|
Playing Ball: The Insane Hustle
|
12/13/2007 - 5:56 PM
|
 |
 Did you know that squash is a trendy sport these days? No? You obviously haven’t been reading the Styles section of the New York Times. Either that, or you’re not a member of the city’s competitive-parent set, who have recently discovered that squash could be just the résumé-booster that their 5-year-old Miles or Dylan or Hadley or Julian needs to get them over the Ivy League hump one day.
Having grown up outside the East Coast proper, I only heard rumors of squash as a kid. Two cousins of mine played it at the Episcopal Academy, a prestigious Ivy League–feeder school in Philadelphia. I never saw a match and had only the sketchiest idea of how it was played, but the sport had a mythic quality to me. The name itself, whimsical but down to earth, and the rarefied surroundings in which it thrived, seemed infinitely more civilized than the indoor games I played in Small Town USA. Racquetball and wallyball at the Nautilus on East Third St. sounded so much less, well, worthy, than squash at the Merion Cricket Club.
It wasn’t until my freshman year in college that I got my first look at squash. This was the American hardball version of the game, which was phased out in favor of the international softball style in the mid-90s. The courts were kept as cold as possible in those days. It felt like you were in a drafty barn as you sat in the bleachers with your knees glued together. Still, I thought squash was cool; it fed my curiosity about all things WASP and East Coast proper. The courts were whiter than white, the long, thin racquets looked preppy and lethal at the same time, and there was more emphasis on touch and placement than in tennis. The only problem was the big, foggy goggles the players had to wear. I doubted that even freshmen girls could forgive those. But I also remember thinking, with the cockiness of a tennis player coming to what I considered a minor-league game, “I could crush people in that sport.” Unfortunately, our tennis coach, who also coached the squash team, wouldn’t let us even set foot on the courts.
I was in my late-20s when I finally walked onto one. I was living in New York and had been struggling for years to find a reasonably convenient place to play tennis in the city. Courts were either too expensive, too far by subway, or too difficult to reserve, unless you got up at the crack of dawn. Even then, it was next to impossible to play for longer than an hour. The one place where you could play more, in a park along the East River, featured an open manhole just behind one of the baselines.
After quitting tennis, then coming back, then quitting again, then tentatively coming back, I met a guy in my office who suggested I try squash. He said New York is the only place in the world where it’s easier to play squash than tennis. He may be right. I joined the ultra-cheap YMCA on the Upper West Side, climbed the many staircases up to their squash floor (which consisted of two beat-up, converted racquetball courts), and found a group of guys—including, strangely enough, Rick Moranis—ready to play any time, any day of the week.
It didn’t take long to figure out why they were so devoted. The appeal of squash is simple: It’s a rush. From a tennis player’s point of view, it’s a condensed and speedier version of the game we know. The ball flies faster, bangs off walls at sharp angles, and forces you to shorten your strokes and quicken your first step. It’s a blur or white walls and a pinging black ball. Fifty minutes of it and you’re doubled-over.
There are a few immediate reasons that tennis players love squash. First, there’s only one grip needed—Continental—and one stroke, a short, hard chip that you use for both forehands and backhands. You only get one serve, which means it’s just a point-starter, so there’s no elaborate wind-up to master. The first time I played I came out blasting serves as hard as I could. It didn’t take me long to realize I was wasting tons of energy, as was as looking like the game’s first known roid-rage case. Best of all, it’s virtually impossible to hit the ball out in squash. All you have to do is get it over the “tin” (the equivalent of the net, but much lower) and you’re in the point. There’s no baseline to worry about, so you can blast away without fear. Hence the rush.
Unfortunately, I also found out that there are a couple reasons that tennis players struggle with squash. One of my first times out, Moranis (a fellow lefty) took my serve and hit a drop shot that nestled in just above the tin and died the way only a soft rubber ball can die. I didn’t move for it. The ball was all the way at the front of the court, seemingly far out of my reach. A couple points later I turned the tables with my own soft drop and waited for Moranis to congratulate me. Instead I stood dumbfounded as he took off toward the front wall—how could one of the McKenzie brothers move that fast?—and somehow wedged his racquet under the ball just as it was about to bounce for a second time. I continued to stand and watch as he flipped the ball just above the tin for his own counter-drop winner.
I stared at him for a second and said, “Don’t tell me your supposed to get those kinds of shots in this sport!”
“Yup. You’re supposed to get every shot in this sport,” he said, breathing hard.
