Sampras on the Mind

[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..."

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.)

Really mox? There are countless examples of adults with the IQ of small children who can play Chopin flawlessly on a piano, savants who can do complex math, yet can't dress them selves. It is a well known phenomenon.

Obviously Sampras does not fall into that category, but there are numerous cases of incredible athletes with dull brains...Joe Dimaggio, George Foreman, and many others.

There are several things that, for me personally, kind put Sampras in the half wit category.

First, he essentially did not improve his game beyond 1995. He was into "maintaining"

Secondly, he had no alternative game. It was A. Just like Lindsey Davenport. In that era. His A
was certainly too destructive for players of that time to deal with.

Lastly, anyone who wore baggy shorts was a dolt...(joke) heheh.:snigger

 

[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..."

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

Clever people keep it simple, my friend. Only a fool loves complications.

One thing that's interesting about Pete's response is what he didn't say. He didn't say, "I was nervous and I just wanted to get the second serve in."

He didn't say, "well, I usually go down the T, it's my mojo stroke, so I felt I could be aggressive on this serve and I went for it."

these would be plausible and expected replies.

"What was going through your mind?"

"What I was going to do next."

But he said there was nothing going through his mind, which suggests he was acting according to something other than analytical thought.

Here's a vid of the ace in question. It comes just after a few of its buddies...

 

[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....

Clever people keep it simple, my friend. Only a fool loves complications.

One thing that's interesting about Pete's response is what he didn't say. He didn't say, "I was nervous and I just wanted to get the second serve in."

He didn't say, "well, I usually go down the T, it's my mojo stroke, so I felt I could be aggressive on this serve and I went for it."

these would be plausible and expected replies.

"What was going through your mind?"

"What I was going to do next."

But he said there was nothing going through his mind, which suggests he was acting according to something other than analytical thought.

Here's a vid of the ace in question. It comes just after a few of its buddies...

I hear he you. BTW< I am not extrapolating his comment about "nothing" was going through his mind to mean he was not thinking at all. I just think he was not anywhere near the top of the intelligence heap in the pantheon of tennis champions.

 

[Kieran]

I hear he you. BTW< I am not extrapolating his comment about "nothing" was going through his mind to mean he was not thinking at all. I just think he was not anywhere near the top of the intelligence heap in the pantheon of tennis champions.

I'm kinda suspecting you don't like the chap. You're drawing a very base conclusion, which isn't supported by the intelligence of his play. The way he constructed points and his matchplay abilities, etc.

Regardless.

His view that there was "nothing going through his mind" sounds more plausible if you analyse it favourably, than if you scan it to mean, "I'm an idiot, I'm incapable of thought, I bang aces like a senseless idiot while breathing through my mouth."

You're an Agassi dude, right? Get over it. Pete won that one...

 

[Luxilon Borg]

I hear he you. BTW< I am not extrapolating his comment about "nothing" was going through his mind to mean he was not thinking at all. I just think he was not anywhere near the top of the intelligence heap in the pantheon of tennis champions.

I'm kinda suspecting you don't like the chap. You're drawing a very base conclusion, which isn't supported by the intelligence of his play. The way he constructed points and his matchplay abilities, etc.

Regardless.

His view that there was "nothing going through his mind" sounds more plausible if you analyse it favourably, than if you scan it to mean, "I'm an idiot, I'm incapable of thought, I bang aces like a senseless idiot while breathing through my mouth."

You're an Agassi dude, right? Get over it. Pete won that one...

No way, I would take Sampras over Agassi as a "fan" any day. But I did very much
respect Agassi's latter day approach and mission to improve and his later tactics.

BTW< their record was 20-14. Hardly total domination.

Brad Gilbert said something VERY interesting. He said if you asked guys in the locker room whose game they would rather have, he said overwhelmingly they would say Agassi.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

I hear he you. BTW< I am not extrapolating his comment about "nothing" was going through his mind to mean he was not thinking at all. I just think he was not anywhere near the top of the intelligence heap in the pantheon of tennis champions.

I'm kinda suspecting you don't like the chap. You're drawing a very base conclusion, which isn't supported by the intelligence of his play. The way he constructed points and his matchplay abilities, etc.

Regardless.

His view that there was "nothing going through his mind" sounds more plausible if you analyse it favourably, than if you scan it to mean, "I'm an idiot, I'm incapable of thought, I bang aces like a senseless idiot while breathing through my mouth."

You're an Agassi dude, right? Get over it. Pete won that one...

With God as my witness, in 1990 I watched Pete practice at the Open. This was before anyone out side of a small group of diehards even knew his name. This was pre Tennis Channel. He had won the indoor Phillie tourney. When done, he strolled right by my father and I, unaccompanied...I turned to my dad and said, "that guy is going to win a bunch of slams". Swear it.

 

[Kieran]

None of this addresses the issue of the thread, which is what it's about when players are in the zone.

What Agassi's coach says about other things isn't irrelevant to this. Overwhelmingly, the same players would add, "but I'd rather have Pete's record."

Let's not get bogged down in side issues...

 

[Luxilon Borg]

None of this addresses the issue of the thread, which is what it's about when players are in the zone.

What Agassi's coach says about other things isn't irrelevant to this. Overwhelmingly, the same players would add, "but I'd rather have Pete's record."

Let's not get bogged down in side issues...

True dat, in bold.

Agree, sorry to divert.

Just that it kind of piqued my interest, for I admit I have long thought Sampras a very one dimensional player with one of the most effective single dimensions in the game. I never even considered he had an analytical side, and I still think that.

As far as Zones. Paul Annacone said something I liked:

"Be the best player you can be on every single point, make your decisions, and live with the result, good or bad".