PDA

View Full Version : Robert Landsdorp as a coach.


baseline08thrasher
12-28-2008, 07:58 PM
I have a friend who went to Robert Landsdorp for lessons.

I'm wondering if you guys think it would be well worth a trip to San Diego,
(i live about 3 1/2 hours away)
for a private lesson or something?

I've heard he feeds the ball like crazy, and my friend told me he had to hit the ball really flat.

Robert Landsdorp likes kids who hit through the ball, and don't use those extreme grips.

I don't use any of those, so that's a good plus.

Would this be worth a trip?
If so, I'll ask my friend about how to contact him.

I'm interested so far.

Ballinbob
12-28-2008, 08:16 PM
Are you kidding me.... I was in Cali last week and had no idea. I learned about this coach today lol, woulda definitley went for a lesson while I was there if I knew..

I say go for it.

baseline08thrasher
12-28-2008, 08:25 PM
Yep. :)

This coach tho is a pickle at times.
I've heard some things about him.

I'll ask my friend for details.


Wonder how hard he is to contact.

Either way, if I don't go out there, my coach is really awesome.

I have a really good coach.
Very knowledgeable and straight forward.
No non-sense mumbo-jumbo.
Hate coaches like that.

I'll check up on it.

Charlzz
12-28-2008, 08:51 PM
Tennis Channel Academy has a segment on Lansdorp. You can watch that, if you like, to get a sense of the guy.

Steady Eddy
12-29-2008, 06:19 AM
He was Tracy Austin's coach back in the 70's. He looked 50ish then. I wonder how old he is?

sureshs
12-29-2008, 06:47 AM
I think he is pretty expensive. He charges everybody the same, pro or novice. Also, he is picky about who he coaches.

drakulie
12-29-2008, 08:13 AM
for one lesson, it's not worth it.

baseline08thrasher
12-29-2008, 12:01 PM
Well obviously.
I just want to go up there 1ce and see how everything turns out.

BeHappy
12-29-2008, 04:34 PM
incredibly expensive-all his lessons are up on Tennisplayer.net-To benefit from his ball feeding drills you need to go to him regularly

not worth the money imo

baseline08thrasher
12-29-2008, 06:08 PM
incredibly expensive-all his lessons are up on Tennisplayer.net-To benefit from his ball feeding drills you need to go to him regularly

not worth the money imo

Your possibly right.

I've had rapid improvement with my coach.

We are constantly changeing up things, and working on my strengths and weaknesses.

He used to work at bolletieri, so he knows a lot of useful drills.
He also knows a lot about how europeans develop their game.

He doesn't just sit there and feed me balls.
He has top level college players come out and hit with me, during the lesson.
If not, he hits with me, and he's really good.

Overall, he's the best coach out there for me.

I'm not going to try Robert.

5263
09-02-2010, 10:30 AM
I have a friend who went to Robert Landsdorp for lessons.

I've heard he feeds the ball like crazy, and my friend told me he had to hit the ball really flat.

Robert Landsdorp likes kids who hit through the ball, and don't use those extreme grips.

I'm interested so far.

This explains why you are not hearing much from anybody he is developing these days. He's really a lot like Bolletteri in the sense that his players get better from mega training and hitting lots of balls, but not much on stroke technique and development.

The last decade of Champions with WW Fhs and strong spinning balls have pretty much debunked his flat, hit thru 3 balls out towards the target approach to strokes. Even Pete and Lindsey had great serves and had to develop the Rev Fh heavy TS, to get around the error prone style he drilled them in. Pete would not win one of 4 points against Nadal, Dj, or Fed once the rally starts. Funny how he makes fun of the "academy ball", when it is the stroke he teaches that has gone extinct.

JohnYandell
09-04-2010, 07:03 AM
I don't think you are accurately describing Robert's approach. First, he says that he teaches the "academy ball," and that it's an important ball to have.

Second, he teaches windshield wiper finishes, what he calls the downward finish and argues that the additional topspin is critical in the game today. "only old bald guys always finish over the shoulder."

Third, he coined the phrase "reverse" forehand to describe the Nadal style over the head finish, and trains players to hit it.

Fourth, he believes that the players need to flatten the ball out at times to hit with maximum velocity and penetrate the court. That's certainly true of all the big hitters--even Nadal--and this can be done with the advanced more modern finishes.

5263
09-04-2010, 01:13 PM
I don't think you are accurately describing Robert's approach. First, he says that he teaches the "academy ball," and that it's an important ball to have.

Second, he teaches windshield wiper finishes, what he calls the downward finish and argues that the additional topspin is critical in the game today. "only old bald guys always finish over the shoulder."

Third, he coined the phrase "reverse" forehand to describe the Nadal style over the head finish, and trains players to hit it.

Fourth, he believes that the players need to flatten the ball out at times to hit with maximum velocity and penetrate the court. That's certainly true of all the big hitters--even Nadal--and this can be done with the advanced more modern finishes.

So he can make fun of and ridicule the Academy ball, as well as teach how important it is as well. Well isn't that a clear teaching message? Maybe you can post that vid for folks where they can see what he has to say about the academy ball and how more aggressive grips won't produce champions? from an RL ad about your site;

"Nobody explains to the parents that if you take your 8-year old to a coach who let's the kid hit with an extreme grip, you're already up the creek - you just won't know it for another 8 years. This is what I call the disaster of teaching methods in American junior tennis."

Robert has been pretty clear in the past on his approach to the Fh and his predictions have not bore out on grips or spin. Now that Nadal stands thousands of points above the rest of the field with his heavy spin and more aggressive grip, Lansdorp seems to be trying to do a re-make on his approach based on what you say here. Even what we would call a mid ct put away probably from Rafa, clears the net higher than what RL used to teach for a baseline shot. Of course I don't know what his latest adjustments are, but if he is trying to teach the Fh now like in this
vid--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZWfbTc8xyw&feature=related

I don't expect much from his camp.

sideways stance,
racket in line with the forearm, and
driving out to the target with the finish....etc...
What is modern here? finish near hip?
In another vid he is teaching a ww finish tacked on a conventional Fh, to an 8 yr old.

Not that Nadal does not hit the Rev Fh now and then, but mostly Rafa takes it right over the shoulder like normal, but with so much acceleration that it wraps on around the head and then ends up back on the original side. A far cry from the rev Fh that RL's students actually taught him where the racket does not cross the body mid-line, and he decided to allow them to stay with cause it worked so well. But yes, I guess he did coin the phrase.

Yes you can hit flatter trajectory shots with modern strokes, but there seems to be little modern in his coaching other than a tacked on finish.

JohnYandell
09-04-2010, 01:28 PM
Uh, I'll stick with what I said above. If you read his articles on Tennisplayer he outlines a perspective that is quite different than your categorization of him.

You've set him up as a straw man, used some perjoratives, but haven't really done justice to his overall approach. Just my opinion.

SystemicAnomaly
09-04-2010, 01:44 PM
^ Yeah, it sounds like 5263 is pushing an agenda rather than offering a honest appraisal of Landsdorp. JMO.

5263
09-04-2010, 02:10 PM
^ Yeah, it sounds like 5263 is pushing an agenda rather than offering a honest appraisal of Landsdorp. JMO.

I've offered that he has a good approach to drilling and hard work, and open to anything relevant on technique he has done or is working on. I just don't see it.
You are reaching to suggest an agenda, so I guess you don't have a point to offer. I'm giving a very honest appraisal of RL. If anyone has an agenda here it would more likely be JY, as I don't have a dog in this either way. Maybe I find it interesting that he has been so out spoken, but yet, seems to have been way off in his expectations.

Pete developed his own serve and rev Fh. Fisher taught Pete how to swing a racket. RL drilled him.
Pete was no weak groundstroker, but none the less would not have broken top ten without the best first and second serve combo in history.
WHat agenda here? Just an honest question about anything RL has to offer technically. Is his contribution not worthy of discussion?

from RL- "The limitations don't show up until later. They have severe problems handling the pace in the pro game, especially when the ball is low and skidding."

What does RL bring to swing technique that has affected Modern tennis?
Hit flatter sometimes??

hawk eye
09-04-2010, 02:57 PM
Pete developed his own serve and rev Fh. Fisher taught Pete how to swing a racket. RL drilled him.
Pete was no weak groundstroker, but none the less would not have broken top ten without the best first and second serve combo in history.WHat agenda here? Just an honest question about anything RL has to offer technically. Is his contribution not worthy of discussion?

What does RL bring to swing technique that has affected Modern tennis?
Hit flatter sometimes??

Don't think so.. Pete in his prime could stay with anyone from the baseline, and on the faster courts outplay the top players who relied mainly on their groundies. Ask Agassi..

JohnYandell
09-04-2010, 07:43 PM
I don't accept the assumption that there is such a thing as modern tennis, which is somehow completely distinct and different from (?) pre-modern.

Tilden hit the windshield wiper forehand. Fred Perry hit the reverse. Bobby Riggs hit open stance forehand returns--to mention only a few examples.

It's not that coaches either understand the modern game or don't. It's not accurate to divide the world into turn straight back step in straight thru--and then the modern revolution.

That's another straw man and I've never seen anyone who taught that overly simplistic, dogmatic way in 30 years anyway.

There are a lot of technical components obviously. They can be stressed, emphasized etc, but to say Lansdorp is teaching an extinct style, is not accurate in my opinion.

I've seen him work players on all the finishes. Open stance is part of his teaching as with any good coach. He believes in varying pace, arc and spin. He believes to hit cold winners you need to hit through the court with more velocity and relatively lower clearance over the net. I don't know what the argument there could be.

Other coaches can emphasize these or other elements more or less. I don't agree with Robert on everything myself! No two coaches do, or necessarily should. Just trying to give a broader more accurate view of what i've seen him do over the years.

5263
09-08-2010, 06:21 PM
Don't think so.. Pete in his prime could stay with anyone from the baseline, and on the faster courts outplay the top players who relied mainly on their groundies. Ask Agassi..

Stay with anyone is an interesting phrase to use, maybe defend-able in a sense, meaning Pete could rally for a while till he lost 3 out of 4 points against players like Hewitt, Andre, most other top 20 players..

I'd say Agassi "stayed with" Pete pretty well in their matches, even with Pete winning so many free points on 1st and second serves. Take those away or take the serving out of it, and no, I'm sorry, It's straight sets for Agassi. And this comes from a huge Pete fan.

5263
09-08-2010, 06:43 PM
I don't accept the assumption that there is such a thing as modern tennis, which is somehow completely distinct and different from (?) pre-modern.

Tilden hit the windshield wiper forehand. Fred Perry hit the reverse. Bobby Riggs hit open stance forehand returns--to mention only a few examples.

It's not that coaches either understand the modern game or don't. It's not accurate to divide the world into turn straight back step in straight thru--and then the modern revolution.


Interesting claims you state here. You don't believe there is such thing as the modern game, but then to go on to say that " It's not that coaches either understand the modern game or don't".

First how would someone discuss or explain something that they admit they don't recognize it's distinctions?

Second, you believe in a term "rev Fh" (which was called the buggy whip for years) a term coined by RL to describe something he observed his students hit,
and you believe in the double bend Fh, a term I understand you coined to describe the common pro Fh,
but you don't believe there is a Modern Tennis played, because one player in history occasionally hit this shot and another player hit that shot at times.
Never mind that in videos of players from a mere 40 years ago shows that overall tennis is played far different today on the whole than it was back then.
Of course if you don't recognize the distinctions, why would you believe there is Modern Tennis?

SFrazeur
09-08-2010, 07:12 PM
It's difficult to define an age or era without a specific event marking change or evolution.

I myself reject the term "modern tennis." Many of the components some use to mark "modern tennis" existed since the beginning. One cannot take something like the "reverse forehand" and or combine multiple elements and say that the utilization of these by players define "modern tennis." Again, these have been around since the beginning.

Those who prescribe to the notion of "Modern Tennis" I would be interested to read your definitions of what exactly is modern tennis.

-SF

5263
09-08-2010, 07:52 PM
Really pretty ridiculous IMO to reject the idea of Modern tennis, as it is clearly ingrained as an accepted term in the sport, as well as all sports. Just google modern boxing or modern baseball/football/basketball. It may mean different things to different people, but to reject the general term just makes no sense that I can see other than to be difficult. A more sensible comment would be to comment on what modern tennis means to you or what you think it means in general.

If you want something to reject, try this one, lol - Modern History.

