Re: Cowardly & Brave Tennis

by summerblues Sat Sep 22, 2012 3:07 am

Tenez wrote:Gutless and gutsy are simply words that come to mind when watching a match...not words we had planned to use regardless.

I can see how this would be true but my take on it is something like "even though in tennis being gutsy is unrelated to playing attacking or defensive tennis, we naturally tend to associate attacking play with gutsiness because it is superficially similar to gutsiness in real life".

Tenez wrote:And finally my first post says clearly you belong to one of the 2 categories:

1 - Talented, powerful (explosive), unfit, gutsy,

2 - less talented, less/weak weapons, fit and gutless

I am not saying that a player has to be all 4 of ~1 or #2 but he belongs to one of the categories. And it is important to note that most of the time a player is #1 or #2 in relation to another player.

I am yet again inclined to agree (subject to some minor adjustments on "talent" terminology etc) but I am still unsure I quite understand. Specifically, are you saying that

(a) Talented, powerful (explosive), unfit, gutsy all tend to lead to attacking tennis (in which case I agree) or are you also saying that

(b) these qualities tend to go hand-in-hand (in which case I disagree).

by summerblues Sat Sep 22, 2012 3:16 am

noleisthebest wrote:Cowardice it is - no way around it: fear of being hurt.

Are you saying that defensive tennis shows the fear of being hurt? I beg to differ, not at the top level.

by summerblues Sat Sep 22, 2012 3:19 am

noleisthebest wrote:I think your original premise was based on taking the vocabulary used to describe tennis on the character level. It's not.

I would not call it the premise. That was the point of my question. What do people mean when they talk about "cowardly" or "gutsy" tennis? Are you talking about character, something else (what exactly)? For example, I still do not know what you mean by it.

by laverfan Sat Sep 22, 2012 3:21 am

SB...

Assuming this to be a face-value discussion...

Class 1 has Federer when Class 2 has Nadal
Class 1 has Djokovic when Class 2 has Murray

Class 1 has Federer when Class 2 has Murray
Class 1 has Djokovic when Class 2 has Nadal

what do we do when

Class 1 has Federer then where does Djokovic go - in Class 1 or Class 2 (given the current forum inclinations/vocal support, perhaps Class 1)
Class 2 has Nadal then where does Murray go - in Class 1 or Class 2 (given the current forum inclinations/vocal support, perhaps Class 2).

I find it interesting how 'buckets' are created to suit opinions. Winking

by summerblues Sat Sep 22, 2012 4:53 am

laverfan wrote:I find it interesting how 'buckets' are created to suit opinions.

Yes, LF, but are we just not built that way? I think we are more inclined to start with an opinion and build arguments around it rather than to do it vice versa.

Another thought that often crosses my mind in a different, but related, context is comparing debates to chess. Suppose two players end up with an interesting position where it is unclear who looks better. They can then either

(a) try to play it out to see who wins or

(b) try to figure out which side has a better position

In a debate where you are trying to do (a), you will tend to jump on every bad "move" of your opponent. In a debate where you are trying to do (b), bad "moves" are less relevant because they do not tell you so much about the strength of your opponent's position, and you recognize that your opponent could have played a better move. So you more focus on trying to answer your opponent's best plays, and can even give each other hints.

by summerblues Sat Sep 22, 2012 5:15 am

Here is another example of how - for me - the context of the play is important before I would call a play gutsy.

This is from a different sport - golf. In a sense, golf is more similar to real life because it can have somewhat more similar risk/return trade-offs. In golf, you are often faced with a situation where an aggressive shot can produce an outcome that a more conservative shot would not produce but where it can also lead to a bigger disaster.

Suppose a player is playing maybe the final hole of a tournament, and suppose they end up in a situation where they can either go for the green with a chance to win the tournament but also a risk of ending up in a hazard and dropping somewhere outside top 5. They can also choose a safe route that will pretty much guarantee them a top 2 finish and give them some - but much smaller - chance to win the tournament. In this case, I would be willing to call the risky play more gutsy than the conservative play.

On the other hand, consider a player who likes to go for risky shots pretty frequently. Not only on the last hole of the tournament where that may be the only realistic way to get him to win the tournament, but almost always - his preference is for the more flashy play. Over the long run, this hurts his game because over many attempts at risky plays the law of averages invariably catches up with him and his results are worse than if he played more conservatively. In this case, I do not consider this player "gutsy". To me he is "stupid".

To put it differently, for me risk taking alone is not enough to equate it to "guts". There must be some purpose to the risk taking.

by Tenez Sat Sep 22, 2012 12:24 pm

summerblues wrote:I am yet again inclined to agree (subject to some minor adjustments on "talent" terminology etc) but I am still unsure I quite understand. Specifically, are you saying that

(a) Talented, powerful (explosive), unfit, gutsy all tend to lead to attacking tennis (in which case I agree) or are you also saying that

(b) these qualities tend to go hand-in-hand (in which case I disagree).

Honestly, the answer is both. You cannot put a goat's brain in a lion's head...and vice versa. They both have their way of surviving and I woudl say their will is what made them what they are. That will to prefer to eat grass rather than taking risk and having to fight and having to eat meat. It's 2 different paths. Both lead to survival and both are still exposed to feelings of risk or not risk.

This is not to say that when climbing a steep cliff the goat will be more willing and courageous to do so than the lion but in general, on neutral ground, the lion will be the one scaring teh goat, not the other way around.

Going back to tennis, with 1990s smaller balls, Nadal would be freaking panicking having to face in form Karlo, like he was just facing #100 Rosol. Karlo will do his same thing hoping to get through but ready to lose if his weapons were not good enough.

