Pathological Losers: My Vic Braden Interview

[JeffMac]

I feel you doth wax too pessimistic Don. I'm not going to bring world peace, or even save the whales, but I have something that I think can help a lot of tennis players. Maybe even you. I think you'll see that. But maybe not. That's why I've chosen a blue avatar for you. Is your glass ever half full?

Nevertheless, I like your posts too. You're very smart, and well read, but way too gloomy.

For example, you keep using the word "lose." Are you talking about losses on the tennis court, losses that we experience in life, or death? Is it all of the above? Or what? I'm curious. I'd really like to know. Perhaps you're spending too much time studying the contributions of the Watcher. You too have become more and more cryptic.

With all due respect Don, I feel your way off base when you dismiss Braden as a "charlatan," a "jokester," and a "huckster." Please. I challenge you to watch that old PBS series with an open mind, and then attempt to support a position that contends that it is not replete with an excellent recitation of solid tennis fundamentals.

I remember watching those shows at a time when I was easing off the baseball, and then softball, and going all in on tennis. I was very thirsty for knowledge. I got a whole lot out of that series.

Some people--you're obviously one of them--want to dismiss him solely on the basis of his demeanor and quasi-comic persona. Others--such as myself--were able to watch his shows, enjoy the humor, and still zero in on all the instructional gems.

Actually, in terms of content, I consider him to be the most serious tennis theoretician that has ever lived. And a true genius. He looked more deeply into more things tennis than anybody who has ever lived.

I'll give you an example. I went out to lunch with him many years after I interviewed him in Vegas. (I don't think he remembered that episode, by the way). He told me some amazing stories.

The one I remember the most concerns the years that he lived out in the Coachella Valley. He built a court at his house. But it wasn't just any court. He installed heavy metal sensors in the ground under the court to provide him with feedback about footwork patterns, and this that and the next thing. He had a level of curiosity to rival Steve Jobs.

He made a lot of money in his prime. He spent a small fortune on his own dime for some of the most esoteric, cutting edge research that has ever been done in sports science. So when anyone likens him to a second rate stand up comic I just have to shake my head in wonder. It means you haven't looked very deeply beneath the surface.

He has arguably the most "serious" body of tennis research in the history of the sport. My only beef was that he actually went so deep into the weeds on a lot of stuff that it was essentially irrelevant to 99% of us. For instance, when he started talking about how open the face of a racquet had to be from positions X,Y, and Z on the court I began to tune out. It's not really useful information. I don't need to be thinking about that when I'm hitting a ball.

That, by the way, is why he couldn't keep his PBS network commentator's gig. No one wanted to hear that stuff. Like he said himself after he figured that out, "They just want to know how to beat Alice on Tuesday."

And, although it may not matter in the context off this discussion, he had a heart of gold. He was a very giving person. I don't like it when saintly people are castigated.

He was very accessible too. When he published an email address, or a phone number it was a direct line. I remember calling him the first time expecting to talk to some secretary or something. I couldn't efen believe it when he answered the phone. It was all because he wanted to be helpful to people. Try getting through to Bollittieri some time why don't you. Ha! Ha!

Wouldn't it be accurate to say you're the one stepping on Superman's cape?

[don_budge]

The Saint…the Paradigm. The LCD.

Is your glass ever half full?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcMktHJvJVo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUpPFG8AwBg

My glass? Why yeah…it is half full and half empty. It's that way all of the time. I don't kid myself as much as I kid others. I am a realist…or at least that is my ambition. What about your glass? It's half full and half empty at the same time too. There is no other way around it. Is that an original thought? I don't know but I have never ever heard anyone else say it. I told bottle this once.

Sure Vic Braden was a saint…or is a saint. He's dead now…it's time to canonize. That's fine with me. All that I was saying was that he was a human being. I've never paid any serious attention to his tennis teachings as I have to say that as a whole I found them unnecessary even though I find myself to be a tennis teacher now. I try to boil everything down to it's LCD…lowest common denominator. Minimalist. Truth. Tennis is no different. It isn't rocket science or a psychoanalyst's playground.

Today I also gave some council to a 14 year old of mine who was looking obviously traumatized by the events of his day and was having a hard time concentrating. His cousin had passed away in the night…the grandmother had called and woke the household. His sister is also suicidal and otherwise dysfunctional and his little brother fell on the ice and crushed his face. There was some problem with his girlfriend who has recently been showing up at his practice to watch him. He had the look of misery on his face…the world was ganging up on him. It has been for some time. I tried to get him to smile…to laugh even. He was playing tennis for crying out loud and all of that stuff could wait until tennis was over. I wasn't trying to be callous…just realistic. At first…I gave him the out. I said that if he didn't feel like playing it was understandable…he should just go home. But once he said he wanted to stay, I tried to get him to commit himself to the moment. To have fun…under seemingly impossible conditions. It's the test of manhood…to keep face when all around you the rest are losing theirs. I sent him home with the advice that his job was to be the positive one…to be the beacon of strength that he could be for his little brother. The rest of it was beyond his control…I figured. This is what winning and losing is about.

You can make tennis as complicated or as uncomplicated as you like. I said this to another student of mine yesterday. She has been playing for years and serving with a forehand grip. I managed to "change" her with a bit of spellbinding words and looks. I personally engaged with her.

I asked her when it was over…how was it? Was it that strange (the grip change)?…I asked her. She had a really surprised look on her lovely face. A lovely smile. "It was at first but the new way is better", she said. I knew that I had accomplished something of monumental importance…to me and to her. Another guy too in the same class. I changed his approach to serving. Afterwards I said to him that by the end of our term he was going to have a great serve…all that he had to do was trust me.

I'm no Vic Braden…nor do I care to be. I'm just little old me…don_budge. But Vic was just that…he was Vic. He had his swing at the thing. I can appreciate all that made up his life…including his humble and modest beginnings in Toledo, Ohio. Same as mine.

