Invisible Greatness: Part 4

[stotty]

The great champions were always vicious competitors. You never lose respect for a man who is a vicious competitor, and you never hate a man you respect. I don't like Rod Laver because he's such a vicious competitor, but I don't dislike him. - Pancho Gonzales

Stotty

[don_budge]

"The great champions were always vicious competitors. You never lose respect for a man who is a vicious competitor, and you never hate a man you respect. I don't like Rod Laver because he's such a vicious competitor, but I don't dislike him."- Pancho Gonzales

Stotty

Priceless.

[don_budge]

"The great champions were always vicious competitors. You never lose respect for a man who is a vicious competitor, and you never hate a man you respect. I don't like Rod Laver because he's such a vicious competitor, but I don't dislike him". - Pancho Gonzales

Stotty

I was thinking about this quote today as I was going about my business. Like the great video that you posted of he and Laver playing on the grass...it reinforces my choice of Richard Gonzalez as the model tennis player in my teaching paradigm.

The book is William Tilden. The model is Richard Gonzalez with the Don Budge backhand. Harry Hopman is the coach. Roger Federer is the Living Proof.-the don_budge coaching paradigm.

I should probably add something about tennisplayer.net and the forum to this. Let it suffice to say that it is left unsaid.

Great quote Old Boy...thanks again! Another absolute gem of a contribution from the licensedcoach...Stotty.

[stotty]

A friend of mine - now no longer with us - told me a story that convinced him Gonzales was the greatest player who ever lived. My friend had seen Gonzales play many times and was as familiar with his game as we are with Federer's. In this story it's important to remember Pancho was ten years older than Laver and a good way past his prime.

Pancho played Laver in a match at Wembley. I think the year was 1966. Gonzales won 12-10 in the third. During the match Gonzales didn't play well. He was finding Laver difficult. He was struggling to return Laver's lefty serve on the fast indoor surface. Gonzales on the other hand was having a titanic struggle to hold his own serve. Nevertheless he managed to do enough to put the match at one set all.

His fortunes in the third set didn't change. Laver continued to win his service games easily while Gonzales struggled to hold his. He endured interminable deuce games but each time he managed to hang on and win his service. At 10-10 Laver suddenly dropped the first point on his serve. Gonzales produced another two decent returns he hadn't found the entire match. Laver then folded and dropped his serve to 15. Pancho then served out to love.

Virtually no one could do what Gonzales did in that match. The usual scenario when one player wins his serve easily while the other struggles is the struggling player ends up buckling under the pressure...often it's an avalanche. What you have to remember also is the set was 12-10, which is the equivalent of two sets today, so Pancho's feat was doubly impressive. And don't forget he was playing Laver...not just anyone. My friend told me that Gonzales was under enormous pressure during that match yet dealt with it and came out the winner.

Much has been written about Gonzales and it's tough to weed out fact from fiction. But when people who openly disliked Gonzales during his lifetime turn round and openly state he is the best player they ever saw, you absolutely know he must have been truly, truly great.

Stotty

[Guest]

A friend of mine - now no longer with us - told me a story that convinced him Gonzales was the greatest player who ever lived.
Stotty

Great story. The model is Gonzalez...as much for his competitive nature as for the completeness of his game. But the spirit was an indomitable will. Jimmy Connors said as much...he said that if he had to choose one player to play a match for him in which his life depended he would choose Gonzalez.

12-10 in the third over Rod Laver. Can you imagine how each point must have been contested? That video you posted gives us an inkling. It's a shame that these matches were not preserved in their entirety. Although I have to believe that somehow they were.

[don_budge]

A friend of mine - now no longer with us - told me a story that convinced him Gonzales was the greatest player who ever lived.

Stotty

Great story. The model is Gonzalez...as much for his competitive nature as for the completeness of his game. But the spirit was an indomitable will. Jimmy Connors said as much...he said that if he had to choose one player to play a match for him in which his life depended he would choose Gonzalez.

12-10 in the third over Rod Laver. Can you imagine how each point must have been contested? That video you posted gives us an inkling. It's a shame that these matches were not preserved in their entirety. Although I have to believe that somehow they were.

[Guest]

Very good points, Arturo.

physicality, agility, stamina, strength...these can be invisible strengths (and weaknesses). If you haven't read the earlier parts of the series, I recommend you do so. I address just the issue. What I have discovered is that physical "strength" comes in all shapes and sizes and can be improved with proper training. Have a look and see why some players who look stronger ultimately perform worse and how it is easy to overlook invisible strength. Cheers! N.

[Guest]

Thanks for the feedback, Stotty. I understand the reluctance to change what works for. I by no means look down on an experienced coach who has spent their life mastering the infinite details and variables of a sport. I can only speak for myself when I say, it's easy to shut down the learning process, especially when you are good, because then you think you know everything. That's what I thought when I started this series. I thought I knew everything these great masters were going to say. Ultimately, I was very surprised and delighted by what I learned and have already begun to implement the changes, slowly but surely, into my teaching to success. I hope this series inspires one or two helpful concepts. Cheers, N.