I quickly learned he was right. Squash was, at bottom, not about strokes or power or touch. It was about hustle. Insane hustle. One of the sport’s origin myths, which mirrors my own story with Moranis, happened in India when the game was brought there by the English decades ago. In England, it had been a gentleman’s sport and a “shooting” contest (“shooting” means going for the equivalent of a winner). If you hit a great drop shot, that was it, you deserved the point and the other guy wasn’t going to run after it in his long pants. But the best Indian players started to do just that. They ran after the Englishmen’s drop shots, infuriating the old boys and turning the game into the battle of attrition that it is today.
In the end, the insane hustle only makes the squash experience more addictive. I’ve played as much as possible every winter since those days at the West Side Y seven years ago. It’s become an annual rite of fall: At the end of October, when the falling leaves get too thick to see the court at my tennis club, I put away the racquets and pull out the squash sticks. I play four times a week at a club near my apartment. It’s surprisingly easy to make the transition each year. There’s more running in squash, but there’s not as much upper-body exercise, so the fitness levels are similar. The one major difference is the respective footwork needed for each sport. They’re diametrically opposed: The biggest sin in tennis is to lung after the ball without using little steps. In squash, alll you do is lunge; there’s no time to do anything else. Each fall I head back to the squash court using little steps and watch the ball fly right past my racquet.
But it's always pleasing to return to the starkness of squash: The bright white walls bound by thin red lines, the small black ball that you pound straight down one wall and then send screaming across the court on the next shot; the extra intensity and competitiveness that comes from having two players in close proximity and jostling each other for position. It's pure, and vicious.
There’s a new language to learn as well. “Depth” in tennis is “length” in squash, as in “work on your length.” A down-the-line shot is a “rail” and a crosscourt shot is a “cross.” A volley is typically called a “cut-off.” A lob is, well, a lob. When it comes to picking up the ball, you never, ever pin it between your racquet and your shoe and lift your foot up, the way you do in tennis. I was called nothing less than a “dork” for doing that early on. Instead, you flick the ball off the court with the edge of your frame and send it off the nearest wall and back into your free hand.
I’ve gotten better at the game over the years, and I run my a-- off for drop shots. Unlike tennis, I have no youthful standard to hold myself to. My best days aren’t necessarily behind me—which is kinda nice. There are also more people to play at my level, including women, who regularly compete with men. For some reason, there are more competent squash players than there are tennis players. I wouldn’t say I prefer squash to tennis, but I’m glad I can split my year between them.
It’s been years since I felt addicted to tennis the way I do squash. It’s nothing less than a healthy drug. I played this morning at 8:00 for an hour with a regular partner, Lissa, a former captain of the Penn women’s team (I’ve entered the East Coast proper at last). It was a brutal wake-up call. We’re both shot-maker types who wrong-foot each other at least twice in every rally. We’re always stopping in our tracks and trying to get our bodies to turn 180 degrees in a millisecond. One guy who was watching us recently said, “There’s never a dull moment out there.”
In 10 minutes I was sucking wind; in 20 minutes I could feel my legs getting sore; in 30 minutes I looked up at the clock. It was 8:30 in the morning and I felt like I was in a war. It may have a preppy reputation, but remember, preppies also fill the Ivy League’s crew teams. I guess WASPs really do love to test themselves—or punish themselves. Good for all the little brats who are learning to play the sport in New York. They may not make the Ivy League, but they’ll know what a fight to the death is like.
Lissa went up 2-1 in games, but I was determined to force it to a fifth. The first step is the key in squash. The best players don’t just get to the ball, they get there early enough to have a choice with their next shot. I ignored my legs, my heart, my brain and pushed off just a little harder on my first step. As always, when I started to win points, I became less tired. That’s what momentum is all about in this game—playing well enough to ignore your exhaustion. I finally won the fourth game. My racquet fell out of my hand and clattered to the court. I staggered, gasping for breath, to the water fountain. On my way there, I thought, not for the first time, that nothing in the world beats a nice game of squash.
47 Comments
|
|
|
Posted by evan |
12/13/2007 at 07:30 PM |
i've always wondered what squash is like, so this definitely helps quite a bit. it's too bad i live so far in the country that everyone thinks of a large vegetable when you say squash. |
|
Posted by califsurfer |
12/13/2007 at 07:36 PM |
second |
|
Posted by califsurfer |
12/13/2007 at 07:36 PM |
second |
|
Posted by tennis kad |
12/13/2007 at 07:53 PM |
What a great story! You've inspired me to try squash. Thanks, Steve! Know of any courts in the Gramercy/Murray Hill area? |
|
Posted by skip1515 |
12/13/2007 at 08:19 PM |
Man, did anyone ever suggest you write for a living?
In all my years of racquet sports, squash is the one variant I've never gotten to play. I've spent hours on a squash court, practicing tennis at tennis camp in the 60's, when rain kept us off the outside courts, and I've hit on a real (court) tennis court, but never squash. Not surprisingly, the even more esoteric games of racquets, and fives, haven't been tried, either.
