a shot for lazy feet.

You feedback would be informative.

Thanks, Randy

Randy,

Thanks your generous comment. It's very interesting about your development model, which obviously has been very successful. In his book, " The Talent Code: Greatness Isn't Born. It's Grown. Here's How," Daniel Coyle has a full chapter on the Russian Spartak, a small, run-down tennis school outside of Moscow that has produced more than 20 top twenty players over the last several years. Here they don't even let the young players on a court (much less engage in competitive play) until they've mastered their tennis techniques. From what I've read in the performance literature, the performance experts seem to agree that deliberative practice is a superior developmental tool than competitive play. And that competitive play can even restrict development (performers afraid of failing will stick to what they know). More to all this in a subsequent article.

Congratulations on your program and would love to hear more.

Best,
Kim

TennisOne,

Well if practicing physically improvements =24% and mental rehearsal =23% it would suggest that a routine combining both methods would guarantee some very definite improvements above and beyond if either were done alone. However it is very difficult to convince most ever day players to even consider visualization or mental rehearsal. A friend of mine fellow player in senior tennis some how hit a log jam in trying to improve his game was given a birthday gift of a DVD with relaxing and visual and mental rehearsal and post relaxation suggestions and within a month more or less he became a very much improved player who has continued to get better. And even though other players of the group was informed what he had done they made fun of the idea and regarded it as some kind of new age mumbo jumbo. However the proof is in the pudding I am convinced. Excellent article very good information. - CLB

Hi,

Thanks for your note. Yes, I think most performance experts agree that some form of visualization, done correctly, will enhance development. As to what degree, I haven't seen the data on this. In terms of the story of your friend, I agree that we're all a bit too quick to dismiss ideas that sound strange or out of the norm. But indeed, the proof is in the pudding.

Best,
Kim

TennisOne,

I think your idea of making tennis a lifetime sport with achievements based on skill not just results is a great idea. You should run with that. Hopefully you have some pull with the USPTR. This would give the teaching pros incentive for continued learning - students would benefit.

It would also help us students to have something else to focus on - something we can control. It gives us the game back. And it becomes something we can achieve even if we start playing after 35 - like I did.

I play doubles and just recently returned to the states to play in a city league. My international friends in Thailand were very fair - we switched up partners a lot and good calls were the mainstay. We argued about other stuff, politics mainly, but the calls were honest.

Since returning to the states I've been assigned one partner. She calls balls out sometimes, and I've even had to over rule her to be fair. You know, over ruling your partner's call regularly does not make a good team..) I could see the skills accomplishment performance measure as a way to bring back player motivation (mine especially) in a culture only interested in results. Here honest results-not calls made in the heat of the moment-could be dependable, measurable, and motivational. There is no medal for honesty, but honesty is still worth more than a ranking.

What do you know? Adding your skills performance measure may just help tennis become a 'character building' social sport. Market it that way, and we'll attract more people to our sport. (That would be so ironic to me since my parents kept us kids all out of tennis because McEnroe was such a temper tantrum prone millionaire spoiled brat. We all laughed at him and ridiculed the sport.) That was in the 70's though. Sampras and Federer are very professional. Still, it would help the sport in the long run if changes were made.

Good Luck!
Kimberly Hofhiens

Hi Kimberly,

Thanks for your thoughtful and encouraging letter. In one of my letter responses, I brought up a tennis program that I didn't know existed when I wrote my editorial: Grips Program (gripsprogram.com). When I looked at their system, it was very much in accordance to the Martial Arts model I suggested. In fact, they've included some levels of off-court testing, where the student must pass tests about the rules of the game and sportsmanship before they proceed to on-court testing. So they've designed their system from the ground up to reinforce the right values, and their different colored grips they award for different skill levels, is exactly the brown belt, black belt model I described. I don't know too much more about Grips, but my hat is off to them. I think it's evidence that there are some better ways to go about organizing the sport that will inculcate the better values--and ironically (because less focus on results-only) better results!

