Chuck Kriese on tennis
Michael Scarpitti
"High Tech Equipment Teases
Players into Trying to ""Zone"
It is yery interesting to me as a coach that
since the advent of the super-rackets in the
mid-l980s, players do a very poor job of
undetstanding and knowing where there mid-
range or average game iS at. The High tech
equipment fools them into thinking that their
norm is much better than it usually is.
I believe that they therefore try very stupid shots
because they Just don't have an accurate
barometer for their shot making abilities. Many
players never really learn what they can and
can't do with the ball consistently. Coaches
complain these days continually that
players neither have the will nor the know-how to
develop fundamentals that will hold up under
pressure. I believe that this is one of the real
tragedies of the equipment revolution and is
a prevalent problem for learning in any sport
whenever equipment becomes more important
than the skill level that is involved.
H Holbrook
Yeah, I like Coach Kriese's book. Here's what else he has to say about
the racket revolution:
"Before any concepts about technique and stroke work can be discussed,
it is important that coaches understand just what evolved in the game of
tennis during the 1980s and recognize the impact made by racquet
technology. The 1980 and early 1990s were very confusing times for
anyone in the tennis teaching business. With the advent of the Prince
oversize racquet in 1978-79 and the wide body super power racquets that
followed, playing and teaching techniques would never be the same.
Actually the racquet revolution turned careers of players and tennis
teachers upside down over night.
Before 1970, the majority of players played with three or four very
similar racquets. These produced and required very uniform teaching
styles as well. If good technical skills were not used, the player
could not produce a consistent or well-struck shot. The hitting surface
of these racquets was small, requiring good linear footwork techniques.
The better that ones technique became, the better the player he or she
would become. Players would therefore devote countless hours to their
technical skills as they searched for the perfect stroke.
[....]
...the mid 1970s really marked the start of the revolution. The game of
tennis and the way in which people played it would change forever.
[...]
It is very interesting that teaching and playing styles did not change
immediately because everyone who first started using the bigger or wider
racquets had originally learned to play with the small traditional
equipment. The real changes in the game started in the late 1980s when
a whole new generation of players were coming up who had started out
playing the game from the start with the bigger and wider racquets. For
many traditional teachers, this was hard to adjust to. A variety of
strange stroking styles started to yield positive results in
competition. Power more than placement and precision became the norm.
From Coaching Tennis, Chuck Kriese, pg 37
So, while Coach Kriese decries the evolution of the game from elegant
traditional style, to modern power, he, at least, understands why it
happened, accepts it, and continues to teach and encourage his players,
and others, to reach their potential as tennis players *playing the
modern way*.
Kreise teaches modern tennis.
Bill Smith
game from elegant
traditional style, to modern power, he, at least, understands why it
happened, accepts it, and continues to teach and encourage his players,
and others, to reach their potential as tennis players *playing the
modern way*.
Kreise teaches modern tennis. <<<
It won't matter HH, as I have discovered Woody doesn't even read what he
himself posts. Counter arguement with his own reference material? You would
think... but alas, we would be wrong.
Bill Smith
Burlingame, CA
Fred McGherkin-Squirter
"H Holbrook" <hhol...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:3DE28807...@rcn.com...
>
>
> Michael Scarpitti wrote:
> > Chuck Kriese, Coaching Tennis, 1997, p. 148
> >
> >
>
I not one of these guys that wants to bring back the wooden racquet. The
new technology has changed the game and it has brought a lot of good stuff
with it. But having covered myself from this attack, there is a lot of
truth in what Kriese is saying. I have heard a lot of great players
including Laver and Sampras say that the key to being great is to play
within yourself. People don't seem to understand this at all. The best
players are hitting shots (almost) all of the time that they think they can
make and they fully expect to get. If Safin, Roddick and Phillipousis
expect to get the shots that they hit, then they are at least a little
confused - this is what Kriese is talking about. 20 years ago Safin,
Roddick and Flip wouldn't have beaten anyone - now they can win grand slams.
I have to say that this does irritate me a bit - that a guy who is just out
there having a bash can end up in a GS final, or even win one. The new
racquet technology (as well as people being bigger and stronger with more
intense training regimes etc) has allowed guys who I would consider NOT good
players in the traditional sense to mix it with those I consider to be the
really good players.
I think that the most interesting question is, "would the likes of Safin,
Roddick and Flip be better players (higher ranked, better results) if they
learned to play within themselves?" A-ha. Would they be better if they
went for less of a bash and instead of hitting shots that go out by 10 feet
or into the back fence on the full played shots that they could hit in 95%
of the time? Would they win more or less if they did this. The 'Scarpitti'
in me (sorry Mike:-) wants to think that they would be better. The theory
being that to win a point/make a passing shot etc there is a certain level
of shot you need to play and anything harder or more fancy than this is a
waste of effort and an unnecessary risk. But I'm not really sure - maybe
their style of play gets them the best results. If this is the case then I
suppose people like me who complain about this should probably shut-up,
because that's tennis nowadays.
H Holbrook
Fred McGherkin-Squirter wrote:
> "H Holbrook" <hhol...@rcn.com> wrote in message
> news:3DE28807...@rcn.com...
>
If Safin, Roddick and Phillipousis
> expect to get the shots that they hit, then they are at least a little
> confused - this is what Kriese is talking about. 20 years ago Safin,
> Roddick and Flip wouldn't have beaten anyone - now they can win grand slams.
Well, 20 years ago Safin, Roddick and Flip were babies, so no, they
wouldn't have beaten anyone. And I'm pretty sure they didn't, either.
Since you can't put the 20 year old guys into 1982, with the kind of
tennis training, etc., that would have existed for them in their
development, you can't say that they would or would not have had success.
But more to the point of the type of power game we have now, subtle
skills *are* somewhat diminished. Players are harder to fool with touch
shots than they used to be. Players keep the ball in play much more
easily when put on the defensive. Players get to a lot more balls than
before.
In today's game you have to play like you're walking into a stiff
breeze, leaning forward, pushing harder and harder. The moment you let
your foot off the accelerator and try a touch shot, the breeze gets you
back on your heels and you can be overwhelmed quickly. It's not so much
that today's players don't have the deftness of their forebears, it's
that deftness just don't cut it anymore.
Fred McGherkin-Squirter
>
>
> Fred McGherkin-Squirter wrote:
> > "H Holbrook" <hhol...@rcn.com> wrote in message
> > news:3DE28807...@rcn.com...
> >
> If Safin, Roddick and Phillipousis
> > expect to get the shots that they hit, then they are at least a little
> > confused - this is what Kriese is talking about. 20 years ago Safin,
> > Roddick and Flip wouldn't have beaten anyone - now they can win grand
slams.
>
> Well, 20 years ago Safin, Roddick and Flip were babies, so no, they
> wouldn't have beaten anyone. And I'm pretty sure they didn't, either.
Ha. I thought someone would say this, smart-arse:-)
> Since you can't put the 20 year old guys into 1982, with the kind of
> tennis training, etc., that would have existed for them in their
> development, you can't say that they would or would not have had success.
I know what you are saying, and it's a good point - probably they would have
played their tennis in a way that was suited to the conditions of that time.
But the point I am really trying to make is that in 1980 they would not have
beaten anyone playing the way they do now (i.e. going for big shots all the
time that only come off 40% of the time, or whatever). Looking at these
guys play you wonder if they could in fact play consistent tennis. It's not
as if bashers didn't exist before 1990. They did. They just didn't win any
matches - certainly not enough to put themselves on the pro-tour.
> But more to the point of the type of power game we have now, subtle
> skills *are* somewhat diminished. Players are harder to fool with touch
> shots than they used to be. Players keep the ball in play much more
> easily when put on the defensive. Players get to a lot more balls than
> before.
Where did you get this from? I don't think that is right. What are you
saying? That players are faster now, or have better anticipation? (or are
you saying the racquets are longer:-) The difference in footspeed or
anticipation between guys like Borg, Connors etc and today's players would
be minimal, if anything at all. In fact it would be easier to wrongfoot
guys like Safin, Roddick and Flip than lots of past players - these guys are
bigger, heavier and quite noticeably slower. The heavier training regimes
would probably mean that today's players have a bit of an edge in this
department but the impact of this would be insignificant compared to the
changes that racquet technology has produced.
> In today's game you have to play like you're walking into a stiff
> breeze, leaning forward, pushing harder and harder. The moment you let
> your foot off the accelerator and try a touch shot, the breeze gets you
> back on your heels and you can be overwhelmed quickly. It's not so much
> that today's players don't have the deftness of their forebears, it's
> that deftness just don't cut it anymore.
Firstly I don't think there is much, if any, less drop volleying, drop shots
or lobs now than there was 20 or 30 years ago (although there are more
topspin lobs). A lob was just as likely to be smashed for a winner by
Newcombe or Laver as it is by any player today, possibly moreso. Rafter
went through USA opens and Wimbledons playing plenty of drop volleys.
Maybe the point you are trying to make is that the shot that players used to
approach the net with would get them passed 9 out of 10 these days. A
typical baseline rally shot of 20 years ago would just be hit for a winner
straight away now. Maybe (but not certainly) that is right, but isn't that
a result of the racquet technology, which simply supports what I am saying.
I agree with your stiff breeze analogy, but it's always been a bit like that
anyway, even if it didn't look like it. Even in the old days on clay you
still had to have enough on each shot so that the other guy didn't get on
top of you. I can tell you from personal experience that there is nothing
more depressing than being on a clay court where the other guy is in control
of every rally.
H Holbrook
This is why these kinds of comparisons are futile. If these 3 were
transplanted into 1982, with their current rackets, the opponents would
be counting points, not games. And you can't transplant their style of
play to 1982 and give them wood rackets, since their style of play is
dependent on the power and ease of strokemaking that the new rackets
give them.
Clearly, just hitting hard with a wood racket was not ever enough to win
a match at the pro level.
>
>
>>But more to the point of the type of power game we have now, subtle
>>skills *are* somewhat diminished. Players are harder to fool with touch
>>shots than they used to be. Players keep the ball in play much more
>>easily when put on the defensive. Players get to a lot more balls than
>>before.
>
>
> Where did you get this from? I don't think that is right. What are you
> saying? That players are faster now, or have better anticipation? (or are
> you saying the racquets are longer:-) The difference in footspeed or
> anticipation between guys like Borg, Connors etc and today's players would
> be minimal, if anything at all. In fact it would be easier to wrongfoot
> guys like Safin, Roddick and Flip than lots of past players - these guys are
> bigger, heavier and quite noticeably slower. The heavier training regimes
> would probably mean that today's players have a bit of an edge in this
> department but the impact of this would be insignificant compared to the
> changes that racquet technology has produced.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I believe that the general trend
in athletics over the past two generations has been toward faster,
better trained, quicker reflexes, stronger, and less fatigable athletes,
tennis players included.
>
>
>>In today's game you have to play like you're walking into a stiff
>>breeze, leaning forward, pushing harder and harder. The moment you let
>>your foot off the accelerator and try a touch shot, the breeze gets you
>>back on your heels and you can be overwhelmed quickly. It's not so much
>>that today's players don't have the deftness of their forebears, it's
>>that deftness just don't cut it anymore.
>
>
> Firstly I don't think there is much, if any, less drop volleying, drop shots
> or lobs now than there was 20 or 30 years ago (although there are more
> topspin lobs).
I think today's touch shots are much better than the ones 20 years ago
because they have to be. You don't see them used as often because they
have to be almost perfect to be effective.
A lob was just as likely to be smashed for a winner by
> Newcombe or Laver as it is by any player today, possibly moreso. Rafter
> went through USA opens and Wimbledons playing plenty of drop volleys.
Rafter is a singular entity, unfortunately.
>
> Maybe the point you are trying to make is that the shot that players used to
> approach the net with would get them passed 9 out of 10 these days.
That's not all I'm saying, but it's certainly part of it.
A
> typical baseline rally shot of 20 years ago would just be hit for a winner
> straight away now. Maybe (but not certainly) that is right, but isn't that
> a result of the racquet technology, which simply supports what I am saying.
The new rackets make it a risk worth taking, because the margin for
error is so much larger. Borg used to say that he would aim for spots
18-24 inches inside the lines. Today's pros aim for the lines. And hit
them.
>
> I agree with your stiff breeze analogy, but it's always been a bit like that
> anyway, even if it didn't look like it. Even in the old days on clay you
> still had to have enough on each shot so that the other guy didn't get on
> top of you. I can tell you from personal experience that there is nothing
> more depressing than being on a clay court where the other guy is in control
> of every rally.
I understand exactly what you mean. My stiff breeze analogy was meant
to apply to pros, though. Recreational players can afford to cough up
an occasional short ball and live to tell about it. Pros can't.
Fred McGherkin-Squirter
Right. I suppose I am just making an aesthetic critique that a player who
(or rather a playing style that) would have been considered crap 20 yrs ago
can now win a grand slam. There may be people around that would much rather
see guys (& girls) bashing the shit out of everything and missing 60% if the
40% that go in look great. I personally wouldn't understand this point of
view.
