As those of you who have read Tennis thing know, I owe my tennis to my brother, MIB. He was the one who told me, before even meeting me in person, “Paulie, you would love tennis.” MIB was right, as he so often is. What I doubt, though, was that MIB would have expected how long I would take my twice-a-week lessons with my coach, Caesar Schwarz. It’s been a bit over two years since I started studying tennis with Caesar. I didn’t start out studying the game, I think it became a study gradually, but it is what tennis remains for me.
What’s the diff, you might be asking? Think back to playing dodge ball when you were a kid. How long was it between your first hearing of the word dodge and the moment when someone was chucking a ball at your head? Most games are learned as they are played. Many people, most people, likely, learn terms by playing it.
But, I have not. I have learned to play tennis while studying it. I like to watch tennis played whether I am watching a WTA or ATP pro or a little kid with marvelous footwork.
And, I love to hit the ball.
What I have not focused on is competition. This is true partly because at my age I am not especially competitive. I’m not even in a competition with myself, to be honest. I want to play tennis correctly out of a motivation to master something at once new and satisfying. That’s an intoxicating combination. But, the question is does the person on the other side of the net count and is anyone keeping score? When Caesar is the guy, he matters. It’s the precision and intentionality of his play that allows me the physical and mental opportunity to learn. He has raised me since I was a 60+ year old tennis newborn and has been instrumental to everything I’ve learned. If any elements of my game are AOK, it’s because of my coach.
But, and this is something I mused about in Tennis thing, does one need to play tennis, keep score, enter tournaments, seek the humiliation of their opponents to really play tennis?
There’s this old broad at Calabasas who seems only to hit with whichever pro is available. I have never seen her playing with anyone other than a coach. There’s no serving and each coach tends to hit the ball directly toward the old broad. But, the old broad bashes the ball back with fierce effort and likes to collect winners. And, this brings me to this quote:
“Some people, they keep on working with a coach, but the coach is just teeing the ball up for them. That’s no way to learn tennis. This is how you learn the game, right here.”
The previous quote is from Brisbane Stew. He’s a Qantas pilot I met at Pasadena’s Rose Bowl tennis courts. Unlike me, he has scads of tennis experience and is quite fit for 60. Unfortunately, he just told me the Qantas Brizzy to Los Angeles route is now flown using the Boeing 787. Unless Stew changes aircrafts I won’t be seeing him soon. Bummer. Playing with him was always amusing and educational. Back to his quote. He’s not wrong. Playing with him or MIB is not as easy as playing with Caesar but there’s more to it than that.
I have mentioned before that an example of Caesar‘s particular genius is the ability to hit shots that are consistently challenging for me, but only rarely beyond my capabilities. The other day, I was watching as he served to an elderly, but very fit student. Caesar had to abbreviate no fewer than three elements of his motion, that I could see, in order to hit a serve that was challenging to his student but not overwhelming. Now, can I imagine that I could get better faster if I consistently played with someone like Stew or MIB? I think the answer is undoubtedly, yes, especially if better is defined by advanced competitive ability. However, there’s a significant caveat. And that caveat involves the questions of form and balance. When the ball is coming too fast or bouncing too high or has been hit too wide or too shallow or too deep the kinds of corrections a beginning player like I have to make must ofetn be done in great haste. Not surprisingly, great haste, seldom results in a shot struck with good form or balance. And, there’s the rub, at least for me.
It’s a great understatement to say that I’ve enjoyed the meditative aspects of tennis. You see, I am on the eve of cutting back on my lessons with Caesar. This change is driven solely by economics. If a small shitpile of cash were to drop onto my head, I would gladly spend it on more frequent and longer lessons with Caesar, but this does not seem likely.
Early on, I remember Caesar saying that when he and his younger brother, Darius, were taking tennis lessons as kids their family could only afford one lesson each month. Caesar’s dad was a smart guy because he made sure that his sons actually practiced what they were taught during their lessons. That’s my plan and I will be similarly dedicated even though I will still be having four lessons a month. Still, I’m not going to be happy about it.