Best Regards,
Kim Shanley

TennisOne,

What a very interesting article ( Change the Way We Measure, Change the Game) with many, many innovative new ideas. But, in today's USTA League tennis, which seems to be all the USTA cares about because age-group tournament tennis doesn't "grow" the game, more players are interested in playing as low as the can to go to Nationals. Less and less players are striving to get better and move up a 1/2 point or more. Sectional champions here in Florida have players right off a college tennis team playing 4.0! It's all about going to Nationals.

 Would love to see some of your ideas incorporated.

Scott Harrison, Owner

Hi Scott,

Thanks for your thoughtful letter….at the risk of sounding showy, I'll quote Einstein about this situation, “We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”  I think we need to rethink these issues about cheating, ranking, learning, at a deeper level. And have some faith that there is something besides the status quo--however deeply entrenched and unmovable it appears. I believe we've institutionalized some negative values (cheating) and some disincentives to learning. People wring their hands about pro athletes using performance enhancing drugs--and quite rightly, label it a form of cheating. But what about the sandbagging you allude to?  And the rest of the cheating going on in the amateur tennis ranks?  As a culture, isn't it clear that we worship results--and will do almost anything to produce them? Ironically, peak performance experts all say the same thing: focus too much on results, and your results will suffer.  The current results-only rating system encourages sandbagging, other forms of cheating, and non-learning. And followed too rigidly, it prevents players, both amateur and professional, from reaching their full potential (why Sampras' story is important).

Let me add one other idea for you and our viewers to ponder.If we look beyond the narrow confines of tennis to other areas of endeavor...let's take the military for example.  There every single person in the military is awarded a "rank" based upon multiple factors, but primarily upon skills and performance. Every service person wears--and with  great pride usually--a stripe or medal signifying their rank to everyone else. Most generally aspire to achieve the next rank. Could tennis use some of the psychology of this...provide insignias, buttons, stripes--that would (like brown and black belts), so that everyone at the club would recognize their achievement?  If it were subtle enough, I think it might be possible. I certainly believe it would be possible in development programs (see my response to Constantine's letter).

Pardon the cliche, but I think tennis needs to think outside the box, and introduce motivations (skills focus and enhancement) and de-motivations (for cheating) from other fields.

Thanks again for writing,
Best Regards, Kim Shanley

TennisOne,

To a certain extent I agree with measuring a player's rating using the combination of skills and results similar to martial arts.– However, to make this work, the sport may also have to change the way players are pitted against each other.– I have never participated in martial arts much less the competitive side of it so I may be totally off base.– I would have to imagine though that a martial arts competition is divided by the participants skill level (i.e. the color of their belt) and physical characteristic such as weight.– If weight is not taken into consideration, the competition will never be fair.– Just like in boxing, if you pit a light weight against a heavy weight, if both have equal skills, the heavy weight will almost always win.– In tennis, it may not be the weight (in fact that maybe a detriment if the player is too heavy).– It could simply be the height.– Two players of equal skill will not necessarily mean a fair match.– If the other player is taller, the taller player will have an advantage.– A 6'2 Roger Federer will almost always be beaten by a 6'10 Roger Federer.– As good as the argument to use the martial arts rating as the basis for tennis rating, I'm afraid until this flaw is overcome it cannot be used.

Robert Garrucho

Hi Robert,

I think weight is a major factor in boxing, as you describe. However, I don't think I can agree that size is of equal importance in tennis. I believe Rod Laver, whom some consider the best tennis player ever, was around 5 foot, 8 inches. And perhaps a 6'10" Roger Federer would be a 6'2" Roger Federer, but since never going to happen, I don't think we need to change the rating system according to the player's height. Height brings certain advantages for a tennis player (reach, angle into the court on the serve), but it also brings disadvantages (quickness, body/hand/feet coordination). The 6'2" Roger Federer regularly beats all players taller than he is, including a few 6'10" players (Ivo Karlovic for example).