No…I'm no pessimist. Not by a long shot. It's only that the reality of things isn't all that bright on a whole host of a myriad of issues. Modern tennis being one of them. Of course many find it easy to gloss over a lot of things. Turning a blind eye and all.

What I saw of Vic on CBS…not the PBS which I am totally unaware of…not that it would change my mind either…but what I saw of Vic was a short, round and jolly guy who's message was to have fun playing tennis. Much the same as Rod Laver and Roy Emerson emphasized in their combined effort in "Tennis for the Bloody Fun of It".

This business of "Pathological" losers may be of some importance…I don't know. But most human beings are losers. We all are in the end. It's not a pessimistic thing to say…it is only confronting the truth. Whether or not there are pathological losers I guess I will wait and see with you next article.

I resent your reference though to being "obviously you are one of them"…because there is very little obvious about me. Except for my respect for classic tennis and my teaching paradigm. "The Book is Bill Tilden. The model is Richard Gonzalez with the Don Budge backhand. Harry Hopman is the coach. Roger Federer is the Living Proof".

Somehow I omitted Vic Braden…and a lot of others. I managed to include an old "friend" of mine. All that I had to do was to connect the dots…the three little dots. It was simple…LCD. Lowest Common Denominator.

You might say that I am skeptical though. Of a lot of things…and people.

http://www.tennis.com/your-game/2015/04/1974-vic-braden-teaches-tennis-booms-new-players-how-win-and-have-fun/54643/#.VqNcJd6u38s

[stotty]

Today I also gave some council to a 14 year old of mine who was looking obviously traumatized by the events of his day and was having a hard time concentrating. His cousin had passed away in the night…the grandmother had called and woke the household. His sister is also suicidal and otherwise dysfunctional and his little brother fell on the ice and crushed his face. There was some problem with his girlfriend who has recently been showing up at his practice to watch him. He had the look of misery on his face…the world was ganging up on him. It has been for some time. I tried to get him to smile…to laugh even. He was playing tennis for crying out loud and all of that stuff could wait until tennis was over. I wasn't trying to be callous…just realistic. At first…I gave him the out. I said that if he didn't feel like playing it was understandable…he should just go home. But once he said he wanted to stay, I tried to get him to commit himself to the moment. To have fun…under seemingly impossible conditions. It's the test of manhood…to keep face when all around you the rest are losing theirs. I sent him home with the advice that his job was to be the positive one…to be the beacon of strength that he could be for his little brother. The rest of it was beyond his control…I figured. This is what winning and losing is about.

I think this is a good coaching ethic when you start looking out for and helping the individuals you teach, using intuition and insight. I found this impressive. I do this kind of thing myself. Like you, I like to know what makes people tick and find them interesting. When everything is boiled down, people are far more interesting than tennis strokes. I always reserve my best for nice people. I like nice people, nice families.

You can make tennis as complicated or as uncomplicated as you like.

I think tennis is very complicated once you start looking at it too closely, start looking at the science. So the best thing to focus on as a coach are fundamentals. Which begs the question, "what are the fundamentals"? What is fundamental and what isn't? Who draws the line? The late Mark Papas would have told us the purest fundamental is "step and hit" and just take it from there. It's interesting when you start quizzing other coaches about what the fundamentals are. You get different answers.

Certainly, there is pressure in team sports. I know because I played baseball when I was a kid. My Dad didn't like it when I failed to get a hit, and never hesitated to let me know it. However, for the sub-population that I am referring to, I believe that most of them would find tennis singles for more difficult to manage emotionally than any team sport.

I take your point and I agree with much of what you say. But let me leave you with a couple of scenarios to ponder:

Scenario 1: You are serving at matchpoint for the Wimbledon title in front of a 20,000 crowd and millions watching on TV. As an individual, this is the moment you have strove for all your life. You are supported by your coach, family, encourage and fan base, but I doubt you feel any pressure from these "extras" at match point.

Scenario 2: You are in a penalty shoot out for the soccer World Cup, as in 1994 Brazil versus Italy. You are the one taking the potentially deciding penalty to lift the trophy for your nation. A crowd of 100,000 are in the stadium making a huge noise while 3.2 billion are watching on TV. Your teammates are watching on as you run up to take that penalty and the nation's hopes are on your shoulders. One imagines in this scenario the "extras" weigh down you.

I have always felt team sports have the potential to deliver the most pressure at the highest level...knee-buckling pressure.


A word about doubles...

I dislike the way doubles has been passed off as a non-pressure, fun way to play tennis. I understand the logic but hate the outcome higher up the chain. The attitude seems to have filtered all the way up to the top of our sport....or did it filter down? I will leave others to work that out.

Doubles has lost all its status as a result. It's become a second rate event with second rate players playing it most of the time. Because of this, a large part of the foundation of how the very best emerging players once honed their volley skills has been lost...a part of tennis education has gone missing, hijacked as don_budge might say.

At world-class level I feel doubles isn't taken seriously anymore. It's little more than a sideshow. This is a tragedy because doubles is an art. When they put a doubles on the centre court over here at Wimbledon, everyone gets up and takes leave for a Pimms or cup of tea. In the 70s the stadium would have been full up!

I have felt pressure playing doubles with certain individuals. I am sensitive and hate the feeling of someone bearing down on me to win points and make every crucial ball. However, I played mostly with a quiet individual who just got on with it. He put no pressure on me and I none on him. We got on well. I knew all his capabilities and limitations and he knew all mine. We seldom spoke much during matches and had a kind of telepathy going on instead...no tagging hands or high fives after every point.

I will eagerly await your upcoming article, JeffMac. Your forthright manner on the forum is welcome and a breadth of fresh air.

[JeffMac]

Relishing Morbidity Just For Fun?

Yes. There is much to bemoan in our midst. The geopolitical situation is appalling. And getting worse. Much of it is driven by selfishness, greed, and the abuse of religion. It's an old story isn't it? Nothing new there.

