Have a Question for Me?

[johnyandell]

Rich,

I can answer for myself. When I experimented with double poly--yeah I found I had to really increase my swing speed to get the full effect--and that the aesthetics of the sound and feel weren't that pleasing.

So I went 17 guage hybrid with a soft synthetic. Love it. I can get more spin for sure, but it sounds great and still has a relatively soft smooth feel.
Used it to win a couple of 4.0 NTRP league matches for one of my clubs filling in on one of the teams. So if the player actually has viable swing shapes, yeah, I think it can add.

John

[johnyandell]

Question 4:

Dick Gould at Stanford gave me my first teaching job in California. He had an amazing (still does) teaching system based on checkpoints. He never used the word "model" but essentially that's what he was using for all the strokes.

I used this approach to reconstruct my own forehand, and I saw how powerfully effective it could be with students and players at all levels. When I started teaching at Golden Gate Park in the late 1970s I became friends with the cadre of high level men's players who trained there at the time. I was a few levels below them as a player, but was able to use the approach to help some of them make technical improvements.

We had an original sony betamax system and that is where I used video for the first time. As I began traveling around norcal and watching my friends play open matches, I noticed that inevitably watching them intently had a positive "osmosis" effect on my own game.

So there you have all the elements. Visual input, visual feedback and the creation of physical models with checkpoints. The Mac/Lendl video was the first systematic effort to take this and turn it into a teaching tool/product.

20 years later all those elements are the components of Tennisplayer.

[rich berman]

copoly strings

Hi John,
First: Your site continues to improve - hats off to you!!
Question: Will copoly strings benefit the ave rec. player who doesn't/can't hit with significant racquet head speed.
thanks for all you do for the tennis community.
Rich Berman

[johnyandell]

Not annoyed just curious. If you want to ask the rest feel free.

[don_budge]

No plan...no agenda, just curious.

John...

I have no plans. Your thread is entitled "Have a question for me?" and I had six questions just off the top of my head. Originally I asked all six questions in one post...but I decided to ask each individually, so I guess I was using a bit of an interview technique. I thought that might be interesting and entertaining but I only seem to be succeeding in annoying you. I was sincerely curious about what your views were on some things with regard to tennis and I was hoping that you might expound on your thoughts a bit. I thought they were interesting questions. I think you must be an interesting guy with some interesting things to say. Do you see where I was going with it?

But you seem to be suspicious of my motivation...so please forget I asked. Excuse me. Thanks for the great website and the interesting forum that is great fun to participate in!

[johnyandell]

What's your plan with all this info?

[don_budge]

Just a couple of questions...JohnY

John...

Good points...well played. Thank you. Question #4...

Who are the coaches, teachers and players that have contributed the most to your teaching model?

Question no. 4 of 6.

[johnyandell]

Well, it's not before my time but I am not a stats guy.

I saw all those guys play.

It was the days of wood. Stan Smith was #3. That says a lot. Obviously Stan was great. Could kill 99.9999 of all players today, but simply was not in my opinion an athlete at the level of the top players of today. If you are related to him, please do not share this.

But seriously I don't think you can compare eras easily. Maybe in terms of achievement but not ability.

A young Connors was #10. But you have to wonder if with the modern equipment even his incredible game would still work. Did you hear what Agassi said? It's a different game today even from his era.

When I see Gonzalez move or even Budge, I think that maybe those guys would adapt and hold their own. But in general no. It's like most sports--the level progresses with time. For a different view go read Ed Atkinson's pieces in the history section.

[don_budge]

Before your time?

Sorry...this may of been before your time. You must be a bit younger than I. Here's the top 100 from 1973 and 2011.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx?d=23.08.1973&c=&r=1#

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx?d=16.05.2011&c=&r=1#

[johnyandell]

Uh, who were the top 10 in 1973?

[don_budge]

Just a couple of questions...JohnY

John...

Two down, only four to go. Thank you for your answer. Question no. 3.

What do you think of the depth of professional tennis as compared with 1973, for example? The classic era vs. the modern era.


Question no. 3 in a series of 6.

[johnyandell]

Jesus, 5 more questions?

"Somehow" is the serve being ignored? Not sure about the blanket statement there. Maybe you've been looking at it more closely than I have.

The one thing that is apparent to me is that despite the incredible velocity, a 120mph serve to the right spot is still an ace. Fed proved that at the top. His serve was much more of a weapon in the true sense than say Roddick.

You have to think from a distance too that with the talent in the game someone could serve more like Pete and hit those 120mph kicks and get in at least sometimes. But read the copoly article for an interesting view.

The women's game is something else. As I have written it will be very interesting to see if any more of the top women move toward the men's model like Henin and Stosur. Based on my experience this isn't going to occur though thru the receptiveness of the tour coaches or players with a guy like Craig Kardon being an exception.

[don_budge]

Just a couple of questions...JohnY

John...

Interesting answer...thank you. Question no. 2...

2 In your opinion do you think that somehow the importance of the serve is currently being overlooked in professional tennis?

Question no. 2 in a series of 6.

[johnyandell]

DB,

I don't know if it's possible to say definitively. The one fact is that, for whatever reason, no Americans have emerged with the pure talent to play in the top 5. That's a god given thing. You can't turn a pig's ear into, etc etc.
Not to say Isner and Querry aren't unbelievable compared to the 6 billion people on the planet. But look at the very few who make the top ten. Those that do tend to stay for years. So this is very very small number of players.

A lot of discussion goes into coaching, USTA, etc etc. Is it possible that the next great child was repressed, driven from tennis, taught the wrong grip, etc etc? I guess but again I think players like AA, Pete, Mac, Connors, those guys were destined to emerge. None of them were developed thru the USTA. So the USTA can't be "failing" to continue to produce what it never did produce. Could it be the start of a new source of players--sure. But again the best coaching in the world can only make a player as great as his potential.

Is that we aren't attracting great athletes to tennis? Again, maybe, and maybe it will take more NBA style athletes in the future. Possibly more could be done there and Quick Start may do that.

Personally I don't care if the best players are American to be honest. I just like to study the best players.

John Yandell

[don_budge]

Just a couple of questions...JohnY

John...

Please grant me the privilege of posing a couple of questions to you.

1 In your opinion what are the factors that have contributed to the decline in American tennis?

Question no. 1 in a series of 6.