For a good number of years I did play a lot of racquetball. Whoo, is that easy compared to tennis! Not so much in the physical sense, though I find tennis tougher on my upper body (and especially my back), but because it's so much easier to hit a winner. In rball the ball is so lively, and the racquets so powerful, that kills are much, much more common than in tennis.
I learned rball in Washington, D.C., from an interesting couple of guys. They'd both played college football, and one played rugby with the British embassy team. The other one was a bit shady. The story about him was one time he was selling a bazooka, and demonstrated it by shooting a cow.
I learned fast how you suffer if you try to control the center when you play cutthroat with guys like that.
But if you're a serve & volleyer in tennis, racquetball's almost nirvana: the court's so narrow all you have to do it run up and back.
Thanks, Steve. |
|
Posted by skip1515 |
12/13/2007 at 08:21 PM |
Steve, there was also a story on the Khan's (photo, yes?) and squash years ago in the NYTimes Sunday Magazine, calling squash the fastest sport in the world. It might be available in their online archive. |
|
Posted by Ben |
12/13/2007 at 08:55 PM |
I play squash about 7 times every year, and I think it's great fun. It can get frustrating when you feel like every shot is a drop shot, but you just need to stand a little bit farther in, and get out of the tennis baseline mentality. |
|
Posted by Frenchy |
12/13/2007 at 11:27 PM |
Tigs - good piece.
There are more competent squash players because it's a lot easier than tennis - also a much, much more limited game.
Give me land, lots of land under starry skies above - DON'T FENCE ME IN.
|
|
Posted by DrD. |
12/14/2007 at 02:32 AM |
I'll second my compatriot above. That was great to read, but I'll still pass on squash (the game, not the vegetable). Looks like a great way to finish ruining old knees and an old back. |
|
Posted by Gregorio |
12/14/2007 at 05:57 AM |
Great article Steve! I started playing squash a few years ago after playing tennis all my life (I'm not particularly good at either). I am now completely addicted, playing 3-5 times a week. I think I once played 13 days in a row, which was not such a good idea ;-). I still love tennis and watch/play it when I can but if I had to choose I'd go with squash. Tennis just doesn't hurt enough :).
Frenchy it is much easier to play squash, pretty hard to miss that front wall. This is a bonus for beginners though as it is very frustrating to hit everything out or into the net in tennis. Even a beginner can get a good workout in squash. However keeping the ball in doesn't equate to competency. If I play someone who just keeps the ball in the match is over in 6 minutes. I also am not sure what you mean by limited compared to tennis? Less shots to choose from? Less ways to win a point? Or just a smaller court ;-)? |
|
Posted by Gregorio |
12/14/2007 at 06:04 AM |
I'm living in the UK at the moment and squash is not nearly so WASPy as it is in the USA (I was just reading that NYT article). Every town here has a squash club and you get people from all socioeconomic groups playing. The club I play at in Glasgow costs about $36 a month plus a couple of bucks to book a court on busy days. |
|
Posted by 3Rivers |
12/14/2007 at 06:15 AM |
You should try badminton. I grew up playing it. If you are into playing doubles then this is one of those sports where doubles is greater fun to play and watch than singles. |
|
Posted by kingandre |
12/14/2007 at 07:07 AM |
i recently went and saw the world team mens championship in squash. it took place in chennai. the game is totally different from tennis. speed is insane really. tennis in itself doesnt draw a lot of crowd in chennai except during the semis and finals. Squash was altogether different kettle .Very few spectators. Being my first time i went and saw india play wales. I sat right behind the indian team and could listen to all the cooments they make. One thing that i found tough to digest is the amount of decisions that a refree has to make when it comes to giving let. That was kind of sad. Every time a player has to dispute he has to open the door come out and question the refree. I found that very funny. One more incident that i found worth sharing ,the indian player wanted a change of racquet during the middle of the second set.the umpire didnt permit it. Then the wales player broke his racquet a couple of minutes later and went to change his racquet. the indian player kind of protested and was allowed to change his racquet.i was very surprised at this. no idea abt the rules. Steve can one change racquets in between? All in all i had very good fun watching the game at such close quarters. sitting next to the egyptian team which had the world no.1 and 2 players in their squad. quite an experience it was. |
|
Posted by Suresh |
12/14/2007 at 09:44 AM |
Steve , this article reminded me of the Khans - Jansher and Jahangir, they has some rivalry going.