And I believe you're saying that the culprit is human nature. Or maybe I'm projecting. You're so opaque it's hard to know. Just like the Watcher thrives on being cryptic, so do you, I believe.

And on top of everything else the modern tennis game, per se, is boring, although the players themselves are never boring. Humanity is it's saving grace.

Yeah, I guess you could say that we all have our glasses "half-full and half- empty." It's a natural progression or regression to some affective human mean depending on where you stand at any given time. Are you higher or lower? Are you moving up or down?

And, of course, you have every right to say that Vic Braden was insignificant. Although, that is an outlier opinion which will not be supported by the majority of tennis fans or tennis historians.

I enjoy your stuff because it's very thought provoking. You are a latter day Kierkegaardian style philosopher. Like him you seem to relish morbidity. That's not a criticism, but more a statement of what appears to be real. As a "realist" what do you think? Is it true? And does it even matter?

My choice is to put my head in the sand--at least part of the time-- otherwise the whole thing is going to come crashing down on my head and kill me. The survival instinct runs deep.

A philosopher and chiropractor once said to me, "The hardest thing is to be positive in a negative world."

As a former therapist I probably would have sat that kid down, giving him permission to process all the trauma that he was dealing with. I can remember giving a few "lessons" like that. But that's just me. I'm not faulting you for the way you handled it. Getting someone immersed in the moment at such times can be very beneficial. Very therapeutic. But when the atom bomb falls on your house it's hard to hit a backhand.

Or as the Watcher might say: "When the atom bomb falls on your house, is it hard to hit a backhand?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcMktHJvJVo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUpPFG8AwBg

My glass? Why yeah…it is half full and half empty. It's that way all of the time. I don't kid myself as much as I kid others. I am a realist…or at least that is my ambition. What about your glass? It's half full and half empty at the same time too. There is no other way around it. Is that an original thought? I don't know but I have never ever heard anyone else say it. I told bottle this once.

Sure Vic Braden was a saint…or is a saint. He's dead now…it's time to canonize. That's fine with me. All that I was saying was that he was a human being. I've never paid any serious attention to his tennis teachings as I have to say that as a whole I found them unnecessary even though I find myself to be a tennis teacher now. I try to boil everything down to it's LCD…lowest common denominator. Minimalist. Truth. Tennis is no different. It isn't rocket science or a psychoanalyst's playground.

Today I also gave some council to a 14 year old of mine who was looking obviously traumatized by the events of his day and was having a hard time concentrating. His cousin had passed away in the night…the grandmother had called and woke the household. His sister is also suicidal and otherwise dysfunctional and his little brother fell on the ice and crushed his face. There was some problem with his girlfriend who has recently been showing up at his practice to watch him. He had the look of misery on his face…the world was ganging up on him. It has been for some time. I tried to get him to smile…to laugh even. He was playing tennis for crying out loud and all of that stuff could wait until tennis was over. I wasn't trying to be callous…just realistic. At first…I gave him the out. I said that if he didn't feel like playing it was understandable…he should just go home. But once he said he wanted to stay, I tried to get him to commit himself to the moment. To have fun…under seemingly impossible conditions. It's the test of manhood…to keep face when all around you the rest are losing theirs. I sent him home with the advice that his job was to be the positive one…to be the beacon of strength that he could be for his little brother. The rest of it was beyond his control…I figured. This is what winning and losing is about.

You can make tennis as complicated or as uncomplicated as you like. I said this to another student of mine yesterday. She has been playing for years and serving with a forehand grip. I managed to "change" her with a bit of spellbinding words and looks. I personally engaged with her.

I asked her when it was over…how was it? Was it that strange (the grip change)?…I asked her. She had a really surprised look on her lovely face. A lovely smile. "It was at first but the new way is better", she said. I knew that I had accomplished something of monumental importance…to me and to her. Another guy too in the same class. I changed his approach to serving. Afterwards I said to him that by the end of our term he was going to have a great serve…all that he had to do was trust me.

I'm no Vic Braden…nor do I care to be. I'm just little old me…don_budge. But Vic was just that…he was Vic. He had his swing at the thing. I can appreciate all that made up his life…including his humble and modest beginnings in Toledo, Ohio. Same as mine.

No…I'm no pessimist. Not by a long shot. It's only that the reality of things isn't all that bright on a whole host of a myriad of issues. Modern tennis being one of them. Of course many find it easy to gloss over a lot of things. Turning a blind eye and all.

What I saw of Vic on CBS…not the PBS which I am totally unaware of…not that it would change my mind either…but what I saw of Vic was a short, round and jolly guy who's message was to have fun playing tennis. Much the same as Rod Laver and Roy Emerson emphasized in their combined effort in "Tennis for the Bloody Fun of It".

This business of "Pathological" losers may be of some importance…I don't know. But most human beings are losers. We all are in the end. It's not a pessimistic thing to say…it is only confronting the truth. Whether or not there are pathological losers I guess I will wait and see with you next article.

I resent your reference though to being "obviously you are one of them"…because there is very little obvious about me. Except for my respect for classic tennis and my teaching paradigm. "The Book is Bill Tilden. The model is Richard Gonzalez with the Don Budge backhand. Harry Hopman is the coach. Roger Federer is the Living Proof".

Somehow I omitted Vic Braden…and a lot of others. I managed to include an old "friend" of mine. All that I had to do was to connect the dots…the three little dots. It was simple…LCD. Lowest Common Denominator.

You might say that I am skeptical though. Of a lot of things…and people.

http://www.tennis.com/your-game/2015.../#.VqNcJd6u38s

[don_budge]

"I wish I was a neutron bomb…for once I could go off"…Pearl Jam "Wishlist"

As a former therapist I probably would have sat that kid down, giving him permission to process all the trauma that he was dealing with. I can remember giving a few "lessons" like that. But that's just me. I'm not faulting you for the way you handled it. Getting someone immersed in the moment at such times can be very beneficial. Very therapeutic. But when the atom bomb falls on your house it's hard to hit a backhand.