Pete v Agassi shows that even better. Agassi had often a panicked look when facing Pete.

by laverfan Sat Sep 22, 2012 1:24 pm

Tenez wrote:Going back to tennis, with 1990s smaller balls, Nadal would be freaking panicking having to face in form Karlo, like he was just facing #100 Rosol. Karlo will do his same thing hoping to get through but ready to lose if his weapons were not good enough.

There is so much negativity, that artificial playing conditions are being manufactured so Nadal can be beaten in a match. Laugh

Completely irrational.

BTW, this was tried at RG 2011 right? And Federer did make the final at the expense of Djokovic. He was ahead at 5-2 with an SP, and yet lost the first set 7-5, what a miss that drop shot was. Nadal must have hit enough of his huge-muscle-spinny-shots to Federer's BH in that first set for Federer to lead 5-2 and have a set point.

Do not let reason prevail over the singular emotion that drives you. Winking

Tenez wrote:Pete v Agassi shows that even better. Agassi had often a panicked look when facing Pete.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKIWuXWb8aA

by Larry Ellison Sat Sep 22, 2012 1:40 pm

Tenez wrote:
Amritia3ee wrote:But you manage to always bring the same thing up, relentlessly.
But it's not me, it's Tsip telling it here.

Yes, always Tipsy isn't it. Winking

I'm not talking about whether you are a truthful prophet or not (certainly some see you as that), but you bring it up all the time, in all debates. I've watched Tipsy Time on Eurosport, and Tipsarevic managed never to bring it up. Not saying we should never talk about it, but it get's a tad tedious.

Interestingly, you should check out some posts of Nore Staat on 606v2 on the way tennis has evolved- he has made some excellent analysis on how tennis is moving forward. Thumbs Up

by Larry Ellison Sat Sep 22, 2012 1:42 pm

Tenez wrote:

This is not to say that when climbing a steep cliff the goat will be more willing and courageous to do so than the lion but in general, on neutral ground, the lion will be the one scaring teh goat, not the other way around.

I assume you refer to Fed as the lion, and Nadal as the goat :chin:

So now it's confirmed as official, even Tenez agrees with me, Nadal is GOAT Cool

by laverfan Sat Sep 22, 2012 2:00 pm

Amritia3ee wrote:
Tenez wrote:

This is not to say that when climbing a steep cliff the goat will be more willing and courageous to do so than the lion but in general, on neutral ground, the lion will be the one scaring teh goat, not the other way around.
I assume you refer to Fed as the lion, and Nadal as the goat :chin:

So now it's confirmed as official, even Tenez agrees with me, Nadal is GOAT

So Murray and Djokovic must be the new Cheetah twins in the forest marking their respective territories as the Lion and GOAT become friends and walk away in to the glorious sunset in the savannah. Winking

by noleisthebest Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:24 pm

summerblues wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:Cowardice it is - no way around it: fear of being hurt.

Are you saying that defensive tennis shows the fear of being hurt? I beg to differ, not at the top level.

I make a distinction between defending and counter-punching. You defend only if you have to. Who in the right mind wants to exhaust themselves in a 20+ rally shot unless they have to. Counter-punching is more of a choice, you chose to sit back. Nole does it more than before but he is not an exclusive counter-puncher like Murray of example. It's not in his make-up to counter-punch, but I think he realised he's good at it and playing conditions favour it. I will say that that's just an OPTION in his game, not his entire game.
He has a beautiful attacking option/game, as well.

I don't know why and how he chooses various tactics for various players, but that he could cut it short now and then - he could and I think he's working on it. I look forward to seeing him indoors soon, as that's where he'll have a perfect opportunity to show that side of him off more.

Almost all players have moments when they don't make a perfect shot-selection and choose to wait for a better/safer opportunity to pull the trigger. They are pros and their aim is to win, crowd pleasing is secondary.

by noleisthebest Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:34 pm

summerblues wrote:Here is another example of how - for me - the context of the play is important before I would call a play gutsy.

This is from a different sport - golf. In a sense, golf is more similar to real life because it can have somewhat more similar risk/return trade-offs. In golf, you are often faced with a situation where an aggressive shot can produce an outcome that a more conservative shot would not produce but where it can also lead to a bigger disaster.

Suppose a player is playing maybe the final hole of a tournament, and suppose they end up in a situation where they can either go for the green with a chance to win the tournament but also a risk of ending up in a hazard and dropping somewhere outside top 5. They can also choose a safe route that will pretty much guarantee them a top 2 finish and give them some - but much smaller - chance to win the tournament. In this case, I would be willing to call the risky play more gutsy than the conservative play.

On the other hand, consider a player who likes to go for risky shots pretty frequently. Not only on the last hole of the tournament where that may be the only realistic way to get him to win the tournament, but almost always - his preference is for the more flashy play. Over the long run, this hurts his game because over many attempts at risky plays the law of averages invariably catches up with him and his results are worse than if he played more conservatively. In this case, I do not consider this player "gutsy". To me he is "stupid".

To put it differently, for me risk taking alone is not enough to equate it to "guts". There must be some purpose to the risk taking.

SB,

you are almost coming out as a Machiavellian kind here.
Imagine if all (golf/tennis) players played like you'd approve of them, and nobody "stupid" or "gutsy", who'd be following it?

Sport is one area in life which allows you the luxury of being really gutsy and adventurous, and those "stupid" players do it because it gives them a thrill. True, thrill won't put bread on the table but it will give you spring in the step and desire to pull off that crazy shot again!
I have had one in my life, and I remember it so vividly and so well. I can only begin to imagine what it must feel like for those top players. They love the thrill more than money, I'm sure of that.
Just to have gone for that return and to have pulled it off (remember The Shot?) is so very special. I think I must have died the milisecond before I realised it was in! Imagine how Nole must have felt? Stupid, I don't think so...

You being a Federer fan surely don't think his game is stupid and follow him because he is conservative.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:35 pm

Amritia3ee wrote:
Tenez wrote:

This is not to say that when climbing a steep cliff the goat will be more willing and courageous to do so than the lion but in general, on neutral ground, the lion will be the one scaring teh goat, not the other way around.
I assume you refer to Fed as the lion, and Nadal as the goat :chin:

So now it's confirmed as official, even Tenez agrees with me, Nadal is GOAT

Amritia!!

.

I missed a poster called SAHARA STALLION from 606v2. But not any more.

by noleisthebest Sat Sep 22, 2012 9:54 pm

summerblues wrote:

To put it differently, for me risk taking alone is not enough to equate it to "guts". There must be some purpose to the risk taking.

What would be the right purpose from your point of view?

(PS, Not neccessarily an illustration, but a snippet from how one player felt during one match this year:" I had the feeling for the first time in my life that I wasn’t on the planet anymore, I was in my very own world. That was an unbelievable experience, as if in a trance.")

by laverfan Sat Sep 22, 2012 11:29 pm

noleisthebest wrote:Almost all players have moments when they don't make a perfect shot-selection and choose to wait for a better/safer opportunity to pull the trigger.

Almost all implies not all. Interesting exclusion. Wiggle room, perhaps.

Better/safer opportunity == Like being 85% certain rather than 70%. Laugh

Pull the trigger implies that not all shots are where a 'trigger' has been pulled.

noleisthebest wrote:They are pros and their aim is to win, crowd pleasing is secondary.

Hence the crowd's evaluation is purely subjective, and has no frame of reference with the players mind.

But after watching the shot a few more times on DVR, I realized that I’d seen the same one from Djokovic many times before- but never in such a crucial moment. Not lucky- just good.

http://straightsets.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/open-moment-before-and-after-that-djokovic-shot/ (unreliable web link from the vast Internet)

by noleisthebest Sat Sep 22, 2012 11:34 pm

Enjoyed that article very much, thanks, LF!

by laverfan Sun Sep 23, 2012 12:10 am

noleisthebest wrote:Enjoyed that article very much, thanks, LF!

Any comments on my observations in the previous sentence from the article?

by noleisthebest Sun Sep 23, 2012 12:16 am

laverfan wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:Enjoyed that article very much, thanks, LF!

Any comments on my observations in the previous sentence from the article?

which observation exactly?

by laverfan Sun Sep 23, 2012 12:30 am

noleisthebest wrote:
laverfan wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:Enjoyed that article very much, thanks, LF!

Any comments on my observations in the previous sentence from the article?

which observation exactly?

But after watching the shot a few more times on DVR, I realized that I’d seen the same one from Djokovic many times before- but never in such a crucial moment. Not lucky- just good.

The highlighted part.

by noleisthebest Sun Sep 23, 2012 12:35 am

For me personally, that shot was not memorable for the actual shot itself, but everything that preceded and followed it: the occasion, how I felt on those two match points watching Nole. The agony he went through and that burning fury and suffering the crowd all in one in waiting for the serve facial expression.

The shot execution itself is what he does often, an angled forehand, he is very good at it.
Time for bye-byes. God has given me another day of health and sunshine and I enjoyed it. Cowardly & Brave Tennis - Page 3 3803388186

Cowardly & Brave Tennis - Page 3 3803388186

by summerblues Sun Sep 23, 2012 2:05 am

nitb:

Ah! Now I feel like you are also getting you teeth into the heart of the matter. A lot of insightful thoughts in your posts; will try to provide my take on them in a few posts.

But before I do that a few words on why I started this thread. For me, this thread is not about proving to you and those of you who like to term certain playing styles as "gutsy" that you are wrong. I started this thread because I was genuinly interested to see what exactly it is that makes you call them "gutsy".

I know that the way I use the word "gutsy" it does not quite fit in tennis. So I can only guess what you guys mean. I expected that I could make an approximately correct guess even without this thread but I wanted to understand your viewpoints in more detail. Hence the thread. In that sense, this thread is to me more of a "discussion" than a "debate". Unlike some other threads, I am not expecting to find "winners" and "losers" but just find out more about your thougths. So if I am poking at your explanations, it is not to prove people wrong but rather to prompt further explanations.

by summerblues Sun Sep 23, 2012 2:27 am

noleisthebest wrote:It's not in his make-up to counter-punch, but I think he realised he's good at it and playing conditions favour it. I will say that that's just an OPTION in his game, not his entire game.

noleisthebest wrote:They are pros and their aim is to win, crowd pleasing is secondary.

To me this sounds almost exactly like my take on things. He is good at it, playing conditions favor it, and he is a pro whose aim is to win. So it only seems reasonable to employ that option when the situation calls for it. But that is exactly why I see no need for the brave/cowardly terminology here.

by laverfan Sun Sep 23, 2012 2:28 am

One instance of the same shot being gutsy v stupid is the tweener.

AO 2005 Federer tried it against Safin and failed, Pure agony.

USO 2009 Federer tried it against Djokovic and succeeded. Pure joy.

USO 2010 Federer tried against Dabul and succeeded. Showmanship.

W 2011 Federer tried it against Youzhny and succeeded. WTF?

The context and the result makes a very significant difference to how a specific shot gets called 'gutsy' or 'stupid' or 'show-boating' or 'huh'. Winking

by laverfan Sun Sep 23, 2012 2:33 am

noleisthebest wrote:... an exclusive counter-puncher like Murray for example.

You should watch the bagelling of Nadal in Tokyo. There is no counter-punching a la Simon. Thumbs Up

by summerblues Sun Sep 23, 2012 3:22 am

noleisthebest wrote:
summerblues wrote:

To put it differently, for me risk taking alone is not enough to equate it to "guts". There must be some purpose to the risk taking.

What would be the right purpose from your point of view?

I knew last night when I put the word "purpose" in there that I was not expressing well what I was trying to say, but it was getting late and time was running short.... did not realize it sounded Machiavellian though...

Do not really know how to put it well but will give it another try. Will try with an example.

Say there is a fire in an apartment building and one person remains stuck there somewhere engulfed in flames and smoke. Suppose Mr. X from outside decides to enter the building - with all the dangers it entails - in order to try and save the stuck person. Mr. X's act strikes me as extremely gutsy.

Suppose I then find out that Mr. X has a compulsive attraction to fire and that he is driven towards burning buildings. In my mind, this will make Mr. X's action look less gutsy (though obviously still very much commendable).

For me, the purest form of "gutsiness" comes when one overcomes one's fears in order to achieve something worthwhile (as a non-native speaker of English I am not trying to claim this is the "correct" definition, I am just trying to explain how I use the word). If one takes risks just for the thrill of it, it strikes me as something somewhat different.

So, in this context, saving people from burning buildings would qualify (not many people do it for the fun of it I suppose). Taking a dive from a cliff is slightly different but I still see it as similar enough, and normally coming well within the "gutsy" category. Extending the term to a club player who is scared to try to paint the lines but brings themselves to do it is starting to stretch it quite a bit (as I mentioned earlier, the element of true risk is somewhat missing here) but I can still sort of accept it. A club player who regularly aims for the lines for the fun of it would no longer really qualify. And once we get to the pro level where the choice to attack/defend is made as a strategic/tactical choice the connection no longer works for me at all.

I can see that playing attacking tennis may have some superficial resemblance to gutsy actions in real life. However, I think the resemblance is very superficial. Most importantly, the ingredients that make gutsiness in real life (like pulling people from fire) admirable are exactly the ones that are missing from attacking tennis (the risk vs benefit trade-off of attacking play can be very similar to that of defensive play, but in pulling people from fire the risk vs benefit trade off is massively different from just standing around and watching). Therefore, I do tend to object to the notion that "gutsy" tennis is somehow "superior" to defensive tennis in a similar way that gutsy actions in real life are superior to non-gutsy ones.

by summerblues Sun Sep 23, 2012 4:06 am

noleisthebest wrote:You being a Federer fan surely don't think his game is stupid and follow him because he is conservative.

This point alone could lead to an interesting debate, and not only in the brave/cowardly context. This is where I think the question of "what kind of tennis is most exciting to watch" vs "what kind of tennis players should play" surfaces. I do not have satisfactory answers (meaning: answers that would satisfy me smiley

). A few random thoughts:

There is no question I have always preferred attacking tennis. Federer/McEnroe/Edberg have been my favorite players. With one exception only, in every match he has played, I have always rooted against Nadal.

Yet, for me this choice is not ideological. Yes, I prefer attacking tennis. But to me it is similar to how I am more likely to enjoy an action movie than a romance. I do not think romance movies are necessarily inferior, they are just not my cup of tea.

Nevertheless, the question remains, even in its non-ideological form. Suppose most fans prefer to watch attacking tennis, should players therefore lean towards attacking even if they might have a better chance to win using defensive tactics? For me, the answer here is an emphatic "No". I want tennis players to try to win, not to make the audience see the kind of tennis they would enjoy - otherwise I may as well watch pro wrestling.

In general, if tennis fans prefer certain style of tennis, but a different style is winning, surely tennis will ultimately start losing audiences, and one cannot blame it if it is unwilling to go that route. So what should be done here? As I said, I definitely do not want players to be those who adjust their playing styles. Most likely, I would want tennis authorities to adjust the rules somewhat. But that begs further questions, such as "when exactly is it ok to start adjusting rules or playing conditions to please the audience"? Should it be done all the time - even maybe to specifically help a popular player win? I hope the answer is negative there. But the other extreme - i.e., to never change the rules - is not reasonable either. I do not purport to have a very happy answer...

There is a lot of fodder for potential further thoughts in your observation...

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Sun Sep 23, 2012 7:12 am

SB, l would only say that we both watch tennis differently and we both are right in our own ways. Thumbs Up

I say its gutsy and courageous to take a risky shot going for the lines and you see it as stupid because it can produce unforced errors and thereby self destruction. I see its safer ( or cowardly ) to stay back and run and chase and hope for an error but you see its as smarter.
Well, its all subjective and that all.

I don't see I have anything else to debate on this topic.

by Larry Ellison Sun Sep 23, 2012 12:33 pm

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:SB, l would only say that we both watch tennis differently and we both are right in our own ways. I say its gutsy and courageous to take a risky shot going for the lines and you see it as stupid because it can produce unforced errors and thereby self destruction. I see its safer ( or cowardly ) to stay back and run and chase and hope for an error but you see its as smarter.

No, that's not what SB is saying.
Being aggressive doesnt necessarily mean you are gutsy, or you are stupid.

by noleisthebest Sun Sep 23, 2012 3:20 pm

summerblues wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:You being a Federer fan surely don't think his game is stupid and follow him because he is conservative.

There is a lot of fodder for potential further thoughts in your observation...

http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/301303/301303,1276210093,1/stock-vector-on-the-psychiatrist-couch-with-doctor-quack-and-deja-vu-54955429.jpg

by noleisthebest Sun Sep 23, 2012 3:34 pm

summerblues wrote:

I can see that playing attacking tennis may have some superficial resemblance to gutsy actions in real life. However, I think the resemblance is very superficial. Most importantly, the ingredients that make gutsiness in real life (like pulling people from fire) admirable are exactly the ones that are missing from attacking tennis (the risk vs benefit trade-off of attacking play can be very similar to that of defensive play, but in pulling people from fire the risk vs benefit trade off is massively different from just standing around and watching). Therefore, I do tend to object to the notion that "gutsy" tennis is somehow "superior" to defensive tennis in a similar way that gutsy actions in real life are superior to non-gutsy ones.

I can see the word "gutsy" really touched a raw nerve with you Cowardly & Brave Tennis - Page 3 1071211947

I don't think any of us using it to describe tennis playing styles meant to transfer it to players' character traits, although gutsy tennis players may easily be very gutsy outside tennis court, as well.
Although, now that you made me think about it, it's hard for me to imagine someone timid play gutsy tennis....

Gutsy tennis is superior both for players and the crowd: for players because they trust their skill and talent and go forward (not always but I'd say 7/10), win the point quicker and don't wreck their bodies in the process; for the crowd because most people like to watch all court tennis, not exclusive baseline exchanges (you may as well watch table tennis if you are into it). It just has so much more flair. That's why Federer is so popular everywhere he goes. Not because he is Swiss or looks good.

I think Federer confuses any discussion here, because he is such an exquisite all court player and really a one-off.

The thing that could rescue the situation after he retires is to speed up playing conditions a bit. Not necessarily the surface but ball sizes. I don't know what needs to be done with them, but whatever FO organisers did in 2011 looked good.

by laverfan Sun Sep 23, 2012 5:13 pm

Do 'gutsy' players cry? Laugh

'Gutsy' is now becoming a matter of subjective perception. There is no universal definition of 'gutsy' or 'stupid'.

If it succeeds, it is 'gutsy', if it fails, it is 'stupid'. For example, if Djokovic's 'the shot' had landed outside, what would have been the evaluation of 'the shot'? Winking

If Federer had converted his MP against Safin @AO, or Monfils at Paris? Devil

SB... you reference degrees of gutsiness using the purest form of "gutsiness" comes when one overcomes one's fears...

Assuming the 'diving' example is the 'purest' because it has never been tried by a specific individual and this case fear is being overcome, how can you apply such to a tennis player who practices painting the lines for hours (while Tipsy sits in a gym working on his fitness, of course... Laugh

)?

In your fire example case, what happens if one later finds out that Mr X himself had set fire to the building to become a hero, and he is an arsonist or a pyromaniac. Your initial impression of 'gutsiness' is now being diluted after the incident based on information that becomes available.

Two examples in the Tennis world come to mind which are similar, Rosol v Nadal and Rosol's subsequent loss to Kohlschreiber, or Berdych v Federer and Berdych's subsequent loss to Murray, both under different circumstances.

Did Rosol and Berdych become less 'gutsy' in a matter of days? Winking

by laverfan Sun Sep 23, 2012 5:40 pm

There is a perception that the higher the risk of failure, the more 'gutsy' a shot is.

For an attacking player, who practices such shots, the risk is lower with practice, so why is it more 'gutsy'?

Also, in a 30-shot rally, the attacking player has 30 more chances to win a point, if two attacking players were playing these are reduced to perhaps 3 shots at success. For example, Federer v Nadal compared to Federer v Berdych.

by Larry Ellison Sun Sep 23, 2012 5:50 pm

laverfan wrote:There is a perception that the higher the risk of failure, the more 'gutsy' a shot is.

For an attacking player, who practices such shots, the risk is lower with practice, so why is it more 'gutsy'?

That's what I'm thinking. The more they practice, the less risky it becomes. According to the theory here, more risky= more gutsy.
This notion so so flawed it's unbelievable.

As I said to Summerblues, attacking shots aren't necessarily gutsy, or stupid either.

by noleisthebest Sun Sep 23, 2012 6:04 pm

Amritia3ee wrote:
laverfan wrote:There is a perception that the higher the risk of failure, the more 'gutsy' a shot is.

For an attacking player, who practices such shots, the risk is lower with practice, so why is it more 'gutsy'?

That's what I'm thinking. The more they practice, the less risky it becomes. According to the theory here, more risky= more gutsy.
This notion so so flawed it's unbelievable.

As I said to Summerblues, attacking shots aren't necessarily gutsy, or stupid either.

I can't believe what you've both just written!

by Tenez Sun Sep 23, 2012 6:25 pm

laverfan wrote:

Two examples in the Tennis world come to mind which are similar, Rosol v Nadal and Rosol's subsequent loss to Kohlschreiber, or Berdych v Federer and Berdych's subsequent loss to Murray, both under different circumstances.

Did Rosol and Berdych become less 'gutsy' in a matter of days?

Good example. Wrong conclusions!

Rosol v Nadal: Nadal by standing far back (probably due to the fear of making UEs from Rosol's powerful shots) gave Rosol more time to aim and fire his powerful shots.

Rosol v Kholi: Kholi held his ground (closer to the baseline, is this courage or talent? for me both are linked) and was able to block Rosol's shots and push him into UEs as Rosol lacked some talent to handle Kholi's pace.

So once again, it's clear Nadal's lack of talent and/or fear of Rosol's power resulted in his early loss at Wimbledon 12.

by Larry Ellison Sun Sep 23, 2012 6:43 pm

noleisthebest wrote:
Amritia3ee wrote:
laverfan wrote:There is a perception that the higher the risk of failure, the more 'gutsy' a shot is.

For an attacking player, who practices such shots, the risk is lower with practice, so why is it more 'gutsy'?

That's what I'm thinking. The more they practice, the less risky it becomes. According to the theory here, more risky= more gutsy.
This notion so so flawed it's unbelievable.

As I said to Summerblues, attacking shots aren't necessarily gutsy, or stupid either.

I can't believe what you've both just written!

You should believe it then Thumbs Up

Let's analyse this in detail:
Why is playing attacking tennis gusty?
I have said numerous times that I don't think in tennis playing an attacking shot is that gutsy. It's not like jumping of a cliff, you can have a 'happy go lucky' mentality which means you just smash everything. Doesn't take that much courage. Also if you are 6'6 and can't rally or move well, you could be forced to just smash everything.
Tenez told me that in this case 'he would have no choice but to be gutsy' (ie go for his shots). I think this is total nonsense. If you have no choice but to do something, and it is your only option to succeed, why would it take extra courage to do that? Flawed.

But OK, let's say that this erroneous theory that these risky shots are always gutsy and take courage etc is true.
But this is also flawed on another level.
Let's say that shots which have a higher risk of missing are more gusty.

Player A practices the forehand DTL a lot. He is brilliant at it in-fact, so much so that he has practically perfected it. In a match scenario he can hit that shot perfectly (close to/on the line) 80% of the time. The other 20% of the time he misses it.
Player B meanwhile isn't so good at the forehand DTL. He likes playing it in matches, but hasn't yet perfected it. In a match scenario he can hit it well (close to/on the line) 20% of the time, the remaining 80% of the time he misses.

So if we come to a match scenario and in different matches, Player A and Player B play exactly the same shot (the Forehand DTL). For Player A it is not very risky, as he has perfected the shot. But for Player B it is extremely risky, as he only has a 20% chance of executing it.
So we are led to believe that Player B is more 'gutsy' for playing the shot, just because he hasn't perfected it and there is much more risk of him missing...??

So even on the second level it's a ridiculous, flawed notion. People are letting their ideologies/ emotions get in the way of clear thinking, and hence are coming to wrong conclusions.

by noleisthebest Sun Sep 23, 2012 6:45 pm

May I add that Rosol did really, really well not to choke in that 5th set like Cilic did against Murray in USO:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cjKxPPaMSc

Just saw this clip for the first time after Wimbledon, nearly forgot what fabulous drama and what electric match that was!!!

Magnificent win and composure from Rosol, what a legend!

by noleisthebest Sun Sep 23, 2012 7:21 pm

Amritia3ee wrote:
You should believe it then

Let's analyse this in detail:
Why is playing attacking tennis gusty?
I have said numerous times that I don't think in tennis playing an attacking shot is that gutsy. It's not like jumping of a cliff, you can have a 'happy go lucky' mentality which means you just smash everything. Doesn't take that much courage. Also if you are 6'6 and can't rally or move well, you could be forced to just smash everything.
Tenez told me that in this case 'he would have no choice but to be gutsy' (ie go for his shots). I think this is total nonsense. If you have no choice but to do something, and it is your only option to succeed, why would it take extra courage to do that? Flawed.

But OK, let's say that this erroneous theory that these risky shots are always gutsy and take courage etc is true.
But this is also flawed on another level.
Let's say that shots which have a higher risk of missing are more gusty.

Player A practices the forehand DTL a lot. He is brilliant at it in-fact, so much so that he has practically perfected it. In a match scenario he can hit that shot perfectly (close to/on the line) 80% of the time. The other 20% of the time he misses it.
Player B meanwhile isn't so good at the forehand DTL. He likes playing it in matches, but hasn't yet perfected it. In a match scenario he can hit it well (close to/on the line) 20% of the time, the remaining 80% of the time he misses.

So if we come to a match scenario and in different matches, Player A and Player B play exactly the same shot (the Forehand DTL). For Player A it is not very risky, as he has perfected the shot. But for Player B it is extremely risky, as he only has a 20% chance of executing it.
So we are led to believe that Player B is more 'gutsy' for playing the shot, just because he hasn't perfected it and there is much more risk of him missing...??

So even on the second level it's a ridiculous, flawed notion. People are letting their ideologies/ emotions get in the way of clear thinking, and hence are coming to wrong conclusions.

All I can say Amri, go and try all that theory in practice and if it works I'll give it a try, too Cowardly & Brave Tennis - Page 3 1071211947

by laverfan Sun Sep 23, 2012 7:26 pm

Tenez wrote:
laverfan wrote:

Two examples in the Tennis world come to mind which are similar, Rosol v Nadal and Rosol's subsequent loss to Kohlschreiber, or Berdych v Federer and Berdych's subsequent loss to Murray, both under different circumstances.

Did Rosol and Berdych become less 'gutsy' in a matter of days?

Good example. Wrong conclusions!

Rosol v Nadal: Nadal by standing far back (probably due to the fear of making UEs from Rosol's powerful shots) gave Rosol more time to aim and fire his powerful shots.

Rosol v Kholi: Kholi held his ground (closer to the baseline, is this courage or talent? for me both are linked) and was able to block Rosol's shots and push him into UEs as Rosol lacked some talent to handle Kholi's pace.

So once again, it's clear Nadal's lack of talent and/or fear of Rosol's power resulted in his early loss at Wimbledon 12.

And ignored the Berdych v Federer example conveniently. Is Federer less talented than Berdych, or is reverse the case? Winking

Back to favourite Nadal's lack of talent line. Applause

Gasquet, the French Federer, must also be very untalented. Thumbs Up

noleisthebest wrote:...choke in that 5th set like Cilic did against Murray in USO...

So 'gutsy' play also requires the player across the net not 'choke'. Yikes

Did Lopez choke against Murray, or Raonic?

In The Nadal v Rosol, Nadal by no means choked, he lost to Rosol on fire in an indoor court.

Similar to Berdych beating Federer @USO in near calm conditions, but 'choking' against Murray on a windy day, correct? Whistle

by Larry Ellison Sun Sep 23, 2012 7:27 pm

noleisthebest wrote:
Amritia3ee wrote:
You should believe it then

Let's analyse this in detail:
Why is playing attacking tennis gusty?
I have said numerous times that I don't think in tennis playing an attacking shot is that gutsy. It's not like jumping of a cliff, you can have a 'happy go lucky' mentality which means you just smash everything. Doesn't take that much courage. Also if you are 6'6 and can't rally or move well, you could be forced to just smash everything.
Tenez told me that in this case 'he would have no choice but to be gutsy' (ie go for his shots). I think this is total nonsense. If you have no choice but to do something, and it is your only option to succeed, why would it take extra courage to do that? Flawed.

But OK, let's say that this erroneous theory that these risky shots are always gutsy and take courage etc is true.
But this is also flawed on another level.
Let's say that shots which have a higher risk of missing are more gusty.

Player A practices the forehand DTL a lot. He is brilliant at it in-fact, so much so that he has practically perfected it. In a match scenario he can hit that shot perfectly (close to/on the line) 80% of the time. The other 20% of the time he misses it.
Player B meanwhile isn't so good at the forehand DTL. He likes playing it in matches, but hasn't yet perfected it. In a match scenario he can hit it well (close to/on the line) 20% of the time, the remaining 80% of the time he misses.

So if we come to a match scenario and in different matches, Player A and Player B play exactly the same shot (the Forehand DTL). For Player A it is not very risky, as he has perfected the shot. But for Player B it is extremely risky, as he only has a 20% chance of executing it.
So we are led to believe that Player B is more 'gutsy' for playing the shot, just because he hasn't perfected it and there is much more risk of him missing...??

So even on the second level it's a ridiculous, flawed notion. People are letting their ideologies/ emotions get in the way of clear thinking, and hence are coming to wrong conclusions.

All I can say Amri, go and try all that theory in practice and if it works I'll give it a try, too

What theory??
What do you mean, what do you want me to practice?? :chin:

I'm saying if you have practice and perfect a shot so that there is less risk of you missing, the risk of you missing is less.
There's no theory- just common sense.

by noleisthebest Sun Sep 23, 2012 9:02 pm

Amri, any news on Nadal's return?
I went to Wooffie's website, but it's all Rafa in various underwear, it's getting ebarrassing Cowardly & Brave Tennis - Page 3 2998105013

Cowardly & Brave Tennis - Page 3 2998105013

by Tenez Sun Sep 23, 2012 9:13 pm

laverfan wrote:
And ignored the Berdych v Federer example conveniently. Is Federer less talented than Berdych, or is reverse the case?

No. I did not ignore it. Both belong in my group 1. So in essence it's talent versus power. Like Federer says between the 2, it's about who pulls the trigger first. Fed's talent usually wins comfortably v Berdych's power but it may happen that form of the day gives a different result. Berdych is famous for melting on important point...which is kind of normal as he goes for broke.

Gasquet, the French Federer, must also be very untalented.

Good example again. Gasquet is technically brillant but either he is not talented enough to get the ball earlier (he stands way too far back) or he hasn;t got the guts to take it earlier (again cause maybe he has not confidence in his talent (own ability).

Gasquet is the perfect example to answer my point to SB. A more gusty Gasquet would force himself to stand closer to the baseline so that taking the ball early woudl become second nature....Exactly what we see Federer do. It shows that guts and talent work hand in hand in the darwin evolution as well in the development of a player.

Lions are no sheep...and sheeps are no lion!

by Larry Ellison Sun Sep 23, 2012 9:23 pm

noleisthebest wrote:Amri, any news on Nadal's return?
I went to Wooffie's website, but it's all Rafa in various underwear, it's getting ebarrassing

Highly irrelevant to the topic in hand.
And, no btw.

by Larry Ellison Sun Sep 23, 2012 9:26 pm

Tenez wrote:
Lions are no sheep...and sheeps are no lion!

Tenez check my post at 6:43pm.
I'm sorry- but your notion and theories really do lie in tatters now.

by Tenez Sun Sep 23, 2012 9:44 pm

Amritia3ee wrote:Let's analyse this in detail:
Why is playing attacking tennis gusty?
I have said numerous times that I don't think in tennis playing an attacking shot is that gutsy. It's not like jumping of a cliff, you can have a 'happy go lucky' mentality which means you just smash everything. Doesn't take that much courage.

Ehhh?!? They may not be gambling their lives but their career. A point can make a huge difference. One courageous shot turned Fed's match around v Haas and allowed him to win his sole FO. There is luck involved too cause he cannot gurantee he will succeed everytime but he has the guts to force his chance and not wait for Haas to deliver the blow or miss. That is what taking the match in his own hands/destiny means. It's guts and it's clear to everybody who plays the game. Watch your average club's women final and you will see lots of moonballing. Federer and Safin do not moonball. They live and die by their swords (racquets).

Also if you are 6'6 and can't rally or move well, you could be forced to just smash everything.

If you are 6"6, it means you have evolved to be tall and imposing. Like Karlo, Rao, Delpo, Isner, they all have big weapons and their bodies are very much in synch with they mind. They don;t move well cause in their darwinian evolution fleeing and outlasting their ennemies was not the option they chose.

Tenez told me that in this case 'he would have no choice but to be gutsy' (ie go for his shots). I think this is total nonsense. If you have no choice but to do something, and it is your only option to succeed, why would it take extra courage to do that? Flawed.
But OK, let's say that this erroneous theory that these risky shots are always gutsy and take courage etc is true.
But this is also flawed on another level.
Let's say that shots which have a higher risk of missing are more gusty.

Player A practices the forehand DTL a lot. He is brilliant at it in-fact, so much so that he has practically perfected it. In a match scenario he can hit that shot perfectly (close to/on the line) 80% of the time. The other 20% of the time he misses it.
Player B meanwhile isn't so good at the forehand DTL. He likes playing it in matches, but hasn't yet perfected it. In a match scenario he can hit it well (close to/on the line) 20% of the time, the remaining 80% of the time he misses.

So if we come to a match scenario and in different matches, Player A and Player B play exactly the same shot (the Forehand DTL). For Player A it is not very risky, as he has perfected the shot. But for Player B it is extremely risky, as he only has a 20% chance of executing it.
So we are led to believe that Player B is more 'gutsy' for playing the shot, just because he hasn't perfected it and there is much more risk of him missing...??

So even on the second level it's a ridiculous, flawed notion. People are letting their ideologies/ emotions get in the way of clear thinking, and hence are coming to wrong conclusions.

You are making things too complicated in order to avoid simple facts. Answer this simple question. Why has your player A perfected the DTL winner and why your player B hasn't? You need to go to the root of why one develop claws and teeths and why another will focus on growing wool to feel cozy during the cooler days!

by Larry Ellison Sun Sep 23, 2012 9:54 pm

Tenez wrote:
Tenez told me that in this case 'he would have no choice but to be gutsy' (ie go for his shots). I think this is total nonsense. If you have no choice but to do something, and it is your only option to succeed, why would it take extra courage to do that? Flawed.
But OK, let's say that this erroneous theory that these risky shots are always gutsy and take courage etc is true.
But this is also flawed on another level.
Let's say that shots which have a higher risk of missing are more gusty.

Player A practices the forehand DTL a lot. He is brilliant at it in-fact, so much so that he has practically perfected it. In a match scenario he can hit that shot perfectly (close to/on the line) 80% of the time. The other 20% of the time he misses it.
Player B meanwhile isn't so good at the forehand DTL. He likes playing it in matches, but hasn't yet perfected it. In a match scenario he can hit it well (close to/on the line) 20% of the time, the remaining 80% of the time he misses.

So if we come to a match scenario and in different matches, Player A and Player B play exactly the same shot (the Forehand DTL). For Player A it is not very risky, as he has perfected the shot. But for Player B it is extremely risky, as he only has a 20% chance of executing it.
So we are led to believe that Player B is more 'gutsy' for playing the shot, just because he hasn't perfected it and there is much more risk of him missing...??

So even on the second level it's a ridiculous, flawed notion. People are letting their ideologies/ emotions get in the way of clear thinking, and hence are coming to wrong conclusions.

You are making things too complicated in order to avoid simple facts. Answer this simple question. Why has your player A perfected the DTL winner and why your player B hasn't? You need to go to the root of why one develop claws and teeths and why another will focus on growing wool to feel cozy during the cooler days!

Becayse Player A is better at tennis than Player B!
So tell me Tenez, who is gutsier, player A or player B?
This can be applied anywhere. Federer vs Haas is an example, suppose on the point where Fed could lose the match he goes for a winner DTL.
He is player A, and because he is so good, he has a 80% chance of getting it (and thus winning the point). Meanwhile Player B can be anyone. He could also be in a similar position against Haas. He also goes for a winner DTL, and the chance of him making it is 20% (he is not as good as Federer).
So tell me Tenez, is Player B's shot not riskier than Federers.
If it is riskier then (according to your flawed notion) is it not more gutsy?
So Player B is more gutsy, in that moment, than Federer...?

I know you are a Federer fan, so you (and ROTLA) could use 'Player A' rather than Federer that would be good, so your emotions don't get in the way here.

by Larry Ellison Sun Sep 23, 2012 9:58 pm

Tenez wrote:

If you are 6"6, it means you have evolved to be tall and imposing. Like Karlo, Rao, Delpo, Isner, they all have big weapons and their bodies are very much in synch with they mind. They don;t move well cause in their darwinian evolution fleeing and outlasting their ennemies was not the option they chose.

Tenez, you told me, and I quote: The tall guy has no choice but to be brave.
This I'm afraid is totally flawed, irrelevant of whether their ancestors liked to flee or not.
As I said earlier: If you have no choice but to do something, and it is your only option to succeed, why would it take extra courage to do that? Flawed.

by Tenez Sun Sep 23, 2012 10:18 pm

Amri - Do I like Federer cause I am a fan of his or am I a fan cause I like his game? Do you think I would dislike Nadal if he was playing like Federer?

Like your 6"6 guy I have "no choice" but to like the player who plays with guts and dislike the one who fears making UEs. That is how I am....and you are different.

by Larry Ellison Sun Sep 23, 2012 10:26 pm

Tenez wrote:
Like your 6"6 guy I have "no choice" but to like the player who plays with guts and dislike the one who fears making UEs. That is how I am....and you are different.

Yes... but you've assumed yourself correct there (ie that certain players have more guts than other players due to their playing style).

You may have been wrong in the first place, or maybe not.

Certainly you don't address my points here: the one at 9:54 or 9:58.

by Sponsored content

Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30