> >>But more to the point of the type of power game we have now, subtle
> >>skills *are* somewhat diminished. Players are harder to fool with touch
> >>shots than they used to be. Players keep the ball in play much more
> >>easily when put on the defensive. Players get to a lot more balls than
> >>before.
> >
> >
> > Where did you get this from? I don't think that is right. What are you
> > saying? That players are faster now, or have better anticipation? (or
are
> > you saying the racquets are longer:-) The difference in footspeed or
> > anticipation between guys like Borg, Connors etc and today's players
would
> > be minimal, if anything at all. In fact it would be easier to wrongfoot
> > guys like Safin, Roddick and Flip than lots of past players - these guys
are
> > bigger, heavier and quite noticeably slower. The heavier training
regimes
> > would probably mean that today's players have a bit of an edge in this
> > department but the impact of this would be insignificant compared to the
> > changes that racquet technology has produced.
>
> You are entitled to your opinion, but I believe that the general trend
> in athletics over the past two generations has been toward faster,
> better trained, quicker reflexes, stronger, and less fatigable athletes,
> tennis players included.
To a degree yes, but there is also the other side of the coin, where big,
tall strong guys that can bash their serves down are up there in the
rankings. There are players from 40-50 years ago (i.e. Rosewall) that would
have been quicker, more agile, with faster reflexes and probably just as fit
as Roddick, or Phillipousis.
> >>In today's game you have to play like you're walking into a stiff
> >>breeze, leaning forward, pushing harder and harder. The moment you let
> >>your foot off the accelerator and try a touch shot, the breeze gets you
> >>back on your heels and you can be overwhelmed quickly. It's not so much
> >>that today's players don't have the deftness of their forebears, it's
> >>that deftness just don't cut it anymore.
> >
> >
> > Firstly I don't think there is much, if any, less drop volleying, drop
shots
> > or lobs now than there was 20 or 30 years ago (although there are more
> > topspin lobs).
>
> I think today's touch shots are much better than the ones 20 years ago
> because they have to be. You don't see them used as often because they
> have to be almost perfect to be effective.
Maybe - I'm not sure about this.
> A lob was just as likely to be smashed for a winner by
> > Newcombe or Laver as it is by any player today, possibly moreso. Rafter
> > went through USA opens and Wimbledons playing plenty of drop volleys.
>
> Rafter is a singular entity, unfortunately.
>
> >
> > Maybe the point you are trying to make is that the shot that players
used to
> > approach the net with would get them passed 9 out of 10 these days.
>
> That's not all I'm saying, but it's certainly part of it.
>
>
> A
> > typical baseline rally shot of 20 years ago would just be hit for a
winner
> > straight away now. Maybe (but not certainly) that is right, but isn't
that
> > a result of the racquet technology, which simply supports what I am
saying.
>
> The new rackets make it a risk worth taking, because the margin for
> error is so much larger. Borg used to say that he would aim for spots
> 18-24 inches inside the lines. Today's pros aim for the lines. And hit
> them.
Borg could hit the lines when he needed to, "don't you worry about that".
Ken Rosewell could hit net cords on purpose. The point is that Borg knew
when he did and didn't have to go for the lines. What's the point of going
for the line rather than a foot inside it when it won't make any difference
to the result? Particularly when it might miss? Today, the same as
yesterday, good (by my standard:-) players hit the lines when they need to
and when they are pretty sure they can make it. Stupid (by my standard:-)
players go for it when it's not on, or they think they can make shots which
they can't really make - either way they are stupid players (I think).
> > I agree with your stiff breeze analogy, but it's always been a bit like
that
> > anyway, even if it didn't look like it. Even in the old days on clay
you
> > still had to have enough on each shot so that the other guy didn't get
on
> > top of you. I can tell you from personal experience that there is
nothing
> > more depressing than being on a clay court where the other guy is in
control
> > of every rally.
>
> I understand exactly what you mean. My stiff breeze analogy was meant
> to apply to pros, though. Recreational players can afford to cough up
> an occasional short ball and live to tell about it. Pros can't.
I know. I was referring to pros.
H Holbrook
Fred McGherkin-Squirter wrote:
> "H Holbrook" <hhol...@rcn.com> wrote in message
>
>>Clearly, just hitting hard with a wood racket was not ever enough to win
>>a match at the pro level.
>
>
> Right. I suppose I am just making an aesthetic critique that a player who
> (or rather a playing style that) would have been considered crap 20 yrs ago
> can now win a grand slam. There may be people around that would much rather
> see guys (& girls) bashing the shit out of everything and missing 60% if the
> 40% that go in look great. I personally wouldn't understand this point of
> view.
Today's pros have a greater success rate than 40/60.
Strength plays a much bigger role in tennis now than before. Ken
Rosewall would be more like Oliver Rochus today.
>
>
>>>>In today's game you have to play like you're walking into a stiff
>>>>breeze, leaning forward, pushing harder and harder. The moment you let
>>>>your foot off the accelerator and try a touch shot, the breeze gets you
>>>>back on your heels and you can be overwhelmed quickly. It's not so much
>>>>that today's players don't have the deftness of their forebears, it's
>>>>that deftness just don't cut it anymore.
>>>
>>>
>>>Firstly I don't think there is much, if any, less drop volleying, drop
>>
> shots
>
>>>or lobs now than there was 20 or 30 years ago (although there are more
>>>topspin lobs).
>>
>>I think today's touch shots are much better than the ones 20 years ago
>>because they have to be. You don't see them used as often because they
>>have to be almost perfect to be effective.
>
>
> Maybe - I'm not sure about this.
Offer up a less than perfect drop shot against an ATP pro and see for
yourself.
>
>>The new rackets make it a risk worth taking, because the margin for
>>error is so much larger. Borg used to say that he would aim for spots
>>18-24 inches inside the lines. Today's pros aim for the lines. And hit
>>them.
>
>
> Borg could hit the lines when he needed to, "don't you worry about that".
> Ken Rosewell could hit net cords on purpose. The point is that Borg knew
> when he did and didn't have to go for the lines. What's the point of going
> for the line rather than a foot inside it when it won't make any difference
> to the result? Particularly when it might miss? Today, the same as
> yesterday, good (by my standard:-) players hit the lines when they need to
> and when they are pretty sure they can make it. Stupid (by my standard:-)
> players go for it when it's not on, or they think they can make shots which
> they can't really make - either way they are stupid players (I think).
Borg was quoted, as far as I know, as saying he never aimed for the
lines, but always a foot or two inside. He may have aimed for the
lines, too, but I never read that he said he did.
Of course, it was a lot easier to aim for netcords (I highly doubt
anyone did, btw) and lines when the incoming ball was coming off a wood
racket than it would be today.
>
>
>>>I agree with your stiff breeze analogy, but it's always been a bit like
>>
> that
>
>>>anyway, even if it didn't look like it. Even in the old days on clay
>>
> you
>
>>>still had to have enough on each shot so that the other guy didn't get
>>
> on
>
>>>top of you. I can tell you from personal experience that there is
>>
> nothing
>
>>>more depressing than being on a clay court where the other guy is in
>>
> control
>
>>>of every rally.
>>
>>I understand exactly what you mean. My stiff breeze analogy was meant
>>to apply to pros, though. Recreational players can afford to cough up
>>an occasional short ball and live to tell about it. Pros can't.
>
>
> I know. I was referring to pros.
Oh. I thought you said "I can tell you from personal experience..."
Are you, or were you, a pro?
Fred McGherkin-Squirter
Yes, so I'm saying that you would be pushing it to say that these guys that
now get by on strength, size and height are still much faster, fitter adn
more agile than the players of 20 yrs ago.
> >>>>In today's game you have to play like you're walking into a stiff
> >>>>breeze, leaning forward, pushing harder and harder. The moment you
let
> >>>>your foot off the accelerator and try a touch shot, the breeze gets
you
> >>>>back on your heels and you can be overwhelmed quickly. It's not so
much
> >>>>that today's players don't have the deftness of their forebears, it's
> >>>>that deftness just don't cut it anymore.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Firstly I don't think there is much, if any, less drop volleying, drop
> >>
> > shots
> >
> >>>or lobs now than there was 20 or 30 years ago (although there are more
> >>>topspin lobs).
> >>
> >>I think today's touch shots are much better than the ones 20 years ago
> >>because they have to be. You don't see them used as often because they
> >>have to be almost perfect to be effective.
> >
> >
> > Maybe - I'm not sure about this.
>
> Offer up a less than perfect drop shot against an ATP pro and see for
> yourself.
Sure, but is that any different to 20, or 40 years ago (except that more
tennis was on grass then).
> >>The new rackets make it a risk worth taking, because the margin for
> >>error is so much larger. Borg used to say that he would aim for spots
> >>18-24 inches inside the lines. Today's pros aim for the lines. And hit
> >>them.
> >
> >
> > Borg could hit the lines when he needed to, "don't you worry about
that".
> > Ken Rosewell could hit net cords on purpose. The point is that Borg
knew
> > when he did and didn't have to go for the lines. What's the point of
going
> > for the line rather than a foot inside it when it won't make any
difference
> > to the result? Particularly when it might miss? Today, the same as
> > yesterday, good (by my standard:-) players hit the lines when they need
to
> > and when they are pretty sure they can make it. Stupid (by my
standard:-)
> > players go for it when it's not on, or they think they can make shots
which
> > they can't really make - either way they are stupid players (I think).
>
> Borg was quoted, as far as I know, as saying he never aimed for the
> lines, but always a foot or two inside. He may have aimed for the
> lines, too, but I never read that he said he did.
Well, (putting aside the fact that Borg certainly could hit the lines if and
when he wanted to) the answer to this is that Borg played tennis so he won
without having to hit the lines. Hewitt is a bit like this.
> Of course, it was a lot easier to aim for netcords (I highly doubt
> anyone did, btw) and lines when the incoming ball was coming off a wood
> racket than it would be today.
Yes, of course you are right. And another thing I thought of but forgot to
write last time is that drop shots and touch are easier to play when the
ball is coming slower. And although Ken R could hit net cords on purpose, I
assume he never tried this when it mattered
> >>>I agree with your stiff breeze analogy, but it's always been a bit like
> >>
> > that
> >
> >>>anyway, even if it didn't look like it. Even in the old days on clay
> >>
> > you
> >
> >>>still had to have enough on each shot so that the other guy didn't get
> >>
> > on
> >
> >>>top of you. I can tell you from personal experience that there is
> >>
> > nothing
> >
> >>>more depressing than being on a clay court where the other guy is in
> >>
> > control
> >
> >>>of every rally.
> >>
> >>I understand exactly what you mean. My stiff breeze analogy was meant
> >>to apply to pros, though. Recreational players can afford to cough up
> >>an occasional short ball and live to tell about it. Pros can't.
> >
> >
> > I know. I was referring to pros.
>
> Oh. I thought you said "I can tell you from personal experience..."
> Are you, or were you, a pro?
No comment ;-)
H Holbrook
Fred McGherkin-Squirter wrote:
> "H Holbrook" <hhol...@rcn.com> wrote in message
> news:3DE2E286...@rcn.com...
> >
>
> > Strength plays a much bigger role in tennis now than before. Ken
> > Rosewall would be more like Oliver Rochus today.
>
> Yes, so I'm saying that you would be pushing it to say that these guys that
> now get by on strength, size and height are still much faster, fitter adn
> more agile than the players of 20 yrs ago.
I still like their chances, since the Rosewalls and Newcombes, Drysdales and
McEnroes weren't all that much faster, fitter and more agile.
>
>
> > >>>>In today's game you have to play like you're walking into a stiff
> > >>>>breeze, leaning forward, pushing harder and harder. The moment you
> let
> > >>>>your foot off the accelerator and try a touch shot, the breeze gets
> you
> > >>>>back on your heels and you can be overwhelmed quickly. It's not so
> much
> > >>>>that today's players don't have the deftness of their forebears, it's
> > >>>>that deftness just don't cut it anymore.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>Firstly I don't think there is much, if any, less drop volleying, drop
> > >>
> > > shots
> > >
> > >>>or lobs now than there was 20 or 30 years ago (although there are more
> > >>>topspin lobs).
> > >>
> > >>I think today's touch shots are much better than the ones 20 years ago
> > >>because they have to be. You don't see them used as often because they
> > >>have to be almost perfect to be effective.
> > >
> > >
> > > Maybe - I'm not sure about this.
> >
> > Offer up a less than perfect drop shot against an ATP pro and see for
> > yourself.
>
> Sure, but is that any different to 20, or 40 years ago (except that more
> tennis was on grass then).
I think it is, yes. I believe you could fudge your way through touch shots
much more effectively then than now.
According to Borg, he hit the lines occasionally as a product of his margin for
error. Hewitt hits much more accurately than Borg did.
>
>
> > Of course, it was a lot easier to aim for netcords (I highly doubt
> > anyone did, btw) and lines when the incoming ball was coming off a wood
> > racket than it would be today.