Or as the Watcher might say: "When the atom bomb falls on your house, is it hard to hit a backhand?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THnabGK7mPs

In my opaqueness I neglected to describe the actual process which I believe is the most important point of your post but not the only important point. There are many…you are a great conversationalist. Provocative but not in an argumentative sense.

I pulled the boy aside and as I know him quite well we had a bit of a heart to heart…at my direction of course. I had him explain to me point by point what exactly it was that was bothering him and grossly affecting his performance. I encouraged him to go into detail as much as was comfortable in the setting of our scenario. This he did rather well considering how upset he was and then I constructed a real and plausible scenario for each issue. Some of it was beyond his control entirely and some of it was typical psychodrama that was either constructed by his parents or as a result of their dysfunctional parenting that restricted my young friend from having the necessary tools…shall we say to come up with the solution. I also pointed out what part of the situation he could "realistically" assume some responsibility for in order to be part of the solution. As he was leaving I spoke to him about being the beacon of strength for his little brother. It was after this accounting that I gave him the full hard look in the eyes and gave him the news…it's time to play and have some fun. If that was possible. As it turned out it was in sort of a limited sense but more than that…it was a huge win. I have gained my friends TRUST and he knows that I care about him and not just for his tennis game. I am probably the one person in his life that understands him in some sense of his "glass". As Stotty says…I know what makes him tick and he is getting an idea about me as well.

As for the rest of your reply…a great conversationalist is not necessarily the person that likes to hear himself talk. He is the one asking the great questions which my guess is as a therapist you are trained to do. Not that you are limited to the therapist perspective but from a multi layered experience in the realm of life.

"I wish I was the verb to trust and never let you down."

[don_budge]

When the Atom Bomb falls on your house…turn, step and swing!

Getting someone immersed in the moment at such times can be very beneficial. Very therapeutic. But when the atom bomb falls on your house it's hard to hit a backhand.

Or as the Watcher might say: "When the atom bomb falls on your house, is it hard to hit a backhand?"

If you can hit a backhand when an atom bomb falls on your house you can most likely hit one at any given time. That may have been the lesson of the day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU5LMG3WFBw

[JeffMac]

I assume what you mean by extras is that "responsibility" aspect we've been discussing. If so, I think that how much pressure a given player would experience in either of those scenarios would vary across individuals.

That's the thrust of what I've been saying: Personality type has to be considered in assessing mental game functionality, as well as to be able to specify a particular approach that a given player should employ for best results in competition.

That said, I also believe that 99% of the players who reach the pinnacle of success that is represented in both scenarios could only be what I will soon identify as the low trait anxiety, high self-esteem personality type. Particularly in an individual sport like tennis.

In a team sport, certain personality shortcomings can be more easily managed. They can be compensated for by one's teammates. When you've got Le Bron James, for example you can get away with having some weaker links.

This actually makes what I said earlier kind of moot because there are not going to be a lot of high trait anxiety, low self-esteem players getting to the finals of Wimbledon, in my opinion. History bears this out. These people have their sh*t together.

If you're talking about success on lower levels than a Wimbledon final, then individual differences will be more pronounced in how pressure is dealt with because you'll have a wider range of personalities. You will have more high trait anxiety, low self-esteem players.

I think we might have a fundamental difference as to whether the pressure is generally greater in a team sport or individual sport. I would say it is generally greater in an individual sport, but I would expect personality to play a role here too. So, it is conceivable that a high trait anxiety, low self-esteem team member might feel more pressure than a low trait anxiety, high self-esteem tennis player.

At any rate, I'm quite convinced that this high trait anxiety, low self-esteem player is usually going to find tennis more difficult than say soccer. Which is why I've seen so many of these sorts of kids leave tennis for a team sport. I don't have any research to back that up. But I'm looking for it and may do some of my own.

I have a theory about doubles: Yes, it continues to decline in popularity, and is given less and less respect. But, it's never been as important as singles in the tennis universe, writ large, anyway.

I think this has to do with human nature. We are much more attuned to a mano y mano spectacle than a two on two event. As a prime example, think back to last year and that fight between Pacquio (sp) and Mayweather. I had never seen any sporting event in my lifetime generate that much buzz.

And to a lesser extent, Connors vs. Laver in the seventies. Federer and Nadal. Sampras and Agassi, we're all very compelling. Oh, and don't forget Riggs and King. The list goes on and on.

We are, I believe, instinctively more deeply attracted to these big one on one events because of the drama and excitement that is generated when an individual has so much to gain or so much to lose.

As humans we are so naturally empathetic that we become enthralled about the emotional fate of one individual as opposed to the other individual in a contest. It has ramifications for the group, or tribe. And even though most of us no longer live in tribes, our brains still operate as if we did, in many instances.

I look at everything through an anthropic lens. In our old primordial brains--as well as in terms of real world consequences in the hear and now--the person who comes out on top in these struggles has gained, or established a greater level of survival value.

He is more likely to mate. Mate more often. And mate better.

When you turn on nature shows, for example, you see moose and other similar species going head too head, literally--which is probably how that phrase arose. The goal is to establish dominance, of course. To the victor goes the genetic spoils. It is significant that the same phrase is so often applied to sporting events and political elections.

In many primate species such as chimpanzees, the dominant male does about 99% of the procreating. Much of his time is devoted to beating the crap out of his competitors one at a time. They want what he's got. Just like Berdych wants what Djokovich has.

The chimp is our closest ancestor. We share about 99% of the same DNA. Naturally, we are bio-genetically predisposed to be fascinated by these one on one encounters. It is in singles, if you will, not in doubles that genetic supremacy is established. Both in nature and in tennis. In fact, I believe that tennis cannot be divorced from nature as long as it is played by animals, such as Homo-Sapiens

It is in our DNA. It's hard to alter hundreds of thousands of years of programming.

