Who is the best mover for their size?

First topic message reminder :

I wonder if being an inch taller from 6'1-6'2 impacts your movement that much.
For example if it does, you would probably say djoko over nadal.

But for me, the best mover for their size has to be monfils, imo hes the quickest out there. JJ moves very well for his height of 6'8, whereas isner at 6'9 turns slower than the QE2!

thoughts?

Hmmm...I don't actually agree with a lot of your last post LF.

Curling is not played by millions upon millions, nor does it have the same degree of complexity, etc. Its easier to become a leading proponent of minority sports vs tennis and other prominent sports. Do you think Olympic rowers have been rowing since they were 5 years old?
Likewise, in tennis why should we assume that players have put in equal miles of training? Nadal's dedication to tennis will have been different to others. Infact I can almost guarantee that to be the case.
You contradict yourself again because you said earlier that genius is 99% effort...if we determine those at the peak of sport to be the best, i.e. most talented, this means that greater value of 1% has had to be weighed against a greater absolute amount of effort applied within the 99%.

It seems to me you are attempting to sit on the fence and try to balance everything out as a default response. But not things all things are equal. Infact, rarely are things equal - only in %'s. But %'s don't reflect absolutes. Have you been around people who have been near the top of a large sport, or seeing them on the way up? Its easy to write about these things from a distance, seeing it up close and personal gives you a very different perspectives on things.

To become a professional at tennis you are talking 12-13 years of hard slog...playing almost every night of the week, physical training, etc etc...and that's the same for many other prominent sports. Its not like becoming good at shooting video's. To succeed - not just partake - at the very highest level in truly global and mass sports, the sheer level of dedication required to get there is frightening. I see many kids with talent at tennis but many cant stick to the regime needed to get them to the level to be able to become professional...they drop out. Its the ability to tough it out, to keep the focus on the long term goal is a talent in itself. Not everyone has that mental ability given similar amounts of ball-striking ability. That's what always sorts out the best players in my experience.

Coming back to Nadal...he is merely trying to preserve/sustain being able to compete in the sport he has poured his life, and many other people around him, into. Whether he is right or wrong in his assertion about HCs, 2 yr rankings, etc, is neither here nor there in this argument. The point is that his dislike of HC is driven by what he perceives to be an adverse effect on his longevity because HCs were the start of his troubles. Personally I don't agree with the 2 yr thing, or time wasting, etc, but I can understand where he comes from with the HC comments. It'll never change though.

You may dislike the exalting of players but it is human nature to do so. Look at football for a start. People like to affiliate with those who represent the way we see the game, like the game, or are just interested in the leading proponents as characters. There is no right or wrong in what is allowed to be a fan. 'Exalting' as you call it starts in childhood and for many sticks right through their life - personally I don't see why you are against it. Yes it leads to tribalism but humans are tribalistic in nature, if it wasn't Nadal vs Federer it would be something else. We have a need to channel our competitive and associative instincts, so we cannot ignore what we are. I'd rather have a good argument about one player over another than merely observe the game from afar. That doesn't mean I, or others, don't love the game as a whole, it doesn't mean I don't follow other players, or take on board others opinions, or see the strengths in other players or even take an interest in other sports too. Part of being passionate about things in life is reflected in our love of sport and within that its combatants. In tennis, at present interest revolves around 2 main players with a growing interest in 2 more. However, most fans of a player or a team also take an active interest in the same sport at large. Sure you get the odd myopic "fanboy" but most people who take an interest in 1 or 2 players have broader vision than that.

So, what is so wrong with personal subjectivity...are we meant to be dispassionate robots who sit on the fence at every angle casting judgement on all those who espouse passionate subjectivity? I don't mean to have a go LF, I just don't agree with some of your observational perspective. But then that's the beauty of forums, it brings all types of fauna and flora together that wouldn't converse otherwise.

lydian wrote:Hmmm...I don't actually agree with a lot of your last post LF.

Curling is not played by millions upon millions, nor does it have the same degree of complexity, etc. Its easier to become a leading proponent of minority sports vs tennis and other prominent sports.

I took Curling as a humourous example, just to drive home a point.

lydian wrote:Do you think Olympic rowers have been rowing since they were 5 years old?

http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/summer/1900/ROW/mens-coxed-pairs.html - Here is an example. (There is always an exception to generalizations). Nadal at 15 or Becker at 17, take your pick in Tennis - http://www.tennis28.com/slams/agerecords_winners.html

lydian wrote:Likewise, in tennis why should we assume that players have put in equal miles of training? Nadal's dedication to tennis will have been different to others. Infact I can almost guarantee that to be the case.

