The Passion of Tennis

[bottle]

I should like to open a can of worms I call "Religion in Tennis" since most people think there are only one or three ways to play the game. A closer study of the field reveals Lansdorpians, Wegnerians, Bolleterians, Bradenites,
Broudians, Brownians, Klingons and McLennanites. I would add the Yandellians along with others but don't think that wise. The Papasians are especially interesting since their Joseph Smith, Mark Papas, demonstrates
emphatic linear foot-travel and wrist and forearm action unique to themselves in lieu of shoulders turn.

The newest religion-- Klingongalia-- seems least like the way the pros play.
And yet Oscar Wegner once wrote a public letter supporting founder Doug
King's slow approach and maintained nearness to the ball. Since then, though, King appears to have diverged. The springer but not swinger would hit the ball in the center of the strings, Oscar near the trailing edge. I'd call Klingons Kingans if I didn't know from personal experience that extremely passive arm action in contact zone can help the ball cling to the strings.

Just what is the esoteric, mysterious hand action that Doug King advises, though? First the racket's on the inside then the outside of the ball all in four thousandths of a second? Are the different religions singing to each other? Is Ray Brown quietly trying to develop King's pinball flipper analogy in the Browns' current lessons on reflex action-- the idea that if you lay wrist back all the way and then squeeze fingers the racket tip whips forward for added acceleration?

The Wegnerians, meanwhile, keep racket angle constant as they whip across the ball on ground strokes, slice, volleys, serves and everything. They whip the frame, not the strings. To say arm action embracing contact is active would be putting things too mildly.

Maria Sharapova confuses discussion by seeming to be a Lansdorpian while using her pec and biceps. She doesn't extend her arm through the ball, she pulls off of it.

So many religions. Appeasers would say they have a lot in common. Not I.

[johnyandell]

Well the only factual point I'll make is that according to the foremost physics professor of the game (Rod Cross) you can't really influence "dwell time."

But the religion issue is pretty interesting. I think the quasi-cult approach is one of the real problems that is holding us all back. If there is a "Yandellian" church, then there is only one authorized member.

In this respect I think we can all learn something from the experience of Sigmund Freud. When I was in college I read almost everything Freud wrote and it is completely compelling and brilliant. In Vienna Freud gathered an equally brilliant circle of disciples: Otto Rank, Wilhem Reich, and C.G. Jung, among others.

One by the one, the disciples broke with the master. Jung was the last to go and when he did, the story is that Freud fainted and fell on the floor. Today there is a Freudian orthodox remnant and dozens of other approaches that followed from that original brilliant stream.

What does this have to do with tennis? The analogy seems obvious. No matter how closely you cling to your brilliant version of the truth, the only way you are going to have permanent disciples is by resorting to cult conformity methods that disallow all independent thinking--and you still might have to give them the poision cool aid to keep them from leaving...

Hopefully I'll still be writing posts on this site in another 35 years or so, but after I've gone bye bye I doubt there will be people reading passages from Visual Tennis in their evening prayer circles. If anything the contribution I make will be the data resources from the video collections. Those can form the basis for many more churches to come.

If there is anything resembling a philosophy behind this sight it's that impassioned opinion in the interpretation of data is a good thing--but that opinion needs to be supported by data, and that no opinion is final. Open discussion--even argument is good and can be a positive, but not when viewed as the path to establishing the final word and who is right and who is wrong.

With some people you reach a point where "agreeing to disagree" is the only option. But to me that's usually a sign of dogmatic thinking at least on one side, if not both. I'd like to think that over time I prefer to try to keep learning and revising, even though that can be painful. Some people prefer retreating to their corners and calling each other bad names.

By the way this process is not just about the wars between the alleged "gurus" themselves. The personal nature of personal knowledge is going to be the same for tennis players who take the time to try to interpret and integrate what they believe for themselves. That may be scary and if it's easier to believe in your "church" at least for a while, that's all fine to. I like to think that all those options are available on Tennisplayer.