The Warrior Mentality

[10splayer]

Two more guys who don't get it, and never will.

Crowds get so excited about warrior sporting events for one reason alone. It allows us to symbolically and viscerally experience a battle from a safe distance, as if we were fighting ourselves, without the physical risk to life and limb, to satisfy our genetic need for blood and gore. Games have changed mankind's propensity to actually go to kill our neighbor. Those who put the nose in the air over that history, and genetic memory, and past life experience, are just ignorant, or delusional themselves.

Yeah, well watching you play some other overweight, 4.0 on a public court doesn't do it for me. sorry....Can't make the connection from that, to the battle of Bull Run.

The problem I have is when you start using these terms like warrior, or describing a tennis match as do or die, etc. It dilutes the term, and what it means in describing "true" warriors. It certainly doesn't describe (at least in any literal way) two people playing a stupid game.

Who's delusional?

[GeoffWilliams]

Two more guys who don't get it, and never will.

Crowds get so excited about warrior sporting events for one reason alone. It allows us to symbolically and viscerally experience a battle from a safe distance, as if we were fighting ourselves, without the physical risk to life and limb, to satisfy our genetic need for blood and gore. Games have changed mankind's propensity to actually go to kill our neighbor. Those who put the nose in the air over that history, and genetic memory, and past life experience, are just ignorant, or delusional themselves.

[10splayer]

I finally got around to reading it. I have beavers to tend to. I have a new chocolate labrador puppy named Puntzi to tend to. I have golf schools to teach. 25 hours of tennis classes to boot. My life is full…and balanced as lobanddropshot reminds us before we get all frothing in the mouth. Warriors? Hardly…but hey…there are plenty of real battles to be fought these days. Obama and company…the U. S. Government rarely sees a potential war that they aren't interested in. Particularly so if we can do it under the guise of National Security and Homeland Security. Go sign up for operation Jade Helm if you have all this passion for killing and dying. Dying? Never been involved in any tennis match or anything else for that matter that was worth dying for. No tennis match that I ever played in or witnesses remotely resembled something on the level of a life and death struggle. Delusional.

Tennis is a game. That is all that it is. It was originated by the aristocratic French noblisse. They weren't interested in dying for anything either. The game morphed into Great Britain upper upper class. You know the crowd. They have their noses in the air when you or I walk into the room. It's their party and you aren't invited. They aren't interested in dying either. No…they send the poor kids to do the killing and dying. Can't see getting the old hands dirty. Tennis is a party…it isn't a war. War (warrior) is something quite different. I remember Sgt. Barnes (Tom Berringer) in the movie "Platoon" asking his men…"what do you know about killing?" Tennis players don't know this kind of instinct. It's far-fetched. You have seen too many American war movies glorifying death and dying…in the name of patriotism. You've been brain washed. Wake up.

But in a sense…you are right. The game has morphed into a gladiator…Big Time Wrestling spectacle. The announcers try to hype it up the best they can. Gushing about "spectacular" play with great exaggeration and chutzpah. To me it sounds downright silly and ridiculous but it passes nowadays under the "entertainment of small minds" heading. These guys aren't warriors…they are barely tennis players. Everyone of them playing the chicken game of the harmless duel from the baseline. Not a single one of them with the balls to truly attack where the game was meant to be attacked from…the net. The modern game is only a spectacle…it is only in a long list of diversions designed to take the consumer's eye off of the ball so that the real agenda is pushed forward. It's all about money in the end…but even in these copious amounts nobody is willing to die for it. Most people are too smart…they realize that in our position the name of the game is to live to play another day. Tennis is merely a distraction and a way of participating in an activity to get some exercise. Surely there is the competitive aspect of the game but how can you possibly equate this or mistake this with a life or death scenario. This isn't healthy mental health for that matter.

Modern day tennis players are far from any type of warrior. When I think of a warrior…I think of Geronimo and his band of warriors. The Apache. These guys were pursued by the U. S. Government into the abyss. It was their land and they knew it. They weren't going to give it away or sell it. They were determined to keep it at all costs. There is warrior mentality. They refused to give up…truly this type of warrior chose to die than to be taken alive. Native American warriors could not be made into slavery…they didn't have that kind of mentality. U. S. soldiers outnumbered them by hundreds to one yet they were unable to pacify or vanquish them until nearly the 20th century. What do you know about dying? What do you know about being hungry?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache

You can save this trivial gossip and bullshit for the forum. It's entertaining and it's prose. It's funny…though barely amusing. It doesn't make any sense at all but this is beside the point in the forum…where all are welcome to state their case. Well…almost all.

