Pathological Losers: My Vic Braden Interview

[gzhpcu]

Come on guys, he has mellowed with age....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkq6ZsYqd5o

[klacr]

Anyone remember when this thread was about Jeff's article on meeting with Vic Braden in Las Vegas at a coaches convention?

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[gzhpcu]

To avoid thread hijacking, don't bring up John McEnroe...

[JeffMac]

Don Quixote budge...

..is entirely responsible for this tragic detour that this thread has taken. But now that the community has enlightened him as to the real causes of Mc's torturous behavior, I believe that DQB will be able to release his fetishizm of Mc. However, his tendency to extol bad tennis actors--and even gangsters--is suspect and should be fodder in therapy sessions.

I truly hope that DQB can land the big Borg interview. And go gonzo!! If he can start going steady with Borg--the heroic anti-Mc--it will be easier for him to divorce Mc.

And no Kyle I don't remember that article to which you refer. What was it about anyway?

Anyone remember when this thread was about Jeff's article on meeting with Vic Braden in Las Vegas at a coaches convention?

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[JeffMac]

Thanks bottle!! For...

...that is the highest praise you can give to a satirist--which is all I aspire to be as I hurtle head long toward that dark, infinite abyss of eternity which awaits us all whether we were funny or successful or not...

Beginning to get really funny, I must admit, but everybody needs to try to be sadder. Deep sadness, not effervescence, is the secret to Don Quixote's success.

[don_budge]

Red Haired, Left-Handed, Unwanted Stepchild Syndrome...

Anyone ever heard of that one? Unwanted as a red haired, left-handed stepchild. No? I'm the only one. Figures.

John McEnroe certainly had two out of three…the red hair and the left-handed parts of it. He's also reputedly significantly Irish. Aren't there some stereotypical behaviours of Irish men? Heavy drinkers? Brawlers and the like? Bad tempers?

When I witnessed that spectacle in New York in 1976 I was impressed with the magnitude of John McEnroe. He was only seventeen but he was soon to cast his impression on the rest of the tennis world. He made a huge impression the next year at Wimbledon when he made it all of the way to the semi-finals as an unseeded qualifier. Zan Guerry or the witch Anita Shukow weren't there to derail him there. His talent and precociousness carried him all of the way. Rather impressive…don't you think so? Jimmy Connors was impressed and he could feel the young wolf nipping at his heels.

John of course overstepped his bounds a couple of times at Wimbledon…questioning calls and the like. Unsportsmanlike conduct or gamesmanship? Whichever…it isn't gallows driven behavior. But the English press certainly picked up on this Irish upstart and proceeded to rake him over the coals. Wasn't there some animosity between the Irish and the English at some point in time and history?

The English press did a number on McEnroe and he with the Irish temper to match his red hair was having none of it. He certainly would atone for any mistakes that he had committed but he wasn't going to assent to being drawn and quartered in the media. More power to him. He had the balls to stand up for himself at such a relatively young age not to mention attaining a level of mastery over the tennis ball and his opponents based on his sheer genius with a tennis racquet.

The equipment was one thing…but it was only one of the mitigating factors that combined to make John McEnroe the man that he came to be. He made his share of mistakes to be certain. He never claimed to be a saint or have the ability to walk on water. But the vilification that he got as a young man and continues to get is entirely unwarranted and it comes from different directions.

Labeling theory is based on the idea that behaviors are deviant only when society labels them as deviant. As such, conforming members of society, who interpret certain behaviors as deviant and then attach this label to individuals, determine the distinction between deviance and non-deviance. Labeling theory questions who applies what label to whom, why they do this, and what happens as a result of this labeling.

Powerful individuals within society (politicians, judges, police officers, therapists, Hunter Thompson wannabe's etc.) typically impose the most significant labels. Labeled persons may include drug addicts, alcoholics, criminals, delinquents, prostitutes, sex offenders, and psychiatric patients, miss-behaving tennis players, to mention a few. The consequences of being labeled as deviant can be far-reaching. Social research indicates that those who have negative labels usually have lower self-images, are more likely to reject themselves, and may even act more deviantly as a result of the label. Unfortunately, people who accept the labeling of others—be it correct or incorrect—have a difficult time changing their opinions of the labeled person, even in light of evidence to the contrary.