>
> Yes, of course you are right. And another thing I thought of but forgot to
> write last time is that drop shots and touch are easier to play when the
> ball is coming slower. And although Ken R could hit net cords on purpose, I
> assume he never tried this when it mattered
I'm still not buying it.
>
>
> > >>>I agree with your stiff breeze analogy, but it's always been a bit like
> > >>
> > > that
> > >
> > >>>anyway, even if it didn't look like it. Even in the old days on clay
> > >>
> > > you
> > >
> > >>>still had to have enough on each shot so that the other guy didn't get
> > >>
> > > on
> > >
> > >>>top of you. I can tell you from personal experience that there is
> > >>
> > > nothing
> > >
> > >>>more depressing than being on a clay court where the other guy is in
> > >>
> > > control
> > >
> > >>>of every rally.
> > >>
> > >>I understand exactly what you mean. My stiff breeze analogy was meant
> > >>to apply to pros, though. Recreational players can afford to cough up
> > >>an occasional short ball and live to tell about it. Pros can't.
> > >
> > >
> > > I know. I was referring to pros.
> >
> > Oh. I thought you said "I can tell you from personal experience..."
> > Are you, or were you, a pro?
>
> No comment ;-)
Coy, huh?
Fred McGherkin-Squirter
"H Holbrook" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3DE2E72F...@verizon.net...
>
>
> Fred McGherkin-Squirter wrote:
>
> > "H Holbrook" <hhol...@rcn.com> wrote in message
> > news:3DE2E286...@rcn.com...
> > >
> >
> > > Offer up a less than perfect drop shot against an ATP pro and see for
> > > yourself.
> >
> > Sure, but is that any different to 20, or 40 years ago (except that more
> > tennis was on grass then).
>
> I think it is, yes. I believe you could fudge your way through touch
shots
> much more effectively then than now.
I'm not sure about that. Maybe.
<snip>
> > >
> > > Borg was quoted, as far as I know, as saying he never aimed for the
> > > lines, but always a foot or two inside. He may have aimed for the
> > > lines, too, but I never read that he said he did.
> >
> > Well, (putting aside the fact that Borg certainly could hit the lines if
and
> > when he wanted to) the answer to this is that Borg played tennis so he
won
> > without having to hit the lines. Hewitt is a bit like this.
>
> According to Borg, he hit the lines occasionally as a product of his
margin for
> error. Hewitt hits much more accurately than Borg did.
I don't know about this either. You are talking about one of the best
tennis players to ever have walked onto a court. I reckon that it's a big
call to say that anyone is more accurate than Borg. In fact most good (lets
call it "top") A-grade players should be accurate enough to hit the lines,
if they were inclined to try for them. Particularly on a down-the-line
shot. Hitting the line when you are going down the line is a lot different
than hitting the line on a cross-court shot, or hitting the baseline. I
don't think anyone aims to hit the baseline, that's just too risky and not
really necessary.
> > > Of course, it was a lot easier to aim for netcords (I highly doubt
> > > anyone did, btw) and lines when the incoming ball was coming off a
wood
> > > racket than it would be today.
> >
> > Yes, of course you are right. And another thing I thought of but forgot
to
> > write last time is that drop shots and touch are easier to play when the
> > ball is coming slower. And although Ken R could hit net cords on
purpose, I
> > assume he never tried this when it mattered
>
> I'm still not buying it.
Well, it's true:-)
<snip>
> > > > I know. I was referring to pros.
> > >
> > > Oh. I thought you said "I can tell you from personal experience..."
> > > Are you, or were you, a pro?
> >
> > No comment ;-)
>
> Coy, huh?
I have no idea what you are talking about :-)
H Holbrook
Fred McGherkin-Squirter wrote:
> "H Holbrook" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:3DE2E72F...@verizon.net...
>
> > I think it is, yes. I believe you could fudge your way through touch
> shots
> > much more effectively then than now.
>
> I'm not sure about that. Maybe.
It stands to reason, due to the quicker, faster, stronger players.
>
>
> <snip>
> > > >
> > > > Borg was quoted, as far as I know, as saying he never aimed for the
> > > > lines, but always a foot or two inside. He may have aimed for the
> > > > lines, too, but I never read that he said he did.
> > >
> > > Well, (putting aside the fact that Borg certainly could hit the lines if
> and
> > > when he wanted to) the answer to this is that Borg played tennis so he
> won
> > > without having to hit the lines. Hewitt is a bit like this.
> >
> > According to Borg, he hit the lines occasionally as a product of his
> margin for
> > error. Hewitt hits much more accurately than Borg did.
>
> I don't know about this either. You are talking about one of the best
> tennis players to ever have walked onto a court. I reckon that it's a big
> call to say that anyone is more accurate than Borg. In fact most good (lets
> call it "top") A-grade players should be accurate enough to hit the lines,
> if they were inclined to try for them. Particularly on a down-the-line
> shot. Hitting the line when you are going down the line is a lot different
> than hitting the line on a cross-court shot, or hitting the baseline. I
> don't think anyone aims to hit the baseline, that's just too risky and not
> really necessary.
I'm not saying Hewitt is more accurate than Borg is, all things being equal;
that is, each playing the same game. They didn't play the same game. The
rackets and the incoming balls are profoundly different, one compared to the
other. What I think is true is that Hewitt, with his modern racket, is able to
hit more accurately than Borg could with his woody. Accuracy, in my book, is
not a matter of hitting lines, it's a matter of hitting the ball exactly where
you want to, line or not.
>
>
> > > > Of course, it was a lot easier to aim for netcords (I highly doubt
> > > > anyone did, btw) and lines when the incoming ball was coming off a
> wood
> > > > racket than it would be today.
> > >
> > > Yes, of course you are right. And another thing I thought of but forgot
> to
> > > write last time is that drop shots and touch are easier to play when the
> > > ball is coming slower. And although Ken R could hit net cords on
> purpose, I
> > > assume he never tried this when it mattered
> >
> > I'm still not buying it.
>
> Well, it's true:-)
Cite?
>
>
> <snip>
> > > > > I know. I was referring to pros.
> > > >
> > > > Oh. I thought you said "I can tell you from personal experience..."
> > > > Are you, or were you, a pro?
> > >
> > > No comment ;-)
> >
> > Coy, huh?
>
> I have no idea what you are talking about :-)
Moving from coy to ignorance? Come on, what's the "personal experience" you're
tapping into?
Michael Scarpitti
That being said, it does not negate what he says in my first post, now does it?
Fred McGherkin-Squirter
>
>
> Fred McGherkin-Squirter wrote:
>
> > "H Holbrook" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > news:3DE2E72F...@verizon.net...
> >
> > > I think it is, yes. I believe you could fudge your way through touch
> > shots
> > > much more effectively then than now.
> >
> > I'm not sure about that. Maybe.
>
> It stands to reason, due to the quicker, faster, stronger players.
But I'm not convinced they are quicker/faster. They might be able to give
it more of a hammering when they get there, but I'm not convinced that
players on average are any quicker than they were 20-30 yrs ago. They are
probably slower (on average, as a group) because there are more bigger,
heavier type guys around now.
I agree, and I am not so certain as you that the guys of today, i.e. Hewitt,
Agassi, Sampras are any more accurate than the guys of 20-30 yrs ago. Of
course, like you say, it is difficult to judge because so many of the
conditions are different.
> > > > > Of course, it was a lot easier to aim for netcords (I highly doubt
> > > > > anyone did, btw) and lines when the incoming ball was coming off a
> > wood
> > > > > racket than it would be today.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, of course you are right. And another thing I thought of but
forgot
> > to
> > > > write last time is that drop shots and touch are easier to play when
the
> > > > ball is coming slower. And although Ken R could hit net cords on
> > purpose, I
> > > > assume he never tried this when it mattered
> > >
> > > I'm still not buying it.
> >
> > Well, it's true:-)
>
> Cite?
Well, ahhhhhhhh, lets just say I have "this friend" who's been on the court
with him when he's been doing it for fun. He'd probably get about 7 or 8
out of 10.
> > <snip>
> > > > > > I know. I was referring to pros.
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh. I thought you said "I can tell you from personal
experience..."
> > > > > Are you, or were you, a pro?
> > > >
> > > > No comment ;-)
> > >
> > > Coy, huh?
> >
> > I have no idea what you are talking about :-)
>
> Moving from coy to ignorance? Come on, what's the "personal experience"
you're
> tapping into?
I'm not falling for this twice in the one post :-)
Michael Scarpitti
> "H Holbrook" <hhol...@rcn.com> wrote in message
> news:3DE28807...@rcn.com...
> >
> >
> > Michael Scarpitti wrote:
> > > Chuck Kriese, Coaching Tennis, 1997, p. 148
> > >
> > >
> > > "<all the stuff about Kriese on modern raquet technology snipped>
> >
>
> I not one of these guys that wants to bring back the wooden racquet. The
> new technology has changed the game and it has brought a lot of good stuff
> with it.
Then don't complain. There are two possibilities: keep things as they
are, or go back to wood. There is no alternative of which I am aware,
except changing the courts, an impractical solution.
>But having covered myself from this attack, there is a lot of
> truth in what Kriese is saying.
Of course! Why do you think I did bring it to the group's attention?
>I have heard a lot of great players
> including Laver and Sampras say that the key to being great is to play
> within yourself. People don't seem to understand this at all. The best
> players are hitting shots (almost) all of the time that they think they can
> make and they fully expect to get. If Safin, Roddick and Phillipousis
> expect to get the shots that they hit, then they are at least a little
> confused - this is what Kriese is talking about. 20 years ago Safin,
> Roddick and Flip wouldn't have beaten anyone - now they can win grand slams.
> I have to say that this does irritate me a bit - that a guy who is just out
> there having a bash can end up in a GS final, or even win one.
Precisely.
> The new
> racquet technology (as well as people being bigger and stronger with more
> intense training regimes etc) has allowed guys who I would consider NOT good
> players in the traditional sense to mix it with those I consider to be the
> really good players.
Precisely. That's why I don't watch anymore. I hate vomitting, and
they like to keep the courts clean and dry.
>
> I think that the most interesting question is, "would the likes of Safin,
> Roddick and Flip be better players (higher ranked, better results) if they
> learned to play within themselves?" A-ha. Would they be better if they
> went for less of a bash and instead of hitting shots that go out by 10 feet
> or into the back fence on the full played shots that they could hit in 95%
> of the time? Would they win more or less if they did this. The 'Scarpitti'
> in me (sorry Mike:-) wants to think that they would be better.
(Sigh)
>The theory
> being that to win a point/make a passing shot etc there is a certain level
> of shot you need to play and anything harder or more fancy than this is a
> waste of effort and an unnecessary risk. But I'm not really sure - maybe
> their style of play gets them the best results. If this is the case then I
> suppose people like me who complain about this should probably shut-up,
> because that's tennis nowadays.
Get an airsickness bag, or call for wood.
H Holbrook
Fred McGherkin-Squirter wrote:
> "H Holbrook" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:3DE351FC...@verizon.net...
>
>>
>>Fred McGherkin-Squirter wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"H Holbrook" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>
>>It stands to reason, due to the quicker, faster, stronger players.
>
>
> But I'm not convinced they are quicker/faster. They might be able to give
> it more of a hammering when they get there, but I'm not convinced that
> players on average are any quicker than they were 20-30 yrs ago. They are
> probably slower (on average, as a group) because there are more bigger,
> heavier type guys around now.
I can only offer what I've witnessed happened to training for tennis
over the years. Conditioning, strength training, quickness development,
speed and agility training all didn't exist much before the past couple
of generations of players. They are all big components of a tennis
players regimen now. Added to that is the fact that the population of
tennis players is now much larger than a couple of generations ago, and
those that rise out of it are much more inclined to be superior
physically than the good hand/eye guys of the past.
H Holbrook
I don't have any problem with what he says at all. There are all kinds
of challenges faced by tennis players and tennis coaches, some don't
meet them as well as others. As much as you want to see it as black and
white, it isn't.
Michael Scarpitti
(snip)
>
> From Coaching Tennis, Chuck Kriese, pg 37
>
> So, while Coach Kriese decries the evolution of the game from elegant
> traditional style, to modern power, he, at least, understands why it
> happened, accepts it,
It may not have occurred to him to "challenge" it. Some people just
have a more accepting attitude. It stands to reason, however, that
since he DOES decry it, he might be persuadable to join me in a call
for a return to wood, given what he has said in print about the new
technology's influence.
H Holbrook
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
> H Holbrook <hhol...@rcn.com> wrote in message news:<3DE28807...@rcn.com>...
>
> (snip)
>
>> From Coaching Tennis, Chuck Kriese, pg 37
>>
>>So, while Coach Kriese decries the evolution of the game from elegant
>>traditional style, to modern power, he, at least, understands why it
>>happened, accepts it,
>
>
> It may not have occurred to him to "challenge" it. Some people just
> have a more accepting attitude. It stands to reason, however, that
> since he DOES decry it, he might be persuadable to join me in a call
> for a return to wood, given what he has said in print about the new
> technology's influence.
