Sampras on the Mind

[Kieran]

Here's a revealing interview with uber-champ, Pete Sampras, about his mental state on the day of a big GS final. Fairly revealing about what the great man felt and thought, during the defining moments of his career.

The two most stand-out quotes for me are:

His most memorable press-conference answer came after his three-set demolition of Agassi in the 1999 Wimbledon final. He won on a second-serve ace. What was going through your mind before that serve, he was asked. “There was absolutely nothing going through my mind,” he replied.

I would lose myself out there. The best way to describe it was like the body taking over the mind.

It's fascinating: in both quotes, he says there's an absence of thought at just the moment when pressure afflicts lesser mortals. He's blocked it out and "the body takes over." This is maybe as good a definition of what being in the zone actually means. I often think about this, how great players can pull off ridiculous shots when the stakes are highest. It's like they switch off - and turn on...

 

[El Dude]

Cool stuff - similar to Kevin Costner "cleansing the mechanism" in the baseball movie, For Love of the Game. It isn't just athletes that get into "the zone." You hear similar stories in all walks of life, from artists being without thought and "one with" their work, to people in moments of crisis being clear and calm and without thought, to someone going for a walk and looking at a beautiful vista and feeling open and clear. I'm sure that just about everyone could think of a similar moment in their lives.

In truth, this has been talked about for thousands of years in Buddhism and other traditions, the main difference between that athletes and "normal folks" experience it in fleeting moments and, perhaps, when they're doing a specific kind of activity. So a master athlete can get into the zone when playing their sport, but might not access it otherwise. Whereas Buddhism et al is about learning how to be there more and more, even all of the time. This is why the former coach of the Los Angeles Lakers, Phil Jackson, aka the "Zen Master," had his teams meditate before playing so that they'd better facilitate being in the zone.

 

[Kieran]

Nice post, Dude!

The media often use the Zen metaphor, but such things are common in many traditions, and in the sportsman it's interesting to me, because - I know I irritate people with this - but great matches are won in the mind, they're not simply automatons out there, robotically repeating shapes and technical data.

However - they do repeat shapes and technical data, but only when the mind is clear and allows them to. That's the personal battle that has to be fought, before the battle against the opponent can be won. It's the difference between a Nadal and a Nalbandian, if I can be so brutally stark. Sampras "mindlessness" is almost the definition of mental toughness: being so mentally strong that even thought is absent and "the body takes over."

It's fascinating, and you're right of course that this happens in the arts, medicine, other sports. It's particular when inspiration takes place, but it also occurs in mundane paperwork and house-cleaning...

 

[TennisFanatic7]

I read a book that was based around F1 and Ayrton Senna called Overdrive which was all about being "in the zone" and even out of body experiences. I don't know how relevant that is to Sampras' experience but it was an interesting read and the author included conversations with sportspeople from many other disciplines as well, not sure if tennis was one of them.

The mind can be as fascinating as the forehands and backhands with these guys.

 

[El Dude]

The idea is that we get in our own way when we over-think things. This works on multiple levels in different ways. The mind is an incredible tool, but it also leads to all sorts of problems.

I think you're right on, Kieran, that the kind of "mental toughness" to overcome thinking and worry on court is a key component to greatness, and what separates the almost-greats from the true greats. It is also why I was critical of Andy Murray's loss to Grigor Dimitrov. He wasn't hurt and he had been playing well, but he couldn't get himself to focus and relax on the game at hand. I mean, I can imagine that if your girlfriend breaks up with you 45 minutes before the match it could be a bit distracting, but we haven't heard anything so catastrophic. But the point is, if you're on the big stage then you've got to be able to overcome those moments and leave the world behind and just play.

As for shapes and technical stuff, I think a good analogy is jazz. If you start playing an instrument you have to learn scales and all the technical stuff. Gradually you develop and at some point a level of mastery is achieved, where you can leave all that stuff behind and just fly (improvise). You hear jazz musicians talk about this, about learning to "fly."

 

[Kieran]

Exactly, it becomes second nature, like expertise on a musical instrument.

It also becomes second nature to some of the truly gifted players, but what doesn't become second nature to them is the ability to block out the pressure. All the distracting stuff, like the trophy at the side of the court, the media expectations, the hassles on their time, the thoughts about the last point they just shanked, the worries about the next game - all this stuff evaporates in the likes of Pete, so that - as he said - when he steps out on court, he feels relaxed.

The mental side is something I try to weigh much more than technical stuff when I'm wondering if a youngster has greatness in them. Of course, it's difficult to measure, until it actually happens. Some people just feel uncomfortably squeezed when the big baubles are at stake, and others are actually more at home in big finals than they are in the early rounds. The mind can be a very strange place...

 

[rahulpawar]

Recently, dravid ( a great cricketer ) was describing in the zone as a state when you know you are unbeatable. You do not fear anything and yes as keiron said you feel nothing. He also said one predicts almost all the balls the bowler is going to bowl.

 

[Haelfix]

Do you know that being 'in the zone' is hotly contested in academia. Statisticians and Logicians have been looking for years to quantify the effect and if it exists at all, it is very hard to show and a very, very small effect.

 

[Kieran]

That's interesting, Haelfix. Would love to know the criteria they're using. Maybe there's a dissatisfaction with the terminology, but for example, when Pete was asked what was going through his mind before he hit the 2nd serve ace on championship point against Agassi, his reply that there was "nothing going through my mind" seems believable and honest, and is most likely supported by anecdotal evidence by other sports stars and people operating in different fields.

There was no calculation involved - he just did it...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

"A Champion's Mind" seems like a fitting title for his book...I read it a couple of times.

The "zone" is an intriguing subject and I am sure it is really difficult to quantify and some might even debate if it exists at all. What is not debatable in my opinion is how the players themselves say they feel when they experience it..."things slow down" , " I see the ball like a watermelon" , " The basket looks like an ocean" etc...They definitely experience something out of the ordinary.

 

[El Dude]

Do you know that being 'in the zone' is hotly contested in academia. Statisticians and Logicians have been looking for years to quantify the effect and if it exists at all, it is very hard to show and a very, very small effect.

Because if it can't be quantified by logicians and statisticians than it can't possibly exist.

 

[Moxie]

The idea is that we get in our own way when we over-think things. This works on multiple levels in different ways. The mind is an incredible tool, but it also leads to all sorts of problems.

I think you're right on, Kieran, that the kind of "mental toughness" to overcome thinking and worry on court is a key component to greatness, and what separates the almost-greats from the true greats. It is also why I was critical of Andy Murray's loss to Grigor Dimitrov. He wasn't hurt and he had been playing well, but he couldn't get himself to focus and relax on the game at hand. I mean, I can imagine that if your girlfriend breaks up with you 45 minutes before the match it could be a bit distracting, but we haven't heard anything so catastrophic. But the point is, if you're on the big stage then you've got to be able to overcome those moments and leave the world behind and just play.

As for shapes and technical stuff, I think a good analogy is jazz. If you start playing an instrument you have to learn scales and all the technical stuff. Gradually you develop and at some point a level of mastery is achieved, where you can leave all that stuff behind and just fly (improvise). You hear jazz musicians talk about this, about learning to "fly."

I get that "The Zone" is hard to quantify for academics and statisticians, but that shouldn't make it controversial that it exists. Many athletes across disciplines talk about it. I really like your analogy to jazz, which specifically asks you to take all you learned about playing music, then forget it, and just be in the moment, just listen to other players, and react with agility and artistry. Dance is the same…you trust the muscle-memory and then just listen to the music. The art exists on a more instinctive plane, and I think that happens with athletes, as well. Kieran's quote from Sampras is especially telling: "I wasn't thinking anything at all." I totally agree with what you said in your opening paragraph, Dude, which I bolded. When athletes, and artists, can get out of their own way, mentally... quiet the voices in their heads, and trust the mechanics enough to leave them behind, they go to a higher level of performance.

 

[Kieran]

Do you know that being 'in the zone' is hotly contested in academia. Statisticians and Logicians have been looking for years to quantify the effect and if it exists at all, it is very hard to show and a very, very small effect.

Because if it can't be quantified by logicians and statisticians than it can't possibly exist.

Exactly. Statisticians and logicians wouldn't be the best people for measuring intangibles. Little wonder that they'd spend years trying to "quantify the effect..."

 

[Haelfix]

Because if it can't be quantified by logicians and statisticians than it can't possibly exist.

The flipside is that just b/c an athlete 'feels' that it is true, doesn't necessarily mean that it is. Look, I played basketball in highschool and I played a lot of tennis in my life. I know what it 'feels' like to zone. Where everything you hit clips lines, or every three seems to go in effortlessly

Of course I am too much of an analyst not to know that there are all sorts of cognitive biases that can creep into my judgement. (confirmation bias etc)

I know that in bball for instance, analysts look for things like the following. If a player makes say four shots in row, is the fifth shot statistically more or less likely to go in relative to his baseline.

Well of course you need to take a lot of data. You need to get fair samples (eg the fifth shot must not be a layup, or a last second gasp surrounded by lots of players). Which means you need to know percentages for actual shot locations (when open or not open).

There are all sorts of things you need to worry about, like, do defenses actually play a hotstreak player differently (and say converge on them to prevent a fifth shot).

Still, in principle the effect is either real or it isn't. Just recently, a bunch of harvard statisticians claimed to have seen the first small evidence for something like this, however we need to be careful here. The effect if its there at all, is still small. Significantly smaller than players think that it is.

Incidentally, there was a graphic on famous players and last second shot percentages. To no one's great surprise, even those that were perceived as the most clutch (like MJ), still only shot at roughly their average baseline and most shot significantly below it.

 

[Kieran]

You know that banging an ace on second serve on Championship point at Wimbledon is probably shooting above average?