When I go to sleep at night I am thinking about my footwork as I move toward a deep, high-bouncing back hand. I’m not thinking about how I can beat someone or keep them from beating me. It will be interesting to see how things differ and stay the same in 2026. Tt
Until I began playing tennis in 2023, my sports were baseball and golf. Baseball (and I gather Cricket) may be the two most elementally unchanged ball sports. Sure, we’ve been living in baseball’s live-ball era since the time of Babe Ruth but other than that, little has changed between the baseball and the bat over the last century.
Golf is totally different story with technical advancements in ball and club (especially driver) construction that has fundamentally changed the game forever if not for better. The impact of multilayer balls and max-COR drivers is inarguable and these improvements have been augmented by the practice of data-based club and shaft fitting. Today, the average recreational players can avail themselves of most of the tech a touring pro can. Of course, the tour pro doesn’t pay.
I see tennis somewhere between those extremes. Until recently, my favorite racket was a borrowed 2014 Head Prestige Pro. It’s still my favorite racket but my advancing years have suggested that lighter may be better for my game if not my ego. Still, the fact that a twelve year old frame could still be useful to a player at my level gives me great respect for what a great racket Head could build all those years ago and a little less respect for their 2025 offerings which I am sure they describe as far more advanced than my old Prestige.
What all this means is I can easily imagine a day when a tennis player, pro or amateur, can have their tennis racket (and strings) evaluated by measured data. Golf has already done this and more. Golf tour pros, with their unimaginably consistent swings, can tune their clubs to their ball of choice, chasing their ideal of ball speed, spin and feel. I would be surprised if players on the WTA and ATP can’t do something similar right now. And, if they can, you and I will be able to soon. Whether this will help the game of mere mortals like me is anyone’s guess.
I am so glad anyone seeking beneficial alteration of their tennis racket can reach out to Miha Flisek of Impacting tennis. Even tbough my skills were still in their infancy when I first started playing tennis I knew and could feel that details mattered. In fact, everything mattered. The marriage of string, racket velocity, racket weight, weight distribution, racket flex (on multiple axes) and swing shape are a fascinating combination of variables and destined to confuse most players, leading to a great deal of misunderstanding.
I sought to learn all I could, sometimes surprised by how such complicated issues were spoken of with such a cavalier attitude. I was lucky my early searches pointed me toward Miha and his excellent videos. HIs clarity did a lot to demystify that which could easily be mystifying. I’m grateful Miha was generous enough to contribute his time to answering my questions about him and Impacting Tennis.
Tennis thing: Tell me a little about your own history playing tennis? How old were you when you started?
Miha Flisek: I started playing tennis very early, but at the same time I was also into archery and basketball. It wasn’t until an injury took contact sports off the table that I really began focusing on tennis. From the beginning, I was very sensitive to equipment. In archery, even the smallest change can completely alter your shot, and I brought that same mindset into tennis. I was honestly surprised how little attention most tennis players gave to their rackets.
Later in college, I started combining my background in engineering with my growing understanding of tennis equipment. That’s when things really started to click. I began connecting the dots between player movement, stroke mechanics, and racket behavior. That’s how Impacting Tennis was born, from the idea that tennis gear shouldn’t be treated as an afterthought but as a core part of performance.
Tennis thing: How long did it take for you to begin customizing your own rackets? What were some of your early modifications?
Miha Flisek: I started modifying my rackets almost immediately, experimenting with strings, shifting balance points, and later adding lead tape. At the very beginning, I didn’t even have proper materials. I remember finding some old lead pipes and literally hammering them flat to make my own thin strips of lead, that was my first version of lead tape. It was very DIY, but it gave me a hands-on feel for how mass placement affects the racket.
The real transformation came later when I gained the technical knowledge to calculate what I was doing. Instead of just feeling the difference, I could measure swingweight, balance, MGR/I, twistweight, and understand what each change was actually doing. That’s when customization stopped being trial and error and started becoming engineering and that’s really what laid the groundwork for everything I do now.
Tennis thing: When players come to you for customization, do they usually have a specific goal in mind, or do they rely on your guidance to help them improve?
Miha Flisek: Players usually come in with a clear goal in mind, whether it’s more spin, more control, or more stability, and I help them move toward it. But we never start with the racket. First, we look at where the player is in their career, what’s limiting their game, what they’re trying to improve. We take into account their technique, movement patterns, and overall development.
Only after that do we adapt the equipment. The racket becomes a tool that supports their goals. When you get it right, it’s not just a better racket, it’s a better version of their game.