Give him a call. Chuck Kriese, Clemson University, Clemson, SC.
Frank Silbermann
>> "Coaches complain these days continually that
>> players neither have the will nor the know-how to
>> develop fundamentals that will hold up under
>> pressure. I believe that this is one of the real
>> tragedies of the equipment revolution
I understand that new racquets let you hit harder,
with more topspin, and maybe even more accurately.
But I cannot understand these racquets make it harder
for people to "play within themselves" -- i.e. to know
what sorts of shots they can and cannot consistently make.
How do more effective racquets hide that information?
Also, what are the "fundamentals that will hold up under pressure"?
Agassi seems to play fairly well under pressure. Which fundamentals
mastered by Agassi are college players unwilling to develop?
/Frank
H Holbrook
You're asking the right questions, which require that Kriese's comments
require finer tuning than his broad brush uses.
My understanding of his complaint (and I have heard it from others) is
that there is a seductive force in power tennis; since you *can* smack
the ball pretty good from almost anywhere on the court, that you will
*want* to smack the ball from almost anywhere on the court. This can
lead to errors either in execution or strategy, or both. Errors that
wouldn't be brought into the equation if not for the seduction of the
power potential.
A good analogy might be Agassi before and after Brad Gilbert. You don't
get any style points in tennis. Crushing a winner merits exactly the
same value as forcing an error. When Agassi learned this from Gilbert
he made significant strides in his playing.
Frank Silbermann
In article <3DE3A396...@rcn.com>, H Holbrook <hhol...@rcn.com> wrote:
> ... there is a seductive force in power tennis; since you *can* smack
> *want* to smack the ball from almost anywhere on the court. This can
> lead to errors either in execution or strategy, or both.
I play with a 98 sq.in. ultrastiff widebody, so I hope this
tendency is not affecting me. I'm not interested in hitting
the ball like the pros on TV; all I want is to to be able to
do to the ball the things Rod Laver could do to it when he
played with a wooden racquet in 1968. Or Jimmy Connors with
his little steelie in 1974.
Considering my racquet's superior power, that's a much more
reasonable goal, don't you think? :-)
/Frank
Michael Scarpitti
> > Chuck Kriese, Coaching Tennis, 1997, p. 148
> >
> >
> the racket revolution:
Yeah, H, you left out the BEST parts, the parts where he essentially
agrees with me. That sort of thing, called TAKING STUFF OUT OF
CONTEXT, is thoroughly despicable. You're a miserable cheat and a
liar.
Here's the WHOLE quote:
Before any concepts about technique and stroke
work can be discussed, it is important that coaches
understand just what evolved in the game of tennis
during the 1980s and recognize the impact made by
racquet technology. The 1980s and early 1990s were
very confusing times for anyone in the tennis
teaching business. With the advent of the Prince<B>
oversize racquet in 1978-79 and the wide-body super
power racquets that followed, playing and teaching
techniques would never be the same. Actually the
racquet revolution turned careers of players and
tennis teachers upside down over night.
Before 1970, the majority of players played with
three or four very similar racquets. These produced
and required very uniform teaching styles as well.
If good technical. skills were not used, the player
could not produce a consistent or well-struck shot.
The hitting surface of these racquets was small,
requiring good linear footwork techniques. The
better that ones technique became, the better the
player he or she would become. Players would
therefore devote countless hours to their technical
skills as they searched for the perfect stroke.
In the late 1960s, companies began to experiment
with steel racquets and a few different shapes. The
Wilson@ T -2000TM and the Spalding@ SmasherTM were
two of these novel racquets. Head@ also came out
with the Arthur Ashe model that many referred to
as the "Rug Beater" Racquet. But Howard Head's
innovations with the Prince oversized racquet in
the mid 1970s really marked the start of the
revolution. The game of tennis and the way in
which people played it would change forever.
During the first years, use of the oversized racquet
was treated as a joke. But once the idea caught
on, the marketing of new sizes, shapes, lengths,
widths, and types of materials was on the way.
It is very interesting that teaching and playing
styles did not change immediately because everyone
who first started using the bigger or wider racquets
had originally learned to play with the small
traditional equipment. The real changes in the game
started in the late 1980s when a whole new generation
of players were coming up who had started out
playing the game from the start with the bigger and
wider racquets. For many traditional teachers, this
was hard to adjust to. A variety of strange stroking
styles started to yield positive results in competition.
Power more than placement and precision became
the norm. Many felt that the entire game of tennis
was being changed before their very eyes. Points
became much shorter and less interesting to watch,
and, to my way of thinking as a teacher and a
coach, the game lost much of its art. Point
development and strategies became less
important than hard hitting and great shot
making. I have often stated that the use of
higher-tech racquets has made skill less
important than the equipment itself; therefore,
the sport is made somewhat less fun and less
interesting to play. The great drop-off of players
in the United States in the mid 1990s was most
likely a result of this.
Tennis: A Hard Game to Pick Up, A Hard
Game to Put Down
I have often used the examples of other art forms
like music and painting. There is good reason why
the piano remained unchanged throughout history.
It is a traditional art that is very hard to master.
Therefore people want to play it and are very proud
of the skill levels they gradually achieve. Once
skill is acquired, that skill is precious and important
to the artist. If a person tried to learn music with
the electronic keyboard or a less difficult version
of musical instrument, the value would not be
nearly as great. If the artist could use paint by
numbers instead of plain canvas and paints, his
skill would not mean as much either. A sport such
as racquetball is not nearly as interesting as squash
because of much fewer dimensions and less
difficulty in playing. The game of professional
baseball would not have the same excitement if
aluminum bats were allowed because hitting a
home run would become so commonplace that it
would no longer be valued as such an excellent
feat. The examples are obvious in just about every
sport and art form. MAKING SOMETHING EASIER
DOES NOT NECESSARILY MAKE IT BETTER.
In the case of tennis, I believe the lack of control
by the sport's governing bodies has caused great
damage to the game forever. Even if making the
game somewhat easier to play allows most to
experience initial success, it is also the reason why
fewer and fewer are captivated by the game enough
to want to play it again and again. The game of
tennis is great because it is a hard game to pick
up, and a hard game to put down.
Note especially:
"In the case of tennis, I believe the lack of control
by the sport's governing bodies has caused great
damage to the game forever."
and the one IN ALL CAPS:
"MAKING SOMETHING EASIER
DOES NOT NECESSARILY MAKE IT BETTER."
Michael Scarpitti
> In article <3DE3A396...@rcn.com>, H Holbrook <hhol...@rcn.com> wrote:
> > ... there is a seductive force in power tennis; since you *can* smack
> > the ball pretty good from almost anywhere on the court, that you will
> > *want* to smack the ball from almost anywhere on the court. This can
> > lead to errors either in execution or strategy, or both.
>
> I play with a 98 sq.in. ultrastiff widebody, so I hope this
> tendency is not affecting me. I'm not interested in hitting
> the ball like the pros on TV; all I want is to to be able to
> do to the ball the things Rod Laver could do to it when he
> played with a wooden racquet in 1968. Or Jimmy Connors with
> his little steelie in 1974.
Well, if you want the truth, you NEED a woodie to do those things that
Laver did. The shots were tailored to his racquet's potential. I don't
know what model(s) he used, but it may have been a Dunlop Maxply at
least at one point or another. So get your butt over to e-bay and
search for "Maxply" under advanced search, select "any country" under
options for international, and search away!
Try:
Michael Scarpitti
> >> "Coaches complain these days continually that
> >> players neither have the will nor the know-how to
> >> develop fundamentals that will hold up under
> >> pressure. I believe that this is one of the real
> >> tragedies of the equipment revolution
>
> I understand that new racquets let you hit harder,
> with more topspin, and maybe even more accurately.
>
> But I cannot understand these racquets make it harder
> for people to "play within themselves" -- i.e. to know
> what sorts of shots they can and cannot consistently make.
> How do more effective racquets hide that information?
Here's the problem: With wood, as Chuck says, you have to spend a
considerable amount of time practising and grooving near-perfect
strokes. Guess what? Such strokes don't break down as easily under
pressure. You have more "invested" in them, more habitual "care". With
biggie racquets, the temptation is always there to blast. "Brute force
and ignorance" takes the place of the carefully nurtured and groomed
stroke that wood demands.
> Also, what are the "fundamentals that will hold up under pressure"?
> Agassi seems to play fairly well under pressure. Which fundamentals
> mastered by Agassi are college players unwilling to develop?
See above
Michael Scarpitti
I think I shall! I'm sure he'd be more attuned to this topic that you
dismiss with such arrogance.
Fred McGherkin-Squirter
"Frank Silbermann" <f...@cs.tulane.edu> wrote in message
news:as06t4$oak$1...@same.tcs.tulane.edu...
Your instincts are right. The different racquets do not "prevent" player
from playing "good" (my value judgement) tennis. They just let the bashers
into matches where 20 years ago they would not have been a threat. You will
notice that even though there are a bunch of bashers around the top, the
very best, i.e. Sampras, Agassi, Hewitt still play the "tennis of a
champion". They play shots that they can actually make almost all of the
time. Champions are out there making sure they win. Guys like Safin,
Roddick and Flip are just out there swinging - if they're going in today,
well, they win. Nobody who plays any sport in this fashion has a right to
call themselves a champion (imnho)
What I have said above answers the last part of your question about Agassi.
The fundamentals that Agassi has that hold up under pressure is the fact
that he is playing tennis that is actually within his level of ability to
play pretty much all the time. If you've never done it, it is probably a
bit difficult to understand (judging by some of the opposition to this idea
I've seen in this ng), but the shots that Agassi hits (no matter how
difficult or fast they seem to you) are shots that he has total control over
and shots he fully expects to get in pretty much every time he puts racquet
to ball. Watch Safin, Roddick or Flip - these guys are not doing this -
they are trying shots that are not well within their ability. So, getting
to the point of your question, when the pressure comes on, Agassi is in
total control and even has a bit of room to get even better. He's a
champion. However for Roddick et al to be hitting the ball in they need
"all the planets lined up" so to speak - no pressure and no thinking. Think
about it. If you are swinging and all your miracle shots seem to be going
in, where have you got to go once the pressure comes on?
Fred McGherkin-Squirter
>
>
> Frank Silbermann wrote:
> >>>"Coaches complain these days continually that
> >>>players neither have the will nor the know-how to
> >>>develop fundamentals that will hold up under
> >>>pressure. I believe that this is one of the real
> >>>tragedies of the equipment revolution
> >>
> >
> > I understand that new racquets let you hit harder,
> > with more topspin, and maybe even more accurately.
> >
> > But I cannot understand these racquets make it harder
> > for people to "play within themselves" -- i.e. to know
> > what sorts of shots they can and cannot consistently make.
> > How do more effective racquets hide that information?
> >
> > Also, what are the "fundamentals that will hold up under pressure"?
> > Agassi seems to play fairly well under pressure. Which fundamentals
> > mastered by Agassi are college players unwilling to develop?
>
> You're asking the right questions, which require that Kriese's comments
> require finer tuning than his broad brush uses.
>
> My understanding of his complaint (and I have heard it from others) is
> that there is a seductive force in power tennis; since you *can* smack
> the ball pretty good from almost anywhere on the court, that you will
> *want* to smack the ball from almost anywhere on the court. This can
> lead to errors either in execution or strategy, or both. Errors that
> wouldn't be brought into the equation if not for the seduction of the
> power potential.
This may be right, but I know that there have always been plenty of people
who couldn't resist going for the big shot. Hell, it is probably the thing
that most stands out in my memory of learning tennis as I was growing up.
The only thing that has changed is that nowadays these guys can actually win
some matches.
Fred McGherkin-Squirter
Ha. I hope you're a good player, if that's your goal :-)
H Holbrook
All things are relative to the players involved. While I don't think
you could ever hit the ball the way Laver or Connors did, I think this
might not be an unreasonable motivator for you.
Fred McGherkin-Squirter
"Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2fd2ff8c.02112...@posting.google.com...
> f...@cs.tulane.edu (Frank Silbermann) wrote in message
news:<as0gtt$r32$1...@same.tcs.tulane.edu>...
> > In article <3DE3A396...@rcn.com>, H Holbrook <hhol...@rcn.com>
wrote:
> > > ... there is a seductive force in power tennis; since you *can* smack
> > > the ball pretty good from almost anywhere on the court, that you will
> > > *want* to smack the ball from almost anywhere on the court. This can
> > > lead to errors either in execution or strategy, or both.
> >
> > I play with a 98 sq.in. ultrastiff widebody, so I hope this
> > tendency is not affecting me. I'm not interested in hitting
> > the ball like the pros on TV; all I want is to to be able to
> > do to the ball the things Rod Laver could do to it when he
> > played with a wooden racquet in 1968. Or Jimmy Connors with
> > his little steelie in 1974.
>
> Well, if you want the truth, you NEED a woodie to do those things that
> Laver did. The shots were tailored to his racquet's potential. I don't
> know what model(s) he used, but it may have been a Dunlop Maxply at
> least at one point or another. So get your butt over to e-bay and
> search for "Maxply" under advanced search, select "any country" under
> options for international, and search away!