And when he was asked what was going through his mind at that moment, he said "nothing was going through my mind?" And that when he "felt it was true" that nothing was going through his mind, it's because it's his own mind that he was recalling, and so he might know if it's true?

Do you ever witness great musicians "forget themselves" and play solos that are finger-twistingly impossible - and yet they do it because of what Sampras termed "muscle memory?" If they were to think about every note, could they play at such speed? Surely the fact that they let go, and it comes automatically, is a sign that their mind isn't doing the work, instead it's coming from "elsewhere."

Now, logicians might try quantify this and statisticians try to measure it, but there are intangible things that these blokes won't know how they work if they're starting from a posture that you can actually quantify it, in the first place...

 

[Luxilon Borg]

You know that banging an ace on second serve on Championship point at Wimbledon is probably shooting above average?

And when he was asked what was going through his mind at that moment, he said "nothing was going through my mind?" And that when he "felt it was true" that nothing was going through his mind, it's because it's his own mind that he was recalling, and so he might know if it's true?

Do you ever witness great musicians "forget themselves" and play solos that are finger-twistingly impossible - and yet they do it because of what Sampras termed "muscle memory?" If they were to think about every note, could they play at such speed? Surely the fact that they let go, and it comes automatically, is a sign that their mind isn't doing the work, instead it's coming from "elsewhere."

Now, logicians might try quantify this and statisticians try to measure it, but there are intangible things that these blokes won't know how they work if they're starting from a posture that you can actually quantify it, in the first place...

Truth be told, Sampras was a dolt for most of his career. He was gifted with a sublime coupling of precision and power, a rare combo. He rarely thought his way out of matches, truth be told.

Agassi was not kidding when he said there was nobody home. This was a huge plus for Sampras.
Agassi was by far the more tortured and less fulfilled player, because he actually was analytical starting mid career.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Here's a revealing interview with uber-champ, Pete Sampras, about his mental state on the day of a big GS final. Fairly revealing about what the great man felt and thought, during the defining moments of his career.

The two most stand-out quotes for me are:

His most memorable press-conference answer came after his three-set demolition of Agassi in the 1999 Wimbledon final. He won on a second-serve ace. What was going through your mind before that serve, he was asked. “There was absolutely nothing going through my mind,” he replied.

I would lose myself out there. The best way to describe it was like the body taking over the mind.

It's fascinating: in both quotes, he says there's an absence of thought at just the moment when pressure afflicts lesser mortals. He's blocked it out and "the body takes over." This is maybe as good a definition of what being in the zone actually means. I often think about this, how great players can pull off ridiculous shots when the stakes are highest. It's like they switch off - and turn on...

There is a general theory of four stages in learning/performing a new skill, whether it be
serving or solving an algebra problem. The four stages are

1. Unconscious Incompetence
You suck and don't even know that you suck.
2. Conscious Incompetence
You suck and you know you suck
3. Conscious Competence
You are doing good and realize that you are doing good.
4. Unconscious Competence
You are doing good and you don't even know how good you are doing.

Sampras was obviously in Stage 4.

 

[Kieran]

Truth be told, Sampras was a dolt for most of his career. He was gifted with a sublime coupling of precision and power, a rare combo. He rarely thought his way out of matches, truth be told.

Agassi was not kidding when he said there was nobody home. This was a huge plus for Sampras.
Agassi was by far the more tortured and less fulfilled player, because he actually was analytical starting mid career.

I think that what you're trying to say is, Pete kept it simple. Not for him, unnecessary complications or anguish in how to construct a winning point. He was economic in his musing, and played in flawless harmony with his talent.

Hardly an attribute of a "dolt..."

 

[Moxie]

Truth be told, Sampras was a dolt for most of his career. He was gifted with a sublime coupling of precision and power, a rare combo. He rarely thought his way out of matches, truth be told.

Agassi was not kidding when he said there was nobody home. This was a huge plus for Sampras.
Agassi was by far the more tortured and less fulfilled player, because he actually was analytical starting mid career.

I think that what you're trying to say is, Pete kept it simple. Not for him, unnecessary complications or anguish in how to construct a winning point. He was economic in his musing, and played in flawless harmony with his talent.

Hardly an attribute of a "dolt..."

I don't see how anyone who played at sublime levels of talent can be said to be a "dolt." I think Kieran's assessment would be more likely true. Keeping it simple, focused, and in harmony with their talent are all ways of saying how the best get to the Zen of their craft. Which is how they find the Zone. (And I do believe it exists.)

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Truth be told, Sampras was a dolt for most of his career. He was gifted with a sublime coupling of precision and power, a rare combo. He rarely thought his way out of matches, truth be told.

Agassi was not kidding when he said there was nobody home. This was a huge plus for Sampras.
Agassi was by far the more tortured and less fulfilled player, because he actually was analytical starting mid career.

I think that what you're trying to say is, Pete kept it simple. Not for him, unnecessary complications or anguish in how to construct a winning point. He was economic in his musing, and played in flawless harmony with his talent.

Hardly an attribute of a "dolt..."

Ok, a simpleton... who kept it simple....