Thanks for contributing,
Best Regards, Kim Shanley

TennisOne,

Just wanted to say thanks for a thought-provoking article "Change the Way We Measure, Change the Game." It's a great proposal, and one that I think would resonate with the many players I know. It would be wonderful if this were proposed to the USTA in a more formal way, or perhaps implemented at the local or regional level to start. Please consider passing your suggestion on to your contacts at the USTA and/or USTA Norcal!

Many thanks for great articles and website,
Steve Turnbull

Hi Steve,

Thanks for your letter, and I will keep trying to explore a better approach with the powers that be.

Best Regards,
Kim Shanley

TennisOne,

I have been playing for 40 years, love the game, and have felt that the existing NTRP rating system is far , far from perfect. I read your article and would agree that we need to implement some changes and I like everything you have suggested.

Now, the question is how do you get the USTA to make any change?

Thanks,
Georgia

Hi Georgia,

Thanks for your letter. The first thing to do is start a dialogue….let's see the ideas that flow from that and then how to consolidate them into real change.

Best Regards, Kim Shanley

TennisOne,

I was really intrigued to read Kim Shanley's article advocating changes to the NTRP system, but it came from an entirely different perspective than I expected. Allow me to share mine.

After muddling through an underwhelming JV college tennis experience at a Division III school, I have played on NTRP teams and in NTRP tournaments for the past 10+ years. I have gone to 4.5 Nationals three times with three different teams. I have finished the year ranked #1 in Men's 5.0 Singles for Northern California a handful of times, and won the 5.0 Grand Prix twice.

Not once during the past decade has it ever crossed my mind that the NTRP system suffers as a result of choking. Quite the contrary, in fact. The NTRP system suffers from a chronic case of egregious sandbagging. And it gets worse every year.

Notice how I played on 4.5 teams (when eligible -- my rating has fluctuated between 4.5 to 5.5 over the past several years, which is another problem altogether), while competing in 5.0 tournaments. Why the difference? Because I'm not good enough to do well on 5.0 teams. This, despite winning the 5.0 Grand Prix twice. I might win a 5.0 league match now and then, but I can't compete with the former Div. I college players that fill the rosters of teams at 5.0 Sectionals and Nationals, and now even 4.5s. My most recent visit to the 4.5 team Nationals in 2008 was a total waste: I got destroyed by a former college player with a 120 MPH serve, huge groundstrokes, and pinpoint precision volleys. No choking going on there.

As Shanley observes, cheating certainly is a problem, but the worst kind of cheating takes place off the court: when players under-rate themselves. The martial arts model is intriguing, but I just don't see the USTA having the resources to implement skills evaluations -- and I certainly can't see players embracing the idea. Talented but unscrupulous players will deliberately under perform for any such evaluation -- indeed, that is precisely what I saw happen when the USTA used to require "visual confirmation" of self-ratings.

And the USTA already computes ratings with numerical specificity: not just down to the tenth, but down to the hundredth decimal place. They just don't let you know what your exact number is -- ostensibly to prevent players from deliberately gaming match results to effectuate a desired rating. They do, however, allow ratings appeals -- for a non-refundable $25 fee. But they still don't tell you your "exact" rating; they just tell you whether it is within .05 of your desired rating, in which case you get moved down (no one wants to move up -- contrary to what Shanley seems to think). I've heard of numerous players appealing; never heard of a rating change. So that process has been a nice revenue-generator for the USTA, if totally useless from a player and fairness perspective.

Yes, Shanley is correct that the USTA's NTRP system is broken -- I would go so far as to say it is broken beyond repair. To be sure, it is a worthy goal to give players the opportunity to compete with comparable opponents, and thereby develop skills and build enthusiasm for our great game. But the principal result of the current system has been to encourage the vast majority of league players to cheat by under-rating themselves -- and even to throw games (if not matches) when it serves that end.