Oh, that's not true Mike. Anything that could be done with a Maxply can be
done with modern racquets. Although you'd still have to have the ability of
Laver to do it like he did:-)
Fred McGherkin-Squirter
You are quite possibly right here, but I'm not so sure as you:-)
H Holbrook
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
> H Holbrook <hhol...@rcn.com> wrote in message news:<3DE28807...@rcn.com>...
>
>>Michael Scarpitti wrote:
>>
>>>Chuck Kriese, Coaching Tennis, 1997, p. 148
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Yeah, I like Coach Kriese's book. Here's what else he has to say about
>>the racket revolution:
>
>
> Yeah, H, you left out the BEST parts, the parts where he essentially
> agrees with me. That sort of thing, called TAKING STUFF OUT OF
> CONTEXT, is thoroughly despicable. You're a miserable cheat and a
> liar.
>
I took nothing out of context, of course. He doesn't agree with you,
certainly not to your notion that kids shouldn't play tennis, or
everyone should be forced to use Eastern grips, or modern racket should
be banned, etc. He agrees with me that the "powers that be" in tennis
allowed the game to be taken over by the racket manufacturers, and the
consequence of that is that we have a different sport than we used to.
As to your "miserable cheat and liar" slander, I'd say "pot, kettle,
black" but that's too cliché.
Frank Silbermann
>>> ... there is a seductive force in power tennis; since you *can* smack
>>> the ball pretty good from almost anywhere on the court, that you will
>>> *want* to smack the ball from almost anywhere on the court. This can
>>> lead to errors either in execution or strategy, or both.
>> I play with a 98 sq.in. ultrastiff widebody, so I hope this
>> tendency is not affecting me. I'm not interested in hitting
>> the ball like the pros on TV; all I want is to to be able to
>> do to the ball the things Rod Laver could do to it when he
>> played with a wooden racquet in 1968. Or Jimmy Connors with
>> his little steelie in 1974.
<2fd2ff8c.02112...@posting.google.com>,
Michael Scarpitti <mikesc...@yahoo.com> :
> Well, if you want the truth, you NEED a woodie to do those things
> that Laver did. The shots were tailored to his racquet's potential.
Hardly. Dunlop sold millions of those MaxPly Forte racquets,
and not one in ten thousand players was able to loop his backhand
like Laver. He hit those shots _despite_ his racquet's characteristics.
> So get your butt over to e-bay and search for "Maxply"
Listen, if I had the talent to hit like Laver with a wood racquet,
you'd be reading about me in the sports pages of the newspaper.
Though it's quite possible, even likely, that nothing short
of reincarnation will me the ability to hit shots like Laver
did in 1968, I can guarantee that if I ever do reach that
level in this lifetime -- it will result from a modern racquet
technology that makes Laver's level of play _far_ easier to
attain than it was back in Laver's day!
/Frank
Michael Scarpitti
> Michael Scarpitti wrote:
> > H Holbrook <hhol...@rcn.com> wrote in message news:<3DE28807...@rcn.com>...
> >
> >>Michael Scarpitti wrote:
> >>
> >>>Chuck Kriese, Coaching Tennis, 1997, p. 148
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Yeah, I like Coach Kriese's book. Here's what else he has to say about
> >>the racket revolution:
> >
> >
> > Yeah, H, you left out the BEST parts, the parts where he essentially
> > agrees with me. That sort of thing, called TAKING STUFF OUT OF
> > CONTEXT, is thoroughly despicable. You're a miserable cheat and a
> > liar.
> >
>
>
> I took nothing out of context, of course.
Yes you did. You omitted vital parts of his statement in a way that
tended to minimise his rejection of and disdain for the new racquets.
>He doesn't agree with you,
> certainly not to your notion that kids shouldn't play tennis
Careful there! Kids should play, but not too seriously. Let them be
kids. 3-year-olds taking tennis lessons is absurd.
>, or
> everyone should be forced to use Eastern grips,
I never said that. I think ATTACKING tennis should be taught. Volleys.
Slice approaches, etc. These shots pretty much exclude the use of
western grips. You've got it backwards. The kids now are taught the
grips first, then the game follows. It should be the other way 'round.
>or modern racket should
> be banned, etc.
He stops just short of that. His language is clear enough in his
statement that the game has been "ruined forever" by the changes in
racquets. "Forever" will probably be only until I succeed in getting
wood back into the game. He should not be so pessimistic so long as
I'm alive.
>He agrees with me that the "powers that be" in tennis
> allowed the game to be taken over by the racket manufacturers, and the
> consequence of that is that we have a different sport than we used to.
When he says "ruined forever", that pretty much agrees with my
position. That's not merely acknowledging that we have a different
sport, now is it?
>
> As to your "miserable cheat and liar" slander, I'd say "pot, kettle,
> black" but that's too cliché.
You misrepresented what he said. I think that speaks for itself. I
posted the WHOLE passage, WITHOUT CUTS.
Michael Scarpitti
Well, at least give the ol' try!
Frank Silbermann
Michael Scarpitti <mikesc...@yahoo.com> :
> You omitted vital parts of his statement in a way that
> tended to minimise his rejection of and disdain for the new racquets.
>
> statement that the game has been "ruined forever" by the changes in
> racquets. "Forever" will probably be only until I succeed in getting
> wood back into the game. He should not be so pessimistic so long as
> I'm alive.
If you succeed, then everyone will play like Andres Gomez.
I remember seeing him going far in a clay court tournament
back in the days when many people still played wood. I don't
remember what racquet he used, but it was long before the
widebodies and it couldn't have been more than minimally mid-sized.
He hit every shot with huge power and excessive topspin,
especially on his extreme western forehand, but also on
his semi-western one-handed backhand. That's all he did;
just bashing from the baseline and overwhelming opponents
with the heavyness of his groundstrokes.
I don't think his groundstrokes would have been of much use
on grass, but that only rules out Wimbledon.
/Frank
Michael Scarpitti
Then why did you omit this:
"Points
became much shorter and less interesting to watch,
and, to my way of thinking as a teacher and a
coach, the game lost much of its art. Point
development and strategies became less
important than hard hitting and great shot
making. I have often stated that the use of
higher-tech racquets has made skill less
important than the equipment itself; therefore,
the sport is made somewhat less fun and less
interesting to play. The great drop-off of players
in the United States in the mid 1990s was most
likely a result of this."
Or this:
"I have often used the examples of other art forms
like music and painting. There is good reason why
the piano remained unchanged throughout history.
It is a traditional art that is very hard to master.
Therefore people want to play it and are very proud
of the skill levels they gradually achieve. Once
skill is acquired, that skill is precious and important
to the artist. If a person tried to learn music with
the electronic keyboard or a less difficult version
of musical instrument, the value would not be
nearly as great. If the artist could use paint by
numbers instead of plain canvas and paints, his
skill would not mean as much either. A sport such
as racquetball is not nearly as interesting as squash
because of much fewer dimensions and less
difficulty in playing. The game of professional
baseball would not have the same excitement if
aluminum bats were allowed because hitting a
home run would become so commonplace that it
would no longer be valued as such an excellent
feat. The examples are obvious in just about every
sport and art form. MAKING SOMETHING EASIER
DOES NOT NECESSARILY MAKE IT BETTER."
Or this:
"In the case of tennis, I believe the lack of control
by the sport's governing bodies has caused great
damage to the game forever. Even if making the
game somewhat easier to play allows most to
experience initial success, it is also the reason why
fewer and fewer are captivated by the game enough
to want to play it again and again. The game of
tennis is great because it is a hard game to pick
up, and a hard game to put down."
All these things are curiously similar to the statements I have been
making since I joined this group, and most of these are points you
have rejected. Yo SELECTIVELY quoted from the passage in his book in a
way that minimised his EXPRESSED distaste for the "new game". If
that's not dishonest, I don't know what is.
H Holbrook
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
> H Holbrook <hhol...@rcn.com> wrote in message news:<3DE4186A...@rcn.com>...
> > Michael Scarpitti wrote:
> > > H Holbrook <hhol...@rcn.com> wrote in message news:<3DE28807...@rcn.com>...
> > >
> > >>Michael Scarpitti wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>Chuck Kriese, Coaching Tennis, 1997, p. 148
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>Yeah, I like Coach Kriese's book. Here's what else he has to say about
> > >>the racket revolution:
> > >
> > >
> > > Yeah, H, you left out the BEST parts, the parts where he essentially
> > > agrees with me. That sort of thing, called TAKING STUFF OUT OF
> > > CONTEXT, is thoroughly despicable. You're a miserable cheat and a
> > > liar.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I took nothing out of context, of course.
>
> Yes you did. You omitted vital parts of his statement in a way that
> tended to minimise his rejection of and disdain for the new racquets.
His opinion about the new rackets is abundantly clear in what you posted. Does the fact
that you omitted what I posted make you guilty of quoting out of context?
>
>
> >He doesn't agree with you,
> > certainly not to your notion that kids shouldn't play tennis
>
> Careful there! Kids should play, but not too seriously. Let them be
> kids. 3-year-olds taking tennis lessons is absurd.
So, as we work toward a refinement of your "tennis is for adults only" theory, it's not
that kids shouldn't play tennis. They just shouldn't be shown how to.
>
>
> >, or
> > everyone should be forced to use Eastern grips,
>
> I never said that. I think ATTACKING tennis should be taught. Volleys.
> Slice approaches, etc. These shots pretty much exclude the use of
> western grips. You've got it backwards. The kids now are taught the
> grips first, then the game follows. It should be the other way 'round.
No, you've said kids should be taught, and forced to use, eastern forehand grips.
>
>
> >or modern racket should
> > be banned, etc.
>
> He stops just short of that. His language is clear enough in his
> statement that the game has been "ruined forever" by the changes in
> racquets. "Forever" will probably be only until I succeed in getting
> wood back into the game. He should not be so pessimistic so long as
> I'm alive.
Your health is of great concern to us all, yes.
>
>
> >He agrees with me that the "powers that be" in tennis
> > allowed the game to be taken over by the racket manufacturers, and the
> > consequence of that is that we have a different sport than we used to.
>
> When he says "ruined forever", that pretty much agrees with my
> position. That's not merely acknowledging that we have a different
> sport, now is it?
No one has ever argued otherwise. His opinion is different than other people's opinions
about what the difference means to tennis, but no one (except you there for a while, till
I showed you how wrong you were) says that the new rackets didn't change the game.
>
>
> >
> > As to your "miserable cheat and liar" slander, I'd say "pot, kettle,
> > black" but that's too cliché.
>
> You misrepresented what he said. I think that speaks for itself. I
> posted the WHOLE passage, WITHOUT CUTS.
No, you posted an excerpt, as I did. I didn't misrepresent what he said at all. They
were all his words, and in their proper context. Are there some adult education classes
at OSU that you can sign up for to help get you straightened out on this?
H Holbrook
Here's another except from "Coaching Tennis" by Chuck Kriese:
CHANGE OR GET LEFT BEHIND
After the lengthy discussion of what has just happened in the evolution
of racquet technology and its effect on the game, it is critical to
realize that all coaches and players must recognize that they need to
deal with it and go on. I confess that I probably did a very poor job
of coaching technique for a five or six year period as I stuck to my
very traditional ways. In 1993 I decided that if I ever wanted to be
successful again, I needed to change. I took action by visiting a
coaching friend, Dennis Emery, the Director of Tennis at the University
of Kentucky. Up to that time, it seemed that my players were definitely
not able to play as aggressive as others and that I had to be doing
something very wrong.
The University of Kentucky teams were known for their aggressive play,
and I wanted to know why. They were excellent at using high powered
equipment and their shot making was non-compromising. The main thing
that Dennis taught me that weekend was how to get critical leverage with
the open stance and how to use the very important step-out technique for
loading the hips. He showed me some great films of the top pros and how
they would use that technique to get to the ball quickly and then
recover just as fast.
pg 38
H Holbrook
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
> His language is clear enough in his
> statement that the game has been "ruined forever" by the changes in
> racquets.
> When he says "ruined forever", that pretty much agrees with my
> position.
Say, Scarp, you've quoted Kriese twice saying tennis was "ruined
forever". I can't find where he said that. Could you point it out to me?
Michael Scarpitti
"In the case of tennis, I believe the lack of control
by the sport's governing bodies has caused great
damage to the game forever."
To be precise, "great damage" is his exact phrase. My mistake, but the
idea is the same.
He also said:
"Coaches
complain these days continually that
players neither have the will nor the know-how to
develop fundamentals that will hold up under
pressure. I believe that this is one of the real
tragedies of the equipment revolution and is
a prevalent problem for learning in any sport
whenever equipment becomes more important
than the skill level that is involved."
So, the "equipment revolution" which you have so warmly embraced, he
views as causing "real tragedies". The lack of restraint by the
sport's governing bodies over racquet technology has caused "great
damage to the game forever". How much clearer can he make it, H? It
sure seems to add up to "ruin" to me!
