Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /nfs/c06/h08/mnt/96397/domains/coachjpweber.com/html/worpsite/wp-content/themes/cjptheme/framework/zilla-theme-functions.php on line 141
Wayne Relates to Craig Jones About The Summit In SoCal | Coach JP Weber

8 Comments

  1. A lot of conjecture from Coach Bryan. I’ll just assert that the draws are doing fine in 10 and under given the magnitude of the change. The initiative is thankfully expanding in 2013. This is mostly carping about a much smaller percentage of kids and parents that have an “early start”. Coach Bryan and other mostly country club and coaching professionals who object want to toss the whole thing. Evidence? Coach Bryan telling the ITF to take a hike. Highly undiplomatic and unproductive, in an age where America is selling it’s tourneys to other countries that aren’t whining and carping about how most kids can be taught the game and benefit. Moreover, Coach Bryan does not address the outstanding issue of why on God’s green earth early starters need an entire infrastructure of eager learning 10s to exploit there early skill development against? That is feeding the masses for the benefit of the informed few and is wholly unjustified. So unjustified, that the professional class has shifted to seeking a dual track. Might as well ask for “separate but equal”. Yes I’m as mad as you guys. You guys had you chance to control junior tennis methodology for the masses of children. It in comparison to the world you failed. In comparison to soccer in America you failed. You pros could have built an American junior tennis landscape that tied rec kids to the country club system, thereby bridging the gap and growing the game. You did not. France has 500K in there junior system. We have 98,000. The game has changed. Bring your worthy teaching principle to the change or be left behind the coming growth. Or just wait the new tennis kids from 10 and under are 11. But don’t think we are going backwards to nothing for the masses of kids and for that matter unguided parents that admire the game. Bring it on.

    • One other comment is you absolutely cannot refute the science and facts on the matter. Study some of the neuroscience and motor-learning stuff both Dr. Kernodle and Dr. Brown are able to point to as based in fact. On my radio show you have Craig Jones readily admitting there is absolutely no research to back up any of the claims. Additionally, we have been able to read what the ITF and the USTA point to as research and it could not make publication in any scholarly journal of advanced learning. And Tennis Magazine does not count as being scholarly.

  2. I am not sure the stuff you think is conjecture is conjecture. I find very, very few coaches who are good at developing players saying they like the TAUT mandate. It is stupid. I think if you went around the country and asked the same question you would still get the same percentages. I do see a correlation between if someone is getting something from the USTA or ITF and them liking the mandate. If a coach is seeing better treatment or a tournament guarantee or financial subsidy then I notice they tend to really love the mandate. Coach Collins have you had a chance to go to youtube and Google Bruce Tarran’s videos. I think you will find them filled with common sense.
    Finally, I might add Dr. Ray Brown has done an excellent job of explaining why the USTA according to it’s own by-laws is simply not beholden to the ITF for anything. Just like the USA is not beholden to the United Nations and I find the parallels to be similar if not exact.

    • Such a closed view. You asked your American colleagues what they think of 10 and under and you all said ” I can’t believe they are shoving this down our throats.” Discussion over. You see many things but can document few if none. The ITF site is fully of studies that outline the rationale and methodologies involved in proportioning the game for youth, yet rather than cite the ITF and other tennis scientist, professional view and refute you rely exclusively on your own experience and the confirmation bias provided by your colleagues. Also, your accusation that you have to be getting something in return is baseless and unproveable. If a rec department or freshly minted coach reviews the 10 and under program and pursues, under your view they are “compromised” in their acceptance of 10 and under because they are getting support from the USTA. I will check out Bruce Tarran’s videos, if you check out Belgian tennis 10 and under videos and critque the ITFs position of Stay and Play. Moreover I am a parent, not a professional. I am a parent who before I had children watched American tennis professional fail to grow the game outside of the clubs. Dr. Brown writes and speaks in a way in which no persons but colleagues can appreciate. I have plenty to say about Dr. Brown, but it will need to be developed in a different forum. I look forward to this conversation if not conflict.

      • You are mistaken. I am anything but closed in my views. Most who know me will tell you I am wide open to any and all new technologies. A mandate is shoving it down people’s throats. I will explain this to you but I cannot comprehend it for you: There are no studies that show anything to support the TAUT initiative. There are charts and there are anecdotes and if you do not believe this you can listen to the USTA’s own head and the ITF’s Head admit this. I guess you have access to some information nobody else has.

        I coach and I talk a whole lot to other actual coaches. the only ones I have ever met (ever) and are in support of the mandate either work for the USTA, are paid by the USTA or they receive some sort of benefit from the USTA for pushing it down everyone’s throats.