I have a suggestion for any of you that actually believe that this game is about a warrior mentality…go sign up. Get a taste of the killing you dream about. That you claim to lust for. Deep inside of any weekend warrior is a chicken waiting to be hatched when faced with the reality of death. Rightfully so. Warrior mentality…my ass. Competitive…to a certain degree.

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, finally a voice of reason. If I hear one more athlete talking about "going to war", or kill or be killed, Im gonna scream. It's actually, an incredible disservice to those who have. A "warrior" is one that gets out of the trenches in WW1 and walk into an open field of machine guns. Athletes play a stupid game. Hello!!!!

These days a guy like Floyd Mayweather is considered a "warrior". Someone who runs further then a marathoner during a fight. Indeed the only "combat" he's faced is beating the shit out of one of his 7 wives.

[don_budge]

The Competitor…and the Weekend Warrior

What we're talking about here is being a "competitor", which, comes in many forms and style packages. That is, those that are willing to do what's necessary to win, within the confines of fair play. To say, or associate this with some sort of "aggression" in a "primal" way is just short sided.

It runs the gamut.

I finally got around to reading it. I have beavers to tend to. I have a new chocolate labrador puppy named Puntzi to tend to. I have golf schools to teach. 25 hours of tennis classes to boot. My life is full…and balanced as lobanddropshot reminds us before we get all frothing in the mouth. Warriors? Hardly…but hey…there are plenty of real battles to be fought these days. Obama and company…the U. S. Government rarely sees a potential war that they aren't interested in. Particularly so if we can do it under the guise of National Security and Homeland Security. Go sign up for operation Jade Helm if you have all this passion for killing and dying. Dying? Never been involved in any tennis match or anything else for that matter that was worth dying for. No tennis match that I ever played in or witnesses remotely resembled something on the level of a life and death struggle. Delusional.

Tennis is a game. That is all that it is. It was originated by the aristocratic French noblisse. They weren't interested in dying for anything either. The game morphed into Great Britain upper upper class. You know the crowd. They have their noses in the air when you or I walk into the room. It's their party and you aren't invited. They aren't interested in dying either. No…they send the poor kids to do the killing and dying. Can't see getting the old hands dirty. Tennis is a party…it isn't a war. War (warrior) is something quite different. I remember Sgt. Barnes (Tom Berringer) in the movie "Platoon" asking his men…"what do you know about killing?" Tennis players don't know this kind of instinct. It's far-fetched. You have seen too many American war movies glorifying death and dying…in the name of patriotism. You've been brain washed. Wake up.

But in a sense…you are right. The game has morphed into a gladiator…Big Time Wrestling spectacle. The announcers try to hype it up the best they can. Gushing about "spectacular" play with great exaggeration and chutzpah. To me it sounds downright silly and ridiculous but it passes nowadays under the "entertainment of small minds" heading. These guys aren't warriors…they are barely tennis players. Everyone of them playing the chicken game of the harmless duel from the baseline. Not a single one of them with the balls to truly attack where the game was meant to be attacked from…the net. The modern game is only a spectacle…it is only in a long list of diversions designed to take the consumer's eye off of the ball so that the real agenda is pushed forward. It's all about money in the end…but even in these copious amounts nobody is willing to die for it. Most people are too smart…they realize that in our position the name of the game is to live to play another day. Tennis is merely a distraction and a way of participating in an activity to get some exercise. Surely there is the competitive aspect of the game but how can you possibly equate this or mistake this with a life or death scenario. This isn't healthy mental health for that matter.

Modern day tennis players are far from any type of warrior. When I think of a warrior…I think of Geronimo and his band of warriors. The Apache. These guys were pursued by the U. S. Government into the abyss. It was their land and they knew it. They weren't going to give it away or sell it. They were determined to keep it at all costs. There is warrior mentality. They refused to give up…truly this type of warrior chose to die than to be taken alive. Native American warriors could not be made into slavery…they didn't have that kind of mentality. U. S. soldiers outnumbered them by hundreds to one yet they were unable to pacify or vanquish them until nearly the 20th century. What do you know about dying? What do you know about being hungry?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache

You can save this trivial gossip and bullshit for the forum. It's entertaining and it's prose. It's funny…though barely amusing. It doesn't make any sense at all but this is beside the point in the forum…where all are welcome to state their case. Well…almost all.