Btw , who won the fifth? lol
Squash definitely gets the heart rate going up more and quicker I feel than tennis. Playing singles in badminton feels the same way, though it is not popular in the U.S. Every point feels intense and there is no breathing room. |
|
Posted by SwissMaestro |
12/14/2007 at 09:51 AM |
I play it quite often with my dad when I visit him. |
|
Posted by Suresh |
12/14/2007 at 10:15 AM |
'it's a lot easier than tennis - also a much, much more limited game.'
It is different, certainly not easier.
|
|
Posted by steve |
12/14/2007 at 10:29 AM |
oh, yeah, i forgot to mention. i lost the fifth!
squash strokes are simpler, which means it's easier to learn; but there's plenty of strategy, and the battle between your body and your mind—i.e., to ignore your physical limits—makes it just as much of a challenge as tennis, in my opinion.
my tennis volleys have been helped by squash, where you take the ball out of the air all the time. i also get to more balls in tennis, because squash has taught me to believe i can get to them. |
|
Posted by Tokyo Tom (tt) |
12/14/2007 at 10:52 AM |
a great game for NYC and London as you said and for weather challenged areas. the best hangover cure known to man - if it does not kill you first. Remember Fed used to play with his dad on a regular basis from a young age = helps some of his shots and gets and angles make more sense when one thinks about it.
I saw both Khans at tourneys a few time - they definitely play a different game. |
|
Posted by ro'ee |
12/14/2007 at 11:14 AM |
I play the American style, too. Never got the hang of slow balls that bounce ad infinitum. Squash is about killing yourself!! |
|
Posted by monterey |
12/14/2007 at 12:39 PM |
Steve, I can't believe you waste your fine writing skills by writing about squash, of all things. The only thing it's good for is a good workout. In terms of beauty, grace, fluidity, variety of shotmaking, explosiveness, strategy, it does not compare to tennis.
Tennis is like a gunfight. It's you facing off against your opponent, with no wall as an intermediary. There's nothing like it. A direct dailectic relationship between the two of you, just perfect.
Besides, in squash it's all about these little flick shots. There's not of that beautiful aspect of throwing your whole body into a shot, as there is in the far superior game that we all know and love.
I tried playing squash a long time ago and let me tell you I felt like a rat in a little cage trying to run around and dodge my opponent in the close confines of whatever the hell a squash court is supposed to be.
Tennis players of the world, unite, and boycott this silly "game". |
|
Posted by steve |
12/14/2007 at 01:12 PM |
well, to each his own, or not, monterey |
|
Posted by skip1515 |
12/14/2007 at 01:41 PM |
I must jump to the defense of Steve's writing about squash. While not a squash player, and a dedicated tennis player, it should be said that squash has an elegance all its own.
The slender racquets, subtlety of the angles, and the unique proximity to your opponent give squash and it's racquet sport cousins a fine flair and style all their own.
While some tennis players may roam the fields of play like gunfighters, looking for the shortest route to a kill during every point, traditionally tennis has been likened to 3 dimensional chess. If the angles on a squash court don't bring that to mind (if you can breath enough while playing to think about anything at all), then I don't know what would. |
|
Posted by monterey |
12/14/2007 at 03:02 PM |
Skip 1515, your posts are always very informative and enjoyable to read, but I've never bought into the idea of tennis as chess. Chess suggests a couple of old codgers sitting around "thinking" about their next set of moves and feeling superior about themselves because they're engaging in some sort of "intellectual" game.
No, tennis is beautifully dynamic, liquid, explosive, with its own mode of strategy and tactics. It's all about seeing the court in a certain way, and requires its own particular kind of intelligence to rapidly react to an ever-shifting set of circumstances in a specific moment in time. That to me is the farthest thing from chess, where you deliberate and deliberate in a manner more akin to solving a puzzle of some sort.
As for squash having an elegance of its own, well, as Steve said, to each his own. I see no elegance in squash only a couple of guys huffing and puffing while not trying to take each other's eyes out with their racquets or the little dead rubber thing they use as a ball. |
|
Posted by skip1515 |
12/14/2007 at 03:06 PM |
Okay, Monterey. In the words of my father, who's grown infinitely smarter as I've aged :), "That's what makes horse races."
|
|
Posted by JR |
12/14/2007 at 04:48 PM |
I wonder if the warnings about mixing squash and tennis are well founded. I played both, but my tennis grips were pretty close to continental and I didn’t play either well enough to care. I’m pretty sure Edberg plays squash (perhaps just post-tennis) and I think I’ve read that Fed has played some, as well. The recently retired Wesleyan U. tennis and squash coach played both sports wonderfully well.
One of my most vivid squash memories was spraining an ankle playing squash, but then rushing to the tennis courts (too late to cancel) for my regular game (with my kindly opponent complying with my request to hit everything back to where I was). Those were the days—consecutive squash and tennis games.
|
|
Posted by: