Obsessed Winners, Are They Accepted in Tennis Culture?

[brokenshoelace]

That actually is very clarifying, thank you. It was becoming more and more clear as other posted. I appreciate an open-for-riffing question, but I was having trouble grasping where you were going. Perhaps you were speaking on a frequency that only dogs and men could hear. :snigger

I think I was touching on your point of "class," perhaps, and how it relates, when some tennis players lives depend on it more than others. Serbian, Croation and Russian players, of late, have seen it as a meal ticket, whereas in the US men's game, it's left to doughy also-rans. However, Venus and Serena flew out of Compton with an axe to grind, and the tennis world to turn upside down. And in that case, no, the tennis world isn't completely accepting of that kind of upsetting the gentility applecart, because Serena is a divisive figure, to this day. And one of the hungriest, most driven players in the women's game.

Am I getting warmer? :lolz:

Yes. In fact, as I said to Darth, Serena is great example. As you point out, she's not out there to make friends. She even said as much. And for that, opinion continues to be divided. I find this fascinating, because there are so many reasons (including race).

 

[Moxie]

What's the definition of an "athlete"? I don't consider golfers, race car drivers, or pool players to be "athletes". I suppose it's pretty subjective. Are designated hitters "athletes"? Are punters/place kickers athletes? Offensive lineman? Synchronized swimmers? I heart pool/billiards, but I'd never classify most decorated fat, out-of-shape nine-ballers to be "athletes". Supremely skilled and ultra-competitive? Yes. Athletes? No. Just my opinion.

I don't want to derail the conversation that I've only just started to get, but I think you're too hard on:
DHs, punter/place kickers, offensive lineman, any swimmers, or golfers. These are all athletes who compete with the strength and superiority of their bodies, and their superior timing/coordination. I would say that billiards players and race car drivers are more like chess players. They are competitive, and problem solvers, but they don't rely, by-and-large, on their bodies. They fall closer to the group of competitive crosswords. (And I don't mean that as a diss.)

 

[atttomole]

What's the definition of an "athlete"? I don't consider golfers, race car drivers, or pool players to be "athletes". I suppose it's pretty subjective. Are designated hitters "athletes"? Are punters/place kickers athletes? Offensive lineman? Synchronized swimmers? I heart pool/billiards, but I'd never classify most decorated fat, out-of-shape nine-ballers to be "athletes". Supremely skilled and ultra-competitive? Yes. Athletes? No. Just my opinion.

Golfers can be considered athletes, given the physical demands of having to walk for 4 hours on the course each round.

 

[Moxie]

What's the definition of an "athlete"? I don't consider golfers, race car drivers, or pool players to be "athletes". I suppose it's pretty subjective. Are designated hitters "athletes"? Are punters/place kickers athletes? Offensive lineman? Synchronized swimmers? I heart pool/billiards, but I'd never classify most decorated fat, out-of-shape nine-ballers to be "athletes". Supremely skilled and ultra-competitive? Yes. Athletes? No. Just my opinion.

Golfers can be considered athletes, given the physical demands of having to walk for 4 hours on the course each round.

I knew the golfers were going to catch crap. What about the physical ability to hit the ball some 300-400 yds./meters? However, it is possible that they're on the cusp of athletes/puzzlers.

 

[Kieran]

I'm not sure I'm seeing that obsessed cutthroat quality in Federer when it comes to his relationship/rivalry with Rafa. In fact, he seems to always have been the junior partner there. I think he hasn't shoved himself out of his comfort zone enough to upset the young bull.

And Novak is only occasionally a great clutch player. One season, more or less. He has it in patches, but not in spades...

 

[Denis]

I'm not sure I'm seeing that obsessed cutthroat quality in Federer when it comes to his relationship/rivalry with Rafa. In fact, he seems to always have been the junior partner there. I think he hasn't shoved himself out of his comfort zone enough to upset the young bull.

And Novak is only occasionally a great clutch player. One season, more or less. He has it in patches, but not in spades...