Tennis thing: One of the most interesting aspects of tennis for me are the significance of audible cues. The Octo damper is designed to reduce unwanted vibrations while keeping the higher-frequency feedback that’s important for feel, timing, and contact cues. What led you to choose the thermoplastic elastomer PEBA (Polyether block amide) and were there other materials you considered?
Octo damper
Miha Flisek: I was already working with PEBA on a different project and found the material really interesting. It was being used in high-performance running shoes for its energy return properties, and it had just started to become available for 3D printing.
The Octo damper actually came out of working with the material. I realized it had the ideal combination of characteristics, soft enough to reduce unwanted low-frequency vibration, but responsive enough to preserve the high-frequency feedback that’s so important for timing and feel. It wasn’t something I set out to create, it just made perfect sense once I started using the material.
Tennis thing: I am really fascinated that you actually 3D printed a tennis racket! Without getting too deep into the technical weeds, how many separate pieces were needed to create TO Stardust and what adhesive did you use? Also, I found your use of rounded string transitions rather than traditional grommets to be exceptionally clever. What was the total print time?
Miha Flisek:TO Stardust was printed as a single solid frame. No adhesives, no bonding. Just one continuous piece. That required a very large and advanced 3D printer along with specialized materials. The handle pallets and buttcap were added afterward, like with a standard racket.
The total print time was about 12 hours. One of the standout features is the integrated rounded string holes, which replace traditional grommets. That not only reduces unnecessary components but also gives the stringbed a more consistent response. The project was a way to test what happens when you throw out legacy design assumptions and build a racket from the ground up using modern tools.
Tennis thing: Many ATP players still use racket designs that are more than a decade old, often under new paint jobs. Do you think racket technology has plateaued or do you see meaningful trends in design or construction that could still benefit players?
Miha Flisek: I don’t see any real leaps in racket technology happening right now. The core materials, like carbon fiber laminates, have been around for a long time, and most of the available geometries and design concepts have already been explored or exhausted. There’s not much on the horizon in terms of radically different materials that would offer meaningful improvements.
What we are seeing today, like the shift toward lighter and more powerful rackets, isn’t so much about technological progress as it is about adjusting to external changes, especially the balls. Balls have become lighter and less consistent, which makes it harder to get penetration through the court, so players are shifting toward rackets that help generate more pace and spin.
TO Stardust on court and ready for play.
The next real shift in racket design will probably come with the maturation of 3D printing technology, particularly once continuous carbon fiber printing becomes viable. That’s when we’ll finally be able to explore forms, layups, and mass distributions that are simply impossible to achieve with traditional molding techniques.
Tennis thing : What’s next for Impacting Tennis? What enhancements can we expect to see in TO Stardust v2?
Miha Flisek:That ties directly into the future of TO Stardust. Right now, with the current 3D printing materials and processes, it’s not quite at the performance level I want, at least not for professional-level play. The design itself showed what’s possible in terms of rethinking racket construction, like grommetless string transitions and integrated frame geometry, but to move to the next stage, we’re waiting for the technology to catch up, especially in terms of continuous fiber reinforcement.
When I saw TO Stardust’s grommetless construction, I knew Impacting Tennis was serious about innovation.
In the meantime, my focus is on consulting and helping players unlock performance through better equipment understanding and customization. I’m also exploring string design using a novel material that hasn’t been used in tennis yet. The long-term goal remains the same: use engineering and first principles to push tennis forward, not just follow trends.
Tennis thing: Thanks for participating, Miha. I will be posting my review of the Octo damper soon. I’ve been evaluating along with a trusted pro at my club. So far, I am really liking it, especially its amazingly light weight.
I bought this booksolely to take advantage of free shipping at Tennis Warehouse. Remember readers, you have to spend money to save money. The book is superb, though perhaps mostly of interest to people like me who are intrigued by the technology, or what’s represented as technology, in tennis. I’ve spent my first year and a half in tennis trying different rackets and strings (not to mention grips and overgrips). At no time have I gotten the sense a given racket made or kept me from being a better player.
I have developed preferences that remain fairly consistent. The first is for a racket with a head size of 98 square inches. The second is for polys that are not strung too tight, always less than 50 pounds. Finally, I trend away from rackets designed to aid in power because, for all of my faults and weaknesses in tennis, I do not suffer from a lack of power.
