Pathological Losers: My Vic Braden Interview

[stotty]

Wembley

McEnroe is a smart player. Let me tell you a quick story. I saw John McEnroe play John Lloyd's brother David Lloyd in the first round at Wembley in 1978. David Lloyd was tricky. He's a real bulldog character and a force of nature, but he had a weak backhand, which was a fatal flaw against McEnroe as you can imagine.

Nine years earlier in 1969 at the same event a 20 year-old David lost 5-7 6-4 5-7 to Pancho Gonzales. Pancho Gonzales told Dennis, David's father, that David had the best overhead he had ever played against, and that he couldn't get a single lob over his head. David had a tremendous overhead and could jump high and "hang" in the air...a useful quality to have. Pancho was certainly amazed by it....and he had seen a lot.

But I have digressed...meandered. Nevertheless the story is fuller and you have greater perspective that David was fairly good player.

McEnroe couldn't work David out at first. David stood right over on his ad court return and invited forehands....he got them. David had a great forehand and he pelted them directly at McEnroe time and time again. Word had got out that McEnroe was a less effective volleyer if you could hit hard into his body. I wasn't convinced of the tactic...then or now. McEnroe struggled in his first few services and nearly got broken. But then he started to alter his service position along the baseline to make sure he hit David's backhand in the ad court every time....wherever David stood to return. Once David started to expect backhands, he then got forehands, and aces started to rain in - everything quickly unravelled after that and David lost 6-4 6-2. But it was an interesting match for two reasons 1)because I knew David. 2)it was the first time I had witnessed just how effective McEnroe was with his serve. That serve did all the work.

This thread has unearthed some great memories....

[don_budge]

1984 Racquet Issues...

1984 Wimbledon Finals…John McEnroe beat Jimmy Connors 6-1, 6-1, 6-2. A tremendous shellacking by McEnroe. McEnroe using the "new" Dunlop midsize and Connors hanging onto his dinosaur Wilson T2000.

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

A great McEnroe interview conducted by Bud Collins. McEnroe notes that Connors seemed "a half a step slow on his shots" without mentioning the racquet size disparity.

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

Come September Connors has switched to a Wilson midsize ProStaff. He isn't going to be caught "half a step slow again".

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

The change in equipment was something that the top players really wrestled with. They were old enough to have enough respect for the game that they were hesitant and resisted the change until there wasn't any wiggle room left. It was a very difficult decision for them…it was about something bigger than money to them. But in the end there wasn't any way out…it was switch or disappear the hard way.

Interesting…watch McEnroe's repeated use of the SABR. He is really putting pressure on Connors serve by going to the net behind his return. He did this too against Lendl the next day in the final. He straight setted Lendl in the finals.

[stotty]

Classic and modern...

These matches that I post from time to time are excellent…don't you think so? The play is infinitely more interesting than the modern game. Its a great example of something going dreadfully wrong. Something was destroyed and lost in the rush to make money. Something that was treasured by a whole race of people at the time. But it is also an excellent example of the nature of the human being. The greed and the rush to take advantage of your opponent by using equipment that should have been illegal from the very beginning. It tells you a lot about the human race…and as usual it isn't all that pretty. For 99% of the race…it is dog eat dog.

Thanks for posting those matches. I will certainly watch them bit by bit. I am really enjoying the older matches right now.

I think 1984 was a crossroads. Things were certainly beefing up. Players still hadn't learned to take full advantage of the new, bigger bats but pretty soon they would.

I make a very clear distinction. Wood is classic and everything else isn't...not even the first diddy metal rackets count for me. The T2000 is definitely streets ahead of a Maxply.

For me, classic and modern are two different games. I doubt some of the players are interchangeable between classic and modern either. I am skeptical some modern players could make the jump to classic and vice versa. And that's not because I would be expecting players to make a sudden switch to a game they are alien to. It's more that the qualities of the respective eras are different. I could be wrong but that's the way I am seeing it right now after watching countless clips going back to 50's and even beyond.

[don_budge]

The 1984 U. S. Open…John McEnroe and George Orwell

I like the book 1984 too. I read a long time ago...probably around 1984. It's a book that offers no hope for the future...none.

But I wonder if Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley didn't come closer to predicting the truth about the world we live in....and the way things might continue to unfold.

Interestingly both novels seek to get rid of the past...