SFrazeur
09-08-2010, 08:12 PM
Really pretty ridiculous IMO to reject the idea of Modern tennis, as it is clearly ingrained as an accepted term in the sport, as well as all sports. Just google modern boxing or modern baseball/football/basketball. It may mean different things to different people, but to reject the general term just makes no sense that I can see other than to be difficult. A more sensible comment would be to comment on what modern tennis means to you or what you think it means in general.

If you want something to reject, try this one, lol - Modern History.

My rejection is hardly senseless. Do you read why I reject it?

As for modern history it can be defined:

Modern history, or the modern era, describes the historical timeline after the Middle Ages.
Modern history can be further broken down into the early modern period and the late modern period.

Middle ages: a period of European history from the 5th century to the 15th century.
The period followed the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476, and preceded the Early Modern Era. (source:wiki-something)

This discussion is actually a common one amongst historians, anthropologists, etc. I'm a lumper, you're a splitter. I'm still waiting for you to post a definition of modern tennis.

-SF

5263
09-08-2010, 08:20 PM
My rejection is hardly senseless. Do you read why I reject it?

As for modern history it can be defined:

Modern history, or the modern era, describes the historical timeline after the Middle Ages.
Modern history can be further broken down into the early modern period and the late modern period.

Middle ages: a period of European history from the 5th century to the 15th century.
The period followed the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476, and preceded the Early Modern Era. (source:wiki-something)

This discussion is actually a common one amongst historians, anthropologists, etc. I'm a lumper, you're a splitter. I'm still waiting for you to post a definition of modern tennis.

-SF

I think like modern anything, it can mean different things to different people and other things will be more modern in 30 years. Modern is sort of a moving, current term.
But I see it is a generic idea of how the better players play over the last 5-10 years.
Does knowing my definition make a difference?
The term will be there whether I define it or not.
The down side of those who lump things in Modern tennis is that you get a mix and match of instruction that does not work well together, as well as a misunderstanding of what is observed.

The modern history was a joke based on the oxymoron kind of thing, like jumbo shrimp etc....

JohnYandell
09-08-2010, 11:12 PM
It would be great if rather than setting me up as yet another straw man, like Lansdorp, non-modern tennis, or whatever, you would accurately represent what I said.

Repeat, please if you want to discuss these issues, represent my view correctly before you respond.

This is one of the biggest weaknesses in the whole school you represent. You misrepresent what others say in order to reject them and set up the new beacon. Black white, good bad, modern tennis and bad non-modern tennis. That's not the way the world is or tennis as part of it.

What I actually said was that I reject the term "modern tennis, which is somehow completely distinct and different from (?) pre-modern."

Their is a continuity and an evolution in the game. But not a radical break in which somehow the new wisdom enters the world.

The either/or approach is inaccurate and also counterproductive. That's in tennis, religion, life.

On a specific technical point:

Regarding the double bend forehand--what you said either makes no sense or is unclear. One player in history hit which shot, the double bend? You consider it "modern" or not? Over the course of tennis history the double bend and the straight arm forehand have been two variations. They were mixed in the past, and are mixed now.

deluxe
09-09-2010, 03:30 AM
What I actually said was that I reject the term "modern tennis, which is somehow completely distinct and different from (?) pre-modern."

Their is a continuity and an evolution in the game. But not a radical break in which somehow the new wisdom enters the world.

I think we can all agree that "new wisdom" entered the world with Oscar Wegner and MTM, that MTM is the radical break splitting modern from pre-modern, and that all the great modern champions are using MTM.

;-)

papa
09-09-2010, 04:13 AM
So many things in this sport keep changing like racquets, strings and equipment. The game has to change to accommodate this ongoing process.

Some have done outstanding research to provide us with materials and advice which allow us to play/teach/enjoy the game more. Although I recognize and appreciate the contributions of RL to the game, I certainly do not agree with all his methods but as John Yandell has pointed out none of us teaching the game totally agrees with a particular individual, method or school.

I happen to like JY approach in that he is presenting what is going on today and is not necessarily advocating any one method being superior to others.

5263
09-09-2010, 04:33 AM
you would accurately represent what I said.

Repeat, please if you want to discuss these issues, represent my view correctly before you respond.


Are you kidding?? I actually had the exact quote you stated right above my post.
You said that you don't buy into distinctions or differences from how the game was played before. Sort of sounds like you think watching a match from the 20's and not being able to note any differences or distinctions. Seems to me it would be quite easy to note how a strokes from this era would be different from then. Sure, there would be things in common as well, but pretty easy to note distinctions as well.

I just pointed out that in one place you don't believe in the term Modern tennis, but then later go on to use the term to discuss what coaches do or don't understand. I agree that maybe that is not such an important point, as you don't have to believe in anything to discuss the topic, but it did come across odd in this case.

AS to the part that you found unclear; I thought it was odd that you were so open to accept the new name for the buggy whip and fine with using the Rev Fh used interchangeably with the "Lasso", but wanted to take issue with such a simple and general term used to describe how most top pros play the game over the last decade or so, and that you would use the odd stroke that resembled modern tennis as evidence to your point. Talking about a straw position to take...

deluxe
09-09-2010, 05:44 AM
Are you kidding?? I actually had the exact quote you stated right above my post.
You said that you don't buy into distinctions or differences from how the game was played before. Sort of sounds like you think watching a match from the 20's and not being able to note any differences or distinctions. Seems to me it would be quite easy to note how a strokes from this era would be different from then. Sure, there would be things in common as well, but pretty easy to note distinctions as well.

You're just ignoring what he's clearly explained and ridiculing a position he's never had. He's never said that there are no differences between the game now and the game in the 20's. All he's said is that it has been in incremental change in the techniques of the game rather than one revolutionary switch that divides one era of tennis ("the modern") from another ("the pre-modern").

If you want to debate that, just tell us when the big revolutionary switch was that divides the modern from the pre-modern.

5263
09-09-2010, 06:55 AM
You're just ignoring what he's clearly explained and ridiculing a position he's never had. He's never said that there are no differences between the game now and the game in the 20's. All he's said is that it has been in incremental change in the techniques of the game rather than one revolutionary switch that divides one era of tennis ("the modern") from another ("the pre-modern").

If you want to debate that, just tell us when the big revolutionary switch was that divides the modern from the pre-modern.

No, I don't need to debate that, as I think you said it pretty well. Well stated on your part. The only thing is that if this is what he is saying, it has little bearing where Modern tennis is a reasonable term or not. There is no need for a clear divide. Almost everything we have today is modern, even though some have had a slow evolution and some have had more abrupt break thru moments. We have modern cars, bikes, tennis, etc... with no reason to argue this use of the term modern. The only reason I can see to debate the term modern tennis is to be difficult or push an agenda. Tennis has had quite a few defining moments IMO, like going to bigger rackets and then another was going to Poly string, just to name a couple. For the general term Modern tennis in this regard, IMO this would currently refer to the widespread use of poly.

As to the person who brought up the Oscar Wegner association with this term, well that is the easiest aspect to defend. There was pretty clear time when an tennis announcer began to refer to Oscar as the father of Modern tennis, as it was his take on what he had seen of the instruction. Now that has been incorporated into a brand in the name MTM or modern tennis methodology. Would you not call a certain car a Malibu, because it did not remind you of the city or do you just accept that is it's given name? I think it would be sort of pointless to argue that the car is not a Malibu if that is what Chevy produced it as.

deluxe
09-09-2010, 07:40 AM
No, I don't need to debate that, as I think you said it pretty well. Well stated on your part. The only thing is that if this is what he is saying, it has little bearing where Modern tennis is a reasonable term or not. There is no need for a clear divide. Almost everything we have today is modern, even though some have had a slow evolution and some have had more abrupt break thru moments. We have modern cars, bikes, tennis, etc... with no reason to argue this use of the term modern. The only reason I can see to debate the term modern tennis is to be difficult or push an agenda. Tennis has had quite a few defining moments IMO, like going to bigger rackets and then another was going to Poly string, just to name a couple. For the general term Modern tennis in this regard, IMO this would currently refer to the widespread use of poly.

So am I right in thinking that in your use of terminology, "modern tennis" is the way tennis is played today, and that "pre-modern tennis" is the way tennis was played in all previous years?

If RL teaches an extinct form of tennis, not "modern tennis", what techniques in use today does RL not teach?

As to the person who brought up the Oscar Wegner association with this term, well that is the easiest aspect to defend. There was pretty clear time when an tennis announcer began to refer to Oscar as the father of Modern tennis, as it was his take on what he had seen of the instruction. Now that has been incorporated into a brand in the name MTM or modern tennis methodology. Would you not call a certain car a Malibu, because it did not remind you of the city or do you just accept that is it's given name? I think it would be sort of pointless to argue that the car is not a Malibu if that is what Chevy produced it as.

Presumably when Brad Holbrook referred to one of the guests on his TV program as "the father of modern tennis" back in 1995, in todays terminology we would have to call him "the father of pre-modern tennis"? Presumably there's been technique improvements since 1995 which OW wasn't teaching at the time? Presumably the OW of 1995 was teaching an extinct form of tennis? Unless you're saying everying Fed, Rafa & all the rest are doing now was merely a result of what OW was teaching back in the Pete's heyday?

JohnYandell
09-09-2010, 07:40 AM
Thank you deluxe. I thought what I said was pretty clear...but maybe I was missing out on the "new wisdom"...wait, probably not.

Obviously I have used that term modern tennis myself. And I would agree that the rackets and the string (as well as the size and quality of the athletes) have facilitated the evolution of the game and shifted the balance of certain technical elements.

As for the father issue, that's quite a claim. My own opinion is that these changes are mostly the result of the players developing and experimenting with technique. As I've said, the coaches tend to follow the players. I've seen the claims on Oscar's website about how world teaching evolved from his work. It would be interesting to do a large scale poll of players and teachers worldwide to see if they agree.

As for the reverse forehand, never saw a clear technical presentation of the stroke under another name before Robert and I think he deserves mention for providing that and interjecting it into the lexicon. That doesn't make him the father of the reverse forehand though...

scotus
09-09-2010, 08:29 AM
A question about Lansdorp.

Does he have a reputation as a mean, cranky coach?

In the Tennis Channel's "Academy" show, he keeps saying that he is really a nice guy. I wonder why he needs to point that out over and over again.

5263
09-09-2010, 09:18 AM
So am I right in thinking that in your use of terminology, "modern tennis" is the way tennis is played today, and that "pre-modern tennis" is the way tennis was played in all previous years?

If RL teaches an extinct form of tennis, not "modern tennis", what techniques in use today does RL not teach?

Presumably when Brad Holbrook referred to one of the guests on his TV program as "the father of modern tennis" back in 1995, in todays terminology we would have to call him "the father of pre-modern tennis"? Presumably there's been technique improvements since 1995 which OW wasn't teaching at the time? Presumably the OW of 1995 was teaching an extinct form of tennis? Unless you're saying everying Fed, Rafa & all the rest are doing now was merely a result of what OW was teaching back in the Pete's heyday?

Yes, modern tennis would be today's tennis of course.

What does RL currently teach? I can't say that, but he has made a point of going on record that extreme topspin and grips like Rafa's would not take players to the highest levels of the game.

As to Oscar, he has the distinction being one of the few teaching as early as the 70's, the way most top players play today. I guess you could call him pre-modern, as he was teaching this way before it came as common as it is today, so he did precede modern tennis in a sense.

JohnYandell
09-09-2010, 09:34 AM
On Lansdorp, some would use those adjectives, others would say relentless and demanding.

Robert just speaks his mind, and from the heart. Some people hate that, others love it.

deluxe
09-09-2010, 09:36 AM
Yes, modern tennis would be today's tennis of course.

Ok, what about pro tennis 15 years ago, was that "modern tennis"? I'm just trying to pin down if you simply mean "the way pros play tennis today" or if you mean "the way pros have played tennis over the last X number of years"
What does RL currently teach? I can't say that,
Then it seems odd you're prepared to say he teaches an extinct form of tennis.
but he has made a point of going on record that extreme topspin and grips like Rafa's would not take players to the highest levels of the game.

Quote please? I certainly remember reading some of his stuff where he says he prefers more conservative grips, ie semi-western over western.

As to Oscar, he has the distinction being one of the few teaching as early as the 70's, the way most top players play today. I guess you could call him pre-modern, as he was teaching this way before it came as common as it is today, so he did precede modern tennis in a sense.

Are there any videos of Oscar from the 70's online? I'd like to see that. I'd like to see how Oscar was teaching people to play like Rafa with 14oz, 65 sq inch wooden tennis racquets.

5263
09-09-2010, 09:57 AM
As I've said, the coaches tend to follow the players.