That's why we don't respond to doubles the way we do to singles. And unfortunately, those groups or individuals who have attempted to promote and elevate doubles are bucking a heavy head wind.

Notice that they they fail in the long game. They may get the occasional token concessions, but human nature mitigates against the ascendancy of doubles and always will.

It is just a fact of life.

I think this is a good coaching ethic when you start looking out for and helping the individuals you teach, using intuition and insight. I found this impressive. I do this kind of thing myself. Like you, I like to know what makes people tick and find them interesting. When everything is boiled down, people are far more interesting than tennis strokes. I always reserve my best for nice people. I like nice people, nice families.



I think tennis is very complicated once you start looking at it too closely, start looking at the science. So the best thing to focus on as a coach are fundamentals. Which begs the question, "what are the fundamentals"? What is fundamental and what isn't? Who draws the line? The late Mark Papas would have told us the purest fundamental is "step and hit" and just take it from there. It's interesting when you start quizzing other coaches about what the fundamentals are. You get different answers.




I take your point and I agree with much of what you say. But let me leave you with a couple of scenarios to ponder:

Scenario 1: You are serving at match point for the Wimbledon title in front of a 20,000 crowd and millions watching on TV. As an individual, this is the moment you have strove for all your life. You are supported by your coach, family, encourage and fan base, but I doubt you feel any pressure from these "extras" at match point.

Scenario 2: You are in a penalty shoot out for the soccer World Cup, as in 1994 Brazil versus Italy. You are the one taking the potentially deciding penalty to lift the trophy for your nation. A crowd of 100,000 are in the stadium making a huge noise while 3.2 billion are watching on TV. Your teammates are watching on as you run up to take that penalty and the nation's hopes are on your shoulders. One imagines in this scenario the "extras" weigh down you.

I have always felt team sports have the potential to deliver the most pressure at the highest level...knee-buckling pressure.


A word about doubles...

I dislike the way doubles has been passed off as a non-pressure, fun way to play tennis. I understand the logic but hate the outcome higher up the chain. The attitude seems to have filtered all the way up to the top of our sport....or did it filter down? I will leave others to work that out.

Doubles has lost all its status as a result. It's become a second rate event with second rate players playing it most of the time. Because of this, a large part of the foundation of how the very best emerging players once honed their volley skills has been lost...a part of tennis education has gone missing, hijacked as don_budge might say.

At world-class level I feel doubles isn't taken seriously anymore. It's little more than a sideshow. This is a tragedy because doubles is an art. When they put a doubles on the centre court over here at Wimbledon, everyone gets up and takes leave for a Pimms or cup of tea. In the 70s the stadium would have been full up!

I have felt pressure playing doubles with certain individuals. I am sensitive and hate the feeling of someone bearing down on me to win points and make every crucial ball. However, I played mostly with a quiet individual who just got on with it. He put no pressure on me and I none on him. We got on well. I knew all his capabilities and limitations and he knew all mine. We seldom spoke much during matches and had a kind of telepathy going on instead...no tagging hands or high fives after every point.

I will eagerly await your upcoming article, JeffMac. Your forthright manner on the forum is welcome and a breadth of fresh air.

[JeffMac]

Budge Wins Braden Award!!

After reading your second post about the distressed young student, it appears that you handled the situation with much greater aplomb and sensitivity than I had first thought. In the first post it sounded like you were just advocating the "stiff upper lip" approach...and then "on into battle young soldier..don't forget to duck..."

I was about to call the Stockholm CPS, to impugn you and have your USPTA Pro 3 rating revoked.

But no...It sounds like you handled it really well. Kudos to you. You demonstrated caring and understanding. You did your best to ease his burden--at least momentarily. And, I agree, you taught him a very valuable life lesson: Half the time you're probably going to want to hide under your covers all day. "But the show must go on."

I see you've got a lot of the psychology party line lingo well established in your vernacular. I'd bet a dollar or two that you've read a few self-help books in your time. In fact, I'll bet you have a few tucked away in the furthest reaches of your tennis bag right now.

You probably haven't read as many as I have though. I'm the world champ. I have 256 titles in my bookcase--ranging from all the way back to undergrad. When people come over to my house the first thing I do is show them my collection. I've even got an old copy of I'm O.K., and You're F'd Up. It makes me very proud to be so dysfunctional.

Perhaps you missed your calling. Maybe you should have become a psychotherapist. But then again, I seem to recall one of my books saying something to the effect of, "We are all therapists for each other."

And that includes all of those therapists in white shorts, with racquets, like you--and me once upon a time, in a different life. Vic Braden a.k.a. god--you may have heard of him--would be proud of you even though Tennis for the Future does not adorn your bookcase, and you called him a "charlatan," as well as several other really gratuitous and insulting pejoratives.

He would be the first to say that tennis coaches are therapists. If he were still alive I would call him and tell him about your outstanding work with that boy. I would ask him to confer the Vic Braden Honorary Junior Therapist credential upon you. Keep up the good work and you may become the Second Coming of Carl Rogers. And just so you know, that's not the same as Mr. Rogers.

If you can hit a backhand when an atom bomb falls on your house you can most likely hit one at any given time. That may have been the lesson of the day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU5LMG3WFBw

[stotty]

I assume what you mean by extras is that "responsibility" aspect we've been discussing. If so, I think that how much pressure a given player would experience in either of those scenarios would vary across individuals.

That's the thrust of what I've been saying: Personality type has to be considered in assessing mental game functionality, as well as to be able to specify a particular approach that a given player should employ for best results in competition.

That said, I also believe that 99% of the players who reach the pinnacle of success that is represented in both scenarios could only be what I will soon identify as the low trait anxiety, high self-esteem personality type. Particularly in an individual sport like tennis.

In a team sport, certain personality shortcomings can be more easily managed. They can be compensated for by one's teammates. When you've got Le Bron James, for example you can get away with having some weaker links.