Just a few thoughts....

Interesting thoughts. I think one reason I refer to 1984 is because of the 1984 U. S. Open. Besides being so dead on and so uncanny in his predictions…Orwell nailed the exact year or as far as I can tell that we as a race of people made the turn into a future that turns mankind in a totally different direction. One where he gives up his will and lets technology and the powers that be do his thinking for him.

I like Aldous Huxley very much. I read "Brave New World" years ago and I must make it a point to read it again…once I am finished writing my "John McEnroe" epic here. Aldous Huxley wrote a book called "The Doors of Perception" which is about his experiences of ingesting mescaline…I believe that it was. It was a sensational book that explores alternative reality's inside the Gold Mine of the brain. Jim Morrison of "The Doors" was so impressed with the book that he named his band after the book.

My sister taped "Super Saturday" at the U. S. Open in 1984 and gave it to me as a Christmas gift. It was the first time that both of the men's singles semifinals were played sandwiching the ladies finals. That year it was Ivan Lendl defeating Pat Cash in five sets…Lendl saved match points against him with some miraculous tennis. Martina Navratilova defeated Chrissie Evert in the ladies final in three excellent sets. The finest ladies tennis match that I have ever personally witnessed. Then it was the "bad" boys in the twilight/night match…John McEnroe versus James Scott Connors. It was a thrilling match from start to finish…another five setter. Oh yeah…the 35 and over semis was the first match of the day…Stan Smith versus John Newcombe. Bud Collins…the famous tennis historian claimed for years that this had been the greatest day of tennis ever.

Lendl vs Cash (turn off the volume if you don't speak French)

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

McEnroe vs Connors (excellent commentary with Tony Trabert, Pat Summerall and even the great John Newcombe)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_lugeOh-Ls&list=PL3A8ECD260244DA15

Evert vs Navratilova

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2ABBoMxqqo

For the first time ever all of the men players were using oversized racquets in a Grand Slam semifinal. It was effectively the end of an era. For a number of years the big racquets had been making their way into the hands of the professionals and it worked its way up to the top. The last players to capitulate to the new equipment were the at the top of the game. Bjorn Borg had already exited the stadium and I suspect that he wasn't happy about the equipment change.

But another Orwellian twist to the tapes that my sister gave me was that all of the commercials on that day…or perhaps I should say like JeffMac…99% of the commercials were computers. They were the among the first offerings by Apple, IBM, Hewlett Packard and another on that slips my mind. The funny things looking back at these computers were how big they were and how "ungodly" slow they must have been. Our iPhones are infinitely quicker and more powerful. So it is the irony that the computer was making its way into our lives and look how it has crept into each of our lives so insidiously…now we cannot live without it. So did the big racquet syndrome…we cannot live without them either. An extraordinary, ironic Orwellian twist.

John McEnroe was right in the middle of the whole thing. He straddled the two worlds of tennis. Its true that there are people that would rather destroy the past. They make humiliating statements to try and reign in those that dare to refer to things that have happened and they wish that it would all just go away. But there is a story in it. A very interesting story as a matter of fact. Maybe it will just take the perfect storm to bring it back into focus. But its important for those that follow the game of tennis to fully understand exactly what happened when the game was transitioning to bigger equipment after a hundred years or so of standard sized wooden racquets.

These matches that I post from time to time are excellent…don't you think so? The play is infinitely more interesting than the modern game. Its a great example of something going dreadfully wrong. Something was destroyed and lost in the rush to make money. Something that was treasured by a whole race of people at the time. But it is also an excellent example of the nature of the human being. The greed and the rush to take advantage of your opponent by using equipment that should have been illegal from the very beginning. It tells you a lot about the human race…and as usual it isn't all that pretty. For 99% of the race…it is dog eat dog.

[stotty]

Brave New World

I just finished reading "The Adolescent" by Fyodor Dostoyevsky. What an impression this great piece of art has left on me. I feel like I am glowing with new found knowledge. I used to go to the bookstore and buy books five or ten at a time. This book was in my library all of this time. For twenty years it sat there. Perhaps it was fate that I read it during the duration of this thread. I recommend it to you all…particularly if wish to expand your horizons.

Noted...

It goes hand in had with Orwell's 1984.

I like the book 1984 too. I read a long time ago...probably around 1984. It's a book that offers no hope for the future...none.