Sincerely,
John Dye

Hi John,

Thanks for your thoughtful letter and analysis. I have also heard from many players that sand-bagging is a significant problem, one more dimension of the cheating issue. And the results of cheating you’re your letter is proof, is demoralization, anger and discouragement. If this happening to you, how many others are affected in the same manner? It's a serious issue that needs to be dealt with. There are probably several measures that should be taken to minimize cheating, including more effective and objective ratings and greater sanctions for cheaters. However, beyond changes in administration, I think the fundamental issue has to be tackled: why are people cheating? This brings me back to the problem of a rating system that only focuses and rewards results. I believe a skills rating system would provide a counter-balance to this exaggerated emphasis on results. Not only would it lessen the incentive to cheat, it would lessen the tendency to choke. I think there is choking at all levels of tennis, including the very highest. If you listen to McEnroe announcing on TV, he was reiterated this point dozens of times. 

Best Regards, Kim Shanley

TennisOne,

You should know that the USTA (at least for Northern California) keeps rating to 2 decimal points (example; 4.05) but for some reason elects not to publish such results anymore. I recall that in +/-1995 that the years end rating book included either tenths and/or hundredths. Unfortunately, it is the rating system that also encourages players to “sand bag” so as to dominate at a lower level and a required skills evaluation would only be manipulated as are many matches (or set/games score) or visual rating in the past were. Some players would sacrifice their integrity to keep one’s rating within the players or captains goal category

Eventually the USTA does catch up to these players at regional and national championships. Bottom line is that the current system has enough checks and balances to correctly rate most of the players. And the universal truth is that 80% of the time the higher rated player (even by only 0.2 of a point) will beat a lower rated player – better skills, conditioning and/or completive drive win out. For most of the recreational players fun and enjoyment is paramount –why? Because, most of these players don’t have the innate athletic skills to compete at the higher levels. But that doesn’t stop them from playing against their own peer group and competing on a team, that may rarely win, and yet they still flock to the USTA leagues. Some with determination and drive will improve and strive for that next level, most will be content with just staying active, competent and hopefully “relish” in an occasional win over a better player.

Results matter but, only a player’s personal “self determination” for improvement will motivate him to do so. And, the “self confidence”, time and resources needed for that is unfortunately too difficult for most players to overcome. I don’t think a “black belt” rating system would alter that. Most players know their weaknesses and probably realize if they only practiced more they would improve however they rarely do and opt for a fun social game with friends.

Ken Neumeister (NTRP 4.5 probably 4.1)

Hi Ken,

Thanks for your thoughtful letter and analysis. While the USTA may catch up with many cheating sandbaggers if they make it to sectionals or nationals, I'm not sure that's an adequate monitoring system. That stills leaves hundreds of teams and thousands of players affected negatively by sandbagging. The issue of cheating is broader, in my view. It also covers cheating on line calls, etc. As I wrote, I believe the sport needs to look at why players are cheating, and try to institute some changes that minimize the temptation and punish the attempt. In the long run, if the operating "ethic" of players is to ostracize and scorn cheating (rather than wink and laugh about it), I think the game will change for the better.

The books I cite in my article would refute your argument that "most players don't have the innate athletic skills to compete at the higher levels." While most people think that innate talent is a huge and determining factor in whether someone reaches a high performance level, scientific studies of this theory have disproven it. This is the major point in Geoff Colvin's Talent is Overrated: What Really Separates World Class Performance from Everybody Else. Scientists have measure the talent levels of beginners in all areas, piano playing, chess, and tennis. And they have found no almost no correlation between talent and high performance achievement. The only factor they've identified is how much "deliberative practice" time if put in by various achievers. 

Under the system of deliberative practice, nearly anyone can achieve world class performance if they put in 10,000 hours (but that is a huge number of hours and requires world class passion and commitment!). I realize that you--as well as most people--may greet these observations with skepticism. All I can say is read the books and then judge the validity of the conclusion. If Colvin and these other researchers are correct, nothing except the commitment to many hours of deliberative practice separates any tennis player from achieving higher levels of performance. Therefore, I think we could institute a system which encourages more deliberative practice--and provides pride and prestige in moving up the skills ladder. This would be good for them, their game, and the sport.

Best Regards,
Kim Shanley