Maybe, but Nadal never did this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EevxjtGDxLU

Nadal is just a boring tennis robot on court personality wise.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Nadal is just a boring tennis robot on court personality wise.

That's a first... Never heard even the biggest Nadal detractor say that.

 

[Denis]

Nadal is just a boring tennis robot on court personality wise.

That's a first... Never heard even the biggest Nadal detractor say that.

Well it all relates to your original point. Nadal is obsessed with winning just like the others. But Nadal, unlike Djokovic for instance, is able to only focus on the game itself and doesn't allow emotions other than feeling good about winning a point enter into the equation.

Boring and robot-like.

He also has these tics which add to that. Always the same sequence of movements he has to do before he can hit a ball.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Nadal is just a boring tennis robot on court personality wise.

That's a first... Never heard even the biggest Nadal detractor say that.

Well it all relates to your original point. Nadal is obsessed with winning just like the others. But Nadal, unlike Djokovic for instance, is able to only focus on the game itself and doesn't allow emotions other than feeling good about winning a point enter into the equation.

Boring and robot-like.

He also has these tics which add to that. Always the same sequence of movements he has to do before he can hit a ball.

So Michael Jordan was boring and Robot-like.

 

[Denis]

I don't know. I don't watch basketball.

I'm talking about personality on court. I find Nadal's tennis quite spectacular actually (in particular his forehand and passing shots).

 

[DarthFed]

I'm not sure I'm seeing that obsessed cutthroat quality in Federer when it comes to his relationship/rivalry with Rafa. In fact, he seems to always have been the junior partner there. I think he hasn't shoved himself out of his comfort zone enough to upset the young bull.

And Novak is only occasionally a great clutch player. One season, more or less. He has it in patches, but not in spades...

Roger doesn't have the cutthroat attitude at all, and he also isn't/wasn't a clutch performer (I'm talking about how he plays in the big close matches, the big points, etc). HY touched on it before that the only similarity to Jordan I see is they both had that extreme confidence and sense of superiority. Which is something that helped them dominate their opponents as well as helped them get back into games/matches that weren't going their way.

 

[huntingyou]

I'm not sure I'm seeing that obsessed cutthroat quality in Federer when it comes to his relationship/rivalry with Rafa. In fact, he seems to always have been the junior partner there. I think he hasn't shoved himself out of his comfort zone enough to upset the young bull.

And Novak is only occasionally a great clutch player. One season, more or less. He has it in patches, but not in spades...

You can't be clutch all the time or else you would never lose a match. There is no question about it though, Novak hit the most daring shots when his back it's against the wall to the point where it's expected for him to do so. The guy it's currently on a 25 match winning streak.........that was 2013 my friend not 2011. He clobbered everybody on tour including our boy twice. It's unfair to hold Novak to his 2011 season as the standard...take a look at this:

Since 2007, his year end ranking has been the following: 3, 3, 3, 3, 1, 1, 2

He has been playing big boy tennis for quite a long time, many memorable clutch performance outside 2011.

As far as Roger it's concern, Darth was dead on point. Roger it's similar to Jordan in the fact that he truly believe everything that happens on a tennis court it's in his hands........that superior confidence can't be fake because it's at the core of who Roger really is. No surprise when we look closely at Roger and discover he hasn't been a clutch performer like Novak, Rafa or even Pete. In his mind, he should never find himself in such situations......he is Roger Federer. He is an artist while the rest are spectators; Jordan thought of himself in similar fashion and there has never been such a creative performer on a basketball court like him. The "ballerinas"

 

[Kieran]

I think a lot of Jordan's confidence might stem from being the toughest geezer on court too. Roger can be hard as nails at times, but never with Rafa.

Nole is clutch on and off. When he's on, he's miraculous, and he makes those great shots with a grin and some aplomb, which I think is great to see. Ol' Travis Bickle himself. But too often since Oz in 2012 he's been brittle. I wouldn't say his default setting is to be ruthlessly tough, he has to work at it and he does it well. But more often in his career, he's been breakable, mentally...