Back to Cross & Lindsey’s book. Check out this quote:
TENSION AND PLAYER PERCEPTIVENESS Virtually every player assumes that he can tell the difference between different tensions. Some claim to be able to identify a difference of a pound or two. Tests have been performed that bring that claim into question. In a test of 41 advanced recreational players, only 11 (27 percent) could determine a difference of 11 pounds or less. In fact, 15 (37 percent) couldn’t correctly identify the difference even when the tension between two racquets varied by 22 pounds. A small number were able to discern a two-pound difference, however. Players were not allowed to touch the strings or vibrate them to guess tension, and each racquet had a vibration dampener to take away auditory cues.
Using earplugs to further dampen auditory cues lowered the success rates even more. Players were only allowed four hits with each racquet, so the only data the player was interpreting was feel, not an accumulated history of location of ball placement that could be used to deduce string tension. Some players said that they noticed a difference, but then incorrectly chose which racquet had a higher tension.
Auditory cues are huge but they’re not often a subject of conversation with most players so quick and confident to identify what they feel about string tension. I recall a similar test relating to golf. Many players reported that they prefered the feel of putters made from this material or that. But, when they wore earplugs they couldn’t differentiate even the most dissimilar materials or even construction techniques.
For me the question is this: Thinking of the average player is it beneficial to believe in the benefit of this string over that string, this tension over that or this racket over another? To jump ahead, I think using the correct racket (correct as regards weight, head size, stiffness) is very important for new, especially young, players. What I’m asking concerns average adult players. My experience leads me to conclude that it can be entertaining but is largely a waste of time for recreational players to believe that the right (or wrong) racket or string will relevantly affect their games.
With that said, identifying preferences is fine but I contend that mine have little affect on my game, and that’s Ok. I still like what I like. As they saying goes, you can either use the racket you like or the racket someone else likes. Just make sure to keep your focus on your game and not your strings and racket. By the way, I’m not done writing about this book. It’s much too interesting so stay tuned. Tt
A couple weeks back I was lucky enough to catch a couple lessons with Laura Sax at Del Norte in Sacramento. Laura is a super tennis coach. I always try to show up with a specific issue so my lessons with her can exist in kind a parallel universe to what Caesar and I continue to work on.
As we drove from Los Angeles I tried to come up with something. What I finally came up with was my need for more consistency when I’m serving. So, Laura asked to see me hit a few serves.
She said, “Those are kinda Ok. Lotsa pace. Now, show me your second serve.”
I looked down at the court and sighed, “I don’t have one.”
Laura said, “Well, show me what your second serve would look like if you actually had one.”
I sighed again.
Then, I hit something like a flat serve with the pace turned down. It hit the net with authority. Kind of…
Laura said, “Ok, follow me up to the net.”
Over the next few minutes she had me first hit the ball over the net with the edge of the frame while choking up on the racket. That’s not as easy as it sounds, by the way. Then, Laura had me hti the ball over the net with only a downward snap of the wrist. As with an overhead, this was done without the arm or torso bending forward, or following through. A secondary object of the game was to have the ball hit inside the service box, so a distinctly downward strike was in order.
It was kinda fun. I spent much of the rest of the lesson hitting those spikes from the net and out toward the back of the service box on my side of the net. It wasn’t until Laura had me back up to the baseline that I saw the point of the entire exercise. I was hitting a slice!
Who knew?
As the racket snapped, it also rotated left with the ubiquitous pronation that everyone is so excited about. The force of the strike was a combination of the wrist snap multiplied by the racket’s rotational energy. The result, when the ball was struck as the racket was driving forward but still not completely open (read: flat), was a serve with rotation that curved it left (from me) a right handed player.
I’m not very bright so it was not until that very minute that I understood what the totality of the exercise was about. As I said, Laura is a fantastic coach.
On the long drive home I tried to reimagine the movements and, more importantly, the feelings of my two lessons with Laura. I had a fairly decent grasp of what I was trying to achieve but as with all things tennis the goal was fogged by age and lack of significant athletic ability. Still, when I got home I could still feel it although I was triyng to hit the ball too hard (don’t I always?).