But I wonder if Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley didn't come closer to predicting the truth about the world we live in....and the way things might continue to unfold.

Brave New World predicts a carefully balanced world where people are kept content by the powers that be. 1984 predicts a world where we are kept in constant war and flux. In 1984 technology barely exists and is indeed virtually removed...everything is austere. In Brave New World technology is at the heart of everything and it predicts how humans may react and use such advanced technology...and, of course, we mishandle it.

Interestingly both novels seek to get rid of the past...

Just a few thoughts....

[don_budge]

To Dolly Llama and The Church Lady…when enough is not enough

Phil pretty much sums it up. He has succinctly stated a position that 99% of informed observers would echo. budge, you are an outlier who is incapable of either being objective, or you are applying aberrant standards to excuse your hero's behavior. Your idealization of the gangster Montana in Scarface is further proof that your moral compass dances to the beat of its own drummer.

The world would be a dangerous place if you were in charge. You would release all of the deviants and criminals from jail, concocting strange rationales as to why they are not the real "bad guys." Really? You live in an upside down, inverted world.

The McEnroe debate is now closed!!! Enough!!! Thanks budge...

...and just so you know I am probably way more politically correct than you are. And, furthermore, this is one election in which the fix is not in. Clinton was the choice of the conglomeration of shot calling power brokers. But she's too flawed to be a shoe in. That's why these are halcyon days for political junkies.

Sorry JeffMac…you don't have that kind of power. In the MOVIE…Scarface, aka Tony Montano, is covered by a hail of automatic weapon fire from the Columbian drug cartel. This was his fate that he sealed with his karma. He wasn't set free…he got what was coming to him. The original Scarface was Al Capone don't forget. He, too was hobnobbing with the system and it was difficult to draw the line where his turf began and where the law ended. Its fixed alright. Right down to the last Manchurian Candidate. Just ask Justice Scalia. Remember that election that was decided by the Supreme Court? The separation of powers. Obama conveniently will try to name the next judge to tip the scales once again. Maybe he will name himself. What a nightmare! What a BAD movie…so many bad guys. We'd kill for a good guy…wouldn't we?

In the MOVIE starring Al Pacino…the character in the scene is merely telling the truth about how the whole thing works. He was entwined with the law, the government and the banks and a host of "bad" guys. The MOVIE was about the drug world, where again the lines of demarcation are not what they might appear to be to the casual observer. Its a strange conglomeration of government, military, police, the legal system and some bad guys. Some useful idiots out of work and too much time on their hands. With the careful science of labelling the bad guys are just that…they are bad guys, but some of the good guys are really not all that good. In fact…they are just as bad and worse. You see...Tony Montano was just a pawn. The Kings and Queens could very well have been sitting in that very same restaurant that he was imploding at…most probably they were as he suggests…hiding.

So absolutely nothing has been summed up…phooey to your 99%…you've been watching too many polls. But I know you liked that line about playing psychologist or was it psychiatrist. Talk about a flawed world…let's talk about the world of mental health. But he doesn't have the time he laments…not to mention the qualification. If I am existing in the 1% that you imply…that's ok with me.

During this pleasant exchange that you and I have been having I finished three books that have given me an immense sense of "self-help". They were a couple of novels by Somerset Maughm and one by Fyodor Dostoyevsky. "The Razor's Edge" and "Of Human Bondage", along with "The Adolescent". Reading these great works of literature gives me some clarity about the human beast, condition and the nature of it. It isn't always that simple to say this is the good guy and this is the bad guy. Well it isn't simple if you aren't really truly simple. I guess the simpler you are the simpler it is. 99% don't have such a hard time…they just nod and go along with the status quo and head for the edge of the cliff with the rest of the herd.

The world is a dangerous place JeffMac. Its a very dangerous place and its not because the likes of me are in charge…its because far too many people take the same road that you and The Church Lady do. A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest. Some people that I converse with have suggested that I should be in politics. I would have the real bad guys and traitors locked up…or better. But I treasure my life and my love of life. Its true…I have taken the road less traveled. But that's ok…and please do remember…I am only the messenger. Regarding my moral compass…I would have to say that is between the Lord and myself. Just like it is with you…and The Church Lady.

But anyways…back to John McEnroe.

[don_budge]

Bad Guys…The Sometimes Unlikely Hero. Its an American theme.