 

[brokenshoelace]

The difference between Roger's winning mentality and Jordan's (or Nadal's for that matter) is that Roger wants to win badly, but he doesn't seem to "hate" his opponents per se. When I say "hate" I'm not talking about his relationship with these guys off the court. Nadal gets along well with most, but on the court, he looks like he hates his opponent and wants to destroy them. That was Jordan's mentality. He wanted to embarrass his opponents, even Ewing and Barkley who were his friends. Roger doesn't have that cut-throat mentality, but he's certainly obsessed with winning.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

The difference between Roger's winning mentality and Jordan's (or Nadal's for that matter) is that Roger wants to win badly, but he doesn't seem to "hate" his opponents per se. When I say "hate" I'm not talking about his relationship with these guys off the court. Nadal gets along well with most, but on the court, he looks like he hates his opponent and wants to destroy them. That was Jordan's mentality. He wanted to embarrass his opponents, even Ewing and Barkley who were his friends. Roger doesn't have that cut-throat mentality, but he's certainly obsessed with winning.

Roger actually might hate losing more than he likes winning. He is used to winning, but his whole face and body language changes when he loses. It is hard to watch actually. When he wins, he was supposed to anyways...so it is all sunny and bright.

 

[brokenshoelace]

The difference between Roger's winning mentality and Jordan's (or Nadal's for that matter) is that Roger wants to win badly, but he doesn't seem to "hate" his opponents per se. When I say "hate" I'm not talking about his relationship with these guys off the court. Nadal gets along well with most, but on the court, he looks like he hates his opponent and wants to destroy them. That was Jordan's mentality. He wanted to embarrass his opponents, even Ewing and Barkley who were his friends. Roger doesn't have that cut-throat mentality, but he's certainly obsessed with winning.

Roger actually might hate losing more than he likes winning. He is used to winning, but his whole face and body language changes when he loses. It is hard to watch actually. When he wins, he was supposed to anyways...so it is all sunny and bright.

They're two sides of the same coin but yes, it is an interesting distinction.

 

[atttomole]

The difference between Roger's winning mentality and Jordan's (or Nadal's for that matter) is that Roger wants to win badly, but he doesn't seem to "hate" his opponents per se. When I say "hate" I'm not talking about his relationship with these guys off the court. Nadal gets along well with most, but on the court, he looks like he hates his opponent and wants to destroy them. That was Jordan's mentality. He wanted to embarrass his opponents, even Ewing and Barkley who were his friends. Roger doesn't have that cut-throat mentality, but he's certainly obsessed with winning.

I agree. And I think you stated it batter than other posters. Some people think that Roger has to glare at opponents or do something that makes him look intimidating in order to show that he is obsessed with winning. I think that he does his talking with the racket and he has a different character, so there is no need for him appear belligerent on court because it is not his style. People have ben saying over the years that Roger has to openly show that hates Rafa in order to beat him, which I find rather reductive. Hating Rafa would not have changed anything because Roger always won with his preternatural tennis ability, and Rafa just happens to be a tough opponent for him as we all know. Roger has the obsession and he shows with his racket, not with gestures. Roger has also shown his obsession through his tears in Melbourne, once when he won, and once when he lost.

 

[calitennis127]

The difference between Roger's winning mentality and Jordan's (or Nadal's for that matter) is that Roger wants to win badly, but he doesn't seem to "hate" his opponents per se. When I say "hate" I'm not talking about his relationship with these guys off the court. Nadal gets along well with most, but on the court, he looks like he hates his opponent and wants to destroy them. That was Jordan's mentality. He wanted to embarrass his opponents, even Ewing and Barkley who were his friends. Roger doesn't have that cut-throat mentality, but he's certainly obsessed with winning.

You have to be kidding. Nadal looks like he "hates" his opponents? What are you looking at?

No wonder you and others misunderstand Nadal so much, if you attribute this sort of mindset to him.:lolz::lolz::lolz::lolz:

This comparison of Nadal to Jordan is preposterous on so many levels, this one being one of those. Nadal does not "hate" his opponents. He simply has immense confidence in his ability to outlast them and win points when he most needs them.

