[EricK]

I don't really know anything about bridge "at the top" so this is all guesswork. But I imagine that one difference between the very very best and the rest of the best is their ability to keep focussed on the problem at hand for longer periods of time. So not only the ability to keep mentally alert for a long time, but also to stop thinking about what has gone before.

[awm]

Not clear how much is cause versus effect versus self-perpetuating, but I think it has helped Bob Hamman that he does not play professionally. Part of staying at the top is playing in very experienced partnerships (system isn't so important, but not having "accidents" is very important) and trusting partner (and to a lesser degree teammates). Spending a moderately large amount of time on teams with bad clients, or even worse actually partnering bad clients, or even playing with another pro in a "pickup" partnership because both were hired by the same client, may well be detrimental to one's game in the long run.

I've actually noticed a lot of promising players who start playing professionally (and usually start near the bottom of the pro ladder, partnering weak clients in pair events) whose game gets substantially worse (or at least stops improving) as a result. Certainly the top players play almost exclusively with their world class partners (although it's a lot easier to do this and make money doing it once a reputation is established...)

[pbleighton]

This is totally unoriginal, but..

You can ask the same question about Joe Montana, Pete Sampras, etc.

The answer IMO is primarily mental toughness (maybe "moving on to the next board").

Peter

[mikeh]

It is a bit impertinent for me to make any comments on this, since I rarely travel and have played against Hamman only a couple of times. I have played against probably all of the top pros in NA and had the opportunity to play a couple of events with Grant Baze and been a teammate of Mike Passell, and Fred G. I have also read Hamman's book, but it was a collaboration with another writer, so how much was Hamman's actual wisdom is open to question.

Certainly, in the book, he stressed the mental aspects of the game.

There is his well-known belief (shared, I would think, by all top players) that one must forget the last hand immediately.

There was also a story he told about playing some opps who had had a tough set of boards and who wanted to take a break. He insisted, so he writes, that they keep playing, and he stated in the book that he did not want to give the opps a chance to regain their composure. A good friend and occasional partner of mine tells me that he was one of the opps and that Hamman's story is not exactly accurate However, the story was not the point: the competitive attitude was.

I also recall Rosenberg's book in which he talks about Hamman. Two stories spring to mind. Please bear in mind that I have not read the book for a few years, and I am going on memory.

One story dealt with a series of boards Rosenberg played against Hamman. Things wee going well for Rosenberg to the point that after a few boards, Hamman opened out of turn. Rosenberg's comment was to the effect that this was one of his proudest moments in bridge! He had caused Hamman to lose focus.

The fact that this mechanical slip made a true champion like Rosenberg so proud says a great deal for the view that players such as Rosenberg have for Hamman's focus.

The other story was about a play Rosenberg had made on defence, while playing with Hamman. It had not worked out and it was a play that to the casual observer would seem foolish.

Hamman said absolutely nothing at the time or after the session, until the team was relaxing. Whereupon Hamman, having worked out why Rosenberg had made the play, spoke to another member of the team, starting with: "Michael made a great play today...."

What a teammate!

So focus and great attitude and a burning desire to win.

BTW, while I share your admiration and respect for Hamman, I am not sure that I would put him significantly ahead of several other top players in terms of winning.

He is quite a few years older than, for example, Meckwell. It would be interesting to see how they would fare in a per-year winning performance comparison.

Soloway has an incredible record, especially when bearing in mind that he plays bridge to earn his living and so for many years was not on a team for which a world championship was a realistic goal.

And overseas, bearing in mind the age differential, Versace is no slouch

One last point: whatever kept Hamman so good for so long, it certainly was not science The reason most often advanced (not by Hamman, I am not sure exactly what he has said on the topic) for ending his partnership with Wolff was that Wolff would not play any convention invented after (insert date, one I liked was 1956... ).

[pbleighton]

"Not sure if this is true, my impression was Sampras, and now Federer, were/are just better than their competitors skill wise."

Sampras did have the best serve in tennis, but...

In tennis, what separates the champions from the rest is that they play as well (mostly meaning make their best shots consistently) in a match as they play in practice, and as well (or better) in a Grand Slam final. Everyone else's play degrades under pressure.

Peter (whose play degraded)

[Winstonm]

This is certainly a worthwhile question, and from what I have seen the one thing that separates Hamman (and a few others) is the ability to do something I call "logical linear thinking" - to find the essence of a problem.