This actually makes what I said earlier kind of moot because there are not going to be a lot of high trait anxiety, low self-esteem players getting to the finals of Wimbledon, in my opinion. History bears this out. These people have their sh*t together.

If you're talking about success on lower levels than a Wimbledon final, then individual differences will be more pronounced in how pressure is dealt with because you'll have a wider range of personalities. You will have more high trait anxiety, low self-esteem players.

I think we might have a fundamental difference as to whether the pressure is generally greater in a team sport or individual sport. I would say it is generally greater in an individual sport, but I would expect personality to play a role here too. So, it is conceivable that a high trait anxiety, low self-esteem team member might feel more pressure than a low trait anxiety, high self-esteem tennis player.

The two scenarios I described were "situational"...a given set of circumstances. Whatever a player's personality trait, scenario 2 is likely to be the most pressurised because of the responsibility burden.

I guess I am comparing the situation of an individual trying to prove himself in front the world versus that of a team player not wanting to let himself, the team, half the stadium, and his nation down.

Granted, however, there are situations in tennis that are more pressurised than team sports. I fully understand that. It's just I feel team sports can be immensely pressurised also.

But I guess supremely confident players like Diego Maradona and Eric Cantona could cope better than most with scenario 2, so I take you point on personality traits.

I do find your high trait anxiety, low self-esteem - low trait anxiety, high self-esteem intriguing. And it would be interesting where you would place personalities such as Ilie Nastase and John McEnroe on your anxiety continuum.

[JeffMac]

Nastase, McEnroe, Self-Esteem, Trait Anxiety and Success

It is interesting that you bring up Nastase and McEnroe--arguably the two worst behaved tennis players that have ever played professional tennis. I'm assuming that you are postulating that their disruptive, disrespectful, and grossly over the top behavior occurred against a back drop of high internal anxiety.

I could be wrong in discerning what you are getting at, and if so, please let me know. But, for the purposes of discussion I'll assume that's what you mean.

Certainly, when they flipped out and exploded on the court there was a lot of intensity on display. But, I think the fireworks were more a manifestation of outrage, frustration and anger, than anxiety.

When I speak of high trait anxiety, I am talking about a person's baseline level of anxiety under normal circumstances, apart from a professional tennis match, which normally elicits a qualitatively different kind of anxiety, due to the very nature of the situation. Most tennis matches involve attempting to manage one crisis after the next. That's the nature of the beast. It is, therefore, very atypical.

I met each one of these guys very, briefly about thirty-five years ago as a fan attending a tournament. I cannot say that I really know either one of them, apart from what I have gleaned from observing them on a tennis court. So I am hesitant to speculate about their baseline anxiety levels outside of the pressurized cauldron that is professional tennis.

There is a good deal of research to support the idea that most successful people in any field of endeavor are above the mean in terms of self-esteem and trait anxiety. That is, they tend to be high self-esteem, low trait anxiety individuals. It is generally difficult, I believe, to succeed in any career when self confidence is on the south side of the continuum.

Likewise, it is also difficult to succeed when you are so beset with so much anxiety that so many systems such as the neuromuscular, the cognitive, and the physiological are constantly red-lining. This does not generally enhance either clear thinking or fine motor control. At this point in our evolution, fine motor control has more survival value for more people than at any previous time in history. We sit at computer terminals rather than chase and conquer the giant mammoth.

There is also a lot of anecdotal evidence that people who are "nervous wrecks," and constantly "besides themselves," are "going out of their minds," and "going crazy, or are "mentally unstable," struggle to achieve their stated intentions or goals.

This is due to the well established principle that our thoughts tend to respond to our internal emotional states due to the natural, and powerful body-mind connection. And when emotions go south, cognition tends to tag along.

Our thoughts, of course, are so determinant to our outcomes with everything. If you do not feel comfortable in your own skin, cognition will tend toward the negative. When you like yourself, cognition tends toward the positive, and is "then manifested in the outer,"--according to both psychologists, metaphysicians, and Shakespeare--as fulfilled dreams and visualizations.

The bard said, "Nothing is true in and of itself. Only in thinking is it so." He was the world's first sport psychologist.

Nastase and McEnroe were both far more successful than the average male professional tennis player--irrespective of their deplorable on-court demeanor. If they were administered a standard personality inventory I would expect them to be on the high side in terms of baseline self-esteem, and on the low side in terms of baseline trait anxiety.

And, I would also expect them to be below the mean in terms of impulse control, higher than the mean on the sociopathy scale, and perhaps lower on some subjective scale of morality, if you accept the popular theory that some of this churlishness and theatricality were designed to take the other guy out of his game.

I personally believe this probably occurred.

[stotty]

It is interesting that you bring up Nastase and McEnroe--arguably the two worst behaved tennis players that have ever played professional tennis. I'm assuming that you are postulating that their disruptive, disrespectful, and grossly over the top behavior occurred against a back drop of high internal anxiety.

I chose McEnroe and Nastase because they don't easily fit the typical “anxiety bill” for top players. But I wasn't necessarily citing them for their behaviour, although doubtless it’s a factor.

I feel McEnroe did/does have very high self esteem, but had high anxiety levels, which put him on a short fuse. He seemed exactly the same off the court also. In TV interviews he seemed defensive and on edge.

Nastase seemed even more odd. I felt he had a fragile nervous system as a player. He certainly came across as highly strung on big occasions. He fretted all the way through that 1972 Wimbledon final against Stan Smith and ended up losing a match he should have won standing on his head. I think Nastase did realise he was a very talented yet I suspect he never fully believed in himself. I always thought he considerably underachieved during his career. He should have won seven slams; he won just two.

A friend of mine (now deceased) who was a psychiatrist told me there is no such thing as abnormal behaviour, just extremes. He stated all traits are on a continuum. All of us suffer anxiety to some degree, but at the upper end of the continuum you get anxiety disorders. And there are different types of anxiety disorders, and anxiety, he told me, can get complex in terms of its causes and triggers and how that anxiety will then manifest itself and control a person's behaviour.

Anxiety is an interesting subject in sport. If a person can control their anxiety, they can stay in the moment, make good decisions, and play to their maximum ability. It’s a big deal.

I am deeply impressed with your posts, JeffMac. You are articulate and back up your theories very well.

[JeffMac]

Self-Esteem, Anxiety, McEnroe, Nastase, and Justin Bieber

Hey Stotty. I enjoy your posts too! I learn something new every time I read one. This last one has me thinking about the nature of these episodes when someone loses emotional control and "blows up," so to speak.

I'm certain that most of us have had similar episodes--I know I have--although mine, and most people's, would never, ever be anywhere near as extreme as McEnroe's s worst spectacles.

He actually became even more unreasonable and volatile after he left the regular tour--which is hard to believe. His worst tantrums rise almost to the level of temporary insanity. He appears to be completely out of control; utterly unable to put the breaks on. There is actually a psychological condition called Intermittent Explosive Disorder which he may suffer from.

I think back to these times when I too lost my temper. And then I look at McEnroe and try to determine what's really going on upstairs in such instances. I see both anger and anxiety. The real interesting question is how much of it is anger, and how much is anxiety? And what does each stem from?

This matter is inherently confusing because each state is externalized in such a way that they end up looking much the same. So, for example, if someone is real angry about a really bad line call on an important point, or is real scared of getting blown up by a bomb in an imminent terrorist attack, you can hear loud shouting, extreme agitation, and hyper-emotionalism in each case.

It's also actually two different sides of the old fight or flight phenomenon. It makes me wonder if anyone has studied this nexus of anger and anxiety. I wouldn't be surprised if they had.

Yesterday I would have said there is more anger than anxiety in McEnroe's case. But maybe not. I have a new theory about his anxiety. They could be comparable, or more likely one or the other could be predominant situationally.

McEnroe lost control in the face of perceived injustice in the form of a bad line call(s). It's really just the old frustration-aggression paradigm from Psych. 101. When we get frustrated and angry, aggression is usually lurking, and ready to pounce.

(I'd love to know what McEnroe's political views are, even though that's entirely extraneous to this subject matter. It wouldn't surprise me if he was a liberal.)

I think that the intensity of anger that he displayed can easily be mistaken for raw anxiety. I believe that the anxiety which is present is actually due to a fear of censure, retaliation and opprobrium. When he goes off he knows he is crossing a line, and what he is doing is utterly socially unacceptable--even though he appears to have no control over it. The source of this anxiety then is really guilt.

So, now I believe you are right about McEnroe's base anxiety level off the court. He probably is high trait anxiety. I had that wrong. He may very well be that slightly anomalous human who is both high self-esteem and high trait anxiety.

But why is he high trait anxiety?" He is anxious, I believe, because his super-ego makes him feel guilty. He carries this guilt on a mostly unconscious level which is why he always looks so ill at ease. He always seems to be on edge when he's in the public eye. "Sheepish," I think, is a good way to describe his body language and his para-language.

You have to ask this question: How would I feel if I carried on like McEnroe in front of the world on a tennis court, over and over again, and then have to show my face on national TV?

"We all have our crosses to bear," goes the old saying. McEnroe is saddled with the burden of guilt and shame of cumulative transgressions that he is guilty of. It's actually pretty sad.

As I'm typing along I'm trying to think of someone else who fits this profile: Successful with high self-esteem, but prone to losing emotional control. I've heard that Bill Clinton could be like this behind closed doors. And John McCain, as well. Their names pop into my head because I'm a political junkie. So, I remember some stories I've heard on cable news shows.

I just thought of another one... Justin Bieber. I've heard that he makes McEnroe look like a choir boy.

People like this tend to grab our attention, because when they manifest unusual, and often objectionable behavior there is an incongruity that creates psychic dissonance. So, when a successful, high self-esteem person like a Bieber or a McEnroe "fly off the handle," this behavior seems inconsistent with that other, more attractive side of their make up which makes them successful.

That's why they fascinate us. They are enigmatic geniuses, who at the same time are rude, abusive, immature and seemingly on the brink of devolving into violence. In fact, McEnroe punched out an airline employee once at an airport because he was angry about not getting his way. Again, the apparent cause was perceived injustice. Bieber has also faced assault charges. He lashed out because he thought he was getting the shaft too. And interestingly enough, he always looks embarassed in TV interview situations. I saw his "roast" on the Comedy Channel. He was not enjoying himself. Talk about embarassed!

I agree with you about Nastase. He really underachieved. And yes, he seemed fragile which is why he will forever have the rep of being mentally weak and a poor fighter. A talented guy lacking mental toughness, who had to resort to clowning around in order to deal with the pressure. It's interesting that he was drawn to Connors who was tough as nails. Hmmm...

I totally agree with the psychiatrist that you mention. Every mental or emotional state occurs along a continuum from high to low. In fact, in this article I'm writing entitled The Paradoxical Pivot, I talk about both self-esteem and anxiety in this exact way.

And, I conclude that any given person's combined position along this continuum will--and should--suggest a mental approach to competition which is appropriate for his or her personality type.

And yes, you're so right about anxiety. It's a performance killer. The choke response is the polar opposite of the "Zone." The Paradoxical Pivot is designed to help tennis players mitigate destructive anxiety.

I would really like your opinion about this technique when you read the article because I'm beginning to value it more and more.

[don_budge]

Judgement Day…John McEnroe, Ilie Nastase and Richard Gonzalez

I don't know…I'm not one for condemning any of these guys on the tennis court. Sometimes shit happens and sometimes it happens to certain guys more often than others. They seem to be magnets…it may only be their karma.