Jordan was the ultimate Type A personality. The games he played were on his racket, no one else's. Jordan did not win half of his titles by forcing his (superior) opponents to self-destruct. We are talking about Michael Jordan here, not Dirk Nowitzki with his lone title.

 

[calitennis127]

The difference between Roger's winning mentality and Jordan's (or Nadal's for that matter) is that Roger wants to win badly, but he doesn't seem to "hate" his opponents per se. When I say "hate" I'm not talking about his relationship with these guys off the court. Nadal gets along well with most, but on the court, he looks like he hates his opponent and wants to destroy them. That was Jordan's mentality. He wanted to embarrass his opponents, even Ewing and Barkley who were his friends. Roger doesn't have that cut-throat mentality, but he's certainly obsessed with winning.

I agree. And I think you stated it batter than other posters. Some people think that Roger has to glare at opponents or do something that makes him look intimidating in order to show that he is obsessed with winning. I think that he does his talking with the racket and he has a different character, so there is no need for him appear belligerent on court because it is not his style. People have ben saying over the years that Roger has to openly show that hates Rafa in order to beat him, which I find rather reductive. Hating Rafa would not have changed anything because Roger always won with his preternatural tennis ability, and Rafa just happens to be a tough opponent for him as we all know. Roger has the obsession and he shows with his racket, not with gestures. Roger has also shown his obsession through his tears in Melbourne, once when he won, and once when he lost.

Most people don't understand this at all, but Nadal's mindset is rooted in persistence, consistency, constancy, and stamina. All of this, along with his athleticism and very good (not Federer or Djokovic-level) shotmaking, make him very confident that he can win any match he plays if he executes.

To say that he is motivated by anything like Jordan's hatred of opponents is absolutely absurd. He doesn't look like that at all, nor does he talk like it. Nadal is much more of a cardboard than that, in that sense. Jordan would have, for example, been much more of a jackass in how he talked about opponents if he was a tennis player and had an 18-3 record against someone (like Nadal against Ferrer).

Nadal has dominant records against many opponents and then he still approaches the match with the most wimpy statements about how he only has a "small chance". To compare that mindset to Jordan's is utterly stupid.

 

[Moxie]

The difference between Roger's winning mentality and Jordan's (or Nadal's for that matter) is that Roger wants to win badly, but he doesn't seem to "hate" his opponents per se. When I say "hate" I'm not talking about his relationship with these guys off the court. Nadal gets along well with most, but on the court, he looks like he hates his opponent and wants to destroy them. That was Jordan's mentality. He wanted to embarrass his opponents, even Ewing and Barkley who were his friends. Roger doesn't have that cut-throat mentality, but he's certainly obsessed with winning.

You have to be kidding. Nadal looks like he "hates" his opponents? What are you looking at?

No wonder you and others misunderstand Nadal so much, if you attribute this sort of mindset to him.:lolz::lolz::lolz::lolz:

This comparison of Nadal to Jordan is preposterous on so many levels, this one being one of those. Nadal does not "hate" his opponents. He simply has immense confidence in his ability to outlast them and win points when he most needs them.

Jordan was the ultimate Type A personality. The games he played were on his racket, no one else's. Jordan did not win half of his titles by forcing his (superior) opponents to self-destruct. We are talking about Michael Jordan here, not Dirk Nowitzki with his lone title.

It's amusing that you profess to understand Nadal better than others. I think Broken is right to say Nadal "hates" his opponents, or, in other words, spares them no mercy. As to "what are you looking at?": have you ever noticed the Nadal sneer across the net?

The player I would compare to Jordan in his confidence about his play has to be Federer. The other top tennis players have that, as well, they just don't live by it. But it's certainly not that they have only the "confidence to outlast (their opponents.)" That's not a winning strategy, and it doesn't buy you multiple slams.

I'm not sure if you understand what a Type-A personality is, but I'm pretty sure that not only is Jordan one, but so is Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray. (Hint: one aspect is the desire to win.)