Pathological Losers: My Vic Braden Interview

[don_budge]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[JeffMac]

Relishing Morbidity Just For Fun?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[stotty]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


A word about doubles...

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

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

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

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

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

[don_budge]

The Saint…the Paradigm. The LCD.

Is your glass ever half full?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[JeffMac]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[don_budge]

Vic Braden…a jolly guy in his own right

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

These are those "pathological" individuals, who suffer from various degrees of "narcissistic damage" incurred in childhood, who therefore find it very difficult to deal with losing, per se, or even the prospect of losing. They are typically much less daunted by the possibility of losing while on a team. This is that loss that is "shared," or distributed in such a way that it is easier for these individuals to cope with it.

And then there is the interesting matter of doubles. A team sport? Technically yes, albeit with much less "sharing" than most.

We all know of players who have become "doubles specialists" because their skill set was well suited to the game. I have also known a number of players--and perhaps you have too--who have chosen doubles over singles because their psyche is more suited to it. They experience less pressure due to the "sharing" of it.

Conversely, I have also known some players who felt more pressure in doubles than in singles. Often, this is due to a fear of letting down their partner. This is that "responsibility pressure" to which you refer.

The pressure in doubles, or any team sport, is actually three fold. First, there is the aforementioned "responsibility pressure." Secondly, in the face of either real or "perceived failure," there is the fear of the ego-dystonic shame that may ensue. And thirdly, there is is the fear of criticism or censure by a partner--which in some extreme cases, although rare--may even include a conscious or unconscious fear of abandonment.

For example, I'm talking about that classic dreaded gut punch of, "You're terrible! I don't ever want to play doubles with you again!" The credo of doubles requires that we be totally supportive of our partners, of course. Nevertheless, consciously or unconsciously, the fear that this dictum will be violated may be lurking.

I had an experience in a doubles match about thirty years ago that encapsulated all three fears. I was playing with a friend who was an ATP tour pro in a non ATP tour event, against non ATP players, who nevertheless were very good. There were dozens of people watching which didn't make it any easier.

First off, I was afraid I would be held "responsible" for letting him down if we lost. Secondly, I was afraid that my play would not be good enough, we would lose, causing me to have to slink away in shame. And thirdly, if my poor play led to a loss, I was fearful that he would never want to play doubles with me again. Or even hit with me, for that matter.

I'm happy to report that on this day I rose to the occasion and more than held my own. I stayed very focused because I didn't want to let my partner down. Ironically, it was my friend who actually succumbed to the pressure by missing those two critical, easy, high volleys late in the third set, leading to our defeat.

In my world doubles means, "Never having to say your sorry." So, I expected no apology, didn't ask for one, and never received one. And that's fine. It was a great experience that I am grateful for and will never forget!!

Now, I believe I have come up with a methodology that can help all athletes, whether they play individually or on a team, to deflect pressure, thus enhancing performance. I consider it a major breath through. It is called the Paradoxical Pivot. It is coming to a computer screen near you soon.

Let's not set the bar too high for the race of man in general. Take a good look around you and what do you see? Losers? Pathological and otherwise.

Vic Braden may have been a charlatan in his own right. Does anyone remember him back in the late sixties and early seventies? His spots on CBS and other networks carrying tennis were amusing but honestly speaking they were little else. I was never even aware that he has a "serious" body of work until I realized he has a cult of followers here on this website.

My father claims that he gave my Aunt Gloria tennis lessons down in old Ottawa Park in Toledo, Ohio way back when. No doubt he went on to bigger and greater things but when he appeared on those old tennis spots he seemed to be little more than a jolly joker…giggling and carnival huckstering the virtues of playing tennis. His only message seemed to be that tennis was amazingly fun. Interestingly…this may have been his greatest find.

The rest may be window dressing. But please continue JeffMac…I like your posts every bit as much as your articles. Just be a bit careful when you are stepping on Superman's cape…or not.