Father of modern tennis is not a claim of Oscars that I have ever heard, so is this a strawman you are trying to create?

Yes, most coaches do tend to follow the players; especially those that use vid and pics to arrive at what is going on. Now Oscar in some ways did the same, as he noticed things about some of the most potent strokes in history from different players thru the years, then boiled it down to some general, but key points in a system he created in the early 70's. Then he wrapped this simple system in a efficient way to interact with the student to help them develop feel for the strokes vs knowing them technically.
On the other hand, modern players have still not completely caught up to this system, as few if any incorporate the full spectrum of the training in their play. There is still an aspect where players with the best Bhs get it on that stroke, but don't quite get it on their weaker Fh or more often they get it on the Fh and Bh, but come up short on volleys. So in that sense, Modern tennis is not yet fully up with Modern Tennis Methodology as a system, but moving that way rapidly. IMO if you study some of your vids of Davydenko, you will get your best current view of where tennis is headed.

5263
09-09-2010, 10:07 AM
Ok, what about pro tennis 15 years ago, was that "modern tennis"? I'm just trying to pin down if you simply mean "the way pros play tennis today" or if you mean "the way pros have played tennis over the last X number of years"

Then it seems odd you're prepared to say he teaches an extinct form of tennis.
Quote please? I certainly remember reading some of his stuff where he says he prefers more conservative grips, ie semi-western over western.

Are there any videos of Oscar from the 70's online? I'd like to see that. I'd like to see how Oscar was teaching people to play like Rafa with 14oz, 65 sq inch wooden tennis racquets.

Why would you expect to "pin someone down" on a general term like Modern tennis?

I'm also not going to get pinned down on what RL is currently teaching, as he seems to be backtracking on his previous positions on how young players are being ruined cause instructors allow them to use western grips. If you want to read and hear where he pokes fun at the "academy ball" and how aggressive grips are not the way to #1, then you will have to get off your wallet and make JY some money. Tennisplayer.net is a great site with tons of resources for you to pick thru. I guess that stuff is still on there.

As for 70s tennis- first you want to say that tennis strokes of today are not new, but now you want to suggest that these strokes won't work with older style wood rackets.????

WChiang
09-09-2010, 10:45 AM
*note to 5263*.....quit digging your hole. It's only getting bigger, lol. The others are right. I've spoken with Landsdorp and seen his coaching firsthand. You are completely mischaracterizing his teaching viewpoint, opinions, and method. Also, strawmen galore in your posts.

mtommer
09-09-2010, 10:48 AM
What I actually said was that I reject the term "modern tennis, which is somehow completely distinct and different from (?) pre-modern."
.....
Their is a continuity and an evolution in the game. But not a radical break in which somehow the new wisdom enters the world.


I think the radical break in "modern tennis" is the introduction of poly string that resulted in a far more physically demanding game overall.

5263
09-09-2010, 11:10 AM
*note to 5263*.....quit digging your hole. It's only getting bigger, lol. The others are right. I've spoken with Landsdorp and seen his coaching firsthand. You are completely mischaracterizing his teaching viewpoint, opinions, and method. Also, strawmen galore in your posts.

Oh, so you know RL!
Spoken with him too? Impressive.

If I'm digging a hole, you just fell in it.
So if you really know anything about him you would know he has been quite outspoken in the past about how heavy TS and western grips are not the way to the top of the game, along with how his training focus is hitting out thru the target with conservative grips. Since you don't seem to know this, I guess you don't know him as well as you think.

Now the best player in the world comes up hitting big spin with a western grip, which contradicts RL's predictions and claims below. JY has these predictions and comments on his site, so I don't expect he will deny this, but continue to make general supportive comments for RL.
If you don't have an interest in this, fine, but it is relevant to his insight into the future of the game and his claimed focus on his instruction.

found this from RL on Western Grips, as an ad for TP

The Grip

The foundation of the forehand is the grip. One of the biggest problems in American junior tennis is the poor foundation so many young players have because of their extreme grips.

Under the handle, extreme western grips are incredibly common in high level junior tennis. Kids have great success early in their careers because they can hit topspin and get a lot of balls in play. If the ball is high and not too fast, these kids actually look pretty good.

The limitations don't show up until later, in the older age divisions or when a good young player first tests himself in professional tennis. Now these same kids suddenly don't look so great. They have severe problems handling the pace in the pro game, especially when the ball is low and skidding.


Pete Sampras hits through the ball with a classic forehand grip and perfect followthrough.

But nobody talks about these problems. Kids hold the rackets with the extreme grip and think it's alright. Nobody stands up and says that teaching extreme western grips are actually ruining these kids.

Nobody explains to the parents that if you take your 8-year old to a coach who let's the kid hit with an extreme grip, you're already up the creek - you just won't know it for another 8 years. This is what I call the disaster of teaching methods in American junior tennis.

chico9166
09-09-2010, 11:13 AM
The simple answer in my mind, is evolution-- like in any other sport. The kids are just bigger, stronger and faster, with the result being, the game is played at an unbelievable speed.. All we're seeing in terms of more "modern" strokes, is adapting to the incredible athleticism and speed of shot one sees on tour.

Windshield wiper stokes, reverse finishes, swinging volleys, shot patterns, etc.etc. are just the way players have learned to adapt to what they're confronted with. It's not like they are necessarily being taught this. They just figure it out.

5263
09-09-2010, 11:24 AM
I think the radical break in "modern tennis" is the introduction of poly string that resulted in a far more physically demanding game overall.

I think this is a very strong point you make and said as much in another post as well.

5263
09-09-2010, 11:46 AM
The simple answer in my mind, is evolution-- like in any other sport. The kids are just bigger, stronger and faster, with the result being, the game is played at an unbelievable speed.. All we're seeing in terms of more "modern" strokes, is adapting to the incredible athleticism and speed of shot one sees on tour.

Windshield wiper stokes, reverse finishes, swinging volleys, shot patterns, etc.etc. are just the way players have learned to adapt to what they're confronted with. It's not like they are necessarily being taught this. They just figure it out.

Much of what you say here is correct in the US, as there are few instructors well versed in the way the modern game is played, so as JY says, most instructors are lagging the better players.

scotus
09-09-2010, 11:51 AM
On Lansdorp, some would use those adjectives, others would say relentless and demanding.

Robert just speaks his mind, and from the heart. Some people hate that, others love it.

Thanks for the response, John.

deluxe
09-09-2010, 12:09 PM
Why would you expect to "pin someone down" on a general term like Modern tennis?

Because you're so slippery. You always refuse to define what you're talking about. I should have known better than to expect you to answer simple questions about your terminology.

I'm also not going to get pinned down on what RL is currently teaching,
How could you be? You've already told us you have no idea what he is currently teaching. Except you apparently know enough to tell us he's teaching a style of tennis that is extinct.

as he seems to be backtracking on his previous positions on how young players are being ruined cause instructors allow them to use western grips.
Where has he backtracked? Give me a quote for his original position and a quote for his new position. Or a reference. Or a link to a video. Anything!
If you want to read and hear where he pokes fun at the "academy ball" and how aggressive grips are not the way to #1, then you will have to get off your wallet and make JY some money. Tennisplayer.net is a great site with tons of resources for you to pick thru. I guess that stuff is still on there.
I've read the article. Seemed good. I don't recall him saying Nadal would never be #1. Are you saying there's no qualitative difference between the kind of shot hit by Fed or Rafa and the kind of shot hit by the average kid at an academy?

As for 70s tennis- first you want to say that tennis strokes of today are not new, but now you want to suggest that these strokes won't work with older style wood rackets.????

Where did I say "tennis strokes of today are not new"? You really do misrepresent people. You've misrepresented me, you've misrepresented what JY said in this thread. I'd like to think you weren't misrepresenting what RL wrote elsewhere, but your refusal to give references or quotes, or even to answer simple questions makes it difficult to give you the benefit of the doubt :-(

Do you know of any online instructional clips by Oscar from the 70s that you can point me at? It's a simple question, just answer it simply. I'm genuinely intrigued to see how Oscar was teaching modern tennis in the 70's with small headed, heavy, wooden racquets.

sureshs
09-09-2010, 12:29 PM
Watched Lansdorp on Tennis Channel with Davenport a night or two ago. She asked him to teach her the reverse forehand. He explained what it was and how Nadal uses it. He said he has been teaching it for 20 years. Then Lindsay says how come you never taught it to me and only taught the swing across the body. He does not answer the question. Then Lindsay is fed some balls and hits reverse FHs per his instruction.

scotus
09-09-2010, 12:35 PM
Watched Lansdorp on Tennis Channel with Davenport a night or two ago. She asked him to teach her the reverse forehand. He explained what it was and how Nadal uses it. He said he has been teaching it for 20 years. Then Lindsay says how come you never taught it to me and only taught the swing across the body. He does not answer the question. Then Lindsay is fed some balls and hits reverse FHs per his instruction.

I think I have seen Lindsay hit it. It is just that she is not aware she does it.

Sampras' running forehand is almost always reverse. Sharapova hits it all the time. So I believe Lansdorp's claim that he has been teaching it that long.

sureshs
09-09-2010, 12:38 PM
I think I have seen Lindsay hit it. It is just that she is not aware she does it.

Sampras' running forehand is almost always reverse. Sharapova hits it all the time. So I believe Lansdorp's claim that he has been teaching it that long.

Yes it surprised me too, because I thought she hit it. Maybe she picked it up from watching others? If you watch the segment, she actually tries the reverse FH swing slowly several times before being fed a ball. Unless she is an expert actress, it really seemed that she had never done the motion before and was trying to get into it. And of course that is what she also said - that he had never taught her. Why would someone make up such a thing?

chico9166
09-09-2010, 12:40 PM
Much of what you say here is correct in the US, as there are few instructors well versed in the way the modern game is played, so as JY says, most instructors are lagging the better players.

Sounds like you have all the answers. Good for you. And since you feel obliged to disparage Lansdorp, could you please share with us your history of developing players, in comparison? Don't necessarily agree with everything he says, but I do believe he deserves respect in regard to the work he's done. Don't you? It's easy to Monday morning quarterback, but the fact remains, he has built alot of great games, by himself, without help, on a single court. Look, the guy is gruff, and opinionated, but he(from what I've read) isn't interested in promoting himself, and is quick to give credit to the kids who can handle his demands. These are great qualities, in an industry that is inundated with shameless self promoters. Guys who talk, but haven't produced, something he most certainly has.

As far as American tennis goes, I can assure you that the reason American tennis is in a down cycle is not because people are not embracing your hero, Oscar. But because we get about 1/100th of the potential talent pool involved in tennis. It's something, as an industry, we have to improve upon.


It doesn't sound like you have developed a substantial number of high level players, as I have. If you did, you would know that the ability to play at a high college level or pro's has alot more to do with the player's talent, mind, and athletic ability than a coach's ability. To believe otherwise, is either arrogant, or shows a general lack of practical experience.


BTW, I don't pretend to know Robert, or feel comfortable judging his instruction. But from what I have read, his fundamental approach is pretty solid. Which is, teach a player to move through the ball well, with good extension, then teach them wiper action, reverse finishes, and let them "run with it".

5263
09-09-2010, 01:00 PM
You always refuse to define what you're talking about.

.

And you have misrepresented me, so I'm just not going to worry about it. I'm not here to provide you with links or definitions since you don't have a true interest in the topic. I won't try to represent what your interest may be.
But, I will always provide info for those who have a sincere interest.
take care.

5263
09-09-2010, 01:33 PM
BTW, I don't pretend to know Robert, or feel comfortable judging his instruction. But from what I have read, his fundamental approach is pretty solid. Which is, teach a player to move through the ball well, with good extension, then teach them wiper action, reverse finishes, and let them "run with it".

This is the part of your post I would agree with on RLs instruction from what I've heard him say, and simply disagree with your opinion that it is fundamentally solid. It is fine for us to disagree, right?
This is not disparaging RL, but just stating the differences and his comments about grips and spins.

Quote from RL ad on TP.net-
"Nobody explains to the parents that if you take your 8-year old to a coach who let's the kid hit with an extreme grip, you're already up the creek - you just won't know it for another 8 years. This is what I call the disaster of teaching methods in American junior tennis."

No need to have a hero or anything, as we are out of High School, at least I am. And why jump to assumptions about who I've coached? You are way off base, but I'm not going to get drug down the path of bragging on my students. Of course you are free to assume as you wish.

deluxe
09-09-2010, 01:40 PM
This is not disparaging RL...

Saying that RL teaches strokes that have gone extinct is disparaging RL.

5263
09-09-2010, 01:42 PM
Saying that RL teaches strokes that have gone extinct is disparaging RL.

since you accuse me of mis representing:
A mis statement above, get it right.

deluxe
09-09-2010, 02:53 PM
Funny how he makes fun of the "academy ball", when it is the stroke he teaches that has gone extinct.

Sorry, did I use the plural of stroke?

sureshs
09-09-2010, 03:02 PM
These are from an article which shows up on google but is from tennisplayer.net. Hope it is OK to post these excerpts from it.

Lansdorp seems to be very humble about how he came to teach the RF shot.

Also, how he came to appreciate the lower finish across the body.

He may have lagged pro players in these two issues, but he admits it.

Bolds mine.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hitting the reverse forehand adds options. With the reverse, a pro player can save himself a minimum of 10 points in an average match. That's a huge difference.

I didn't somehow invent this shot. I learned about it from watching top players. Working with Pete Sampras was when I really started to notice and understand it for the first time.

I still have a tape of Pete taken in the late 1980s hitting a reverse forehand. I hit him a hard, deep ball and he reverses the finish. And the next one he does the same thing. I'm yelling at him, "Well, what are you doing? Why don't you move your feet?"

And Pete responds, "Robert, the ball skidded on the line." So he was responding to a fast ball that was skidding and he was reversing his finish. But at that time I didn't understand it. Pete didn't understand it either. But for Pete, it was just a natural reaction to the ball.

Later on, I didn't complain about Pete reversing it because I was starting to understand what was going on. When you saw Pete play when he was the best player in the world, he hit tons of reverse forehands. People would always say, "I can't believe it! Look how the ball curved back into the court on his running forehand."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Finishing across the body isn't something that is totally new, but today it is almost the norm on the pro tour.

I first noticed it myself around 10 years ago watching pro tennis. I always loved to watch the South Americans and the European clay courters play when I would go the US Open. I love watching guys who just fight. And these guys had that mentality. They would just fight, fight, fight.

But when they would get shorter balls you would see them rip the shot with this different finish. They would follow through down, across the body, sometimes way down towards the hip. And they'd just rip winners. And I thought to myself, "What are these guys doing?" To me that was fascinating.

I certainly didn't change my teaching at that time. But as time went on--and I saw more and more players doing it--I started to study this finish, and I experimented with it myself.
------------------------------------------------------

chico9166
09-09-2010, 05:02 PM
This is the part of your post I would agree with on RLs instruction from what I've heard him say, and simply disagree with your opinion that it is fundamentally solid. It is fine for us to disagree, right?
This is not disparaging RL, but just stating the differences and his comments about grips and spins. No need to have a hero or anything, as we are out of High School, at least I am. And why jump to assumptions about who I've coached? You are way off base, but I'm not going to get drug down the path of bragging on my students. Of course you are free to assume as you wish.


Yep, no need for further discussion.

JohnYandell
09-09-2010, 05:04 PM
Suresh, no problem as it helps illuminate the basic point regarding the flexibility and evolution in his teaching. And Chico think you are right as well.

The extension is more critical in the early stages and that is supplemented with the variations. I once heard Robert joking about not telling players when to use which variation...that was a decision that good players had to learn to make for themselves...

JohnYandell
09-09-2010, 08:17 PM
On Davydenko, 5263 is saying that his technical style is the wave of the future.

Interesting, because you have a guy with a very moderate grip, who hits about half of his forehands neutral stance in the center of the court, who still finishes over the shoulder on many forehands, but who has incorporated the wiper and the reverse finishes, and who stands up on or as close to the baseline as possible and hits on the rise and tries to hit through the ball relatively flat.

chico9166
09-10-2010, 12:46 AM
On Davydenko, 5263 is saying that his technical style is the wave of the future.

Interesting, because you have a guy with a very moderate grip, who hits about half of his forehands neutral stance in the center of the court, who still finishes over the shoulder on many forehands, but who has incorporated the wiper and the reverse finishes, and who stands up on or as close to the baseline as possible and hits on the rise and tries to hit through the ball relatively flat.

Pretty ironic huh? Accuse Lansdorp of being too "old school", and behind the times, and then choose Davydenko as a model for the future. Most would agree, for the reasons you mentioned, that he possesses more "classic" elements to his game, then most anyone on tour.

His game would certainly be considered the antithesis of Wegner's approach, which is simply, use any grip you want (but preferably very strong), yank up and acrossed every ball, and always, hit from an open stance.

The again, maybe 5263 didn't get the memo from headquarters, identifying the company's pro model.

At any rate, perhaps we should just let him debate himself.

tennis_balla
09-10-2010, 01:02 AM
This is for JohnYandell...

Is there any way to get Winning Edge on DVD?

5263
09-10-2010, 04:43 AM
On Davydenko, 5263 is saying that his technical style is the wave of the future.

Interesting, because you have a guy with a very moderate grip, who hits about half of his forehands neutral stance in the center of the court, who still finishes over the shoulder on many forehands, but who has incorporated the wiper and the reverse finishes, and who stands up on or as close to the baseline as possible and hits on the rise and tries to hit through the ball relatively flat.

JY, thanks for this very balanced and reasonable comment, as it address many of the misconceptions of Modern Tennis teaching in MTM. Really shows how those like chic91 who feel their instruction contains modern elements, but don't really understand how it works in unison, along with nearly no understanding of Oscar's instruction.(based his description of it in his previous post)

Davydenko is such a good model and shows all the fundamentals that are taught in MTM, with a very clear "up and across" swing. While I can't agree that he hits nearly half of his Fhs from neutral, the important thing he shows how MTM is not stance dependent. MTM starts working with an open stance believing it is better and easier for beginners, but the key is balance. Conventional neutral stance is used to step into the ball with momentum, but when Davydenko steps forward it is more for contact point adjustment, but with remaining on balance. Here is a nice vid showing many of the important aspects of how he still hits it like it is open by lifting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7XsK1qu6Dw&feature=related

this is his more normal or avg Fh-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW7SVLDZeX8

Extreme grips are not encouraged or discouraged in MTM, as the student finds something that feels natural with their swing. The over the shoulder finish is the standard finish in MTM, and taught at the beginning, but others will evolve from that, like the Lasso which comes from an over the standard over the shoulder finish, but with greater acceleration. (often confused with the Rev Fh)

As to hitting flat, he does it by just pulling more across in this "up and across" movement at contact and is a great example of how powerful the modern Fh can be to finish while maintaining the basic form, balance, and spin, while not needing to step out into driving linear momentum down range. (opposed to conventional extension out to the target to flatten out shots)
Good post to show how little is understood about what is really happening in modern tennis when you come at it from a conventional approach IMO.

sureshs
09-10-2010, 09:45 AM
If both mild and extreme grips are OK in MTM, and both kinds of cross finishes are OK in MTM, then what exactly is MTM? Is it simply an end-justifies-the-means approach where students who turn out good are "defined" to be MTM-compliant?

5263
09-10-2010, 09:52 AM
If both mild and extreme grips are OK in MTM, and both kinds of cross finishes are OK in MTM, then what exactly is MTM? Is it simply an end-justifies-the-means approach where students who turn out good are "defined" to be MTM-compliant?

So why does everything have to be a dig or insult? Do you really want to know or was that a platform to set up your insult?
Do you really want to know where MTM is different?
Leave out the extra jabber and I'll be glad to answer questions.

Oh, you left out, MTM is not stance dependent either, lol.

JohnYandell
09-10-2010, 09:53 AM
TB,


Winning Edge on DVD? It's in the pipeline...meaning it's something I've been trying to get around to for about 4 years...2 of the music video segments are on Tennisplayer if that is any help.

bhupaes
09-10-2010, 03:15 PM
this is his more normal or avg Fh-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW7SVLDZeX8


Hi 5263, am I correct in saying that Davydenko is approaching the ball with his racquet swinging circularly, but predominantly in the same plane, until it's really close to the ball? Either at, or very close to contact point, he abruptly pulls across and up. It seems to me he's building racquet head speed by swinging in one plane, and then abruptly redirecting it at contact. Let me know if I am off base... thanks!

papa
09-10-2010, 03:55 PM
.............
Do you really want to know where MTM is different?................


Well, I'll bite, what is the difference? I'm a certified teaching pro who has played (still play) and taught (still teach) for quite a while.

sureshs
09-10-2010, 04:18 PM
Well, I'll bite, what is the difference? I'm a certified teaching pro who has played (still play) and taught (still teach) for quite a while.

He will say:

Not too early takeback
Use of open stance
Ball not hit on center of racquet (due to big modern sweetspot)
Natural footwork, not rigid patterns
Find the ball by tracking

Maybe there were new concepts once at the beginner coaching level, but everyone does them now and frankly they are useful only at the beginner level, if at all. Every player who crossed a certain level, in any era, knew this, and the reason they may not have chosen to fully do so was due to limitations of racquets and strings. You did not see Laver run around with his racquet sticking behind him, and yes, he had to hit in the center because he used small wooden racquets. Everyone tracks the ball - all the juniors I see have been doing this for years. Natural footwork really is a myth - it needs to be taught. Watched Lindsay demonstrate the crossover step followed by shuffle step for an overhead last night on Tennis Channel to her co-host (a recreational player). Nothing natural about it - just a myth that people learn footwork naturally.

tennis_balla
09-10-2010, 04:37 PM
TB,


Winning Edge on DVD? It's in the pipeline...meaning it's something I've been trying to get around to for about 4 years...2 of the music video segments are on Tennisplayer if that is any help.

I borrowed a VHS copy back a few years ago...hmm late 90's I think it was from a library. Have always wanted to watch it again. It would be great to have a DVD version out, I'd definitely buy it.
I'll check out Tennisplayer, thanks :)

5263
09-10-2010, 06:09 PM
Well, I'll bite, what is the difference? I'm a certified teaching pro who has played (still play) and taught (still teach) for quite a while.

I can relate, as I've been teaching over 20 yrs and was USPTA certified as well. Most of that time I was teaching conventional and working with other conventional coaches, so I'm very familiar with both sides of this.
There are certain fundamentals used in conventional that may be denied, but are common.

Neither approaches are stance dependent, but first leaned is very important to development.
1.MTM starts with open instead of Neutral or closed. (very important for balance and court coverage as the game speeds up)

2.MTM teaches to find the ball from below with timing for topspin, then at contact to accel up and across the ball to an over the shoulder finish.
Conventional teaches to accel the swing into the ball and finish out thru the ball towards the target. (this maybe too subtle for some, but it is the biggest thing IMO. )

3.MTM prepares early by moving to stalking positon, then a focus on waiting and timing, but
conventional talks of getting racket back earlier when the game gets fast.

4. MTM teaches the slice much the same, but find the ball from above, than at contact to pull down and across.

5. MTM teaches to point the butt cap at the ball at the start and finish of the stroke, pulling the racket towards the contact, then presenting the strings with the change of direction of pulling up and across.
You can see RL in his vid, how his racket stays much inline with his forearm, which is why he talks of driving the racket, pushing instead of pulling the racket.

These are not everything, but just several of the basic differences. The beauty is the lack of compensations that are required by the conventional. Half your time when coaching conventional is teaching how to hit harder, but without hitting in the net or long. This does not happen with MTM as players can hit harder and harder as their feel gets better without problems with the net or long. Even very avg talents blow right thru 3.5 and 4.0. Hitting harder is just about getting more comfortable with the stroke and feel. The technique encourages more control as the swing gets more powerful. Sort of inverse from conventional instruction.

When a MTM player steps forward/neutral, it is for contact point and usually not to gain momentum (cause none is needed/power is abundant already). IF they continue on in with the shot it will be balanced and just to transition on in, not for momentum.

IMO, if you are teaching these MTM things you are not teaching conventional and should not be insulted. If you do believe in conventional and teach it fine, do what you believe in, but why get defensive if you really believe. If you are teaching some of both, fine, but realize you have a foot in both boats and have choosen what you believe in.

5263
09-10-2010, 06:15 PM
Hi 5263, am I correct in saying that Davydenko is approaching the ball with his racquet swinging circularly, but predominantly in the same plane, until it's really close to the ball? Either at, or very close to contact point, he abruptly pulls across and up. It seems to me he's building racquet head speed by swinging in one plane, and then abruptly redirecting it at contact. Let me know if I am off base... thanks!