Then I remembered something else Laura said. She said that when serving the wrist should be completely at ease and the racket held with the very lightest of grip.
Now, let me tell you why this made sense:I have always, and I mean always, since the time of my first serve, had a difficult time warming up with my serve. I can throw a baseball softly enough that a newborn could catch it with his offhand (Ok, maybe that’s an exageration) but you get the idea. In contrast, I have a very difficult time warming up to serve. My motion, and the overall pace of my early serves are, far too fast and too hard. Who knows why?
But, when I deliberately keep my arm, wrist and elbow relaxed I can hit early serves at Speed 1 and then Speed 3 and so on. It is almost as if I can coordinate the speed better because I am managing the tension (or lack) in my serve (note that I do not write, hitting) arm. Simple, but remember that simple does not always equal easy. Perhaps it never does.
Then, and I hope this doesn’t appear to suplant Laura’s contribution but I stumbled on this video by Patrick Mouratoglou. The looseness or softness is counterintuitive to someone like me who was born to throw a baseball (5.25 ounces at the end of the fingertips) rather than strike a tennis ball (2 ounces, plus or minus) overhead and with an added 27 inches of the racket.
Yes, it’s still (obviously) a striking motion but a very different one.
So, there I am and happy to be there. I have been playing tennis since September of 2023 and I now have a developing the tiny bud of a second serve. Now that wasn’t so hard, now, was it? Tt
Those of you who’ve read Tennis thing know I started out tennis with a two-handed backhand. My coach Caesar said, “I don’t care what you do after you’ve played for a year but I’d like you to start out hitting your backhand two-handed.”
I was game but I soon found the two-hander less than pleasant. During my third or fourth lesson I asked if I could try to hit my backhands with one hand. Caesar patiently showed me the basics (he plays a one-hander) and I soon found the whole deal more intuitive and less physically challenging. The one-hander also helped to create a more effective shot. What’s not to like?
“You hit a natural slice, mate. And, we’re going to build on it. We’ll add the topspin backhand when the time comes.”
Justine Henin…accept no imitations.
I was all in and began to informally curate a collection of the best one-handers I could find. My favorites, then and now, belong to Gregor Dimitrov, Stan Wawrinka, Roger Federer and the owner of the one-handed backhand of the gods, Justine Henin. If aesthetics matter, and they always do, there’s no comparison between the one and two-hander. As a wise person on the internet once said, “The two-hander has all the elegance of a monkey wrench.”
Then, a couple things happened in a relatively close span of time. I managed to hurt my right wrist somehow. This happened about the same time as I began to learn and practice the topspin one-hander and exactly the same time I was hitting against the wall, a lot. The cherry on the sundae was Stew From Brisbane, my sometimes hitting partner whom I know from Brookside in Pasadena.
To me, Federer’s backhand is second only to Henin’s.
Stew’s 60, three years younger and leaner than me. He’s played for no less than 50 years and is a very solid player. Stew also likes to hit hard pretty much from the jump, which is not my style. He means no harm and I really like him. But, his shots to my backhand, especially the deep and high balls, ate my fledgling one-hander alive in addition to taxing my already-tender wrist.
I did a little soul searching while I had a week off from my lessons with Caesar. By the time we were back at it I had decided to make the big switch to the two-hander.
Before I did I conferred with the MIB himself back in Michigan. “Paulie,” MIB said. “I’ve tried going two-handed at least twice but I always go back.” Various internet gurus cautioned against making the switch especially for players who are older (40+, ha!) and who took up the game later in life.
One guess who that describes…
But, I did it anyway and it’s been fairly brutal. For me, the two-hander is an exceptionally difficult shot. Yes, high balls are somewhat easier but in total it’s a far harder shot from a purely physical standpoint. Sometimes, when I’m tired and the ball’s out wide, I will resort to my one-handed slice. Caesar always catches me and says the same thing. “Hitting your slice is Ok but start two-handed and go one-handed as your stroke begins going forward.”
As if I have time to do all that.
When my baseball career was on life support I made a last ditch effort to teach myself to hit left-handed. It wasn’t a bad idea. A lefty has a little bit of a head start to first and I thought it made me look like the kind of player who would try anything to be more versatile. It changed the way I saw the ball and I found power where I didn’t from the other side of the plate and lacked power where I had it as a right-handed hitter. It was weird, just like the two-handed backhand.
