Tweet
Here's a video I ran across from our new contributor.
-
-
Pretty lame in my estimation. A bold statement in today's tennis world. Tennis is like liberalism and this is the great downfall of the game. Even on this tiny little forum...you must AGREE!!! You must be NICE!!! You get points for participation. Wear a helmet please.Originally posted by seano View Post
Mayotte attributes the downfall to coaching. The coaching is shit and it was basically hijacked by Nick "Bowl of Cherries" Bollettieri back and around 1980. I would take it another couple of steps further in my assessment. Let's call it a fundamental demolition of the infrastructure and the most important date of that cataclysmic event would be when Title IX became the rule of the land. Fifty-three years ago. 1972...ironically the very year that don_budge graduated from high school. The very year that I met the real Don Budge at his tennis camp. It is all so fascinating how the dots connect to events in my life. I guess that's why I sort of take it personally. Title IX made it mandatory that money be equally distributed between boys and girls in sports. In school.
That was a huge strike against men...and boys. Traditionally and it will always be so...sports were dominated by men. Men and women are not equal. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Anybody that tells you they are is insane. Or really stupid. Maybe both. But Title IX hamstrung the scholarship programs in sports and as a consequence the money in mens and boys participation was halved.
Another thing Tim emphasises is the dominance of the USTA in the coaching paradigm. This led to the hijacking and the "political correct" way to coach tennis. The paradigm shifted to the Nick Bollettieri paradigm of western forehand, two hand backhand and shit service motion. That about sums up American tennis right there. Traditionally...tennis coaching in and around 1972 was done by locality. Local coaches developed their stable of players throughout the years and other local coaches nearby developed theirs and this created in conjunction with the USTA a competitive network on a local level that morphed into larger areas. Up to the National level. This competitive network fed into the college scholarship programs and it created the best "minor league" for tennis you could imagine. A player graduated from his local area and coach to the larger college arena and the competition was rather fierce. I know. I was a participant and going through the fire of number one singles are a medium sized college for two years was a real education. I forgot to mention that the community college two year institutions was a another step in the process for players that weren't ready for the big time four year university. I was one of those. I got the necessary seasoning with local coach who taught me in the first place.
High school tennis was a big part of a players tennis education. Three years of competitive tennis at this level provided a lot of match play experience. During high school age there was a terrific summer program of parks and recreation tournaments and competition in cooperation of USTA sanctioned events. The draws at these local USTA events were always at least 32 players and often they were 64 players in the draw. Signifying a huge level of participation. All events were in one category too. There was no such thing as 4.0 or 4.5. It was draw and if you lost...you lost. Another factor in all of these training opportunities was doubles. In every single one of the institutions that I have mentioned...doubles was a given. If you played in the singles, most likely you played in the doubles. If you do the math regarding a local event with a draw of 64 and a draw of 32 doubles...that is a lot of matches if you are going to win the event. Factor in the possiblity of being in the finals of both singles and doubles...that is so freaking tough. If the tournament was played over three days and the finals were on Sunday...Monday morning you were literally peeling yourself off the bed. I don't like to be in the sun too long to this very day.
Mayotte sort of scratches the surface. He barely grazed the surface regarding just how far American tennis has fallen and why. The entire infrastructure has devolved to the academy. The tournament infrastructure of competition through the school system in cooperation with local parks and recreation has been dismantled. You don't get the numbers in participation. Let's face it...you have to place a huge numbers of monkeys in a huge room of infinite typewriters before one of them will print out the King James version of the Bible. You get the picture.
Technique...lot of bull shit. It is a complicated game. Good coaching is a huge plus. Largely it is a game of trial and error. Competition. Tactics. Variety of tactics. The infrastructure of the game is so homogenised. The court surfaces. American tennis had always been attacking tennis. Serve and volley. Sampras was the end of the line. Then it Agassi and his idea of "image is everything" and the Prince racquet and Nick "Bowl of Cherries". The game devolved. It was being played the way Europeans and South Americans always played it. Like clay court tennis. So it is a long story. A good one too. But you have to dig down beneath the surface. It's complicated. Most of the information is buried now. Modern tennis coaches are so defficient in anything resembling the real and true game of tennis. Tim should be aware of this. He played that sort of tennis. He knows what I am talking about as he played in this era. So the video is really retarded in that it simplifies something that is very complicated. It isn't the coaching necessarily. Not entirely. Although it too is really retarded in a lot of cases. Complicated game? You've got to be kidding!!! You cannot be serious!!! The game is so dumbed down nowadays. Basically retarded.
Comment