Frank Silbermann
> "Coaches complain these days continually that
> players neither have the will nor the know-how to
> develop fundamentals that will hold up under
> pressure. I believe that this is one of the real
> tragedies of the equipment revolution and is
> a prevalent problem for learning in any sport
> whenever equipment becomes more important
> than the skill level that is involved."
Any evidence that equipment has become more important
than the skill level that is involved?
(I don't know what he meant, but clearly whatever
he meant is not what he said.)
/Frank
Bob Ashley
> He also said:
>
> "Coaches
> complain these days continually that
> players neither have the will nor the know-how to
> develop fundamentals that will hold up under
> pressure. I believe that this is one of the real
> tragedies of the equipment revolution and is
> a prevalent problem for learning in any sport
> whenever equipment becomes more important
> than the skill level that is involved."
>
> So, the "equipment revolution" which you have so warmly embraced, he
> views as causing "real tragedies". The lack of restraint by the
> sport's governing bodies over racquet technology has caused "great
> damage to the game forever". How much clearer can he make it, H? It
> sure seems to add up to "ruin" to me!
The vexing problem is not to verify that there really is some authoritative
disaffection with the modern game. We know it's here and it's there.
Ping-pong citation wars will never do! It's appears (from the cheap seats,
anyhoo!) more a problem of how detractors want to identify it, whether as a
merely crank cult to be dismissed summarily or as a rational opposition
raising some legitimate issues. A status issue.
Do we pepper-spray, club and handcuff the protesters or invite them in to
sit down and talk? In either case, it's obvious that the party currently in
power, the one with the dogs and the riot squad, is the 'modern game'.
The question you seem to be asking, Michael, inverts theirs. Is the MGP
(Modern Game Party) a legitimate government of tennis, worth lobbying
through regular channels, or a tyrannical regime that must be ousted at all
costs, by force? A status issue.
You two guys can't argue productively because neither affords the other even
a thimble of legitimacy or respect, right from the get-go. You're both
playing a power game, each smashing vicious, topspun arguments from
immovable, immutable baselines. This ng battleground is a tennis match.
HH, as a modern game proponent is probably having fun trading rhetorical
scuds. He has confessed as much. Michael, as tiresome as he finds the modern
BANG-BANG game, should be about ready by now to switch from this Flame
Network to his stand-by 'Bowery Boys'! Must be, I mean look at the score!
6-0, 0-6, 6-0, 0-6, 6-0, 0-6, 6-0, 0-6, 6-0, 0-6, 6-0, 0-6...ad infinitum.
And the shots, they all look the same! One pot shot begets another and
another. The modern game in ng banter.
Maybe a hard rain oughta fall, make the whole oh-six-six-oh fiasco a
washout! Does it ever rain in cyberspace? Or is this an electronic Gobi?
:-)
***
rib
Michael Scarpitti
Well, I found out how to help you, O possessed one:
EXORCISMVS
Exorcizamus te, omnis immundus spiritus, omnis satanica potestas,
omnis incursio infernalis adversarii, omnis legio, omnis congregatio
et secta diabolica, in nomine et virtute Domini Nostri Jesu + Christi,
eradicare et effugare a Dei Ecclesia, ab animabus ad imaginem Dei
conditis ac pretioso divini Agni sanguine redemptis + . Non ultra
audeas, serpens callidissime, decipere humanum genus, Dei Ecclesiam
persequi, ac Dei electos excutere et cribrare sicut triticum + .
Imperat tibi Deus altissimus + , cui in magna tua superbia te similem
haberi adhuc præsumis; qui omnes homines vult salvos fieri et ad
agnitionem veritaris venire. Imperat tibi Deus Pater + ; imperat tibi
Deus Filius + ; imperat tibi Deus Spiritus Sanctus + . Imperat tibi
majestas Christi, æternum Dei Verbum, caro factum + , qui pro salute
generis nostri tua invidia perditi, humiliavit semetipsum facfus
hobediens usque ad mortem; qui Ecclesiam suam ædificavit supra firmam
petram, et portas inferi adversus eam nunquam esse prævalituras
edixit, cum ea ipse permansurus omnibus diebus usque ad consummationem
sæculi. Imperat tibi sacramentum Crucis + , omniumque christianæ fidei
Mysteriorum virtus +. Imperat tibi excelsa Dei Genitrix Virgo Maria +
, quæ superbissimum caput tuum a primo instanti immaculatæ suæ
conceptionis in sua humilitate contrivit. Imperat tibi fides sanctorum
Apostolorum Petri et Pauli, et ceterorum Apostolorum + . Imperat tibi
Martyrum sanguis, ac pia Sanctorum et Sanctarum omnium intercessio +.
Well, that should do it!
.. .. ..
Feel better yet?
Dan Barch
> Here's another except from "Coaching Tennis" by Chuck Kriese:
> CHANGE OR GET LEFT BEHIND
> After the lengthy discussion of what has just happened in the evolution
> of racquet technology and its effect on the game, it is critical to
> realize that all coaches and players must recognize that they need to
> deal with it and go on. ...The main thing ...
> was how to get critical leverage with
> the open stance and how to use the very important step-out technique for
> loading the hips. ...top pros ... would use that technique to get to the
>ball quickly and then recover just as fast.
>
> pg 38
I was thinking of this passage while this thread went along the past
few days, but had misplaced my copy of the book. While playing with
the old rackets and stances can help groove the game, Kriese's point
seems to be that at a certain level of play, like major college
tennis, players can get better results with methods perhaps not suited
to success using wood.
What works for a 50-year-old 4.0 player like Michael Scarpitti does
not automatically work at the top levels. It seems the bulk of his
posts revolve around his assertion that since it works for him, it
must be best for everybody. I've seen guys who looked like they might
expire on the court handle 4.0 players by just keeping the ball in
front of them.
This does not mean that the bashers shouldn't learn a little touch. I
saw one of the better 35's in town destroy a college student who had
played #1 all through high school and worked part time at the club.
The kid hit everything hard and flat - so most of his shots landed
near the service line. The veteran would put back four well placed
shots and the point was over. In the same tournament, a highly skilled
but headstrong player, who had played some college, won the title 7-5
in the third while just bashing the ball over a guy with less skill,
less body, but more brains.
Did anybody remember to welcome Frank Silbermann back into the group?
I see his stuff now and then in another group but Google says he went
from December, 1993 to August, 2002 without a post in rec.tennis. Nice
to have you back!
Dan Barch
Lansing, MI
Frank Silbermann
>> Here's another except from "Coaching Tennis" by Chuck Kriese:
>
>> of racquet technology and its effect on the game, it is critical to
>> realize that all coaches and players must recognize that they need to
>> deal with it and go on. ...The main thing ... was how to get critical
>> leverage with the open stance and how to use the very important step-out
> technique for loading the hips. ...top pros ... would use that technique
>> to get to the ball quickly and then recover just as fast.
What is the "step-out technique" for loading the hips?
<a5f68730.02112...@posting.google.com>,
Dan Barch <barc...@hotmail.com> :
> While playing with the old rackets and stances can help groove the game,
> Kriese's point seems to be that at a certain level of play, like major
> college tennis, players can get better results with methods perhaps
> not suited to success using wood.
Is there any difference between the technique of getting
critical leverage with the open stance today versus
when Rod Laver hit his forehand from the open stance?
> Did anybody remember to welcome Frank Silbermann back into the group?
> I see his stuff now and then in another group but Google says he went
> from December, 1993 to August, 2002 without a post in rec.tennis. Nice
> to have you back! >Dan Barch >Lansing, MI
That's scary! I wonder how many potential jobs I've ruled myself of,
when the employer with strong opinions checks my posting history and
becomes outraged by some of the things I've said about forehand grips ...
/Frank
Gordon Cameron
> H Holbrook <hhol...@rcn.com> wrote in message news:<3DE28807...@rcn.com>...
> > Michael Scarpitti wrote:
MAKING SOMETHING EASIER
> DOES NOT NECESSARILY MAKE IT BETTER.
>
I wish I were one of those people who found it "easy" to learn tennis
with a modern racquet. :-(
Michael Scarpitti
Sounds like Chuck RELUCTANTLY folded to the powers that be. Since his
profession is teaching tennis, he has no choice, really. Since I am
not dependent on coaching for my income, I don't have to knuckle
under. I shall contact him, to see whether he's interested in fighting
any more, or whether the fighting spirit is out of him.
He certainly does not come across as someone who really has embraced
the change, but simply deals with what cards are dealt to him. I'll
wager a LOT of people don't like "the change", but feel helpless.
You, on the other hand, have stated again and again your enthusiasm
for "the change". For this reason, I find him a more suitable point of
contact for your "profession".
Michael Scarpitti
> H Holbrook <hhol...@rcn.com> wrote in message news:<3DE4F6B0...@rcn.com>...
> > Here's another except from "Coaching Tennis" by Chuck Kriese:
> > CHANGE OR GET LEFT BEHIND
>
> > After the lengthy discussion of what has just happened in the evolution
> > of racquet technology and its effect on the game, it is critical to
> > realize that all coaches and players must recognize that they need to
> > deal with it and go on. ...The main thing ...
> > was how to get critical leverage with
> > the open stance and how to use the very important step-out technique for
> > loading the hips. ...top pros ... would use that technique to get to the
> >ball quickly and then recover just as fast.
> >
> > pg 38
>
> I was thinking of this passage while this thread went along the past
> few days, but had misplaced my copy of the book. While playing with
> the old rackets and stances can help groove the game, Kriese's point
> seems to be that at a certain level of play, like major college
> tennis, players can get better results with methods perhaps not suited
> to success using wood.
>
> What works for a 50-year-old 4.0 player like Michael Scarpitti does
> not automatically work at the top levels.
Certainly true, and vice versa! I've been trying to say that to many
here for some time. There are many, many more players in the world
like me than there are pros. Holbrook, et al, maintain that "everyman"
try to emulate the bashing pros. I say "NO". The bulk of "advice"
should be suited for the bulk of humanity.
>It seems the bulk of his
> posts revolve around his assertion that since it works for him, it
> must be best for everybody.
Not at all, but there are more people like me than pros. MANY more.
What works for me is more likely to be useful for "everyman" than
what the pros do.
>I've seen guys who looked like they might
> expire on the court handle 4.0 players by just keeping the ball in
> front of them.
Exactly. There are different ways of doing things, and bashing, short
of the top pros, seldom works against a good sound player.
> This does not mean that the bashers shouldn't learn a little touch. I
> saw one of the better 35's in town destroy a college student who had
> played #1 all through high school and worked part time at the club.
> The kid hit everything hard and flat - so most of his shots landed
> near the service line. The veteran would put back four well placed
> shots and the point was over.
Exactly. My experience corresponds to this. I beat a 29-year old
westie (Chang clone) who played that way. Beat him going away.
Michael Scarpitti
Right! I can't play with them either, Gordon.
Bill Smith
Since his profession is teaching tennis, he has no choice, really. Since I am
not dependent on coaching for my income, I don't have to knuckle under. I shall
contact him, to see whether he's interested in fighting any more, or whether
the fighting spirit is out of him. <<<
So, if Mom and Dad threw you out, you would have to get a real job and you
might knuckle under, too?
>>> Woody interprets: He certainly does not come across as someone who really
has embraced the change, but simply deals with what cards are dealt to him.
I'll wager a LOT of people don't like "the change", but feel helpless. <<<
Couldn't it be he said what he meant, instead of what you think he "comes
across as"?
>>> Woody further puts words in a mouth: You, on the other hand, have stated
again and again your enthusiasm for "the change". For this reason, I find him a
more suitable point of contact for your "profession". <<<
Errr, to rebutt, HH hasn't had enthusiasm for "the change" (and no snickering
at the use of that term). He merely points out the logic course of events that
have given rise to the current predominant style of play. Which, of course, is
contrary to your professed bias. So, you two disagree. End of discussion?
Bill Smith
Burlingame, CA
Bill Smith
Scarpitti does not automatically work at the top levels. <
>>> Woody jumps on a bandwagon: Certainly true, and vice versa! I've been
trying to say that to many here for some time. There are many, many more
players in the world like me than there are pros. Holbrook, et al, maintain
that "everyman" try to emulate the bashing pros. I say "NO". The bulk of
"advice" should be suited for the bulk of humanity. <<<
Ok, the above should be compared to your inflammatory comments that touring
pros that play from the baselines are "cowards".
So, which is it? They are special and play different than the "everyman" and
your views could not apply to them or, are they cowards because they do not
live up to your standard of play.
PS: Trust me, there are not many, many more players in the world like you,
Woody. Well, at least not people. Hahahahahaha. But, every village is known to
have one.
Bill Smith
Burlingame, CA
Fred McGherkin-Squirter
"Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2fd2ff8c.02112...@posting.google.com...
I don't really understand this comment. It's hard to understand someone
these days saying they can't play with modern racquets, but can play with
the old wooden types. What exactly is it that you find more difficult with
a modern racquet? I reckon the newer racquets make everything easier.