John McEnroe was a youngster growing up in post Vietnam era America. There were a lot of forces seemingly bucking the system. At the same time he knew the fix was in as he straddled the classic era and the modern engineered era. I sympathize with all of his anger and angst. They were messing with HIS game. He was like Don Quixote fighting the huge looming windmill of the shadow government of the ITF with his tiny Dunlop Maxply Fort. Joke 'em if they can't take a fuck.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OcMwfuTuzw

Ilie Nastase is even more easily forgiven in my book. He coming from a communist dictatorship and who knows what else. Anybody here familiar with living conditions in Romania in the sixties? Underachiever? Hardly. I would hazard a guess it wasn't so great in Romania. So the world is suddenly your playground and you are unleashed on society. Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.

Richard Gonzalez…he with Aztec eyes. Unleashed upon the system with a raw talent and a primal passion the equivalent of a jaguar in the jungle. He fought with the spirit that any Apache would have been proud of. I know how he felt. Fuck 'em all.

These were riveting characters to watch. Personally I don't think there was anything wrong with any of them. People are jealous. These men provoked feeling beyond the norm. They were provocateurs. They enabled others to point their fucking fingers and say…look, there's the bad guy.

The real bad guys were hiding behind the scenes. Starting wars. Assassinating Presidents and the like. These guys were comic relief in comparison…except for Gonzalez. He was the real thing.

[bottle]

"Before art, psychoanalysis should lay down its arms."-- Sigmund Freud. I'm also influenced by a good friend who knew something first hand about John McEnroe's off-court presence. And as you yourself have said, don_budge, the court is a stage.

Personally, I think that as an announcer, besides being perceptive JM is well-behaved. That might give an inkling of what he is really like. And apparently if you show that you care about tennis he will talk to you and be civil and not a brat at all.

[JeffMac]

Utterly Ridiculous!!!!

budge--Usually when I read your posts I say to myself, Well that's pretty perceptive. However, after reading this one about McEnroe, Nastase and Gonzalez I'm thinking that you are just completely full of shit. Or else you suffer from the same syndrome as the Watcher. You both say foolish, preposterous things just to get noticed, or simply because you both enjoy being provocative.

Let's say, for purposes of discussion, that you were aspiring to become a professional tennis writer--which we can all hope that you are not. And that you submitted this piece for publication. It would be summarily rejected and shit-canned because there is so much counter-intuitive blarney in there that no creditable organization would ever dare to print it.

Indeed, there is so much specious reasoning in this blurb that it's jaw dropping. What are you smoking up there in Sweden? You must be studying the collected works of Hillary Clinton for inspiration. It is hard to even know where to begin to start debunking this post. But, for the sake of reason, rationality and logic, I feel the need to take a stab at it...

Your overall premise seems to be that bad behavior is justified "because shit happens." Yes, "shit happens" to everyone, but we don't all react to it by behaving as if we were possessed by demons. If we did the world would a billion times more chaotic and violent than it is now.

To hypothesize that the post Viet Nam socio-political dynamics of America had any direct or indirect affect on McEnroe is the biggest polemical stretch I've ever encountered. I intentionally said "polemical" because you're bound to get push back when you make such outrageous assertions.

When he was that frizzle-headed, red headed, red head-banded ignoramus punk from a well-to-do New York suburban family attending Stanford on a full scholkarship, any awareness of the after effects of Viet Nam in his brain were totally non-existent. He was nothing more than an immature narcissist whose antics were tolerated because he had the kind of rare genius that the powers that be in the media, and within the ranks of the various and sundry tennis organizations, could turn into dollars and cents.

You seem to want to discover some arcane etiology for his deviance when it is really nothing more than the confluence of two personality disorders--Narcissism and the Anti-Social--which along with the counterproductive enabling he received every step along the way, that are clearly to blame.

I have always detested this guy for two reasons. Number one, he put himself above the game, and thereby damaged the integrity of the game. He is then, in this respect, no different than a felon who damages society by refusing to obey it's laws. They go to jail, and McEnroe should have been sanctioned longer before he finally was booted out of the Australian Open.

And secondly, I was charged with coaching an army of little pricks like McEnroe who modeled on his behavior because they weren't properly guided by their authority figures. So, it fell on me to do it. Now that was really fun!

Actually, I thought of a third reason not to like him. He is overrated as a tennis announcer, and doesn't deserve it. His brother, Brad Gilbert and Justin Gimelstob are all better.

There are now former tennis "powers that be" that admit that he should have been punished long before he actually was. And, by the way, they are not contending that the Viet Nam War had anything to do with his grossly inappropriate and injurious behavior. ("You can't be serious.") But after all, they are reality based. They do not love to engage in wild, provocative speculation just to try to get a rise out of people.

And moreover, to say that he was mentally compromised by the looming technological changes is probably also mere speculation. It is perhaps a projection of your own with respect to the deleterious effects of change in racket technology. You are known on these pages to be a weepy, whiny sentimentalist and Luddite when it comes to the modern game. That, in itself, is not the problem per se. I and many others are in accord with you there. The problem arises when you infer causation that is not there.

Then there is Nastase, who according to you, is "even more easily forgiven" because he grew up behind the iron curtain. No he is not! Apparently you did not notice that none of the other players who grew up under Communism behaved this way. If they had their politburo bosses would have been too embarressed to let them leave the country. In fact, I would say that on the whole they were better behaved than ugly Americans such as McEnroe and Gonzalez. Think of Fibak, Lendl and Navratilova, for example. They were model citizens. Name one other player from this region that misbehaved.

You can't. Case closed.

I believe that you are probably asserting that Gonzalez played mad and crossed the line more than once because he was discriminated against by the white country club establishment. Now that is highly likely. It makes sense unlike the rest of these theories.

You sum things up by saying that the problem was that other people were "jealous" of these malefactors. Again, not the case! In behaving the way they did they brought scorn down upon themselves--and rightly so. I would contend--as most people do--that these guys were assholes who also just happened to be very good tennis players.

Your whole post smacks of naive romanticism and unorthodoxy. I think that you can do better than this, don't you?