[Guest]

Very good advice, Kyle. I love your competitive spirit. And I especially appreciate your insight into the never-ending ladder of players. Who is "better" or "worse" on the court on a given day. Personally, I don't like to look at the situation in these terms. Usually it's a matter of disparity in the developmental process. But to your point, how do you juggle the various conflicts of interest implementing Fox's advice if you are running a massive tennis program? I'm not exactly sure. All I can say is: if it were my child, I would want her to be the best on the court, but with skillful players at her level. This is of course hard to achieve, but I think worthwhile, if success is something one values. Not all kids want to be tennis champions, but still like to play and compete hard. These kids are ideal for matching up with players who are more ambitious. I presume you get my point... N.

[Guest]

There used to be some unspoken rules regards the play of stronger versus weaker players. When playing up...when playing a stronger player you should give your best and don't quit if you are getting a good licking. At the same time...you shouldn't consider yourself too good to play down. To play with a weaker player than yourself. You still owe it to that player to play your best and you owe that to yourself as well.

Very good point, Don Budge. I think this is a great value to impart on the impressional tennis player...N.

[Guest]

Dear Hockey Scout,


Your ignorance and incoherence is profound, your narcissism reminiscent of Donald Trump. I can only imagine what it must be like to be on the court with you. I pity the poor souls! Your multiple-thousand-word rant is breathtaking for its utter lack of clarity and cheap, pedantic cliches. Your advice (if you can call it that) seems to me to be a list of quotes pulled from a toilet bowl anthology of motivational words by great champions (a club you most certainly don’t belong to). You provide nothing constructive or useful - at all. Perhaps you should spend less time in the hockey rink and more time reading the articles on Tennis Player. What on earth do you do on this site anyway?


Respectfully,


Nate Chura

Author “Invisible Greatness”

[bottle]

Careful, Nate. He, hockeyscout, is one of the cross-discipline guys not currently in vogue at this website even though Doug King recently came across from TennisOne in a mistake of bankruptcy that on the other hand was a windfall for TennisPlayer subscribers. You've always got to ask, I believe, who truly is provocative, a word in English discourse which as you know is synonymous with actually having something to say.

But I liked the article and especially the part about the great benefit of beating lesser players.

[Guest]

Careful, Nate. He, hockeyscout, is one of the cross-discipline guys not currently in vogue at this website even though Doug King recently came across from TennisOne in a mistake of bankruptcy that on the other hand was a windfall for TennisPlayer subscribers. You've always got to ask, I believe, who truly is provocative, a word in English discourse which as you know is synonymous with actually having something to say.

But I liked the article and especially the part about the great benefit of beating lesser players.

Thank you kindly, bottle, for the advice!

[klacr]

Very good advice, Kyle. I love your competitive spirit. And I especially appreciate your insight into the never-ending ladder of players. Who is "better" or "worse" on the court on a given day. Personally, I don't like to look at the situation in these terms. Usually it's a matter of disparity in the developmental process. But to your point, how do you juggle the various conflicts of interest implementing Fox's advice if you are running a massive tennis program? I'm not exactly sure. All I can say is: if it were my child, I would want her to be the best on the court, but with skillful players at her level. This is of course hard to achieve, but I think worthwhile, if success is something one values. Not all kids want to be tennis champions, but still like to play and compete hard. These kids are ideal for matching up with players who are more ambitious. I presume you get my point... N.

Nate,

I understand your point for sure.

The key is education in your players. Teaching them that they can learn from all players at all levels. Easier said than done for sure. But every opponent is not so much an opponent/enemy, they are an opportunity. An opportunity to try new things, to boost and strengthen some old things and to stoke the competitive fire. Goal setting is huge for players of all levels, no matter what level they want to achieve. Once you know the players goals, it's easier to facilitate the type of growth they seek. Key of course is...listening to your students. God gave us just one mouth, but two ears for a reason. .

Thanks for contributing to the forum Nate. Hope you can make it a regular part of your tennis life.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[Guest]

Nate,

I understand your point for sure.

The key is education in your players. Teaching them that they can learn from all players at all levels. Easier said than done for sure. But every opponent is not so much an opponent/enemy, they are an opportunity. An opportunity to try new things, to boost and strengthen some old things and to stoke the competitive fire. Goal setting is huge for players of all levels, no matter what level they want to achieve. Once you know the players goals, it's easier to facilitate the type of growth they seek. Key of course is...listening to your students. God gave us just one mouth, but two ears for a reason. .

Thanks for contributing to the forum Nate. Hope you can make it a regular part of your tennis life.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

Thanks, Kyle. Sound advice. Good to have a voice of reason on here. Cheers, N