Please explain.
Michael Scarpitti
They don't, mostly because of the weight and power. My strokes are
adapted for a heavy wooden racquet (13.5 oz or so) with less power.
Put that same stroke on a 12 oz frame with less wind resistance and
more power, and you lose control. The stroke for each racquet is
different. You can't just pick up the new racquet and use you old
swing. It won't work.
In 1986 or so, when my wooden racquets wore out, I bought a Yonex
R-22, the one Martina Navratilova was using at the time. Even after
stringing this thing at 65 lbs, I could not control the backhand
topspin shot. They kept hitting the fence. A short time later, Yonex
came out with the R-50, with which I played until 1997. It was better,
but I still never felt comfortable with it. I returned to wood in
1997, and just recently tried a Wilson Pro Staff (85 6.0) strung at
64 lbs. I CAN play with this one, but there seems to be little benefit
over my woodies, if any.
Michael Scarpitti
> >>> Woody reveals: Sounds like Chuck RELUCTANTLY folded to the powers that be.
> Since his profession is teaching tennis, he has no choice, really. Since I am
> not dependent on coaching for my income, I don't have to knuckle under. I shall
> contact him, to see whether he's interested in fighting any more, or whether
> the fighting spirit is out of him. <<<
>
> So, if Mom and Dad threw you out, you would have to get a real job and you
> might knuckle under, too?
My "real job" is as writer and editor for marketing technical (civil
engineering) services.
> >>> Woody interprets: He certainly does not come across as someone who really
> has embraced the change, but simply deals with what cards are dealt to him.
> I'll wager a LOT of people don't like "the change", but feel helpless. <<<
>
> Couldn't it be he said what he meant, instead of what you think he "comes
> across as"?
Why do you say that? He sure seems to spend a lot of time bashing the
new technology, doesn't he? If not why such satements as:
"The examples are obvious in just about every
sport and art form. MAKING SOMETHING EASIER
DOES NOT NECESSARILY MAKE IT BETTER.
In the case of tennis, I believe the lack of control
by the sport's governing bodies has caused great
damage to the game forever. Even if making the
game somewhat easier to play allows most to
experience initial success, it is also the reason why
fewer and fewer are captivated by the game enough
to want to play it again and again. The game of
tennis is great because it is a hard game to pick
up, and a hard game to put down."
and
"The High tech
equipment fools them into thinking that their
norm is much better than it usually is.
I believe that they therefore try very stupid shots
because they Just don't have an accurate
barometer for their shot making abilities. Many
players never really learn what they can and
can't do with the ball consistently. Coaches
complain these days continually that
players neither have the will nor the know-how to
develop fundamentals that will hold up under
pressure. I believe that this is one of the real
tragedies of the equipment revolution and is
a prevalent problem for learning in any sport
whenever equipment becomes more important
than the skill level that is involved."
> >>> Woody further puts words in a mouth: You, on the other hand, have stated
> again and again your enthusiasm for "the change". For this reason, I find him a
> more suitable point of contact for your "profession". <<<
>
> Errr, to rebutt, HH hasn't had enthusiasm for "the change" (and no snickering
> at the use of that term). He merely points out the logic course of events that
> have given rise to the current predominant style of play. Which, of course, is
> contrary to your professed bias. So, you two disagree. End of discussion?
Well, unless I'm VERY badly mistaken, HH has enthused endlessly in
favour of the new technology, calling it "liberating", and saying it's
responsible for the birth of what he calls "modern tennis", etc.:
"But since you ask: The birth of modern tennis was brought about not
by a change in the human body (evolutionary changes don't happen that
quickly, maybe you should get a high school biology text to help you
there. Oh, and not one from Kansas.) but by the evolution in racket
technology. Wood gave way to other materials which proved to be
lighter, stronger, more powerful, more useful in the game of tennis.
The new rackets allowed a more effective
style of tennis to be played by all players, not just the most
skilled."
This seems to be COMPLETELY contradictory to Kriese's statement:
""The examples are obvious in just about every
sport and art form. MAKING SOMETHING EASIER
DOES NOT NECESSARILY MAKE IT BETTER."
I did, however, find a curious post of Holbrook from the past (1996),
in which he slams racquet companies (in particular, Wilson) for their
marketing of power models:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=4lb1pf%2468g%40pipe12.nyc.pipeline.com
In particular:
"Those are just a few of my thoughts about the complicity of racket
companies in the declining numbers of tennis players. Don't get me
started."
So, HH seems to have changed his stance a bit from 1996.
>
> Bill Smith
> Burlingame, CA
Bob Ashley
> but I still never felt comfortable with it. I returned to wood in
> 1997, and just recently tried a Wilson Pro Staff (85 6.0) strung at
> 64 lbs. I CAN play with this one, but there seems to be little benefit
> over my woodies, if any.
What made you decide to get a Pro Staff? Were there any other make/model
contenders?
******************************
rib
Fred McGherkin-Squirter
My answer to this is simply that if it was true that people liked their
wooden racquets better than the newer types wouldn't there be more people
using them? I'm estimating the amount of regular tennis players I've seen
using wooden racquets in the past 15 or 20 years to be about, oh, gee i
dunno, about... ZERO! Certainly there is a different feel and with
different racquets some shots might fly a bit, or whatever, but the general
consensus would have to be that notwithstanding some small getting-used-to
period the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages (which, as far as I can
tell is only the transition period). However, you say you couldn't get used
to a new racquet in 10 years of trying. I'd say you're in a huge minority.
Also, Yonex racquets have a certain feel and do not suit everybody - lots of
people hate them. Maybe you should have tried others?
Michael Scarpitti
Does anybody know EXACTLY what the difference is between the original
St. Vincent Pro Staff 6.0 and the current model of the same name? I
bought a used one, and it weighs 12.5 oz with a new Fairway grip and
Babolat VS natural gut. Mine says manufactured by CHIAO TA. Is that
Taiwan or something?
Bob Ashley
> Does anybody know EXACTLY what the difference is between the original
> St. Vincent Pro Staff 6.0 and the current model of the same name? I
> bought a used one, and it weighs 12.5 oz with a new Fairway grip and
> Babolat VS natural gut. Mine says manufactured by CHIAO TA. Is that
> Taiwan or something?
Mine doesn't have a "Made in..." It says it's 12.5 oz too.
******************************
rib
Bill Smith
engineering) services. <<<
I know that notation in my pre-med classes was often done without regard to
articles preceeding nouns, but obviously engineering follows the same
convention. <smirk>
As far as your comparisons, you mixed the usual apples with oranges, or maybe
broccoli. I stated that HH was not expousing a theory as much as relating a
timeline of events. You then pull up a totally unrelated posting, from 1996
and the writer is a Brad Holbrook. Now, if HH is one in the same, then you
again are just interpreting what he wrote, when I can read for myself. Then
again, if it is not HH, then... arrrggggghhhh!
Bill Smith
Burlingame, CA
Frank Silbermann
>> What exactly is it that you find more difficult with a modern racquet?
Michael Scarpitti <mikesc...@yahoo.com>: <2fd2ff8c.0211...@posting.google.com>,
> My strokes are adapted for a heavy wooden racquet (13.5 oz or so)
> with less power. Put that same stroke on a 12 oz frame with less
> wind resistance and more power, and you lose control.
You could always add lead tape to increase the swing weight.
It's hard to see how wind resistance would be such a major
factor with smooth classical strokes. But you could always
attack some cardboard to the throat to act as a wind break.
> ... I bought a Yonex R-22. Even after stringing this thing at 65 lbs,
> I could not control the backhand topspin shot. They kept hitting the fence.
What happened when you aimed lower?
(You were hitting topspin backhands since 1986, and you're only a 4.0?)
/Frank
Michael Scarpitti
> >>> My "real job" is as writer and editor for marketing technical (civil
> engineering) services. <<<
>
> I know that notation in my pre-med classes was often done without regard to
> articles preceeding nouns, but obviously engineering follows the same
> convention. <smirk>
This is newsgroup writing. Niceties are sometimes sacrificed. Sorry.
>
> As far as your comparisons, you mixed the usual apples with oranges, or maybe
> broccoli. I stated that HH was not expousing a theory as much as relating a
> timeline of events. You then pull up a totally unrelated posting, from 1996
> and the writer is a Brad Holbrook. Now, if HH is one in the same, then you
> again are just interpreting what he wrote, when I can read for myself. Then
> again, if it is not HH, then... arrrggggghhhh!
I don't understand what this "arrrggggghhhh!" refers to.
Michael Scarpitti
Not of which I am aware. This is an experiment, because I need a
racquet that I can play with when it's humid, since I don't like
getting the wooden ones warped.
Michael Scarpitti
No, since 1976. You see, I'm a 5.0 on my left side, 4.0 on my right
side, and 3.0 overhead.
> /Frank
Fred McGherkin-Squirter
"Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2fd2ff8c.02112...@posting.google.com...
news:<as7pdl$q65$1...@same.tcs.tulane.edu>...
> > >> What exactly is it that you find more difficult with a modern
racquet?
> >
> > Michael Scarpitti <mikesc...@yahoo.com>:
<2fd2ff8c.0211...@posting.google.com>,
> > > My strokes are adapted for a heavy wooden racquet (13.5 oz or so)
> >
> > (You were hitting topspin backhands since 1986, and you're only a 4.0?)
>
> No, since 1976. You see, I'm a 5.0 on my left side, 4.0 on my right
> side, and 3.0 overhead.
My goodness. What do all these numbers mean?
Michael Scarpitti
Nobody said it was supposed to be easy. The racquet companies want you
to take the easy way out, and to think that it makes you a better
player.
May I quote again from Chuck?
"Tennis: A Hard Game to Pick Up, A Hard
Game to Put Down
I have often used the examples of other art forms
like music and painting. There is good reason why
the piano remained unchanged throughout history.
It is a traditional art that is very hard to master.
Therefore people want to play it and are very proud
of the skill levels they gradually achieve. Once
skill is acquired, that skill is precious and important
to the artist. If a person tried to learn music with
the electronic keyboard or a less difficult version
of musical instrument, the value would not be
nearly as great. If the artist could use paint by
numbers instead of plain canvas and paints, his
skill would not mean as much either. A sport such
as racquetball is not nearly as interesting as squash
because of much fewer dimensions and less
difficulty in playing. The game of professional
baseball would not have the same excitement if
aluminum bats were allowed because hitting a
home run would become so commonplace that it
would no longer be valued as such an excellent
feat. The examples are obvious in just about every
sport and art form. MAKING SOMETHING EASIER
DOES NOT NECESSARILY MAKE IT BETTER.
In the case of tennis, I believe the lack of control
by the sport's governing bodies has caused great
damage to the game forever. Even if making the
game somewhat easier to play allows most to
experience initial success, it is also the reason why
fewer and fewer are captivated by the game enough
to want to play it again and again. The game of
tennis is great because it is a hard game to pick
up, and a hard game to put down."
> I'm estimating the amount of regular tennis players I've seen
> using wooden racquets in the past 15 or 20 years to be about, oh, gee i
> dunno, about... ZERO! Certainly there is a different feel and with
> different racquets some shots might fly a bit, or whatever, but the general
> consensus would have to be that notwithstanding some small getting-used-to
> period the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages (which, as far as I can
> tell is only the transition period).
Yeah, but they ain't kosher, if you know what I mean. The only
legitimate racquet is a small wooden racquet. Everything else is
bogus, however many people choose to play with them. The court was set
up in 1882, for wooden racquets. Using bigger more powerful racquets
changes the delicate balance between power and touch. I don't care if
I lose 1,000,000 matches in a row (I won't, of course) it ain't right.
> However, you say you couldn't get used
> to a new racquet in 10 years of trying. I'd say you're in a huge minority.
Maybe.
> Also, Yonex racquets have a certain feel and do not suit everybody - lots of
> people hate them. Maybe you should have tried others?
Maybe. It WAS a radical change, but I just kept hitting long with my
topspin backhand and the R-22. I had much better luck with the R-50,
but when (1997) I saw the two never-sold (dead stock) Wilson Advantage
racquets sitting in the Special-Tee Tennis and Golf shop for $5 each,
I had to get them. I strung them up, and WOW! Shortly after I got them
strung, I played a match in which I served 23ą FIRST SERVES IN A ROW
in. That's NO FAULTS AT ALL for more than one set. It may have been
more than that, but I didn't realize I wasn't missing until the second
set had already been underway for a while. I did the same thing later
that month, when I hit 17-19 or so first serves in a row in.
It just feels UTTERLY natural to play with wood. Natural gut is vital.
Michael Scarpitti
>
> Michael Scarpitti <mikesc...@yahoo.com>: <2fd2ff8c.0211...@posting.google.com>,
> > My strokes are adapted for a heavy wooden racquet (13.5 oz or so)
> > with less power. Put that same stroke on a 12 oz frame with less
> > wind resistance and more power, and you lose control.
>
> You could always add lead tape to increase the swing weight.