I have a suggestion for any of you that actually believe that this game is about a warrior mentality…go sign up. Get a taste of the killing you dream about. That you claim to lust for. Deep inside of any weekend warrior is a chicken waiting to be hatched when faced with the reality of death. Rightfully so. Warrior mentality…my ass. Competitive…to a certain degree.

[lobndropshot]

I have had fun while losing. But I have also lost and not enjoyed it. Not enjoying a match that you lose should be the exception to the rule. Not the rule itself.

[GeoffWilliams]

All approach it underneath the same way. Why play? Because sometimes you win, sometimes you improve, and sometimes you have fun doing so. No one plays to lose and enjoys it.

[lobndropshot]

Pleasure can be obtained mainly through practice without competitive pressure, in the aim for rhythm, fun, cooperation, enjoyment, non competition. But as soon as you start a set, or tie breakers, or play for points competitively, the loser is going to feel worse than the winner, and someone will lose at the expense of himself and his own ego/feelings about his game.

Totally agree... But won't you feel worse if you approach it like your going to die? If yes then why compete in this silly game?

[GeoffWilliams]

Pleasure can be obtained mainly through practice without competitive pressure, in the aim for rhythm, fun, cooperation, enjoyment, non competition. But as soon as you start a set, or tie breakers, or play for points competitively, the loser is going to feel worse than the winner, and someone will lose at the expense of himself and his own ego/feelings about his game.

When the well trained and well equipped compete, the ill trained and ill equipped lose, however slightly so. Anyone saying that it's fun to lose regardless is either lying, or delusional.

The juniors who adopt the warrior mind set early on, and train maniacally early on, are the ones who become world class. Once a player begins to learn later on in life, it's nearly impossible to become world class in any area/shot/tactical employment. The strength of mind won't matter.

Those juniors who do, are either motivated by poverty, an extreme desire to prove themselves better than the others, an extreme desire to become wealthy/famous/popular/admired/ regaled, or an extreme desire to prove their parents wrong/and or: right. EVery victory coming at the expense of another. It's the little killers that win the most.

How many coaches have you seen that can train an older player to become world class? The thing I'm attempting, has never been done: learn to serve at my age, learn to hit a forehand at my age, to a world class level. Never been done in the history of the planet. Only chance to do it would be a site like this one helping. The odds are one in a billion against it. A will stronger than Nadal.

I've only applied that kind of will towards stringing. I have cut out strings a hundred times over that were hit with for a half hour. I've tried every new string and many techniques, some invented by myself, without cracking a frame doing so. I've inserted all kinds of materials to increase spin. All kinds of tension combinations/experiments/ra/sq. in./pro stock customization tech, etc. What has that will brought me? A slightly larger understanding of spin and power and feel and control, but not enough to substantially alter many matches. Brief stretches of utter domination over equal players, followed by longer stretches of utter collapse and unforced errors. The perfection zone does not last long with string. Nor with the mind.

[stotty]

Yes, there are many ways to come at the game in terms of mentality. At it's best, tennis is game of chess played with an inner calm. There are also times where you have to dig deep, survive and forget the chessboard. Tennis asks many qualities...

[10splayer]

This whole idea of kill or be killed in sports is an idea that just needs to go away (I highly doubt it is truly a part of our DNA, otherwise there would not be 7 billion people in this world). Here is why. If I approach every match like it is life or death and I lose I feel like death. If I win so what I just live and living is a very low standard of success. Therefore, there is automatically a smaller payoff for winning in comparison to losing, so what then is stopping me from just quitting and taking up fishing or gardening. Also, not to mention what if I get hurt in a match and limp my way to a win? Well I win but I have caused more damage to my injury but at least I am not “dead.” Well I am not dead but now I have to go through my week with a stupid limp that I got in a silly USTA league match.

Why not approach the game as someone who is trying to maximize their pleasure. I want to practice my serve because it is enjoyable and I will play better which is also enjoyable. Or in the case of JRs: “coach makes this game so much fun so I will go hit on the wall for four hours after practice.”

We are simply asking a bigger question: what is success? How we define success? Is success winning? Sure winning is a part of it but I like the idea that success is more about balance. Look at the success of Andre Agassi later in his career he did not become a winner because he became a warrior. He became successful because he found balance outside the court. Federer has been successful because he has been able to maintain balance between his life, his work and he clearly finds joy in the game.