So who cares about the other stuff? Little old ladies. He didn't murder anybody, did he?

The other stuff is quite interesting too…if you can connect the dots and keep it in historical context. He certainly never murdered anyone. But he was challenging the system.

I just finished reading "The Adolescent" by Fyodor Dostoyevsky. What an impression this great piece of art has left on me. I feel like I am glowing with new found knowledge. I used to go to the bookstore and buy books five or ten at a time. This book was in my library all of this time. For twenty years it sat there. Perhaps it was fate that I read it during the duration of this thread. I recommend it to you all…particularly if wish to expand your horizons.

The book is about a teenager who has an "idea". He encounters lots of dysfunction in his path. His reactions sometimes mystify and baffle those around him but he alone seems to have a grasp on the "reality" of things. A loose grasp…as in the gripping of a golf club. But a grasp nonetheless.

But the book is more than just about a teenager. It is about a country in the middle of vast change. It is about an era that is changing the world that we live in. Dostoyevsky had it within himself to see what was happening, without the benefit of the internet, and he wrote…and he wrote. Capturing a moment that same way he could capture an era. One word at a time. One sentence at a time. One chapter at a time. 570 pages of stream of thought. The book is about God…or rather people's belief in God. Its a subject I like to discuss. It goes hand in had with Orwell's 1984.

His moral compass is the one that he grew up with and the one that he is growing into. Society is also changing…and is in a state of confusion. It reminds me of the great John McEnroe. I saw him as a teenager and he had his idea already. He'd had it for a while when I saw him. He was going to be the greatest tennis player in the world or maybe he even had the idea he was going to be the greatest tennis player ever. It was an audacious idea nevertheless. Jeff Wolfman, the Jewish kid my friend and I were visiting already knew about this kid. And his secret. He turned us on to him. I was only an accidental tourist…or was I?

Who knows what was going on in that brain of his? Good old don_budge was there at a couple of pivotal moments in his career…at the qualifying match in the suburbs of Queens in New York against Zan Guerry in 1976. He was there when he reached the top of the mountain in 1984…again at the U. S. Open in Flushing Meadows. At the twilight of tennis…betwixt and between. Twilight…where it isn't the day any longer and not quite night. Classic tennis was disappearing and the modern game was thrust upon us. There wasn't any vote in this matter either. Our vote wouldn't have counted. The fix was in. Tennis was busy metaphoring life. Ironically…it was the twilight of John McEnroe's career as he battled the other recalcitrant left handed American…James Scott Connors…in the twilight against the skyline of the Big Apple. New York City. Its an American epic I tell you.

America doesn't really have the long storied culture that Russia has you see. Long lines of royalty and distinguished lineage. What we have are rebels for heroes. Perhaps we need a character like John McEnroe to enable to understand things about ourselves that are difficult to face. But he is a hero…there is no doubt about it. He was standing up to the machine even as he was sliding down the ladder of tennis. But he reached the top and stood there for a while. I am proving it and that is what is making the "holier than thou" crew so upset. It ruffles their fine coloured smooth feathers. They feel a little dirty themselves…when they look in the mirror and see that face peering back at them. That same old face.

[bottle]

I am probably way more politically correct than you are.

True, you are too politically correct, just like Donald Trump, you guys with your angry etiquette speeches, Emily Post if not a pursed mouth Miss Manners in drag.

[don_budge]

The Wonderful John McEnroe…and Jiminy Glick

Here's John McEnroe away from the tennis court…laughing at himself with none other than Jiminy Glick.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SCvmtnJN0U

[JeffMac]

Pretty Much Sums It Up...

Phil pretty much sums it up. He has succinctly stated a position that 99% of informed observers would echo. budge, you are an outlier who is incapable of either being objective, or you are applying aberrant standards to excuse your hero's behavior. Your idealization of the gangster Montana in Scarface is further proof that your moral compass dances to the beat of its own drummer.

The world would be a dangerous place if you were in charge. You would release all of the deviants and criminals from jail, concocting strange rationales as to why they are not the real "bad guys." Really? You live in an upside down, inverted world.

The McEnroe debate is now closed!!! Enough!!! Thanks budge...

...and just so you know I am probably way more politically correct than you are. And, furthermore, this is one election in which the fix is not in. Clinton was the choice of the conglomeration of shot calling power brokers. But she's too flawed to be a shoe in. That's why these are halcyon days for political junkies.