        If the idea is a good one let it stand on it’s own and do not try and muzzle coaches and parents and players when they speak out against it. Let freedom of choice either win or lose in the marketplace of ideas. You and I both know it will not win out in the end because it is stupid to keep a child playing one way or the other.

        I have looked at all of those videos because they send them around all of the time. What you see is not what you get. They are simply not as good as they look and if you see the players now here in the USA using the ROG stuff they are losing big time when they go to the yellow ball. They cannot handle it.

        But I say let people put their children on whatever size court they choose. If a parent wants to keep his 37-year-old boy playing on a nerf sized 36′ court I think he should be allowed to do that.

        Lastly, Wayne Bryan has produced players–plain and simple. Dr. Brown and Dr. Kernodle have PHD.s The people who drew the pictures for the ITF do not have the same level of education. There are many others. Vic Braden, Jack Groppel, Jim Loehr are all experts. Are they all wrong too? Show me one study that would or could be published in a scholarly journal that says this is the way you should proceed. Just one. In a scholarly journal–cause if it existed it would be published and known throughout the world.

      • Martyn, I also wanted to say I have spoken in depth with some of the individuals on the ITF’s original Stay and Play initiative. First of all, they established the whole thing to grow the game of tennis. Time and energy will grow the game of tennis and then get lucky with a few good players and the growth will increase exponentially as a result of the time and energy–not due to playing with the smaller racquets, ect. There is a chance it does not increase play due to fact it has made a game that already by its own character is not for everyone–and they have made it just that more complicated. So for me I worry that it will not grow the game in the end but we will only know that answer in 20 years or so. Looking at England and watching Bruce Tarran’s videos it simply is not any more acceptable to those people either. It is killing girl’s tennis as it stands in the form of the mandate. Second, I think they only began the efforts for TAUT to grow the game and it has been hijacked and the claims to help players is way over blown. Third they got the ages wrong. Had they shot for children under the age of 8 they would have been much closer to getting it right and much closer to acceptance. Last, I think industry saw an opportunity to take over control of the mandate and they have. The money and opportunity it has given the sport to grow in terms of numbers and not real growth of players is intoxicating to these federations and manufacturers. This is my feeling regarding the Stay and Play initiative. Dozens of coaches commented when the videos from Belgium and surrounding countries were posted and they said essentially the same thing I am.

  3. This is my first exposure to Martyn Collins, a very thoughtful and articulate writer. I am very impressed with your thought process Martyn.

    I oppose Quickstart on scientific grounds based on what we know about the human learning process used to develop an athletic skill. The early emergence of the structures needed to develop precise motor actions dates to at least 400 million years ago (MYA). It is relevant that this emergence occurred along with the emergence of intentionality. Hence, from the earliest times, amphibians that emerged onto dry land came with what we call procedural skills and the intentionality to use them. As animal brains evolved the procedural skill component of the brain also evolved by trial-and-error. Even today, our “modern” brains learn procedural skills such as hitting a tennis ball through trial-and-error methods. This is why it takes so long to develop complex athletic skills as compared to the time it takes to learn equally complex mathematical skills, a learning process that has developed much later than procedural learning. Unlike others, I think Quickstart is inefficient regardless of the mandate, which itself is offensive. The reason is the neurodynamics involved in learning a procedural task. FACT: Learning on a small court, with a light racquet and a soft ball does not scale up to a large court, with a normal racquet and 78 by 27 foot court because procedural learning is all empirical and cannot extrapolate or interpolate between balls, racquets and courts. In short, every transition in Quickstart has a restart phase during which much time and money is lost. There is no escape from this fact. It is just how procedural learning evolved. Alternatively, one could re-examine coaching methods with the intent of discovering why traditional coaching methods are so inefficient. If this is done in light of modern neuroscience, it will be discovered that the fundamental problem with the learning process in children is that the antiquated teaching methods, rather than the limitations of youth, are the source of the problem. The ITF and USTA need to go back to the drawing board and think this thing through again with their focus being on “why current teaching methods are so inefficient and ineffective: rather than why are our kids so limited in their ability to learn.

  4. Doug Pielet

    JP, I love how people twist and spin the facts! First of all, when someone says they are a parent and not a coach, stop there! When it comes to coaching, player development and surgery, I want to hear from the surgeon! Secondly, who says we don’t like QS! Oh I see, unless I buy into everything I buy nothing?! Grow the game all you want but do not confuse player development with growth! Lastly, forget the dual approach if the person doesn’t like it! Just let me choose which tournament I like and which ball I want to play with! If I am wrong, fine my players will suffer for it but remember…..it’s an art form…….no one is wrong when it comes to art!!

    BTW, everyone knows that this QS tool is just a tool! Take all the money out of the equation and we wouldn’t be discussing any of this!!!

    Kind regards,

    Doug Pielet
    Director of Tennis
    LTP Tennis Club

Leave a Comment