Today is the first time I’ve put the sequence of the change and the factors that informed my switch together in my head. Don’t ask me why it’s taken me so long to see the threads. But, now that I have I think I will stick it out with the two-hander for now. I keep hoping for a breakthrough. Maybe next week or next month. Anything is possible.
But I do love my Cancha Original even though it appears to be (sadly) no longer available at the Cancha website.
I do have to say that a little more room sounds like a good thing to me, especially since I hope to travel quite a bit this year. The Racquet Bag Pro looks like just the ticket when it comes to holding my current favorite rackets, shoes and various tennis and non-tennis gear.
I like taking tennis lessons from different coaches. My first coach will be my last coach, lord willing. Caesar Schwarz shepherded me into tennis and he continually guides and influences the development of my game, such that it is. He is both a fine teacher and a superb player.
But, there have been others. Most have been good, one truly excellent. The best coaches read their students and think constantly of how best to impart what they know about tennis and maybe life.
That’s obvious and sounds simple, but simple is not always easy. Today I was sitting on court waiting for my Monday hitting partner when the teaching pro on the other court started chatting with me. His student, who I’m guessing was eleven or twelve, was taking a quick breather. The kid looked good when he was working on his volleys. His backhand slice was especially tidy and well-controlled.
The coach was a tennis player, through and through. Young, strong, tan, fit. He was dressed casually but not sloppily. Though the day was pure SoCal winter perfection, he wrapped a white towel over his head to protect from the sun. Only a real tennis player could pull that look off. I asked him if he usually taught there (a park in the Conejo Valley). “Nah, I usually teach at private courts. There are tons of good juniors out there. He’s not one of them,” he said with a wink and a tilt of the head.
I felt bad for the boy with the nice slice volley. His coach, right or wrong, had betrayed him to a total stranger. I thought to myself that the coach just hadn’t been around enough to know when to hold his tongue, no matter if he was wrong or right.
Later on I heard the coach talking about footwork to his next student. I didn’t get all of what he said but it was something about a Russian player he played against.
“The Russians really teach footwork and a smart student will never forget. Once you have good footwork you can rely on it for the rest of your tennis life. You’ll never lose it.”
I kinda wish I had heard the pro say that before I heard him diss his student. I might have tried to get a lesson from him.
Charles Broom at the Calabasas Pro Tennis Championships in 2024
Charles Broom
Back to the pro event at Calabasas. Whatever drop off there might have been respective to the ability of the players at Indian Wells versus those who played at Calabasas the ease of attending and the ability to get really up close more than made up for it. If it doesn’t quite come across on television rest assured that tennis is a stunningly athletic game. Players reach, sprint, strike, leap all while making the endless series of adjustments that I’ve come to learn are the very essence of tennis. I readily admit to being quick to align myself with one player over another. This happened again and again at Calabasas. A player whines about being impeded by a line judge (he wasn’t) and he becomes public enemy number one as did another player with an unfortunate tendency to slam his racket against the fence when a point didn’t go his way. I was in luck. UK-based Charles Broom was among the higher ranked players and one of his early matches was scheduled to start mere minutes after my arrival.
Watching Broom’s superb all-court play I immediately began to wonder about the life of a professional tennis player. I didn’t wonder as much about the life of a teaching tennis professional or a high-level amateur. No, I wondered about the mindset and life of a playing professional. I decided I’d try to interview just such a player for this book. And, none other than Charles Broom was gracious enough to accept my invitation to answer some questions, so here they are:
PC: Who got you started in tennis and how old were you when you first picked up a racket?
Charles Broom: I’m very fortunate in that I live very close to a local tennis club. From as early as 2 years old, I would go over to the club with my mum who would throw me balls to hit. As I got older, I learned to hit against the wall that was there on my own – trying to get the longest rally I could. I then started getting more serious lessons at around 5 years old and played my first tournament at 7. So you could say I started quite early.
PC: How long did it take for tennis to evolve from a game you played into the only sport you played?
Charles Broom: My parents don’t come from a tennis background, but certainly a sporty one. They made a very strong effort for me to try all different types of sport, ranging from swimming to gymnastics. From around 7 to 11 years old my main two sports became tennis and football (soccer), but as I was starting to progress in tennis by having some good results in national under 10 tournaments, it came to the point where I had to choose one over the other.