I think you stated it pretty well, although I'm not sure I would use the word abruptly, as it is too much like what some term as yanking or jerking (even though I don't think that is what you meant)
It should be a very smooth accel up and across, when possible right at contact.
We also don't really think of building racket head speed to the ball, but just using that part as a timing mechanism to find the ball cleanly just prior to the accel phase.
It probably tends to happen as you term it to some extent, but that is part of the prob with conventional instruction of building racket head speed into the ball.
A big part of what helps with MTM is how you think of things.
So NO, not off base at all.

papa
09-11-2010, 04:32 AM
I can relate, as I've been teaching over 20 yrs and was USPTA certified as well. Most of that time I was teaching conventional and working with other conventional coaches, so I'm very familiar with both sides of this.
There are certain fundamentals used in conventional that may be denied, but are common.

Neither approaches are stance dependent, but first leaned is very important to development.
1.MTM starts with open instead of Neutral or closed. (very important for balance and court coverage as the game speeds up)

2.MTM teaches to find the ball from below with timing for topspin, then at contact to accel up and across the ball to an over the shoulder finish.
Conventional teaches to accel the swing into the ball and finish out thru the ball towards the target. (this maybe too subtle for some, but it is the biggest thing IMO. )

3.MTM prepares early by moving to stalking positon, then a focus on waiting and timing, but
conventional talks of getting racket back earlier when the game gets fast.

4. MTM teaches the slice much the same, but find the ball from above, than at contact to pull down and across.

5. MTM teaches to point the butt cap at the ball at the start and finish of the stroke, pulling the racket towards the contact, then presenting the strings with the change of direction of pulling up and across.
You can see RL in his vid, how his racket stays much inline with his forearm, which is why he talks of driving the racket, pushing instead of pulling the racket.

These are not everything, but just several of the basic differences. The beauty is the lack of compensations that are required by the conventional. Half your time when coaching conventional is teaching how to hit harder, but without hitting in the net or long. This does not happen with MTM as players can hit harder and harder as their feel gets better without problems with the net or long. Even very avg talents blow right thru 3.5 and 4.0. Hitting harder is just about getting more comfortable with the stroke and feel. The technique encourages more control as the swing gets more powerful. Sort of inverse from conventional instruction.

When a MTM player steps forward/neutral, it is for contact point and usually not to gain momentum (cause none is needed/power is abundant already). IF they continue on in with the shot it will be balanced and just to transition on in, not for momentum.

IMO, if you are teaching these MTM things you are not teaching conventional and should not be insulted. If you do believe in conventional and teach it fine, do what you believe in, but why get defensive if you really believe. If you are teaching some of both, fine, but realize you have a foot in both boats and have choosen what you believe in.

I appreciate the your prompt response and taking the time to outline some of the "differences" that you see. From what I can see, MTM is probably more into "specific" methods than the USPTA which, as you know, doesn't endorse/require a "one-way" approach to the game - I think you would agree to this.

As you might remember, I did a review of Oscar's book several years ago and my conclusion was that I couldn't find anything that was wrong and that it "did" contain "many" beneficial tips for players. Many of these things we have been using for years, some are outdated but Oscar surely has to be credited with assembling in book format, a series of methods that seem to work for the newer or average player.

Are these methods new or revolutionary? Many of us can point to earlier works of many others, including Vic, John Yandell and Dave Smith just to name a few, that utilized many of these concepts. But at this point, nobody seems to care much about who should be credited with creating/starting some of these things and I happen to think this whole process has just evolved due to several factors like racquet and string technology, size and conditioning of the players, etc.

Several of the things you mentioned, like open stance, topspin, buttcap pointing to the ball, "stalking" (Oscar's word) the ball, and so forth, we have been teaching for years. Have all teaching pros been on the same sheet of music - no, and they never will be. Some might see this as a negative but I choose to see as a positive - I am not a fan of a "one way/correct way" to do things.

I have encountered some (actually quite a few) who for one reason or another, have had a problem with the USPTA and now seem to be on a crusade against the organization. I'm not putting you in that category but there are many who feel they were stung or that the organization was just not sensitive to their particular circumstances.

Ash_Smith
09-11-2010, 05:03 AM
I can relate, as I've been teaching over 20 yrs and was USPTA certified as well. Most of that time I was teaching conventional and working with other conventional coaches, so I'm very familiar with both sides of this.
There are certain fundamentals used in conventional that may be denied, but are common.

IMO, if you are teaching these MTM things you are not teaching conventional and should not be insulted. If you do believe in conventional and teach it fine, do what you believe in, but why get defensive if you really believe. If you are teaching some of both, fine, but realize you have a foot in both boats and have choosen what you believe in.

Okay, my turn to bite! (i've tried not to so far but there comes a point...)

1. Please define "conventional" in this context for me (this is a genuine question) - what does "conventional" consist of.

2. These "MTM things" are not MTM things, they were not "invented" by Oscar or MTM, they are what pro players have been doing for years. If MTM stopped all the horse**** claims like that and simply said this is our approach, we believe in it then it might get more respect from the sceptical coaches. To denounce everyone who doesn't do "MTM Things" paints your organisation in a bad light.

Probably enough now before this thread gets deleted for going off topic.

Ash

bhupaes
09-11-2010, 06:05 AM
I think you stated it pretty well, although I'm not sure I would use the word abruptly, as it is too much like what some term as yanking or jerking (even though I don't think that is what you meant)
It should be a very smooth accel up and across, when possible right at contact.
We also don't really think of building racket head speed to the ball, but just using that part as a timing mechanism to find the ball cleanly just prior to the accel phase.
It probably tends to happen as you term it to some extent, but that is part of the prob with conventional instruction of building racket head speed into the ball.
A big part of what helps with MTM is how you think of things.
So NO, not off base at all.

I should have used the word "deliberately" instead of "abruptly". I also see your point about timing - thanks for the clarification, 5263.

bhupaes
09-11-2010, 06:17 AM
2. These "MTM things" are not MTM things, they were not "invented" by Oscar or MTM, they are what pro players have been doing for years. If MTM stopped all the horse**** claims like that and simply said this is our approach, we believe in it then it might get more respect from the sceptical coaches. To denounce everyone who doesn't do "MTM Things" paints your organisation in a bad light.

Probably enough now before this thread gets deleted for going off topic.

Ash

Ash, I don't mean to answer for 5263 who I expect will respond to your questions in detail, but I have to say that the point I have quoted above is a misrepresentation that has been made on this board for the umpteenth time, and no amount of reiteration seems to drive the point across that Oscar and MTM advocates never ever claimed to have invented any technique. They only recognized what top players were doing and collected these techniques together in the same bag of tricks, as it were. In other words, they created an effective teaching method, not new tennis techniques, IMHO.

5263
09-11-2010, 10:21 AM
Okay, my turn to bite! (i've tried not to so far but there comes a point...)

1. Please define "conventional" in this context for me (this is a genuine question) - what does "conventional" consist of.

2. These "MTM things" are not MTM things, they were not "invented" by Oscar or MTM, they are what pro players have been doing for years. If MTM stopped all the horse**** claims like that and simply said this is our approach, we believe in it then it might get more respect from the sceptical coaches. To denounce everyone who doesn't do "MTM Things" paints your organisation in a bad light.

Probably enough now before this thread gets deleted for going off topic.

Ash

Ash, I can appreciate you position in the general sense. Your experience is pretty broad overall, so this could affect how you see things. You don't want to buy into MTM, but some of us out there suggest you should. You don't appreciate that since you are sure you have more knowledge. That's just how it goes. You favor the Spanish system, but that's odd to me, as I'm convinced that it is based and grew out of the MTM work done there in past years when Oscar was a National coach. I understand you feel different. That's fine and I don't call the Spanish approach horse****.

Conventional is the predominate way things have been coached in the US.
I have the certification, books and manuals to back up this idea of it, along with experience at Macci's, Everett's, Nicks and study of RL in past years when I followed their conventional teaching with all it's shortcomings and compensations. Pete even had to admit even though it was clear he was touting RL overall, that he had to adjust to using more TS in the pros.

I could choose to be like most tennis coaches seem to be and try to grab credit for myself, as I had developed so much of the MTM stuff independently. I went another route and realized that what MTM taught, it had right, and what it didn't gave me room to personalize and be creative.
At it's core is really just a simple concept with several helpful drills to support the excellent concept.

As to contrasting with other teaching; That is simply how people learn best, thru compare and contrast. You must illustrate to students what they don't want to do as well. Also, I don't think you can show MTM instruction wrong, although I welcome the attempt, as we all learn from this. I feel it is quite easy to show conventional wrong in many ways, but they don't welcome this.
Lastly, we use the term conventional so that if you don't feel you are conventional, realize it's not aimed at you, so no need to get defensive on any count.

5263
09-11-2010, 10:30 AM
Ash, I don't mean to answer for 5263 who I expect will respond to your questions in detail, but I have to say that the point I have quoted above is a misrepresentation that has been made on this board for the umpteenth time, and no amount of reiteration seems to drive the point across that Oscar and MTM advocates never ever claimed to have invented any technique. They only recognized what top players were doing and collected these techniques together in the same bag of tricks, as it were. In other words, they created an effective teaching method, not new tennis techniques, IMHO.

Pretty well said IMO.
It's actually a pretty minimal system at it's core.

Find the ball from above or below, the accelerate Up or down and across the ball to a good finish, while staying on balance.
The rest is mostly info to support how to do this effeciently.
IF he just said this, the book would be too short, lol.

5263
09-11-2010, 11:38 AM
I appreciate the your prompt response and taking the time to outline some of the "differences" that you see. From what I can see, MTM is probably more into "specific" methods than the USPTA which, as you know, doesn't endorse/require a "one-way" approach to the game - I think you would agree to this.

As you might remember, I did a review of Oscar's book several years ago and my conclusion was that I couldn't find anything that was wrong and that it "did" contain "many" beneficial tips for players. Many of these things we have been using for years, some are outdated but Oscar surely has to be credited with assembling in book format, a series of methods that seem to work for the newer or average player.

Are these methods new or revolutionary? Many of us can point to earlier works of many others, including Vic, John Yandell and Dave Smith just to name a few, that utilized many of these concepts. But at this point, nobody seems to care much about who should be credited with creating/starting some of these things and I happen to think this whole process has just evolved due to several factors like racquet and string technology, size and conditioning of the players, etc.

Several of the things you mentioned, like open stance, topspin, buttcap pointing to the ball, "stalking" (Oscar's word) the ball, and so forth, we have been teaching for years. Have all teaching pros been on the same sheet of music - no, and they never will be. Some might see this as a negative but I choose to see as a positive - I am not a fan of a "one way/correct way" to do things.

I have encountered some (actually quite a few) who for one reason or another, have had a problem with the USPTA and now seem to be on a crusade against the organization. I'm not putting you in that category but there are many who feel they were stung or that the organization was just not sensitive to their particular circumstances.

Thanks for not putting me in that group. I have no problem with the USPTA and think there is a lot to like. I'm even pretty cool with their "open source" approach to instruction, but when they are showing something in their books or vids that needs to challenged, I don't have a problem with taking that on either, as I'm sure you do too. Difference between us on that is I sometimes show how MTM does better in that case. (not always though)

I appreciate your comments and tone, as this is the kind of discussion we should have on these issues.

New or Revolutionary?? Geeez, who knows. I don't think those are things you hear from me and I don't see where it matters much. Maybe you can find an old post somewhere if you search, but I don't think so. That sounds like things you see in ads. Folks have to make a living and promote their books and work.
I will say I'm pretty sure none of those you mentioned pre-dates Oscar, as he was working to get the USTA to adopt his teaching back in 72, shortly after his time on the tour. Was JY even born yet?
But as you say, it doesn't matter much to us. What I like is MTM's excellent core system that if free of false data, but yet has room for guys like you to express your style on the game.

deluxe
09-11-2010, 11:41 AM
You favor the Spanish system, but that's odd to me, as I'm convinced that it is based and grew out of the MTM work done there in past years when Oscar was a National coach. I understand you feel different. That's fine and I don't call the Spanish approach horse****.

That's one of the odder claims. One of the biggest distinguishing points of the spanish approach is their focus on racquet head speed. Oscar was a coach there in the '70s. They were playing with 65 sq inch, 14 oz wooden racquets.

5263
09-11-2010, 11:48 AM
That's one of the odder claims. One of the biggest distinguishing points of the spanish approach is their focus on racquet head speed. Oscar was a coach there in the '70s. They were playing with 65 sq inch, 14 oz wooden racquets.

As folks have stated time and time again, Oscar saw these strokes in the great Fhs and Bhs of his days playing in the 60s. Yes, poly and oversized rackets have affected the game, but not to the extent you seem to think. I use wood rackets in my practices even today using these techniques and my son is threatening to play a tourney with one cause feels so confident with how they work with wood.
Point is that is not an issue.

I'm sure the spanish coaches are trying to put their stamp on the training. I said it grew out of it; not froze there. Oscar has concerns they have strayed too far in some areas and notes the effects.

deluxe
09-11-2010, 12:08 PM
As folks have stated time and time again, Oscar saw these strokes in the great Fhs and Bhs of his days playing in the 60s. Yes, poly and oversized rackets have affected the game, but not to the extent you seem to think. I use wood rackets in my practices even today using these techniques and my son is threatening to play a tourney with one cause feels so confident with how they work with wood.
Point is that is not an issue.

I do think things have changed a lot since the '60s. Here's the 1966 wimbledon, and I'm especially looking at forehands:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hO-3LEFOMhs

I'm sure the spanish coaches are trying to put their stamp on the training. I said it grew out of it; not froze there. Oscar has concerns they have strayed too far in some areas and notes the effects.

;-)

5263
09-11-2010, 03:53 PM
I do think things have changed a lot since the '60s. Here's the 1966 wimbledon, and I'm especially looking at forehands:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hO-3LEFOMhs



;-)

I think we can all agree the changes have been amazing, but it is very important to some to note that all of the MTM strokes have been hit by some at various times thru the history of the game.
And did you see the Fh at 2:18 in your clip!
I'm not sure why they feel this pt is so important as Oscar explains how he saw players (Santana and Jose Higueras Fhs i believe) and studied their strokes for the key elements.
Credit is important to some, but I'm interested in providing help on here and to my students. I'm also extremely interested in seeing American Tennis improve and I'm very confident that MTM core would clean up many of our current problems.

JohnYandell
09-11-2010, 04:31 PM
What's your feeling about the quality of the strokes in that MIT video?

5263
09-12-2010, 05:36 AM
What's your feeling about the quality of the strokes in that MIT video?

Sure I'll look at it again. Got the link handy?
Didn't come up on search and can't rem where i saw it before.

I know you stated before that you thought they hit beautifully, but their takeback could be better, so I'd like to look at it again. I'm thinking (not an Oscar quote) that open stance doesn't req as much tkback due to loading of the trunk during rotation and the idea that with MTM you find the ball with a later accel phase right before contact. More convention approach you need more shoulder turn for the long accel into contact.
In fact this probably accounts for the extra extension, as a long somewhat linear accel and stepping into impact would tend to have more extension out towards the target.

One prob I always had with the vids on your site, even though I found them an incredible resource, was that we never knew the speed of the shots or the result % for a given way of hitting. Even if he made the Fh on the vid at 95mph, how many did he miss that day hitting that way?

I played this guy yesterday who had this odd shot at net. He missed 2, made one, missed 5 and made one. When he made the last one, my partner commented on what a great shot it was after it clipped the outside part of the line. I replied that he was 2 of 9 so far with it, and barely got the line on the last one, so I thought the shot was better for us. My point is that I think the extension you cite from you vids is much like this. Players often over extend IMO and do make some of these shots, but it seems to me charting missed shots, that often the culprit to their misses is the over extension out to target. Mostly it causes misses long, but also accounts for misses into net due to compensating and trying to avoid missing long. Big shoulder turn IMO factors in on this as well, as it seems to lead to over extension.

thanks for the link if you have it.

JohnYandell
09-12-2010, 06:44 AM
Can't remember where I first saw it but a simple search shows it is now on Oscar's site:

http://www.tennisteacher.com/MITstudy.htm

Not the take back. The turn I think is the issue, or one of the issues.

As regards the Tennisplayer videos, we did some tests between misses and strokes that were in. Until you get a chance to see reactions of the players, you really can't tell the misses from the unforced errors on the vast majority of balls--exception being a ball a player doesn't control at all or just touches it with his racket..

The core technical elements--and the variety of technical elements used by a certain player--do not change radically from ball to ball. The shape of player's turn move stays the same. The shape of the take back as well, although the size and timing can vary slightly. If he hits wiper finishes or reverse finishes, those look the same. The open stances, semi-open and neutral stances, are consistent.

Errors are a matter, probably, of very slight changes in the racket path or angle or possibly the amount of spin. In general it is easy to describe the shapes of the swings, or more accurately the range of shapes.

There are core similarities among the players are certain aspects that go across grip styles and even particular shot making.

5263
09-12-2010, 07:52 AM
Can't remember where I first saw it but a simple search shows it is now on Oscar's site:

http://www.tennisteacher.com/MITstudy.htm

Not the take back. The turn I think is the issue, or one of the issues.

As regards the Tennisplayer videos, we did some tests between misses and strokes that were in. Until you get a chance to see reactions of the players, you really can't tell the misses from the unforced errors on the vast majority of balls--exception being a ball a player doesn't control at all or just touches it with his racket..

The core technical elements--and the variety of technical elements used by a certain player--do not change radically from ball to ball. The shape of player's turn move stays the same. The shape of the take back as well, although the size and timing can vary slightly. If he hits wiper finishes or reverse finishes, those look the same. The open stances, semi-open and neutral stances, are consistent.

Errors are a matter, probably, of very slight changes in the racket path or angle or possibly the amount of spin. In general it is easy to describe the shapes of the swings, or more accurately the range of shapes.

There are core similarities among the players are certain aspects that go across grip styles and even particular shot making.

I could agree with that in a general sense, but for example with Agassi serves, I got enough vid to be satisfied that on the rare moments when he pumped up his serve into the high 120's/low 130s, that he improved his racket drop and delayed the elbow extension more, as compared to his normal 1st serve in the mid teens. So yes, I agree the adjustments and changes are not large, but I'm convinced they are significant, especially when splitting hairs like we are on the MIT vid. ( i better find it first, but going from memory on this)
Also on my charting of the mid court ball attacks in pro matches, I've been surprised at how low some grade out. Most often this seems to be from too much momentum into the attack along with over extension to the target IMO.

5263
09-12-2010, 08:56 AM
My search showed that too, but going there it was not listed, but dug around and found it anyway.

I don't really see much in the MIT vid to judge from or compare to pros, as it has no matchplay and just some plain jane demo strokes. I think the MIT vid is great overall and does a good job of showing that most players out there are very familiar with conventional/traditional instruction and what that means and have experienced it. Nice intro to MTM.

MIT Coach seemed to have about 90degr shldr turn on strokes which is close to what you see below. Shoulder turn will vary with players, but MTM does not coach against big turn, so it's not a issue really. Funny that Fed's 97 mph Fh at about 37 secs on the vid below, has the least shoulder turn I saw out of him.

Nadal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb3smnR6NSc&feature=related

Fed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uo51mYW2DA&feature=related

Big thing for MTM is that you learn it quick and easy, then don't have to change to get better, but just add style and amplitude to your game. In fact, if you think big shoulder turn is important for your students, that is a great place for you to introduce you style of coaching, but it is not a MTM fundamental or false data either. I don't think MTM assumes everyone, even pros, has to be a big hitter. I think Hengis would have been better to just use her strokes to move and work her opponents and not try to copy the power players.

papa
09-12-2010, 03:07 PM
Thanks for not putting me in that group. I have no problem with the USPTA and think there is a lot to like. I'm even pretty cool with their "open source" approach to instruction, but when they are showing something in their books or vids that needs to challenged, I don't have a problem with taking that on either, as I'm sure you do too. Difference between us on that is I sometimes show how MTM does better in that case. (not always though)

I appreciate your comments and tone, as this is the kind of discussion we should have on these issues.

New or Revolutionary?? Geeez, who knows. I don't think those are things you here from me and I don't see where it matters much. Maybe you can find an old post somewhere if you search, but I don't think so. That sounds like things you see in ads. Folks have to make a living and promote their books and work.
I will say I'm pretty sure none of those you mentioned pre-dates Oscar, as he was working to get the USTA to adopt his teaching back in 72, shortly after his time on the tour. Was JY even born yet?
But as you say, it doesn't matter much to us. What I like is MTM's excellent core system that if free of false data, but yet has room for guys like you to express your style on the game.

Thanks and I think you provided a good response.

I'm not sure about who was around first on many of these issues. I know Oscar is probably a little younger than Vic - Oscar is around 70, my guess is Vic is probably ten years older. John Yandell and Dave Smith are younger of course - my guess would be in their 50's somewhere. My guess would be that Robert Landsdorf and Vic are contemporaries.

I think we can certainly agree that all four have continued to provide a tremendous amount of input for our sport in their own special ways.

5263
09-12-2010, 05:07 PM
Thanks and I think you provided a good response.

I'm not sure about who was around first on many of these issues. I know Oscar is probably a little younger than Vic - Oscar is around 70, my guess is Vic is probably ten years older. John Yandell and Dave Smith are younger of course - my guess would be in their 50's somewhere. My guess would be that Robert Landsdorf and Vic are contemporaries.

I think we can certainly agree that all four have continued to provide a tremendous amount of input for our sport in their own special ways.

Thanks. It's good when we can debate or discuss the approaches to this in a reasonable or even fun way. I guess it is just too easy throw in that little dig and we all fall for it at times here and there, when we think we have the superior position on things. I'll continue to work not to do that.

Back to the OP and your comment as well, I agree with what Sampras said in his tribute to RL in that he brought a toughness and work ethic to the training. At the same time, IMO his influence on the focus for the flatter and driving Fh, tended to set American tennis back a bit. Telcher was known for his Bh while Sampras and Davenport's serve and Rev Fh outshined their RL type Fh. I actually see the rev fh as somewhat of a get around for them, that RL would accept. Pete even mentioned that he had to adjust that Fh to get more spin for the pros. Pete made the comment that he knew it was going to be a pretty good day if he was getting good TS on his groundstrokes. I think this is a pretty balanced appraisal speaking of both the positives and my perceived flaw in his focus. RL has so much influence with many that they just accept his opinion that the flat driving Fh with a moderate grip is center piece of a good ground game and I'm just explaining that despite all he has brought to work ethic of game, I don't see the evidence that he has the Fh thing right. IMO he has hurt his legacy by being so outspoken on a technique that won't fair so well in the coming years as we look back.

papa
09-12-2010, 05:30 PM
Thanks. It's good when we can debate or discuss the approaches to this in a reasonable or even fun way. I guess it is just too easy throw in that little dig and we all fall for it at times here and there, when we think we have the superior position on things. I'll continue to work not to do that.

Back to the OP and your comment as well, I agree with what Sampras said in his tribute to RL in that he brought a toughness and work ethic to the training. At the same time, IMO his influence on the focus for the flatter and driving Fh, tended to set American tennis back a bit. Telcher was known for his Bh while Sampras and Davenport's serve and Rev Fh outshined their RL type Fh. I actually see the rev fh as somewhat of a get around for them, that RL would accept. Pete even mentioned that he had to adjust that Fh to get more spin for the pros. Pete made the comment that he knew it was going to be a pretty good day if he was getting good TS on his groundstrokes. I think this is a pretty balanced appraisal speaking of both the positives and my perceived flaw in his focus. RL has so much influence with many that they just accept his opinion that the flat driving Fh with a moderate grip is center piece of a good ground game and I'm just explaining that despite all he has brought to work ethic of game, I don't see the evidence that he has the Fh thing right. IMO he has hurt his legacy by being so outspoken on a technique that won't fair so well in the coming years as we look back.

Well said.

Happened to be teaching a lesson Sat morning with a guy who's been away from tennis for a few years but still a very good player and very fit. Almost 40 but in excellent shape and a lot of drive to boot.

Anyway, I was helping him harness the pace on the FH which was terribly inconsistent although he could hit a ton. The flat drive, although useful at times, does not work well in today's game. The racquets and strings are just too powerful to keep the balls in with flat strokes to say nothing of the fact the net cord catches its fair amount also - just not much margin of error on the stroke. Players who can't keep the ball in play will seldom advance.

By changing grips, something he was reluctant to do at first and changing the swing path, he was getting a lot more to fall in with good pace. Still has a lot of work to do but I felt we broke the ice and can now move forward faster and more effectively.

At the same time, two guys were hitting in the next court who had the same type of problem - their skill levels were much less (3.5's +). They seems absolutely content in constantly hitting balls that 50% of the time were out or into net. I don't quite understand this form of playing but it not unusual to see very short rallies.

chico9166
09-13-2010, 04:22 AM
JY, thanks for this very balanced and reasonable comment, as it address many of the misconceptions of Modern Tennis teaching in MTM. Really shows how those like chic91 who feel their instruction contains modern elements, but don't really understand how it works in unison, along with nearly no understanding of Oscar's instruction.(based his description of it in his previous post)

Davydenko is such a good model and shows all the fundamentals that are taught in MTM, with a very clear "up and across" swing. While I can't agree that he hits nearly half of his Fhs from neutral, the important thing he shows how MTM is not stance dependent. MTM starts working with an open stance believing it is better and easier for beginners, but the key is balance. Conventional neutral stance is used to step into the ball with momentum, but when Davydenko steps forward it is more for contact point adjustment, but with remaining on balance. Here is a nice vid showing many of the important aspects of how he still hits it like it is open by lifting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7XsK1qu6Dw&feature=related

this is his more normal or avg Fh-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW7SVLDZeX8

Extreme grips are not encouraged or discouraged in MTM, as the student finds something that feels natural with their swing. The over the shoulder finish is the standard finish in MTM, and taught at the beginning, but others will evolve from that, like the Lasso which comes from an over the standard over the shoulder finish, but with greater acceleration. (often confused with the Rev Fh)

As to hitting flat, he does it by just pulling more across in this "up and across" movement at contact and is a great example of how powerful the modern Fh can be to finish while maintaining the basic form, balance, and spin, while not needing to step out into driving linear momentum down range. (opposed to conventional extension out to the target to flatten out shots)
Good post to show how little is understood about what is really happening in modern tennis when you come at it from a conventional approach IMO.

Quote, "Shows all the fundamentals that are taught in MTM, with a very clear "up and across" swing."

This isn't exclusive to you, or MTM. The swing path is an arc.(on the horizontal) As seen from behind (forehand), the racquet is moving from left to right (inside-out) to contact, and then back from right to left, to lessor or greater extent.(turning radius) And of course, the racquet is moving up on the vertical plane. So, there is always and element of "up and across." Extension, in the proverbial/linear since, is a bit of a "red herring". Nobody swings straight.. What the video shows, however, IMO, is that the turning radius, can be longer ( extension), or shorter, (more across), depending on incoming ball characteristics, and what you're trying to do with the ball. I.E. shaping the swing. At any rate, it's not just a matter of extension or across, but how we move into the hitting zone, to make the ball behave. The shape of the swing post contact, will be more a result of how we "worked the ball". No?

Quote "Conventional neutral stance is used to step into the ball with momentum."

A bit of straw man here. Most of us "conventional coaches":) know that forward linear momentum, (in a direct since) has negligible effect on racquet head speed.But that it's direct, principle, role is to increase angular output. This can be accomplished by moving the center of mass (LM) in any direction. (forward, backward, up) So no, i don't see coaches getting too caught up into the "stepping into every ball for momentum" concept. It's mostly just a tactical/court positioning issue.

Quote "As to hitting flat, he just does this by pulling more across, in this up and across movement at contact."

Sounds to me like you all are just proposing that one should flatten out the swing path to hit the ball flatter. Am I missing something?

deluxe
09-13-2010, 07:44 AM
And did you see the Fh at 2:18 in your clip!


I almost missed your edit.

Looks like neutral stance, stepping into the ball, like a conventional front foot hop footwork (lands on the back foot slightly before the front foot though), gets good extension through the ball. Looks like he hit it pretty hard with mild topspin.

http://clown.ithil.org/~ajss/santana.gif

http://clown.ithil.org/~ajss/00000027.png

5263
09-13-2010, 08:08 AM
Looks like neutral stance, stepping into the ball, like a conventional front foot hop footwork (lands on the back foot slightly before the front foot though), gets good extension through the ball. Looks like he hit it pretty hard with mild topspin.


I can't agree that this is a conventional neutral stance or stepping into the ball. More like launching up to the contact, almost like a serve IMO. And Clearly up and across at contact.
Notice how the move to the contact is almost all leg and body driven, and where the arm accel doesn't really kick in till just before contact.

I was looking more at the stalking position and swing style, along with the lifting aspect of the legs. While we choose to start the teaching from an open stance, remember, MTM is not stance dependent, so his method of adjusting to a good contact point on balance is not a concern. I would say that in all my years, I've never seen any conventional instruction for this footwork. I have seen several guys teaching compensations to conventional footwork that is much like this, as way to augment balance and and free up the hips. You also could get away with moving more into the shot like this with the wooden rackets IMO.

5263
09-13-2010, 08:25 AM
This isn't exclusive to you, or MTM. The swing path is an arc.

Nobody swings straight..

Quote "As to hitting flat, he just does this by pulling more across, in this up and across movement at contact."

Sounds to me like you all are just proposing that one should flatten out the swing path to hit the ball flatter. Am I missing something?

No one claimed up and across is exclusive to anyone. We just teach it. I've never heard Macci, Nick, RL or any conventional coach teach up and across at contact.
Glad you agree that no swing is straight.

To hit flatter, I am suggesting that you emphasize the across aspect of the "up and across", and no, IMO that is not the same as saying just swing flatter.
Yes, I feel you are missing quite a bit (not intended as an insult, please) as you come from an conventional mindset, and using a bunch of add on instruction to compensate for the initial false data of conventional instruction. These adjustments are not required with MTM as it does not contain the false data to work around in various situations, as it is more adjustable from the start.

chico9166
09-13-2010, 08:38 AM
No one claimed up and across is exclusive to anyone. We just teach it. I've never heard Macci, Nick, RL or any conventional coach teach up and across at contact.
Glad you agree that no swing is straight.

To hit flatter, I am suggesting that you emphasize the across aspect of the "up and across", and no, IMO that is not the same as saying just swing flatter.
Yes, I feel you are missing quite a bit (not intended as an insult, please) as you come from an conventional mindset, and using a bunch of add on instruction to compensate for the initial false data of conventional instruction. These adjustments are not required with MTM as it does not contain the false data to work around in various situations, as it is more adjustable from the start.

No offense taken 5263. I would like you to explain the flatter concept, though. And do you not see varying extension points/swing shapes?

deluxe
09-13-2010, 08:44 AM
http://clown.ithil.org/~ajss/santana.gif

I can't agree that this is a conventional neutral stance or stepping into the ball. More like launching up to the contact, almost like a serve IMO. And Clearly up and across at contact.

As the ball approaches he seems to have one foot in front of the other, he takes a small step forward with his front foot, but still has one foot in front of the other. I can't see how that can be anything other than neutral stance. I can't see it's "launching up into contact" much. He doesn't have much knee bend, he doesn't get off the ground very high, and he's playing a ball that's at waist height. How do you hit a topspin without coming up and across? Is that something unique to MTM?

I was looking more at the stalking position and swing style, along with the lifting aspect of the legs.

Which position is the stalking position? It all looks pretty classic form to me. Left arm stays on the racquet throughout the unit turn, extends towards the side fence, highish continuous loopy backswing. Very small lift from the legs, that's more to do with transitioning to the net.

While we choose to start the teaching from an open stance, remember, MTM is not stance dependent, so his method of adjusting to a good contact point on balance is not a concern.

I don't really follow why you think he's playing neutral stance to adjust to a good contact point. He could perfectly well stay back, hit open stance at waist height and stay in the rally. Are you saying that because that ball is bouncing so high it would be uncomfortable to hit that open stance, so he's stepping in so that he's better able to hit it at a comfortable height? He could elevate just as well in open stance couldn't he?

I see something different. I see that he's got a slightly short ball down the middle, so he's got plenty of time to set up how he wants, so he steps into the court to drive the ball from neutral stance and is going to follow it into the net. That front foot hop footwork is conventional for that situation. You see it all the time from players on the ATP today. Fed. Skeletor. Berdy. etc

I would say that in all my years, I've never seen any conventional instruction for this footwork. I have seen several guys teaching compensations to conventional footwork that is much like this, as way to augment balance and and free up the hips. You also could get away with moving more into the shot like this with the wooden rackets IMO.

I've seen it all over the place.

The bailey method (0:24s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRV4GhpD4m8
FYB recent footwork video (~25m): http://www.youtube.com/user/FYB2007#p/u/18/R5CWAwtijVI
Numerous mentions in various articles at tennisplayer.

5263
09-13-2010, 10:50 AM
No offense taken 5263. I would like you to explain the flatter concept, though. And do you not see varying extension points/swing shapes?

Thank you, I appreciate that. I agree that swing shapes can change some based on positioning and bounce type.

There really seems to be fair number of folks (mostly coaches I think) that seem to think that conventional way is fine (i almost fell into this group given all my time spent learning all these compensations), and the learning is all in knowing all the workaround techniques (like learning the hop step). But By far IMO there is a far greater number of folks out there who are frustrated by being taught one way, only to learn they have to make some pretty big changes to get better or make certain shots with good %. I can't count the number of times my students have said something like, "so why did my previous instructor always have me step into the Fh and swing out to the target?"
Maybe you don't teach this, but a great number do.

About flatter;
If you learn learn to hit up and across for rally shots, with an emphasis on the up for high topspin, then adjusting to a flatter shot by changing the emphasis to the across part is pretty simple, maybe even natural. I learned conventional, and it was not taught this way and was even warned against my sidespin aspect of my TS shot by a former All-American tennis player/ teaching pro. I've watched many top coaches and been at USTPA events. Granted the training varied greatly as USPTA does not endorse a specific method for attacking short balls, but it did tend to focus around stepping and swinging out more towards the target and driving the shot lower, flatter, and hard.
For MTM we want to get stable (not carry momentum),
find the ball (not get big racket speed into a collision), then
Accelerate up and across to the finish (not out to the target).
Now you may mix and match any of this
and that is what you will have,
a mix and match. It won't be MTM or conventional, but IMO, it is rooted
in conventional; or why hold on to the previous ways?

Now sure different things will happen out on the court with athletes making athletic plays, but that mostly springs naturally from a good base. IMO conventional is not a good base and tends to trip up even good players at times. I applaud all of you good coaches that have moved on well past the conventional training of our past, but only ask that you re-examine the parts you have held onto, and see if they really have the value you once thought. When I did this, I found that they did not and it was time to move on to a cleaner approach. I was all prepared to make a few workarounds for MTM when I found the trouble spots, but they never showed up. A couple of times I did think they had, but as I understood more, I found out that each time it was just my understanding that was short, not the technique. That misunderstanding was most often rooted in conventional training.

sureshs
09-13-2010, 12:08 PM
Amongst the current crop of successful US juniors - Oudin, Capra, Harrison, Sock, Klahn, King - who has been trained under MTM?

5263
09-13-2010, 12:25 PM
Amongst the current crop of successful US juniors - Oudin, Capra, Harrison, Sock, Klahn, King - who has been trained under MTM?

I don't have that info, but which King is that? Kevin?

I'm looking forward to seeing more of Sock.

sureshs
09-13-2010, 12:27 PM
I don't have that info, but which King is that? Kevin?

I'm looking forward to seeing more of Sock.

Vania. Though she is "old" already.

How many of them were trained using MTM?

5263
09-13-2010, 12:30 PM
Vania. Though she is "old" already.

How many of them were trained using MTM?

you didn't see where I answered that?
I don't have that info.

Ash_Smith
09-13-2010, 12:40 PM
I almost missed your edit.


http://clown.ithil.org/~ajss/00000027.png

Apologies to the OP for this thread getting derailed a touch! Trying to get back to nearer the original topic...

5263 - You state in your post that this swing is "clearly up and across at contact" - would you not say that the freeze frame above shows extension out towards the target - infact from what I have studied of Lansdorp this position is nearly identical to the position he advocates before adding one of his three finishes?

Your thoughts?

Cheers

Ash

deluxe
09-13-2010, 01:10 PM
I almost missed your edit.

Apologies to the OP for this thread getting derailed a touch! Trying to get back to nearer the original topic...

5263 - You state in your post that this swing is "clearly up and across at contact" - would you not say that the freeze frame above shows extension out towards the target - infact from what I have studied of Lansdorp this position is nearly identical to the position he advocates before adding one of his three finishes?

Your thoughts?

Cheers

Ash

Here is the "extension" moment capture for Landsdorp's article on the three finishes, which can be found here:

http://www.active.com/tennis/Articles/The_Downward_Finish.htm

http://clown.ithil.org/~ajss/FedExtension.png
http://clown.ithil.org/~ajss/00000027.png

5263
09-13-2010, 07:46 PM
Apologies to the OP for this thread getting derailed a touch! Trying to get back to nearer the original topic...

5263 - You state in your post that this swing is "clearly up and across at contact" - would you not say that the freeze frame above shows extension out towards the target - infact from what I have studied of Lansdorp this position is nearly identical to the position he advocates before adding one of his three finishes?