There is a well known hand that Hamman defended where he refused to overruff dummy when holding only 3 trumps and knowing the opponent's held a 5/3 fit - Zia talked about the hand in his book and he said he freely admits that it would never have occurred to him to make the play that Hamman made - yet after it is pointed out you see it wasn't hard at all - so why is it so hard to find?

Maybe because we do not try to solve the right problem?

If you ever figure this out, let me know, will you?

Winston

[Flame]

Jlall I hope you will tell us your thoughts of this too.

[Gerben42]

"Not sure if this is true, my impression was Sampras, and now Federer, were/are just better than their competitors skill wise."

This is my impression also. You cannot say Agassi didn't have the will to win. He's probably the player who has this will to win more than anyone. In the US Open final he played the tennis that would have blown ANY other player on the circuit away. And yet, Federer had an answer to everything...

I think another big thing is to focus at the right moment. To be able to bring the best under pressure. I don't know really, I'm not as good as these guys or as Justin

[cherdano]

Fred made a remark on why Hamman is so successful in the thread Bob Hamman's assertion.

[pbleighton]

"You cannot say Agassi didn't have the will to win. He's probably the player who has this will to win more than anyone."

Agassi has the will to win, but the will to win is not enough by itself. He is 35 years old, with a mediocre serve, by the standards of today's tour.

I am not saying there is no difference in shotmaking ability between the top 5 players on the tour and the second hundred. There is some difference, but mental toughness, the ability to make the shots under pressure, accounts for most of the difference in results.

Have you ever seen pros practice? They are all pretty awesome - not absolutely equal, but more so than in tournaments, especially big tournaments.

I'll give you two examples from tennis history:

Jimmy Connors (who I loathed) was one of the greatest players in tennis history. His overall shotmaking ability (apart from return of serve), was nothing special, but was he ever tough.

Arthur Ashe (my favorite player growing up) had better shots - a super serve, excellent volleying and court speed, and the best backhand on the tour. He won some big tournaments, but he lost a LOT of semifinal and final matches. He goes down in history as a lesser player than Connors, though his tools were better.

Peter

[Chamaco]

One thing in common with Hamman and others great players on time, such as the Blue Team members (Forquet, Garozzo, Belladonna) was the fact that they experienced having some "real" team captains.

The Blue Team had Perroux, a "real" captain, managing people's highs and lows, helping the players during difficultis, and being hard and tough when discipline was called for.

The Dallas Aces, of which Hanmman was part, had a similar experience (Ira Corn hired a n ex military officer for that, if I recall well), from what I could read.

When you get to the top of the World (and stay there) after such experiences, you become tough.
You have learned discipline and stamina, and the "sense of the team".


As an outsider, I think this does make a difference.

-------------------------------------------------------------

One interesting article on "what it takes to be a winner " in sports, can be found here:

http://www.usta.com/communitytennis/fullst...s?iNewsID=29302

[sceptic]

I hate to say this Justin and you may not like it ( no offence intended) I knew a world champ once at boxing, if you have to ask you ain't got it, it is there in you , it is self belief that all it takes (maybe at bridge a few good partners as well)

[pigpenz]

I think some people are just born winners, others for some reason just dont get the job done.

I remember at a regional about 22 yrs ago listening to the HOG (Ron Anderson) and another pro player talking about Barry Crane....Their comment was hes not any good he doesnt know what he is doing!...ouch this is about the greatest matchpoint player probably ever.

No matter what you thought when it came to matchpoins he got the job done. why, ? who knows, but I can remember Barry getting all over Geral Caravellis case after the first session as the directors were scoring in the back room at the Pioneer
Convention Ceter in Reno, that night they had a 221.5 and Barry said now thats more like it. He had an unbelievable will to win....its also the drive to win.

[pigpenz]

Jlall, on Sep 23 2005, 01:34 PM, said:

[

btw, I'm glad you know a world champion boxer. I know a few world champion bridge players too.

I am sure you will do ok JLall, you have bridge in your genes, chromosomes AKXX!

I have always been fascinated with people like Ozzie Jacoby and Billy Eisenberg who can play at the highest levels of bridge be multiple world champions in bridge and also be World Champions in other things....its all in the Gray Matter.