[JeffMac]

Pressure

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

These are those "pathological" individuals, who suffer from various degrees of "narcissistic damage" incurred in childhood, who therefore find it very difficult to deal with losing, per se, or even the prospect of losing. They are typically much less daunted by the possibility of losing while on a team. This is that loss that is "shared," or distributed in such a way that it is easier for these individuals to cope with it.

And then there is the interesting matter of doubles. A team sport? Technically yes, albeit with much less "sharing" than most.

We all know of players who have become "doubles specialists" because their skill set was well suited to the game. I have also known a number of players--and perhaps you have too--who have chosen doubles over singles because their psyche is more suited to it. They experience less pressure due to the "sharing" of it.

Conversely, I have also known some players who felt more pressure in doubles than in singles. Often, this is due to a fear of letting down their partner. This is that "responsibility pressure" to which you refer.

The pressure in doubles, or any team sport, is actually three fold. First, there is the aforementioned "responsibility pressure." Secondly, in the face of either real or "perceived failure," there is the fear of the ego-dystonic shame that may ensue. And thirdly, there is is the fear of criticism or censure by a partner--which in some extreme cases, although rare--may even include a conscious or unconscious fear of abandonment.

For example, I'm talking about that classic dreaded gut punch of, "You're terrible! I don't ever want to play doubles with you again!" The credo of doubles requires that we be totally supportive of our partners, of course. Nevertheless, consciously or unconsciously, the fear that this dictum will be violated may be lurking.

I had an experience in a doubles match about thirty years ago that encapsulated all three fears. I was playing with a friend who was an ATP tour pro in a non ATP tour event, against non ATP players, who nevertheless were very good. There were dozens of people watching which didn't make it any easier.

First off, I was afraid I would be held "responsible" for letting him down if we lost. Secondly, I was afraid that my play would not be good enough, we would lose, causing me to have to slink away in shame. And thirdly, if my poor play led to a loss, I was fearful that he would never want to play doubles with me again. Or even hit with me, for that matter.

I'm happy to report that on this day I rose to the occasion and more than held my own. I stayed very focused because I didn't want to let my partner down. Ironically, it was my friend who actually succumbed to the pressure by missing those two critical, easy, high volleys late in the third set, leading to our defeat.

In my world doubles means, "Never having to say your sorry." So, I expected no apology, didn't ask for one, and never received one. And that's fine. It was a great experience that I am grateful for and will never forget!!

Now, I believe I have come up with a methodology that can help all athletes, whether they play individually or on a team, to deflect pressure, thus enhancing performance. I consider it a major breath through. It is called the Paradoxical Pivot. It is coming to a computer screen near you soon.

[stotty]

The up shot is that they usually gravitate toward safer, less competitive activities. There are many to chose from. Or maybe it's team sports where there is less pressure because it's "shared."

In particular, I have seen a great many juniors fall by the wayside through the years because they had not yet found a way in which to enjoy competition.

I have come across the "shared pressure" observation a lot as a tennis coach. I actually feel the pressure can be equal of even greater in team sports. It's interesting how a whole soccer team can get nervous collectively. It's a human dynamic. Once you get one or two key players getting nervous, it can quickly permeate through the whole team; Brazil's 7-1 drubbing by Germany in the 2014 World Cup being a fine example. The whole team got terribly nervous and then mentally collapsed....fascinating. Every player was affected and there was not one Alpha figure in the team to offer any resistance to the collapse.

I think also you feel a kind of "responsibility pressure" in a team which you don't get in individual sports. You can feel horrendously guilty for letting others down. I played soccer so have first hand experience. It can get so that you dread someone passing you the ball. The pressures are different for team sports, but make no mistake, they are there.

I find human dynamics very interesting. In every sense and scenario, not just sport. Just watch a room of people change and take on a different life as different people enter and leave.

Good point about juniors not able to find a way to enjoy competition. It's very true and a difficult problem for coaches to tackle.

[JeffMac]

This Matter of Percentages.

In my next article, which is almost done, I reveal Vic Braden 's quantification for this category of competitor. My forty plus years in and around the game cause me to basically agree with his conclusion.

However, we just don't yet know with sufficient accuracy. One of the things I want to accomplish before I go on to live with the Angels in that big clubhouse in the clouds is to come up with a way to objectively determine this.

I am working on it as we speak.

I feel that it is important to do so because then we can better tailor performance enhancement approaches to individual players. That said, I think we can say with assurance that it is not as low as 1% as our colleague the Watcher says.

I'm beginning to think that the Watcher simply revels in being consistently contrary. The DSM identifies this condition as the Oppositional Personality Disorder. I'm not saying his behavior rises to the necessary level for this DX, but it might.

At any rate, I still find him wildly entertaining. I actually wish he would post more because I'm one of those people who likes to try to solve word problems. That's why I love to write and play Scrabble. And that's why I'm a fan of the Watcher.

However, I wish he would answer the question I posed to him a couple of weeks ago: What actually constitutes the mental game in the Watcher's unique world? As you may recall, he stated that what I've been writing about in these pages is NOT the mental game. So, I must ask what is it then?

But I digress. There are a couple of tricky issues which must be dealt with in order to make this determination concerning quantification of the pathological. First, it depends on what metrics you use in order to identify those with performance inhibition syndrome a.k.a. the chokers, exploders and tankers.

Another interesting and related question is: Is there a way to accurately determine if there is a threshold level for these behaviors that we can agree on? I believe that we can eventually measure this objectively resulting in greater accuracy, which will allow us to be better prescribers for these players.

Additionally, I want to move the conversation in the direction of looking at these behaviors differently than in the past. I see them as more fluid in nature, and less static. As they change and fluctuate, ebb and flow over the course of a tennis match we then need to be flexible enough--and knowledgeable enough--to be able to deal with them in an optimal fashion.

The second problem that we face vis-a-vis quantification is that the number of players who fall into this category is going to be hard to determine in the first place. This is due to the fact that many of these people either quit prematurely because they discover that they can't handle the pressure, or they never pop on our radar screens because they've already crossed tennis off their list as something too potentially daunting to even try.

This explains the reason why someone like the Watcher would underestimate the percentage of these players. Many are invisible. Like the old saying goes, "You don't know what you don't know."

The up shot is that they usually gravitate toward safer, less competitive activities. There are many to chose from. Or maybe it's team sports where there is less pressure because it's "shared."

In particular, I have seen a great many juniors fall by the wayside through the years because they had not yet found a way in which to enjoy competition.

The article that I keep trumpeting presents a solution to this exact problem. I guess you could say that the Paradoxical Pivot might be a true "game saver."

[johnyandell]

Is it 10 percent?

[JeffMac]

What! One Per Cent????!!!!

Watcher, Watcher come out wherever you are. "You can't be serious!" I say.

Watcher, I used to think you were a brainiac--albeit with somewhat strange syntax. A person who had penetrated to the very core of Life itself. A holder of the Grail. An existential Powerball winner. Now, I don't know what the heck you're "Watching," but what ever it is, it is not the same movie we're Watching. In fact, I think we all need to Watch out for you. You are clearly an agitator and subversive, sowing the seeds of revolt.

I'm disappointed in you and really shocked! And you've made me cry.

The number of tennis players who are significantly hindered by neurosis is at least 10%. And perhaps a bit higher. Do you think you have a better handle on this than the great Vic Braden? He is rolling over in his grave and trying to reach out to you with helpful messages psychically planted into your cerebral complex when you are sound a sleep at night down in mamas basement.

Can you hear him yet?

Oh, and by the way, I am still psychically connected to him. We talk every so often. He gives me financial advise. Relationship advice too. I am asking him to intercede on my behalf--with you--in order to bring you back from the proverbial brink of abject psychosis caused by your hyper-dependence on your vast array of electronic gizmos.

FYI I worked down in the tennis trenches for about 40 horrible, miserable years. I coached hundreds if not a thousand players. Everyone from snot nosed kids with Tourettes syndrome who hated authority figures to filthy rich touring pros who laughed at my tennis outfits and never bought me lunch. I've watched hundreds if not a thousand tennis matches.

I played in the neighborhood of 2,000 competitive matches myself. I even played on grass a few times, and on Budweiser a lot! I can assure you that the number of head cases who find their way on to tennis courts is not a measly 1%.

Sorry.

What is the real reason you seem to need to minimize this problem? My theory is that you're trying to show us how smart you are. Smarter even than the great Wizard of Coto de Caza himself. But it's backfired.

And oh, "if it were only so," the tennis gods cry aloft. We'd rarely then, if ever, have to suffer the vicarious torture of watching a fellow human being choke, explode or tank. However, whenever I have gone down to the courts I have seen dead, bloody bodies lying all over the place. First responders are crawling about like ants on meth not knowing who to minister to first.

It's a "disaster" as our next president--the great Trump would say.

But fear not my dear Watcher. I am at this very moment finishing the work which will provide the healing balm of fearlessness and lazer (sp?) sharp focus in the crunch to the suffering, slobbering, hopeless tennis masses.

I say let them FLOW!

Soon my next masterpiece will travel mysteriously, electronically from the bowels of the great Sonoran desert to the fabled city by the bay. Just a few blocks away from the legendary Tenderloin itself. And from there--God willing--it will one day appear tightly framed within the boundaries of Watchers I-PAD.

The time is nigh for us all to embrace The Ninth Element a.k.a The Paradoxical Pivot. Let the huddling, troubled tennis masses be Saved!

Praise the FLOW dear Watcher! Praise the FLOW!

Reconciliation of the initial that should be unnecessary. The focus is not Gonzo. Braden has articulated a hidden truth faced by one percent. This fact has a great meaning and exposes the futility of much effort.

[TheWatcher]

Reconciliation of the initial that should be unnecessary. The focus is not Gonzo. Braden has articulated a hidden truth faced by one percent. This fact has a great meaning and exposes the futility of much effort.

[JeffMac]

Happy To Be...

...at peace with you again--d_b. I'm glad you're feeling better too, and I appreciate the apology, although it wasn't really necessary. I wasn't offended by anything you said because I know going gonzo is always going to rub some people the wrong way. I expect a backlash. It's good actually because, first of all, my work has been noticed. And secondly if someone has a strong reaction, they have to be taking me seriously. That's exactly what I want. When I do go gonzo, I'm not doing it to aggravate any one, although I know that it does. More than anything, it's a way for me to harness and express my creativity. It's fun! And it's entertaining to some people. I know it's not for everyone. It's something that I have been developing gradually over time. And I'm thrilled to have reached the point that I can actually make money doing it.

It's actually a bit of a reprieve. I also work for a couple of on-line companies that commission me to write college term papers for this new illiterate generation of computer and game addicted undergrads, as well as masters theses, spanning a space from the social sciences to the humanities. It's enjoyable, but not as much fun as going gonzo. I went a little gonzo on a history paper once last year to see what would happen. The paper was rejected and I was threatened with termination if I ever did it again .

Over the years I have become just as interested in writing styles as tennis styles. You may be surprised to find out that I do revere the classic game and all of the great champions of yesteryear--despite that little te-ta-te with Laver, who by the way, I deeply respect. In fact, I much prefer the game that we had prior to the emergence of Nick B.'s whiz kids. Before the ascension of Agassi, Courier and Seles there was much greater diversity in style and tactics. Admittedly, some of it was not optimal, which has naturally led to the evolution of much better and more effective technique in the pro game overall. And then, of course, there are those racquets, which are now more like bazooka guns. It was inevitable. You can't hold science back. These factors have combined to produce--for better or worse--the greatest degree of homogenization in ground strokes and serves in the history of the sport. Again, it's a stylistic matter. Some like the taste of Scotch more than others.

To this point, I did find it very interesting, in the January edition of TP, that John Yandell lauded the Budge forehand. J.Y. has done more than any other person to elucidate the ingredients of the "modern forehand." In doing so he has done great pioneering work, by assisting in upgrading the tennis games of thousands of people. He richly deserves, and has received great credit for the work that he has done. That is why I was very surprised when he lauded the Budge forehand and stated that it might be a much better choice for a great many people, I had to heartily agree. Unfortunately, as far as the pro game goes, the pre 1990 forehand will forever remain as extinct as T-Rex. You can't survive anymore with that old DNA.

A couple of other things: I actually don't drink at all, or take drugs. I just play the part of a reprobate on the internet. It's fun in perhaps a way similar to what you have done by taking on the I.D. of d_b. Hmmm, nice little rhyme there huh? However, I do have to plead guilty for liking Whoppers. Do you have Burger Kings in Sweden? If so, then I'm moving there too. I'm a quarter Swedish, by the way. Grandma Johnson RIP. And I wasn't questioning your patriotism either. I don't know anything about it, and it's none of my business. When you go gonzo, you necessarily say things that can be construed or misconstrued in a myriad of ways. It's all part of the inherent agitation of the style that some find entertaining. However, I can see where you might be offended, and I apologize.

As for the Watcher, I too look forward to more of his posts. It is true that his syntax is unusual. But that's part of his appeal. Inscrutable people like the Watcher thrive on being cryptic and mysterious. As one who was once deeply, deeply attracted to Zen Bhuddism and it's literary proponents, I am entranced by the Koanesque nature of his musings. And the fact that he considers me--I think it was something akin to "boring"--does in no way make me like him less. And besides, he is too intelligent to really mean that. Every time I write about him I end up saying that he could have a future as a writer. Seriously. Some people really like his unique style because it's challenging in the same way that working on a puzzle is. It forces us to think, ponder and analyze. If humans didn't love doing that we'd still be swinging through some trees instead of talking about forehands, and such.

I think that's about all I've got for you right now, but I'll look forward to hearing back from you soon. I enjoy your posts very much. As far as I'm concerned, you too are a very good writer. And I consider you to be one of the most thoughtful people on this website. Cheers!

JeffMac…I guess one might say that you just went "gonzo" on me. What I wrote wasn't all that terrible. If you are a journalist or an opinionated person you expect to have differences of opinion. In my case I revere classic tennis and the associated icons. That makes us different…so much for diversity. Diversity really is pie in the sky. It isn't religion or race that necessarily make people suck or hate each other…it's only their tendency to be human. It's human nature. That's what takes the cake.

The only bone that I would pick with you is your references to my use of my old friends name. First of all…my name is don_budge. Not Don Budge. This is a liberty that you are not free to take. The lower case letters and the underscore fully illustrate that I am only a figment of my imagination.

My username is don_budge and this is how I signed up for the website. I didn't even know that there was a forum when I joined. My first post on the forum was more than a year after I joined. Since then I have made over 3,000 posts under the name don_budge and it personally gives me a deep sense of satisfaction to do so. My strongest wish is that J. Donald Budge…the "real" one is looking down and smiling upon my efforts if for not only my reverence for the game that he played. Classic tennis.

The rest of your insinuations and hallucinations I imagine are a result of too many "Whopper's" and too many "french fries" washed down by large Coca Cola's. I don't mind a bit. In a way I was sort of asking for it when I wrote what I wrote. As I have noted I was pretty sick when I wrote it not to mention jet-lagged and culture shocked. My two and a half week adventure to the United States of America was after a ten year absence. Going back was part deja vu and part reincarnation. Nostalgia and enlightenment thrown into the mix. You should try it some time…it beats LSD, mushrooms, ecstasy, copious amounts of alcohol and the rest of it. People that I had known forever were looking at me as if I was some kind of ghost…while others picked up on me as if it were only yesterday. It was the darndest thing.

You can and did refer to me as an expatriate and a spy. I guess you must think that I am unpatriotic. On the contrary…I consider myself a patriot. Just not in the usual sense that a normal person thinks of it. I'm just not ready to die for what somebody else thinks is a noble cause. Remember Vietnam? In that sense I don't even think of myself as rebellious. I just try to tell the truth…as close as I can figure it out. Afterall…"telling the truth in times of mass deceit is a revolutionary act in itself".

TheWatcher might call it prolonged convolution but methinks that he has yet to truly say anything. How can you if you don't speak in complete sentences? Which is perfectly ok with me…I don't care. I look forwards to reading more of him. Just as I look forwards to reading more of you. Even if you choose to go "gonzo" on me. It's interesting. Maybe I was a bit harsh on the "Hunter S. Thompson wannabe" thing. If I was…then I apologize. But you should know how bad I was feeling…I was so tired that it hurt. It's rather amusing looking back. The six hour layover from midnight to six AM (EST) (six AM to noon in Euro time)…after the eight hour flight to the Frankfurt, Germany airport was sheer torture…as I explained it to my father. I was practically hallucinating myself. I even refused to buy any food, coffee or water in the airport terminal at that point because of the outrageous prices they wanted. I was in effect a prisoner and they wanted to rape me. It's no excuse I know. I didn't mean any harm.

[don_budge]

J. Donald Budge…and don_budge. Gonzo versus Prolonged Convolution Journalism.

The talk of comparisons to one Hunter S. Thompson make me feel slightly nauseous. As a matter of fact I already feel slightly nauseous from a cold that I picked up on my first visit to the States in ten years. But I was already feeling sort of nauseous from some of my observations of the "hope and change" that has been delivered as promised from the current "Supreme Commander". President Oblabla. He who talks a lot but says little…little of meaning.

Be that as it may I will never see the current "Star Wars" movie either…I must admit that I have never seen any of the other "Star Wars" movies. However...I have read all of the collective works of Fyodor Dostoevsky among others. This talk of literary credentials and philosophic musings are somewhat lost on me. Hunter S. Thompson wrote "gonzo" journalism…or "gonzo" literary style which in the end isn't a style at all. It is the musings of an insane person…which is entertaining to some. I guess.

The two articles about "Laver and Braden" belong in the lower third of all of the articles that have been posted in "Tennisplayer.net". They are neither informative or educational. They are an attempt at entertainment and belong in the same category that the mainstream media currently resides in. "Truthiness"…it's not something that I aspire to or feel entertained by, particularly when it applies to tennis or life in general. The "Laver" story was particularly disrespectful in content as it more or less challenged a rather impeccable image to appear rather ordinary…a chance encounter in the middle of the night by an overzealous tennis nut. That being said my only interest in Laver would be on the tennis court. He can have his private life to himself. After recently flying all night to and from Sweden all that I can say is if someone would have approached me under those conditions they may have wished they had not.

I cannot wait for the final chapter of "The Apocalypse" series of tennis writings. But at the same time I reiterate…we are all losers. No one here gets out alive. GeoffWilliams was another exponent of Hunter S. Thompson. He fancied himself as some kind of Thompson wannabe also. He wrote of "gonzo" tennis…there was another character here on the forum that wrote of "Apocalypse Tennis". He too has gone in remission…hopefully by the wayside. I can't say that I miss either one of them…but at the same time one might say that they were amusing in an entertainment sort of way. Much as the mainstream media is these days. Nauseous feelings aside.

Budge equals prolonged convolution.

My dear Mr. Watcher...thanks so much for coming so nobly to my defense against the virulent, vicious, verbal and vitriolic backhanded blitzkrieg of the expatriate, Swedish spy who goes unmerrily by the non de guerre of Don Budge.

He is that guy who has cavalierly appropriated the name of a former tennis hall of famer.

JeffMac…I guess one might say that you just went "gonzo" on me. What I wrote wasn't all that terrible. If you are a journalist or an opinionated person you expect to have differences of opinion. In my case I revere classic tennis and the associated icons. That makes us different…so much for diversity. Diversity really is pie in the sky. It isn't religion or race that necessarily make people suck or hate each other…it's only their tendency to be human. It's human nature. That's what takes the cake.