Yeah, I tend to agree with this. What we're talking about here is being a "competitor", which, comes in many forms and style packages. That is, those that are willing to do what's necessary to win, within the confines of fair play. To say, or associate this with some sort of "aggression" in a "primal" way is just short sided. Some of the most "imposing" players i"ve ever played, or coached, where not "aggressive" in the way they played or conducted themselves. It runs the gamut.

[ghl312]

I don't think it's fair to put disruptor and pushers in the same category. While they do the similar things and create a similar problem for their opponent, the mindset is actually very different. A disruptor uses what they have to create errors and discomfort. A pusher keeps balls in play and waits for discomfort. To me the warrior mindset is not about he style of play. It's more about being relentless in imposing their game. Let's not forget that federer plays a disruptive style with the attacking mindset perfectly blended in. He uses a short slice to draw people out of position and create a weak response before attacking the open court. He also changes spins and pace on all of his strokes, including the serve, very regularly. The article originally compared the mindset to that of a hunter. How someone chooses to hunt is based on the tools they have. A disruptor with a warrior mindset is like the hunter who baits their prey and uses a snare or a trap to get the kill. All players have to work with what they have. Someone without firepower still needs a warrior mindset to reach their potential. It just won't look the same as someone with the same mindset and a forehand like del potro.

[GeoffWilliams]

Seems to me like the clash of two mindsets, though I think disruptor is the wrong term. "Pusher" fits the bill better.

Disrupting can fit both types. The warrior disruptor does not let his opponent find his rhythm by not only bashing full power, but mixing up hard shots with drop shots, serving and volleying now and then.

The pusher disrupts in a different fashion: constantly giving slow shots back and trying not to make any mistake. Endlessly long points.


Warrior: I want to win, I will blow my opponent off the court.

Pusher: I do not want to lose, I will get everything back and throw junk at my opponent until he makes a mistake.

Offense versus Defense. Make points vs don't make mistakes.

All the great champions are warriors. The pushers have success at the club level.

Another right on insight. As most of the players on earth are club level players or worse, pushers win at most levels. They don't have the killer mind set, they have the don't be killed mind set. The level of skill and determination it takes to develop a winning warrior mind set is far greater and more difficult to master. An outright beginner can learn to keep the ball going softly. Pushers are not very skilled at most things, ie, volleying, serving, over heads. The only skill they collect is ground stroke consistency over and above all else. They hate playing someone who plays two feet inside the base line and who attacks all their short shots and weak serves. That type of player is their worst nightmare if done well. Why is that? This style forces them to hit harder, deeper, and to make passing shots under net pressure, or good lobs. It's essential to have a good over head against pushers, as the lob will be going up a lot.

[lobndropshot]

This whole idea of kill or be killed in sports is an idea that just needs to go away (I highly doubt it is truly a part of our DNA, otherwise there would not be 7 billion people in this world). Here is why. If I approach every match like it is life or death and I lose I feel like death. If I win so what I just live and living is a very low standard of success. Therefore, there is automatically a smaller payoff for winning in comparison to losing, so what then is stopping me from just quitting and taking up fishing or gardening. Also, not to mention what if I get hurt in a match and limp my way to a win? Well I win but I have caused more damage to my injury but at least I am not “dead.” Well I am not dead but now I have to go through my week with a stupid limp that I got in a silly USTA league match.

Why not approach the game as someone who is trying to maximize their pleasure. I want to practice my serve because it is enjoyable and I will play better which is also enjoyable. Or in the case of JRs: “coach makes this game so much fun so I will go hit on the wall for four hours after practice.”

We are simply asking a bigger question: what is success? How we define success? Is success winning? Sure winning is a part of it but I like the idea that success is more about balance. Look at the success of Andre Agassi later in his career he did not become a winner because he became a warrior. He became successful because he found balance outside the court. Federer has been successful because he has been able to maintain balance between his life, his work and he clearly finds joy in the game.

[gzhpcu]

Seems to me like the clash of two mindsets, though I think disruptor is the wrong term. "Pusher" fits the bill better.

Disrupting can fit both types. The warrior disruptor does not let his opponent find his rhythm by not only bashing full power, but mixing up hard shots with drop shots, serving and volleying now and then.

The pusher disrupts in a different fashion: constantly giving slow shots back and trying not to make any mistake. Endlessly long points.


Warrior: I want to win, I will blow my opponent off the court.

Pusher: I do not want to lose, I will get everything back and throw junk at my opponent until he makes a mistake.

Offense versus Defense. Make points vs don't make mistakes.

All the great champions are warriors. The pushers have success at the club level.

[GeoffWilliams]

True. But as an MMA fighter, you have more to add than that.