How is Nadal so different from Chang or Becker? Number of titles?

lydian wrote:You contradict yourself again because you said earlier that genius is 99% effort...if we determine those at the peak of sport to be the best, i.e. most talented, this means that greater value of 1% has had to be weighed against a greater absolute amount of effort applied within the 99%.

The ratio may differ for various players, but all of the players work hard, especially at the professional level. Number of titles is not a real true measure of effort applied, is it?

lydian wrote:It seems to me you are attempting to sit on the fence and try to balance everything out as a default response. But not things all things are equal. Infact, rarely are things equal - only in %'s. But %'s don't reflect absolutes.

There is no default in my responses.

lydian wrote:Have you been around people who have been near the top of a large sport, or seeing them on the way up? Its easy to write about these things from a distance, seeing it up close and personal gives you a very different perspectives on things.

Monosyllabic perhaps, but the answer is yes.

lydian wrote:To become a professional at tennis you are talking 12-13 years of hard slog...playing almost every night of the week, physical training, etc etc...and that's the same for many other prominent sports.

Are you saying Seles put in less effort, or perhaps Graf or Evert or Venus, or Becker or Chang, put in less effort than Nadal which reflects in less or more slams for Nadal vs some others?

lydian wrote:Its not like becoming good at shooting video's.

The effort at Cinematography may perhaps not be as physical, but it does require tremendous effort. You seem to implicitly differentiate between physical and mental effort, which to someone, as erudite as you, seems valued differently. Not sure why? May I recommend, Bernardo Bertolucci's Sheltering Sky or Last Emperor, perhaps.

lydian wrote:To succeed - not just partake - at the very highest level in truly global and mass sports, the sheer level of dedication required to get there is frightening. I see many kids with talent at tennis but many cant stick to the regime needed to get them to the level to be able to become professional...they drop out. Its the ability to tough it out, to keep the focus on the long term goal is a talent in itself. Not everyone has that mental ability given similar amounts of ball-striking ability. That's what always sorts out the best players in my experience.

Safin v Hewitt is a professional example of what you are alluding to. Or perhaps Davydenko v Federer? But I agree.

lydian wrote:Coming back to Nadal...he is merely trying to preserve/sustain being able to compete in the sport he has poured his life, and many other people around him, into. Whether he is right or wrong in his assertion about HCs, 2 yr rankings, etc, is neither here nor there in this argument. The point is that his dislike of HC is driven by what he perceives to be an adverse effect on his longevity because HCs were the start of his troubles. Personally I don't agree with the 2 yr thing, or time wasting, etc, but I can understand where he comes from with the HC comments. It'll never change though.

If you hit a wall, you adapt. If his dislike of HCs has multiplied based on his experiences, he has a choice, that of not playing in them. The price he pays is a place in the annals of Tennis history. See my food/restaurant example. Did Sampras ever complain about switching RG and or other Clay to HC and/or Grass?

lydian wrote:You may dislike the exalting of players but it is human nature to do so. Look at football for a start. People like to affiliate with those who represent the way we see the game, like the game, or are just interested in the leading proponents as characters. There is no right or wrong in what is allowed to be a fan. 'Exalting' as you call it starts in childhood and for many sticks right through their life - personally I don't see why you are against it. Yes it leads to tribalism but humans are tribalistic in nature, if it wasn't Nadal vs Federer it would be something else. We have a need to channel our competitive and associative instincts, so we cannot ignore what we are. I'd rather have a good argument about one player over another than merely observe the game from afar. That doesn't mean I, or others, don't love the game as a whole, it doesn't mean I don't follow other players, or take on board others opinions, or see the strengths in other players or even take an interest in other sports too. Part of being passionate about things in life is reflected in our love of sport and within that its combatants. In tennis, at present interest revolves around 2 main players with a growing interest in 2 more. However, most fans of a player or a team also take an active interest in the same sport at large. Sure you get the odd myopic "fanboy" but most people who take an interest in 1 or 2 players have broader vision than that.

I am looking at the larger, non-player-specific picture as well. In my sentence, exalting, goes from 'like' to a 'pedestal', which, again personally is not my nature. I have no right to condone what others do, though.

lydian wrote:So, what is so wrong with personal subjectivity...are we meant to be dispassionate robots who sit on the fence at every angle casting judgement on all those who espouse passionate subjectivity? I don't mean to have a go LF, I just don't agree with some of your observational perspective. But then that's the beauty of forums, it brings all types of fauna and flora together that wouldn't converse otherwise.