PC: You played your college tennis at Dartmouth and Baylor. What made you choose Dartmouth and how long did it take you to decide that playing as a professional might be in your future?
Charles Broom: I went to a very academic school in the UK and from 15-18 years old I was only training 8 hours a week to stay on top of my school work. I also wasn’t that highly ranked internationally as a junior, so I wasn’t getting any offers from ‘top 25’ tennis schools. I wanted to go down the academic route, so going to an Ivy league school became my top option. I went on visits to Dartmouth and Harvard, but ultimately decided on Dartmouth based on the quality of the campus, coaches and how well I got on with the team. I loved my time there. As well as making some life long friends, I felt I had made big improvements in my game, so I wanted to try playing some professional tournaments in the summer. I lost in qualifying a few times before finally making it through to my first main draw of a 15k in America. I managed to win in 3 sets and got my first ATP point. I always had the dream to play tennis professionally, but once I got my first ATP point, that cemented the fact I at least wanted to try after college and see how far I could get to.
PC: Speaking of your college days, could you have picked a more difficult major than Biological Chemistry? What was it like balancing study with what must have been a very full slate of tennis?
Charles Broom: I certainly didn’t make life easy for myself. I had studied Biology, Chemistry and Maths in my last year of school in the UK, so I wanted to continue down that route as I felt it was what I was best at. It wasn’t easy to balance tennis and studying. There were lots of labs that often would be 3, 4 or 5 hours sometimes, I’d have to do school work in the hotel lobbies when we played teams away from home, and generally I wouldn’t be getting more than 6 or 7 hours sleep most nights. I don’t regret it though as it taught me valuable lessons in time management, organization, discipline and sacrifice. Not only that, but it’s rare in tennis that you feel your best every single day you go out to play a match. To have played some of my best tennis while being tired or slightly ill gives me confidence as, when I am out on tour, I have a wealth of experience to fall back on in how to deal with those types of situations.
PC: Was it a big decision to turn professional or had it always been a part of your plan?
Charles Broom: It required some discussion with my parents and the coaches I was working with at Baylor for my master’s degree, as I still had to finish some classes once my tennis eligibility had expired. I would say the decision to play professionally had already been made, but the logistics of where I was going to train, who would I have as a coach, how would I support myself financially, these were all very important issues that needed to be ironed out.
PC: With your ranking right around 300 in singles, did you have any thoughts when you watched Luca Nardi (then ranked 123) when he defeated Novak Djokovic back in early March?
Charles Broom: I did watch some of the match, and funnily enough I was at the same tournament as him at the end of 2023 sitting next to each other in the locker room. It’s certainly a surprise when Novak loses to someone lower ranked purely based on how dominant he has been over the last decade. With that being said, the reality of professional tennis is that the level difference between someone 150 and 50 in the world, as an example, is much narrower than some people might think. I’ve now started to play in some higher level Challenger tournaments and played against the likes of David Goffin. At the end of the day, they’re all just tennis players that have to hit the ball back and forth over the net, the same as I do. And on any given day they might be struggling to do that for whatever reason, just as a professional golfer might wake up and something feels a bit different in their golf swing. It’s not to say they are any worse at golf, but you just feel better on some days than others — that’s life. How you deal with that, in my opinion, is what separates someone ranked 150 and 50.
PC: As a follow up, what differences do you see when you see players ranked, say, inside the top 25 as opposed to the top 200? I would have to guess the differences look very slight, but what do you see?
Charles Broom: For sure there are small differences in how hard the top guys hit the ball, or the quality of certain shots, but the more impressive thing is how consistent they are. They all have different game styles, but the vast majority are centered around being disciplined and not making unforced errors. I’ve had the fortune of practicing with Sir Andy Murray a few times. What stands out to me the most is how consistent he is with his ball striking and intensity. It’s not to say he never misses or even that he hits the ball considerably harder than I do, but it just feels relentless from the other side of the net. The other difference is in the mentality of those top players. To be so consistent week to week in their performances is remarkable.
PC: The concept of consistency seems simple until I really start to think about it. Club players like to say they want to be more consistent but it always seems like what they really want is just a higher ability level. When it comes to professionals like you and Andy Murray consistency means so much more because of the staggeringly high level of your play. I know this doesn’t read like much of a question but would you like to say a bit about the areas of your own game you wish were more consistent?
Charles Broom: Certainly the basic principle of being consistent is the same for me, Andy or a club player where you have to get the ball over the net and in between the lines more than your opponent. My goals that are related to consistency are around the quality of shot I hit, whether that be a serve or groundstroke, as I want to put as much pressure on my opponent without risking making an unforced error. I would also say the serve is the most important shot in the game, so having a consistent serve is vital to go to the next level.
PC: What is your current setup, including racket brand, model, string, string tension and racket weight, if you know it?
Charles Broom: I use a Wilson Blade 18×20 racket that I have weighted to 332g and 327g in swing weight. I use Alu Power 1.30mm and Wilson Revolve spin strings which are strung at around 53 lbs. That varies based on the conditions we play in week to week.
PC: We’re having our conversation during the third week of May in 2024. As the clay season approaches its peak, what are your goals for the rest of the year?
Charles Broom: My immediate goal is to try and play in Wimbledon this year. I feel I have a strong chance at playing in at least the qualifying event, but it has always been a dream of mine to play in the main draw. My other goal is to be ranked inside the top 235 by the end of the year to give myself a chance at playing in the Australian open qualifying. I believe I am at the level of competing consistently in Challenger and Grand Slam qualifying events, but it certainly won’t be easy to get there.
PC: Finally, thank you, Charlie, for the thoughtfulness of your responses. I truly appreciate your time and look forward to continuing to follow your career for the remainder of 2024 and beyond.
Charles Broom: You’re very welcome. Thank you Paul.
PC: In closing I want to offer a few more words about Charlie. When I first thought to interview him I only knew him by his name, world ranking and a few visual elements of his game, witnesses first hand. But, after I did a little research I came to see him as an even more complete person and I’m glad that I made that effort. Charlie got his B.S. in Biological Chemistry from Dartmouth. Then, during his final year of college eligibility he completed his Masters in Sports Pedagogy from Baylor University. When I realized all that Charlie had accomplished as a player and as a student, I came to respect him even more.
And, he reminded me of a figure from golf. Sorry; I know…again.
Here I am thinking of Bobby Jones. I made the connection in the back of my mind before I thought about it formally. Jones got his B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Georgia Tech in 1922, while playing for the varsity golf team. He then earned an A.B. in English Literature from Harvard College in 1924. Eventually, he became a lawyer after attending Emory University School of Law. During this time, and after, and until his retirement at the age of 28, Jones was the greatest golfer in the world, either amateur or professional. We are not likely to see another player, in any sport, accomplish what Jones accomplished before he reached his 30th year. Let us not forget the fact that Jones was the only sportsmen to ever receive two ticker-tape parades in New York.
We live in the era of acceleration. Kids want to graduate with a 4.0+ so they can avoid the drudgery of four full years of college. Little do they know that they will be called upon to work for a living once they’re done with that thing they were so hell-bent to shorten. We live in the era when developing athletes compare their ability, at any age, to the exact number of dollars that might be gained from a contract with Nike. And, I see nothing inherently wrong with any of this. Still, at my age and having seen what I have seen in my 60 years on this planet, I have come to respect something different, perhaps, than the average person might. I am thinking here of one the rarest qualities of our contemporary world; that of the renaissance man.
I’m not trying to lay heavy expectations on Charlie Broom that are more challenging than anything that’s come before in his quarter of a century of life. I simply respect his degrees and the discipline they required as much as I do his game. Each is impressive to me and I have the very slightest idea of what it took to attain them. I do not need to wish Charlie Broom good luck when it comes to tennis or chemistry. He has done his very best to take ordinary luck out of the equation. And that, I think, will always be his greatest accomplishment.
Here’s a brief update on Charlie Broom.
From The Guardian, July 1 2024:
“Broom lost 6-3, 7-5, 6-4 against Stan Wawrinka, the former world No 3. He had secured a wild card with a fine run of form on the Challenger circuit and started the match as only a marginal underdog with the bookmakers, despite the 153-run gap in the ratings ladder to his Swiss opponent.”
So, Charles Broom succeeded in one of his stated goals and made it to Wimbledon this year.
Tennis thing 