John certainly did undergo the labelling process until at some point he arrived at the conclusion that certain powers that be weren't going to play nice and so the gloves were off. Again some of the stereotypical behavior attribute to Irish men may apply here. When I saw the young John McEnroe take a mugging in that New York tennis club trying to qualify for the U. S. Open in 1976 he didn't do anything criminal in the parking lot. He was only angry and deservedly so. I told him so and it makes me happy to no end to have been there and it makes me wonder what force had guided me to be there. I offered him my sympathy when I said to him…"you got robbed, Kid."

One of the interesting aspects of the "labelling theory" is that once a person is labeled and everyone is expecting this sort of behavior out of the labeled person…the person almost cooperates with the labellers and ups the ante in the direction that he has been labeled. This certainly appears to be the case in McEnroe's case. He realized that he was going to have to turn around and fight or go meekly into the woodwork (of his Kramer ProStaff). So in front of everyone and God himself he did just that. He offered himself up for sacrifice in some ways…maybe he has a martyr complex. I don't think he is a narcissist.
But I am no therapist.

don_quixote. That's as close as you are going to get. Every other wild "gonzo" vindictive that you have hurled my way is out of the park. It makes no sense. Quixotic…exceedingly idealistic, unrealistic and impractical. Perhaps. But again it is a long story. But this I can live with JeffMac. If you feel that you must put a label on me too. As you have been. Is this your standard operational procedure in therapy sessions? Or do you just get "McEnroe" on people that disagree with you or are not overwhelmed with you writing. Aren't you being just a little like the man and the legend yourself with all of the mock accusations and wild overreactions to rather mundane differences of opinion. Must you insinuate for instance…homosexual feelings to humiliate someone who merely has the audacity to differ from your final decision on the character of someone that you don't even know? Isn't a "divorce from Mac" implying some kind of romantic liaison or is that just your overreacting? Isn't that what McEnroe is basically guilty of…overreacting?

The equipment issues were only one aspect of what makes John such a compelling character. One of many issues. Don't forget the enormous changes that the pro game was undergoing and the amounts of money that were at stake. Don't forget that the character of a championship tennis player is one of the toughest nails in the whole barn. He was wired to fight to the last point and he did just that.

Your buddy Saint Phil is an interesting character too. He likes to post the most negative stuff about McEnroe. Like that Scarface character Tony Montano is babbling about in that posh Miami restaurant…St. Phil seems to need to point his finger at somebody. You see…everyone has their weak spots. If you push the button enough times you are sure to get the desired response. He almost gleefully remarks…"looks like I hit a nerve" or something to that effect. That's what gets him off in this case…in the case of John McEnroe. He recently said something to the effect of he and I agreeing for once. I don't know what the hell he is talking about. I have written over 3,150 posts on this site and sure some of them happen to be about one of the most compelling and controversial characters in the history of tennis…but come on. Do you mean to say that he couldn't agree on something else that I have written about? My views on teaching tennis are pretty fundamental…what is there to disagree with unless you are just plain trying to be disagreeable. I don't care…btw. It's not how I roll.

Saint Phil would never for instance post the video of McEnroe losing to Guillermo Vilas in five sets down in Argentina and then going clear over to the Argentine's locker room to shake his hand as he couldn't because of the Argentine throngs mobbing over Vilas after the match. He disclosed this in a great interview with Bud Collins. It's a labelling process to a large extent and the process must be extended for all time…in some people's small minds.

It isn't that simple JeffMac. Not just because you say so in your gonzo rants…anyways. I see the two of you writing love notes to each other in the "Private Messages". That's great. I hope the two of you can feel better about yourselves at the expense of others. You find safety in numbers. You need people to agree with you. That's what separates us. That's what separates John McEnroe from the rest of the herd too. He speaks his mind. I feel he is the best commentator of tennis currently announcing. Many times I turn the volume off. Gimmelstad or whatever his name is is a mere shill and he was a marginal bit player when he was on the tour. Overrated and overhyped for some reason that I am not aware of. Undoubtably a user of Prince racquets…like yourself. I like Mats Wilander too…but John in the end is superior in his delivery. His uncanny insight. His tactical tennis brain…so often overlooked.

[don_budge]

The Legendary Rivalry of Polar Opposites...

I truly hope that DQB can land the big Borg interview. And go gonzo!! If he can start going steady with Borg--the heroic anti-Mc--it will be easier for him to divorce Mc.

The John McEnroe versus Bjorn Borg rivalry is the best sports rivalry that I have ever witnessed. The difference in their outward appearances belied something that both of them have in common deep down inside of their respective characters. Mats Wilander loves and respects John McEnroe too.

Johnny Boy is everything American. He is an All-American on the world stage. This is how people view America in a sense. The Swedes love this aspect of John…his ability to express himself. They tend to be shy and withdrawn.

McEnroe and Borg are enduring friends and they had the highest respect for each other when they were competing against each other. It's the irony in life that makes it interesting. It is the contrast in things that can produce the most fascinating irony. The differences in their personalities belied the differences in their approach to the game of tennis. Borg was no choir boy and McEnroe wasn't nearly as bad as he appeared to be. He was to be the antagonist…he was labeled as such. He wasn't one to disappoint. He was no shrinking violet. One may wonder why it is that more is made of John McEnroe's character as it relates to this once in a lifetime rivalry.

The Swede's actually love John McEnroe. I sometimes like to say that they have cut me a "McEnroe pass" here in Sweden. I try to show my appreciation at all times and I love teaching tennis to my fellow Swede's. Each and every one of them.

[don_budge]

Other Musings…about John McEnroe

Other musings written by don_budge/don_quixote about the great John McEnroe...

http://www.tennisplayer.net/bulletin/showthread.php?t=2238

http://www.tennisplayer.net/bulletin/showthread.php?t=2252

http://www.tennisplayer.net/bulletin/showthread.php?t=2261

Take a look at these if you would JeffMac. I'd be interested in anything that you might have to say. Third rate? Exquisite? Something in between?

[JeffMac]

It's Gimelstob don...

...who seeks to replace Mc in the announcers booth, sometime--I am told--this summer. It is long overdue. He's been coasting along on his former success for far too long. Word has it that Mc's ratings continue to head south--big time.

Mc deserves all of the opprobrium and condemnation he has received. He brought it all down on himself. And it is not out of line with the severity of his transgressions. The punishment fits the crime. It is what it is.

What has become more and more interesting to me though, is the tenacity of your defense of your hero. You are so enamored of his unique tennis skills that you have lost your capacity to be objective. It's kind of sad to see someone become so irrational, and exercised in the face of reasonable, consensual evaluations of this players overall legacy. You are" blinded by the light," I believe.

It's astounding.

In fifty years from now tennis historians will remember him more for his shocking behavior than for his tennis ability. Relatively few will be focused on the majors he won. He will go down as the worst sportsman in the history of the game. In fact, the cotemporary jury has already come in with that same verdict, hasn't it?

c'mon budge...you know he's the worst, don't you? And his legacy is irredeemable, isn't it?

Wouldn't you agree with this sensible position?: He was a brilliant tennis player, but a terrible sportsman; inarguably the worst in tennis history. Ninety-nine per cent of all knowledgeable observers would assent to this assertion. How about you? Do you really want to be a one percenter on this?

If you can be a little more rational and objective and say, [I]"Yes, I agree JeffMac, your assessment is accurate," [/I]then we could come to some sort of rapprochement, bury the hatchet, and move on to bigger and better things.

And your assertion that I was engaging in some sort of sexual innuendo vis-à-vis you and Mc is way off base. It was merely metaphorical. I was mocking your degree of commitment to this tennis player that few others venture to defend. But, you are a contrarian; one who likes to entertain unorthodox opinions, and swim against the tide no matter how much evidence to the contrary is thrown up into your grill.

And please leave Phil alone. He's a good man who has his head on straight, and has done nothing to hurt you. In fact, he's tried to help you time and time again. You see, he's deeply in touch with reality. You should try that.

And if it were true that Phil and I had exchanged "private messages" would you feel left out of the Tennis Illuminati Club? I'm sure that you and bottle are doing the same thing. And I for one am very happy for the both of you.

[don_budge]

Gonzification…truthiness.

Anyone remember when this thread was about Jeff's article on meeting with Vic Braden in Las Vegas at a coaches convention?

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

It's a stretch I know klacr…but the topic is "Pathological Losers". We're still "on thread". The interview part of the discussion exhausted itself.

Don Quixote budge..is entirely responsible for this tragic detour that this thread has taken. But now that the community has enlightened him as to the real causes of Mc's torturous behavior, I believe that DQB will be able to release his fetishizm of Mc. However, his tendency to extol bad tennis actors--and even gangsters--is suspect and should be fodder in therapy sessions.

I truly hope that DQB can land the big Borg interview. And go gonzo!! If he can start going steady with Borg--the heroic anti-Mc--it will be easier for him to divorce Mc.

And no Kyle I don't remember that article to which you refer. What was it about anyway?

More gonzification of the "truth"…the "reality". It's easily obscured if objectivity is not a concern. I didn't mention the rascals first…it was none other than licensedcoach!

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.

[don_budge]

John McEnroe Haters...

To all John McEnroe haters…I would like to respectfully recommend a book for you. It is titled "Being John McEnroe" by Tim Adams. This is a fascinating look at one of the more complex and controversial sports figures of all time. It is a rather short book so it shouldn't challenge your patience or your attention span.

[gzhpcu]

To set the record straight:

I don't hate McEnroe.

But I intensely dislike his foul-language and bullying of linesmen, umpires and ball boys, all of whom are needed to be able to carry out a tennis tournament. They are usually volunteers or poorly paid, some of them humble persons and they have to put up with foul language from a highly paid McEnroe.

[stotty]

Mac...

It never ceases to amaze me how genius often bestows itself on the most unlikely people. McEnroe was unlikely. He was a punk in many peoples' eyes and, therefore, undeserving of his genius in many peoples eyes. And, yes, he did epitomise how Americans were seen back then and, indeed, as they are often seen now (your action movies haven't helped you here). He was also very plain looking and had the face of a petulant, spoiled child. He was highly strung and edgy. He had nothing whatsoever to endear himself to the camera, media, women....or anything or anyone.

But he had character, strong character. Don't forget, when you are blessed with genius you then have to carry it. You cannot be a shrinking violet. Just imagine how many people have had genius of some kind and wilted...couldn't carry it. As a result the world never saw it....because the character of that person was not strong enough.

It wasn't easy being McEnroe, being so unpopular, even hated. and being pitted against your opposite...the handsome, nice, well-mannered, popular Bjorn Borg.

McEnroe was just being McEnroe in the way a cigar is just a cigar. He was clearly being himself, unlike Kyrgios who is just acting; a half-wit, who doesn't know who he is. McEnroe was edgy and highly strung and found himself pitted against the establishment. At least Nastase had charm and a sense of humour to alleviate things and endear himself. My mother loved Nastase.

McEnroe was never exerting his will against anyone in my view. He was just trying to win against all the odds...and by odds I mean by how he was seen by most of the world. It's not easy being downright unpopular.

Overall, McEnroe carried his genius well. He did a great job. I don't think it's his behaviour he will be remembered for years down the line, it will be his genius. I am certain of that....oh, and his theatre...he was compelling to watch, both for his tennis and 'on the brink of madness' personality.

It's strange because I love tennis but it can be insufferably boring to watch many of the matches on TV...past and present. Personally, I need people like McEnroe to add another dimension...liven things up.

[gzhpcu]

But that is the Roman coloseum mentality. Loving to see violence - physical or verbal.

It is not about fighting spirit - it is about taking it out on those who can not defend themselves. Linesmen, ballboys, etc

[stotty]

Mac the knife...

But that is the Roman coloseum mentality. Loving to see violence - physical or verbal.

It is not about fighting spirit - it is about taking it out on those who can not defend themselves. Linesmen, ballboys, etc

What can i say? His character was strong in some ways and weak in others. He was flawed. Love him or hate him he was compelling?

Did you refuse to watch him, Phil? Or did you like the rest of his critics just have to watch?

Many find it compelling viewing to watch someone implode or fall apart on a world stage. I cannot tell you the underlying reasons why people do but it's well known fact that we do. It probably has some thing to do with affirming ourselves.