> It's hard to see how wind resistance would be such a major
> factor with smooth classical strokes. But you could always
> attack some cardboard to the throat to act as a wind break.
Why bother? Why not just use a woodie?
> > ... I bought a Yonex R-22. Even after stringing this thing at 65 lbs,
> > I could not control the backhand topspin shot. They kept hitting the fence.
>
> What happened when you aimed lower?
Muscle memory....muscle memory..
I have hit thousands of topspin backhands with wood, and you just
can't change that stroke easily.
> (You were hitting topspin backhands since 1986, and you're only a 4.0?)
On a good day, I'm a 4.5. My backhand often stuns people, so maybe I'm
a 5.0 on that side.
> /Frank
Michael Scarpitti
Mine doesn't say "made in", just "manufactured by CHIAO TA".
Michael Scarpitti
> > "Coaches complain these days continually that
> > players neither have the will nor the know-how to
> > develop fundamentals that will hold up under
> > pressure. I believe that this is one of the real
> > tragedies of the equipment revolution and is
> > a prevalent problem for learning in any sport
> > whenever equipment becomes more important
> > than the skill level that is involved."
>
> than the skill level that is involved?
>
> (I don't know what he meant, but clearly whatever
> he meant is not what he said.)
>
> /Frank
I'm not following you, Frank. He seems perfectly lucid to me. He's
saying that the fundamental skills that were requisite in the wood
days are falling into neglect, and that knowledge of these
fundamentals is fading away. The skills that have taken their place
are less reliable under pressure.
Michael Scarpitti
> Michael Scarpitti wrote:
You omitted the most important parts, the parts where he blasts the
racquet companies. You omitted the parts where he talks about the
"great damage". You omitted the parts about where he mentions the lack
of skills, etc. resulting from them. Your omissions minimized his
criticisms and made him sound less antagonistic about the change than
he actually was. That's dishonest, and you know it.
>
> > H Holbrook <hhol...@rcn.com> wrote in message news:<3DE4186A...@rcn.com>...
> > > Michael Scarpitti wrote:
> > > > H Holbrook <hhol...@rcn.com> wrote in message news:<3DE28807...@rcn.com>...
> > > >
> > > >>Michael Scarpitti wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>>Chuck Kriese, Coaching Tennis, 1997, p. 148
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>Yeah, I like Coach Kriese's book. Here's what else he has to say about
> > > >>the racket revolution:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, H, you left out the BEST parts, the parts where he essentially
> > > > agrees with me. That sort of thing, called TAKING STUFF OUT OF
> > > > CONTEXT, is thoroughly despicable. You're a miserable cheat and a
> > > > liar.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I took nothing out of context, of course.
> >
> > Yes you did. You omitted vital parts of his statement in a way that
> > tended to minimise his rejection of and disdain for the new racquets.
>
> His opinion about the new rackets is abundantly clear in what you posted. Does the fact
> that you omitted what I posted make you guilty of quoting out of context?
>
> >
> >
> > >He doesn't agree with you,
> > > certainly not to your notion that kids shouldn't play tennis
> >
> > Careful there! Kids should play, but not too seriously. Let them be
> > kids. 3-year-olds taking tennis lessons is absurd.
>
> So, as we work toward a refinement of your "tennis is for adults only" theory, it's not
> that kids shouldn't play tennis. They just shouldn't be shown how to.
Not the way YOU want to, NO.
> > >, or
> > > everyone should be forced to use Eastern grips,
> >
> > I never said that. I think ATTACKING tennis should be taught. Volleys.
> > Slice approaches, etc. These shots pretty much exclude the use of
> > western grips. You've got it backwards. The kids now are taught the
> > grips first, then the game follows. It should be the other way 'round.
>
> No, you've said kids should be taught, and forced to use, eastern forehand grips.
I really don't think kids need to be the prime focus of tennis
instruction. That's the problem today. Most should start to learn
between 12 and 18. Let 'em play baseball or soccer for a while, OK?
Tennis is a more difficult game in the mental maturity it demands.
That's my main complaint.
> > >or modern racket should
> > > be banned, etc.
> >
> > He stops just short of that. His language is clear enough in his
> > statement that the game has been "ruined forever" by the changes in
> > racquets. "Forever" will probably be only until I succeed in getting
> > wood back into the game. He should not be so pessimistic so long as
> > I'm alive.
>
> Your health is of great concern to us all, yes.
My power is growing.
> > >He agrees with me that the "powers that be" in tennis
> > > allowed the game to be taken over by the racket manufacturers, and the
> > > consequence of that is that we have a different sport than we used to.
> >
> > When he says "ruined forever", that pretty much agrees with my
> > position. That's not merely acknowledging that we have a different
> > sport, now is it?
>
> No one has ever argued otherwise. His opinion is different than other people's opinions
> about what the difference means to tennis,
Aha! That's the point I was seizing, and you tried to minimize!
>but no one (except you there for a while, till
> I showed you how wrong you were) says that the new rackets didn't change the game.
Well, yes, "ruining" is "changing". "Killing" is "changing". That's
true.
> > > As to your "miserable cheat and liar" slander, I'd say "pot, kettle,
> > > black" but that's too cliché.
> >
> > You misrepresented what he said. I think that speaks for itself. I
> > posted the WHOLE passage, WITHOUT CUTS.
>
> No, you posted an excerpt, as I did. I didn't misrepresent what he said at all. They
> were all his words, and in their proper context. Are there some adult education classes
> at OSU that you can sign up for to help get you straightened out on this?
You left out the most important points, and you know it.
Is your guide dog still healthy?
Bob Ashley
> Bob Ashley <ax...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
>> What made you decide to get a Pro Staff? Were there any other make/model
>> contenders?
>
>
> Not of which I am aware. This is an experiment, because I need a
> racquet that I can play with when it's humid, since I don't like
> getting the wooden ones warped.
Oh, I see.
Bob
Michael Scarpitti
Skill levels. NTRP.
Muttihughes
>> side, and 3.0 overhead.
>
>My goodness. What do all these numbers mean?
They mean he's a 3.0 player on the USTA's National Tennis Rating Program scale.
The 4.0 and 5.0 parts are just self-deluding bullshit.
-- Larry
Muttihughes
> racquet that I can play with when it's humid, since I don't like
> getting the wooden ones warped.
I don't get this. Don't you use a racquet press, preferably aluminum? I played
wood in the humidity of South Carolina and Atlanta for well over ten years and
never warped a racquet.
-- Larry
Michael Scarpitti
Yeah, but after a while they warp anyway. They are old by now, you see.
H Holbrook
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
> H Holbrook <hhol...@rcn.com> wrote in message news:<3DE4FF15...@rcn.com>...
> > Michael Scarpitti wrote:
> >
> > > His language is clear enough in his
> > > statement that the game has been "ruined forever" by the changes in
> > > racquets.
> >
> >
> > > When he says "ruined forever", that pretty much agrees with my
> > > position.
> >
> > Say, Scarp, you've quoted Kriese twice saying tennis was "ruined
> > forever". I can't find where he said that. Could you point it out to me?
>
> "In the case of tennis, I believe the lack of control
> by the sport's governing bodies has caused great
> damage to the game forever."
>
> To be precise, "great damage" is his exact phrase. My mistake, but the
> idea is the same.
Ah. So he didn't, in fact, say "ruined forever"? That's shocking to me, since you
quoted him saying that, not once but *twice*. Knowing I had the book sitting on my
desk! Are you so twisted by your need to find an ally that you'd put quotation marks
around a made up phrase, and attribute it to a living author who's book is easily
referenced? Twice? How does this sit with your credibility on anything else? Need
a hint? It means: once a liar, always a liar.
H Holbrook
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
>
> There are many, many more players in the world
> like me than there are pros. Holbrook, et al, maintain that "everyman"
> try to emulate the bashing pros. I say "NO". The bulk of "advice"
> should be suited for the bulk of humanity.
Kind of a "dumbed down" version of tennis, then. "Don't go for a forcing shot....hit to the center T". I get
it. The Harrison Bergeron School of Tennis.
>
> What works for me is more likely to be useful for "everyman" than
> what the pros do.
Right. Wood rackets. S/V. Obnoxiousness. Hallucinogenics. Mommy's tit.
Michael Scarpitti
The idea is the same. get it?
H Holbrook
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
> Well, unless I'm VERY badly mistaken, HH has enthused endlessly in
> favour of the new technology, calling it "liberating", and saying it's
> responsible for the birth of what he calls "modern tennis", etc.:
Not that you aren't usually VERY badly mistaken, but this time you got it right. The modern racket has given
birth to modern tennis. Ask anybody. It's a matter of fact.
>
>
> "But since you ask: The birth of modern tennis was brought about not
> by a change in the human body (evolutionary changes don't happen that
> quickly, maybe you should get a high school biology text to help you
> there. Oh, and not one from Kansas.) but by the evolution in racket
> technology. Wood gave way to other materials which proved to be
> lighter, stronger, more powerful, more useful in the game of tennis.
> The new rackets allowed a more effective
> style of tennis to be played by all players, not just the most
> skilled."
>
> This seems to be COMPLETELY contradictory to Kriese's statement:
>
> ""The examples are obvious in just about every
> sport and art form. MAKING SOMETHING EASIER
> DOES NOT NECESSARILY MAKE IT BETTER."
And, of course, the converse is true as well. (Personal note to Scarp: The "converse" is the opposite of the
point made, in this case: MAKING SOMETHING EASIER DOES NOT NECESSARILY MAKE IT WORSE.)
>
>
> I did, however, find a curious post of Holbrook from the past (1996),
> in which he slams racquet companies (in particular, Wilson) for their
> marketing of power models:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=4lb1pf%2468g%40pipe12.nyc.pipeline.com
>
> In particular:
>
> "Those are just a few of my thoughts about the complicity of racket
> companies in the declining numbers of tennis players. Don't get me
> started."
>
> So, HH seems to have changed his stance a bit from 1996.
If I can analyze the text for you, it seems that the poster was claiming that the ill fated, ill advised trend
toward extreme wide body rackets created a major problem for recreational players. You will want to remember
that the wide body trend lasted only a few years, and that pros never played with the kinds of rackets
enthusiastically pushed on rec players in the early and mid 90's. What have become known as "player frames"
have always enjoyed a robust acceptance from good players, regardless of what Wilson trotted out as its latest
trampoline on a stick. Wilson seemed motivated at the time to create a tennis racket that would enable you to
sit in a lounge chair at the baseline and still play the game by a fear that tennis was being passed by other
leisure time pursuits. Tennis got passed. The rocket launcher rackets didn't stop it. Those who continue to
play and enjoy the game have little or no use for those rackets. The pendulum has swung back.
H Holbrook
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
Well, no, Scarp, the idea is not the same, but I don't hold out much hope for you to "get
it". The fact that you can't parse the distinction between "ruined" and "damaged", nor the
distinction between quoting and paraphrasing, lying and telling the truth, nor shameless and
credible is well established. How many beers does it take to ensure a good five or six hours
of sleep?
Frank Silbermann
Kriese:
>>> "...I believe that this is one of the real tragedies of the equipment
>>> revolution and is a prevalent problem for learning in any sport
>>> whenever equipment becomes more important than the skill level
>>> that is involved."
me:
>> Any evidence that equipment has become more important
>> than the skill level that is involved?
>> (I don't know what he meant, but clearly whatever
>> he meant is not what he said.)
<2fd2ff8c.0211...@posting.google.com>,
Michael Scarpitti <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm not following you, Frank. He seems perfectly lucid to me. He's
> saying that the fundamental skills that were requisite in the wood
> days are falling into neglect, and that knowledge of these
> fundamentals is fading away. The skills that have taken their place
> are less reliable under pressure.
I'm not asking about what he meant by the several paragraphs
taken together. My question referred specifically to his phrase
"whenever equipment becomes more important than
the skill level that is involved."
Even if certain shots and tactics are falling into neglect,
that doesn't justify saying that _the_ skill level (as a whole)
has become less important than the racquet chosen.
/Frank
Frank Silbermann
<2fd2ff8c.02112...@posting.google.com>,
Michael Scarpitti <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> but I still never felt comfortable with it. I returned to wood in
> 1997, and just recently tried a Wilson Pro Staff (85 6.0) strung at
> 64 lbs. I CAN play with this one, but there seems to be little benefit
> over my woodies, if any.
Do any pros still use the original Wilson Pro Staff?
When did the last pros stop using it? Were all those pros
forced to switch racquets or retire when the power groundstroke
revolution came along? If not, how were they able to keep up
using a racquet not powerful enough to have changed the character
of the game?
/Frank
H Holbrook
Yes, there are pros that still use the original PS. Pete Sampras for
one. All rackets have a finite shelf life, whether they're being used r
not. I'd bet the Original PS inventory is at the end of its useful life
now.
The PS is significantly more versatile, powerful and forgiving than any
wood racket ever made, despite the contrary testimony from Hacker Scarp.
Compared to other modern "player frames" it is heavy and soft.
Compared to wood, it is a light saber.
Michael Scarpitti
On the tour? Sampras, quite possibly others.