The only bone that I would pick with you is your references to my use of my old friends name. First of all…my name is don_budge. Not Don Budge. This is a liberty that you are not free to take. The lower case letters and the underscore fully illustrate that I am only a figment of my imagination.

My username is don_budge and this is how I signed up for the website. I didn't even know that there was a forum when I joined. My first post on the forum was more than a year after I joined. Since then I have made over 3,000 posts under the name don_budge and it personally gives me a deep sense of satisfaction to do so. My strongest wish is that J. Donald Budge…the "real" one is looking down and smiling upon my efforts if for not only my reverence for the game that he played. Classic tennis.

The rest of your insinuations and hallucinations I imagine are a result of too many "Whopper's" and too many "french fries" washed down by large Coca Cola's. I don't mind a bit. In a way I was sort of asking for it when I wrote what I wrote. As I have noted I was pretty sick when I wrote it not to mention jet-lagged and culture shocked. My two and a half week adventure to the United States of America was after a ten year absence. Going back was part deja vu and part reincarnation. Nostalgia and enlightenment thrown into the mix. You should try it some time…it beats LSD, mushrooms, ecstasy, copious amounts of alcohol and the rest of it. People that I had known forever were looking at me as if I was some kind of ghost…while others picked up on me as if it were only yesterday. It was the darndest thing.

You can and did refer to me as an expatriate and a spy. I guess you must think that I am unpatriotic. On the contrary…I consider myself a patriot. Just not in the usual sense that a normal person thinks of it. I'm just not ready to die for what somebody else thinks is a noble cause. Remember Vietnam? In that sense I don't even think of myself as rebellious. I just try to tell the truth…as close as I can figure it out. Afterall…"telling the truth in times of mass deceit is a revolutionary act in itself".

TheWatcher might call it prolonged convolution but methinks that he has yet to truly say anything. How can you if you don't speak in complete sentences? Which is perfectly ok with me…I don't care. I look forwards to reading more of him. Just as I look forwards to reading more of you. Even if you choose to go "gonzo" on me. It's interesting. Maybe I was a bit harsh on the "Hunter S. Thompson wannabe" thing. If I was…then I apologize. But you should know how bad I was feeling…I was so tired that it hurt. It's rather amusing looking back. The six hour layover from midnight to six AM (EST) (six AM to noon in Euro time)…after the eight hour flight to the Frankfurt, Germany airport was sheer torture…as I explained it to my father. I was practically hallucinating myself. I even refused to buy any food, coffee or water in the airport terminal at that point because of the outrageous prices they wanted. I was in effect a prisoner and they wanted to rape me. It's no excuse I know. I didn't mean any harm.

[JeffMac]

Flowosophy For Sale!

I concur with everything that you have said here re: religion. That is why I am starting a new religion. It is called Flowosophy and a thousand bucks will get you in on the ground floor as a member of the Board of Directors. No, I'm just kidding. It's only five hundred. But seriously, the tennis community through their tennis clubs and organizations must and will become the springboard for this much needed spiritual revolution. And from the tennis clubs it will spread out in all directions as humanity gradually heals and evolves. Praise the Flow! And Keep on Flowing! Because the Flow Knows! What the Flow Knows! And don't forget it.

I somewhat agree with your thoughts on religion. It probably just is feelings and things people use to have a sort of rulebook in life. It can make people happier and just feel more comfortable in general about their decisions in life.
However, we are seeing now that people are trying to press their religion upon others which is entirely unacceptable. Today there are some who it seems are almost trying to incite a Third World War between Christians and Muslims. Once people hopefully understand that it's all in their head maybe the conflict can cease. When people feel spiritual, I think it's probably just the flow state and pretty much just in their heads. They shouldn't necessarily stop believing or following, it's just that by understanding religon's true nature maybe some violence can be averted. At that point perhaps religion will become a force for good like it was meant to be.