I raise my arms in joy when I see a good FH or BH winner, no matter who hits it. For example, yesterday (was it?), Granollers, the farmer, went inside out behind Federer, on the run, and flicked the ball with under-spin in response to a Federer volley. And to my surprise, the Hot Shot on ATP web-site from the match was a Federer shot, not what Granollers did. If you watched or decide to watch the match, perhaps you would agree with me.

I am the best mover for a fat man since Dave Nalbandian or Diego Maradonna, what is in those empanadas?

It Must Be Love wrote:

laverfan wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:
I absolutely agree. Which is why I am against one surface basically dominating all the major tournaments on tour. At the moment the ATP tour is built around the interests of players who can play well on hard courts.

So a 61-36% split is imbalanced?

Yes... clearly. Not only that, in terms of really important tournaments (Masters 1000, WTF, Slams), Hard Court has more than double the amount of clay. Grass only has Wimbledon. If that's not unbalanced, then...

I really don't understand you though sometimes Laverfan. You try and refute my point by randomly quoting a stat which basically backs up my point perfectly accompanied by a laugh smiley face. I don't get it.

Let me provide you the reference for the random statistics...

https://www.606v2.com/t40605p100-nadal-has-a-shockingly-self-serving-agenda#1859809


The ATP Board of Directors last week in Monte-Carlo approved the sale of the Memphis membership to IMX to stage an ATP World Tour 500 event from 2014 in Brazil’s iconic city of almost 6 million people.
...
Memphis will continue to operate as an ATP World Tour 500 event in 2013 and then as a 250 event from 2014 onwards. San Jose, like Memphis part-owned by Sharks Sports & Entertainment, will be held for the final time in 2013.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2012/04/Features/ATP-Statement-Memphis-Rio-San-Jose.aspx

Rio is a Clay 500, but Acapulco becomes HC in 2014.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2013/01/Features/ATP-Announces-2014-Calendar.aspx

LF, the curling example doesnt drive the point home at all, no matter how humorous. Its just not relevant.
You make numerous references to Nadal's effort put in cf. others long before my paragraph starts "Coming back to Nadal...". The discussion is drifting now with the somewhat semantic style of sentence dissection.

The choice of switching from HCs isn't that easy is it. Players are mandated to play 8 Masters, 6 of the compulsory ones are on HC. Also, he wasn't to know whether playing on HC in future would damage him to this recent extent. He also doesn't even know if HC are the real issue or playing in general with orthotics is. He knew he was playing on borrowed time no matter what, they were told maybe a couple of years, so he probably thought with each season what difference does it make when playing in general is stressing his knees.

I enjoy seeing good winners hit too. I'm sure Granola hits them from time to time but I'd still rather not watch him. I appreciate technicality but I also more appreciate watching players who have some natural flair.

Actually I don't differentiate between mental or physical excellence. It's just that curling, rowing and other low technical pursuits simply don't compare to the globally huge particpated activities such as tennis, chess (as a pure mental example), football, even bcoming a 10th Dan at Shotokan Karate, etc. 10,000 hrs of focused practice at any activity is enormous, it truly is, although not all pro activities may need quite that level of practice. However, within a competitive setting for the huge global sports, the 10,000 hrs needs to be done by around age 18 or they won't make it by and large. Even then it may not be enough beyond merely embuing the individual as being adept. However, every competitor has had to put in the hours nonetheless. Do you really think getting to the pinnacle of tennis requires the same effort as getting to the pinnacle of rowing? One gold medallist rower in the last Olympics switched from her cycling discipline only 3-4 years previously. Do you think that's possible with tennis, that a player can pick up the racquet at 18 and win Wimbledon by 22? I think not.

The inference of your comments is that guys like Nadal, Federer, etc, are commonplace across all sports. That people just need to put in 99% effort over 1% talent and the number of hours to get to pro-level is irrelevant. I don't buy that at all. However, you've completely and utterly missed the thrust of what I've been getting at, or choose to ignore it. The pursuance of semantics has taken your replies yet further and further away fom the original points I made ages ago. I'm not going to repeat them again. Thanks for your thoughts though

Tennis is a game. To win a game it's not quite as simple as putting lot's of hours in at the gym, training from a young age, being able to hit perfect forehands and backhands in practice or even having big muscles. Some of these things will of course help but it's a little bit different to that...

Yes, a game but every tennis pro has had to invest their whole life getting to top global status. Tennis is such a tough sport to master, even just technically. There are no shortcuts possible in being able to walk out onto the Wimbledon lawns in the main draw rounds - you're looking at 12-13 yrs of training minimum, not the 3-4 yrs like some rowers can get to Olympics by. Yes, some other top prominent global sports are similar in length of development needed vs tennis too. So, when all that investment of time/effort/cost, with the potential to achieve more at the very pinnacle of the game as time marches on, is put on the line prematurely you can imagine the level of internal stress created and externalisation of that via public utterances emanated forth. It's much more than a game to these guys, it's their whole life and validation of what they've trained the bulk of their childhood into adult years for.

Perhaps that single-minded obsession leads to a certain lack of perspective.
If professional sport is bad for you physically, perhaps it is also bad for you mentally. But again, no-one forces them to play.
When Henman announced his retirement he said that he felt a huge weight had been lifted off his shoulders but that if you'd asked him the week before he would have said he didn't have a weight on his shoulders.

Absolutely JHM, and good comment re: Henman. These guys live in a very sheltered bubble and only the very strongest mentally can survive at the top of the game. Psychologists have determined the top players have very high levels of repressive coping, low neuroticism coupled with high hypnotic susceptibility. When you think of what the grind of the tour must be like year after year, all the media stuff, all the travelling, etc, you've got to be some tough nut to take all that in your stride and win week in, week out. Personally I believe it's one of the toughest sports to dominate year in, year out. All that said, tennis is a very singular pursuit, they get carried along on the roller coaster thinking of mainly nothing but whats needed for them to win, not likely seeing wood for the trees until they get off and start smelling the roses.

lydian. I wasn't trying to say that because tennis is a game it is easier. IMO it is tougher. I get nervous sometimes even watching a player have to try and pull something special out in order to break or hold important points.

Much as I love tennis I do have some doubts about young children being pushed into tennis as a career. Unless they have the personality to cope with the pressure of such intense individual competition however good they may be at ball skills it could almost be cruel to do so. He's not my favorite player as many might realise but sometimes I do worry a little about Andy Murray for these reasons. Although I would be happy if I was wrong about this.

I also think that hardwork will get you so far but that innate ability is what separates the very best. Yes if you play for 10,000 hours at anything you will become expert at it but some people don't need 10,000 hrs of work to be world class at something and others will be much further along after 10,000hrs than someone else with less innate ability. If you want to spot the future star or number 1, look at the handful of the best prospects and pick the smartest and hardest working of the bunch. But you have to look at the top 5, 10 at most 15 prospects in the teenage or early 20s group of players. A guy like Ferrer will never be a multi slam winner or number 1, you need a certain innate athletic skill set a certain body type. I think it would be very hard for a player under 6 feet tall now to dominate or for a player who doesn't move very well for his size. On top of that some players have so much talent that after 10,000 hrs or 5,000 hrs they will be ahead of some guy with 15,000 hrs.

I believe it is ex-cricketers that have a significantly higher suicide/attempted suicide rate, iirc.

Good points HE, competitive tennis is such a mentally and demanding sport. It has so many unique aspects - the singular focus, the gladiatorial style of play, the size of court relative to the size if the ball making margins for error huge, the pressure to win at pro level to be ale to survive at the sport. All the pros say 200 plus are tough cookies, they have to be. The steady top 10 are a further breed apart, and of course the multislammer winners are somewhat unreal in the amount of stress they can suppress, Infact they don't seem to be affected by it as others would. As you know I'm involved heavily with junior tennis and you see at that level how some kids cope with everything in their stride whereas others cry their eyes out after every loss. Then you have parents piling further pressure on top, berating them for not winning easy enough! It's tough for kids aged 8+ to be out there on their own competing...by 10 many have already dropped out even though talented players. Like I said earlier, it's the mental side that separates them much earlier on than you'd expect. In the scheme of things I wouldn't worry about Murray, he'll be mentally tough as nails...the fact is all these top 4 guys were so from a very early age, you can't instil that level of self-belief.

Good points socal, agree innate talent levels act as a catalyst for some. But we know that the top guys are just amazing at everything and stood out from an early age, particularly mentally....coping with winning/losing, ability to learn and work hard, not crumbling in tough match situations. Those who go far in business also had similar traits at a young age...you almost need to be abnormal, almost sociopathic, to be able to cope with the pressure and focus on winning in the face of everything else thrown at you.

Interesting JHM, why is that? Can't cope with life outside the bubble when fending for themselves in real world (I'm thinking many aren't as well off as say top footballers or tennis players).

Just who is this JJ guy? For me the best mover I have ever seen on a tennis court is Pete Sampras. He had good movement when running from side to side and was exceptional at being able to move quickly forward towards the net area to quickly kill off any poor/weak/short ball played by his opponent.

jerzy janowicz at 6'8 moves very well.

lydian wrote:LF, the curling example doesnt drive the point home at all, no matter how humorous. Its just not relevant.
You make numerous references to Nadal's effort put in cf. others long before my paragraph starts "Coming back to Nadal...". The discussion is drifting now with the somewhat semantic style of sentence dissection.

So we will leave that.

lydian wrote:The choice of switching from HCs isn't that easy is it. Players are mandated to play 8 Masters, 6 of the compulsory ones are on HC.

IMBL has made the same point. Understandably so. Agree that it is not easy.

lydian wrote:Also, he wasn't to know whether playing on HC in future would damage him to this recent extent. He also doesn't even know if HC are the real issue or playing in general with orthotics is. He knew he was playing on borrowed time no matter what, they were told maybe a couple of years, so he probably thought with each season what difference does it make when playing in general is stressing his knees.

I would argue that a less defensive and less retrieval-oriented style would cause less stress and damage on HC as compared to a style of longer rallies and endurance as favoured by Clay, if continued and carried over to a HC. Especially if there was a known medical issue to begin with. Do you agree?

lydian wrote:Actually I don't differentiate between mental or physical excellence. It's just that curling, rowing and other low technical pursuits simply don't compare to the globally huge particpated activities such as tennis, chess (as a pure mental example), football, even bcoming a 10th Dan at Shotokan Karate, etc. 10,000 hrs of focused practice at any activity is enormous, it truly is, although not all pro activities may need quite that level of practice. However, within a competitive setting for the huge global sports, the 10,000 hrs needs to be done by around age 18 or they won't make it by and large. Even then it may not be enough beyond merely embuing the individual as being adept. However, every competitor has had to put in the hours nonetheless. Do you really think getting to the pinnacle of tennis requires the same effort as getting to the pinnacle of rowing?

Pinnacle of any sport is a tough place to be. I know someone will come up with Darts to counter my Curling example. . Tennis, and many other sports, require tremendous physical and mental effort.

lydian wrote:One gold medallist rower in the last Olympics switched from her cycling discipline only 3-4 years previously. Do you think that's possible with tennis, that a player can pick up the racquet at 18 and win Wimbledon by 22? I think not.

Switching sports is hard, because muscular instincts and split programming have to be unlearnt and re-learnt when switching sports. Neon Deion Sanders (US NFL/US MLB), Michael Jordan (US NBA/US MLB) are examples. Hope this list helps a bit - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multi-sport_athletes

lydian wrote:The inference of your comments is that guys like Nadal, Federer, etc, are commonplace across all sports. That people just need to put in 99% effort over 1% talent and the number of hours to get to pro-level is irrelevant. I don't buy that at all.

I have alluded to the 2% differential earlier. I am not comparing Federer to Benneteau or Nadal to Rosol, am I?

lydian wrote:However, you've completely and utterly missed the thrust of what I've been getting at, or choose to ignore it. The pursuance of semantics has taken your replies yet further and further away fom the original points I made ages ago. I'm not going to repeat them again. Thanks for your thoughts though

LuvSports! wrote:jerzy janowicz at 6'8 moves very well.

As does Ferrer at 5'9" and just beat Lorenzi in Telcel Mexicano.

lydian wrote:Those who go far in business also had similar traits at a young age...you almost need to be abnormal, almost sociopathic, to be able to cope with the pressure and focus on winning in the face of everything else thrown at you.

That must be why we admire high-flying bankers so much

lydian wrote:Interesting JHM, why is that? Can't cope with life outside the bubble when fending for themselves in real world (I'm thinking many aren't as well off as say top footballers or tennis players).

I can't recall if any particular reasons were given. I suspect the loss of the dressing room cameraderie is also part of it.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Perhaps that single-minded obsession leads to a certain lack of perspective.

Hence my reference to narcissistic attitudes.

JuliusHMarx wrote:If professional sport is bad for you physically, perhaps it is also bad for you mentally. But again, no-one forces them to play.

I like LK's Todd Marinovich example.

JuliusHMarx wrote:When Henman announced his retirement he said that he felt a huge weight had been lifted off his shoulders but that if you'd asked him the week before he would have said he didn't have a weight on his shoulders.

I am sure Safin would agree with Henman.