Look budge: I told you his talent as a tennis player is undisputed. His character as a jerk is undisputed. Period, end of discussion, let's move on. You obviously have a chip on your shoulder, but that is your problem, not mine. I have no time to play the psychiatrist.

[bottle]

McEnroe: Best S&V Ever. IMHO

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

So who cares about the other stuff? Little old ladies. He didn't murder anybody, did he?

[klacr]

Naturally I believe that what Doug Eng is true. Particularly earlier in his career. His outburst were like nervous ticks. Later on they became sort of bad acting…when he had gone over the hill with regards to his competitiveness.

John McEnroe's serve and volley are just exquisite. He can rule out different parts of the court based on any given serve and how well he has hit it. In this manner he arrives uncannily to the precise spot where he has to be or close to it. Even when he is somewhat out of position or his opponent makes a good return he somehow has an answer…he stays in the point.

He just keeps coming in. Ashe's return tactics were quite effective in this match but Johnny kept persevering…and he surely kept his cool. Which is my point. Down 4-1 in the third against an opponent that is not only playing well but he has a game plan. Time and time again he catches McEnroe with the lob or the well disguised angle. Its a head game. Its cat and mouse. It takes a lot of nerve.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/fedex-head-2-head/john-mcenroe-vs-arthur-ashe/M047/A063

John McEnroe 2-0 against the great Arthur Ashe with both wins coming at the same tournament in 1978. I believe that these wins were at the Madison Square Garden and not in Britain.

McEnroe: Best S&V Ever. IMHO

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[stotty]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_xapSvIF5I

Here's a classic for you. John McEnroe versus Bjorn Borg. Borg with the reputation of a backcourt player shows that he has plenty of play in him in the forecourt. Superb match.

Regards his reputation as a backcourt player…it was exaggerated as reputations often are.

Yes it's good. It's noticeable how Borg starts returning McEnroe's serve with good intentions but as they go deeper in to the first set Borg starts to retreat further and further back behind the baseline to return. Better to keep pressing as Ashe did, go for more, waste a few returns, it would pay off in the long.

McEnroe is dissecting the way he moves his opponent around. You can see how he would gradually take ownership of Borg, at least on the McEnroe venues/surfaces.

It's a shame Borg never had the chance to equalise this ownership by playing McEnroe on slower surfaces, which strongly favoured Borg. The situation was similar to Nadal's ownership of Federer today. Nadal has never been consistently good enough on the quicker surfaces to meet Federer in the latter stages of such events, so Federer never gets the chance to even the score. Erase all the clay court results and their head to head is a mere 10-9 in Nadal's favour.

Federer is, and Borg was, better across ALL the surfaces than Nadal or McEnroe respectively, and in a way this has cruelly worked against them.

[stotty]

Ashe and rackets...

He just keeps coming in. Ashe's return tactics were quite effective in this match but Johnny kept persevering…and he surely kept his cool. Which is my point. Down 4-1 in the third against an opponent that is not only playing well but he has a game plan. Time and time again he catches McEnroe with the lob or the well disguised angle. Its a head game. Its cat and mouse. It takes a lot of nerve.

It's an interesting match. I haven't watched it all yet but will certainly do so. I find it particularly relevant as Arthur Ashe straddles eras. Despite being 35 he is competing with the best and beating them at times. It's kind of dispels the myth that tennis players were getting better and better....more the equipment was.

Connors had a distinct advantage over Borg and McEnroe with his T2000 over their wooden affairs. I have the T2000 and a Maxply and took them to the club recently to play with....and for the juniors to have fun with. The T2000, though terribly heavy and ill balanced, is a good deal more powerful than the Maxply.

[don_budge]

John McEnroe versus Bjorn Borg…1980 Master's Cup Final

It was an interesting era in tennis. You had a lot of players like this. Guys who could play their relative strengths and weaknesses against their opponents in a tactical way that could offset an otherwise clear cut advantage. In fact…you had a lot of this going on as the hard court specialists competed against clay court specialists on their respective favorite surfaces.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_xapSvIF5I

Here's a classic for you. John McEnroe versus Bjorn Borg. Borg with the reputation of a backcourt player shows that he has plenty of play in him in the forecourt. Superb match.

Regards his reputation as a backcourt player…it was exaggerated as reputations often are.