Your thoughts?

Cheers

Ash
Good questions on some subtle points.
I would say to see it more clearly, it helps to see it directly from behind the direction of shot vector. From that view you can most often see how the racket face has worked up and across the contact at around 45 degrees. With Nadal you can often see the ball curve the across aspect is so pronounced.

Also you must understand that MTM or Me for that matter, never say there is no extension, but we coach that you get it by pulling across (which causes the face to start to catch up due to the change of direction of swing creating an extension) as opposed to driving the racket with it nearly inline with your forearm like RL demos in his utube vid with the young student. RL's demo'ed extension inline with his forearm is achieved quite differently than MTM's with the racket being more drug by the racket butt, but they will hit some of the same checkpoints leading to questions like yours.

Also I'm not maintaining that Fed is MTM trained and does this on every stroke. In fact I feel that his emphasis on extension over the last couple of years is what has pulled him off his game somewhat. IMO he works up and across the contact most of the time, but pushes the extension sometimes when he really tries to lay into one, and I'm quite convinced this accounts for his high unforced errors on the Fh in latter years.

I would also agree that the more you use the crossing action to flatten the trajectory, the more extension that will result; but this is result, not a driving action.

I do realize that much of what we are getting at is very similar and most of the difference is in how we try to get there, especially with highly trained guys like several of you, but IMO the MTM method contains less false data.
When I get some time, maybe I can pull together a thread with 25 different compensations to fix a problem, but where I will make one small post that solves the problem, something very simple like "just find the ball from below and stroke up and across the finish". So Suresh I think had it right when he said, "all he will say is....." and that is the simple beauty of it. I'm sure I didn't express this that well, but tried.

In the end I'd have to honestly say I think Santana's shot is inside-out and the still shows extension to inside-in, so no IMO it is not extension out toward the target best I can tell.

Uthree
09-14-2010, 01:07 AM
Yes, this extension idea and hitting through the ball doesnít really have much value as an instruction. Iím guessing one reason this idea persists is the desire for a larger margin for error.

deluxe
09-14-2010, 03:23 AM
Also I'm not maintaining that Fed is MTM trained and does this on every stroke. In fact I feel that his emphasis on extension over the last couple of years is what has pulled him off his game somewhat. IMO he works up and across the contact most of the time, but pushes the extension sometimes when he really tries to lay into one, and I'm quite convinced this accounts for his high unforced errors on the Fh in latter years.

:-)

Come on, it's one thing to say MTM is a good way for teaching beginners in a manner where the principles don't have to change as they get better and they have to make fewer compensations for having the wrong fundamentals. It's quite another to say Fed's form goes up and down based on how much he's emphasising "extension" over "up & across".

5263
09-14-2010, 05:19 AM
:-)

Come on, it's one thing to say MTM is a good way for teaching beginners in a manner where the principles don't have to change as they get better and they have to make fewer compensations for having the wrong fundamentals. It's quite another to say Fed's form goes up and down based on how much he's emphasising "extension" over "up & across".

I think your skepticism is very reasonable about my thoughts on Fed's game, lol, so I can appreciate what you are saying here.

ON the other hand though, I've done quite bit of charting that grew out of the other claim made for awhile- that Fed's Bh broke down on Nadal's high bouncing balls.
The charting in those matches showed the Fh UEs were 2 or 3 : 1 as compared with Bh UEs. This is even a more important stat considering Nadal had him hitting 3 times as many Bhs in these games and the Bh still had far fewer errors.

With the surprise that such a high % of Fhs were going wrong, I looked at what was happening on these misses, mostly attacking UEs. Most of them were from hitting for extreme depth, trying to force the finish of the point. IMO most often hitting long comes from over-extension into the contact vs working up and across the ball. Sort of an attempt by the hitter to juice up his shot.

5263
09-14-2010, 05:21 AM
Yes, this extension idea and hitting through the ball doesnít really have much value as an instruction. Iím guessing one reason this idea persists is the desire for a larger margin for error.

I would agree here and think it ironic that in the end, it reduces the margin for error on the target end of things, as this seems to be why so many players struggle with what they call over-hitting.

papa
09-14-2010, 07:57 AM
Although 5263 and I probably would disagree on some aspects of the game I feel he's done an admirable job articulating his/MTM's position. I must admit that I have not seen Oscar's latest book and which "might" reflect somewhat modified approaches - I do have at least one of his older publications in my tennis library - early 90's edition.

onehandbh
09-14-2010, 08:58 AM
^^^ ditto. 5263 has done a good job describing the basic principals of
what Wegner espouses.

I think one possible path/version of where tennis may be heading towards
in the future is more along the lines of players like del potro & soderling.
Guys eat up the high ball by hitting flatter, deeper, penetrating shots that
give their opponents less time to get to the ball. Their physical height allows
them to hit flatter shots off higher balls, making their flatter shots a safer
shot than for shorter players.

In some ways, James Blake was one of the first ones that presented this
as a possible strategy when he started beating Rafa. Blake is too short
to consistently employ that strategy and succeed, though.

This trend can only happen if taller AND athletic players start playing tennis.
Most of the taller ATP players just aren't as athletic as the shorter ones.
Besides del Potro & Isner (who's way too slow), there really aren't any
younger and taller pros who are not past their peak that can challenge
Rafa right now using this strategy, so I think Rafa will be dominant for
at least a few years.

chico9166
09-14-2010, 10:59 AM
Although 5263 and I probably would disagree on some aspects of the game I feel he's done an admirable job articulating his/MTM's position. I must admit that I have not seen Oscar's latest book and which "might" reflect somewhat modified approaches - I do have at least one of his older publications in my tennis library - early 90's edition.

I agree in totality with this post. 5263 does seem very reasonable, and makes some very valid points. And while i probably can't get my head around some of what wegner says, I am interested in his "take" on things.

5263
09-15-2010, 05:56 AM
Thanks guys and think it is good we can have this type of good discussion on instruction. I appreciate the reasonable and sincere approach we have used to take this on.

5263
11-21-2010, 09:51 AM
I've offered that he has a good approach to drilling and hard work, and open to anything relevant on technique he has done or is working on.

from RL- "The limitations (of aggressive grips and major spin) don't show up until later. They have severe problems handling the pace in the pro game"



Article worth the read on Discipline by Lansdorp on in the new tennisplayer.net issue. He talks about how repetition is the only way to swing aggressively and know the ball will go in, along with ways he approached this type training. Between some rambling stories and discussions about hitting 2 feet over the net, he makes some good points about training hard and having discipline.

I found article interesting, having posted earlier that RL's use of discipline and repetition was his main contribution to the greats he coached. Sort of interesting that he still harps about aggressive grips and heavy spin, given the widespread adoption by many of the top players, along with Nadal who is maybe the best ever. I know my fav player, Roger does not have too extreme of a grip, but his Fh has suffered big bouts with being erratic as well.

kiteboard
11-21-2010, 12:47 PM
According to John Y, the usta turned him down on his proposal. Probably due to his lack of tact, interpersonally.

onehandbh
11-21-2010, 03:25 PM
I found article interesting, having posted earlier that RL's use of discipline and repetition was his main contribution to the greats he coached.

I've seen RL coaching and IMO he teaches technique as well. He isn't
just a human ball machine that enforces discipline. (though he certainly
does the latter!)

5263
11-21-2010, 04:20 PM
I've seen RL coaching and IMO he teaches technique as well. He isn't
just a human ball machine that enforces discipline. (though he certainly
does the latter!)

Which is exactly why I said "Main contribution" instead of what you said, "just a human ....."
Of course that said, his ideas on stroke technique and grips IMO are clearly way outdated and Nadal's dominance on tour have made this obvious to anyone willing to notice. IMO it would be a mistake to leverage RL's excellence in some areas and project that into areas that he has missed on with his predictions.
Even his claim to fame,
Pete groundstroke wise, was known for his running Fh buggy whip. This like the his serve and rev Fh were things that RL was smart enough not to mess with, but did not teach him other than to drill them to near perfection.
Pete was even quoted saying he knew he was going to have a good day on the court when he was able to get his Fh topspin biting well and that he adjusted for more topspin and net clearance margin once leaving RL for the tour.

Also the idea came from Pete's interview, that what he valued most from his work with RL was the reps and discipline, and he even stated outright that RL taught him nothing special technique wise. He Paid Robert great tribute, but clearly focused on the reps and work ethic aspect. No disrespect in that.

chico9166
11-22-2010, 03:15 AM
Which is exactly why I said "Main contribution" instead of what you said, "just a human ....."
Of course that said, his ideas on stroke technique and grips IMO are clearly way outdated and Nadal's dominance on tour have made this obvious to anyone willing to notice. IMO it would be a mistake to leverage RL's excellence in some areas and project that into areas that he has missed on with his predictions.
Even his claim to fame,
Pete groundstroke wise, was known for his running Fh buggy whip. This like the his serve and rev Fh were things that RL was smart enough not to mess with, but did not teach him other than to drill them to near perfection.
Pete was even quoted saying he knew he was going to have a good day on the court when he was able to get his Fh topspin biting well and that he adjusted for more topspin and net clearance margin once leaving RL for the tour.

Also the idea came from Pete's interview, that what he valued most from his work with RL was the reps and discipline, and he even stated outright that RL taught him nothing special technique wise. He Paid Robert great tribute, but clearly focused on the reps and work ethic aspect. No disrespect in that.

I basically agree with the premise that his main contribution is that of a coach and not a technician.

As a "coach" I admire him greatly. He simply refuses to "play the game", in an industry that is filled with sellouts, and con men. Pros that simply take the money and run, without regard for what they are, or are not, teaching the kids. Both in terms of technique and acceptable behavior. There are too many glorified babysitters!

In this regard, Lansdorp, exhibits the highest of ethics. Irrespective of the financial outcome, he refuses to waste his time, or the resources of the parents, if a kid fails to develop a certain work ethic or desire for excellence. I think this is admirable, and an increasingly lost art with coaches. Rest assured, if a kid plays for him, they will develop both on and off the court (life lessons). This is the very definition of a "great coach" in my book.

But yeah, his insistance on flatter drives, and inline principles (linear weight shifts and emphasis on down the line movements) to an offline game, is not something I can totally subscribe to.

5263
08-12-2012, 08:31 PM
Yes, this extension idea and hitting through the ball doesnít really have much value as an instruction. Iím guessing one reason this idea persists is the desire for a larger margin for error.

I think this is largely true...especially if the previous links were trained correctly.

connico
08-12-2012, 09:34 PM
This explains why you are not hearing much from anybody he is developing these days. He's really a lot like Bolletteri in the sense that his players get better from mega training and hitting lots of balls, but not much on stroke technique and development.

This made me laugh, alot. Do you also think Nick is out there everyday with the kids. He has people much better informed on mechanics and sport science than you actually give him credit for.

Not to mention the fact that the place produces reseach and has slow capture facilities that rival some natinal sport institutes...

The players achieve because they get the facilities, training, teachers (that teach new techniques) and benefit from the applied science and research that is done at the academy.

Do you really think if you go to the Nick Bolletteri school your going to get an old man feeding you 1000 balls a day? Seriously

vil
08-12-2012, 10:59 PM
HEY OP, DOES ALL THIS ANSWER YOUR QUESTION????......EH ,NEVER MIND:)...THESE GUYS COMPLETELY SWALLOWED YOUR THREAD. YOU MIGHT HAVE TO START ANOTHER ONE BUT BE CAREFUL NEXT TIME WHOSE NAME YOU'LL USE :twisted:

TennisCJC
08-13-2012, 06:26 AM
HEY OP, DOES ALL THIS ANSWER YOUR QUESTION????......EH ,NEVER MIND:)...THESE GUYS COMPLETELY SWALLOWED YOUR THREAD. YOU MIGHT HAVE TO START ANOTHER ONE BUT BE CAREFUL NEXT TIME WHOSE NAME YOU'LL USE :twisted:

If you want to take a lesson from Landsdorp, by all means do. I think taking 1 lesson from one of the most famous and colorful coaches in recent history would be a blast.

The guys above cannot decide if you extend on your groundstrokes or only pull across. They have been debating it in every thread. I'll end the debate - IF YOU DON'T HAVE AN STRONG ELEMENT OF EXTENSION THRU CONTACT THE BALL WILL NOT GO FORWARD - SIMPLE PHYSICS.

Here's a funny Vitas Geuralatis story about Landsdorp. Vitas was coming back from a period where his fitness and ranking had dropped drasitcally - too much partying. Landsdorp traveled with Vitas to a tournament in Europe. It was a low level tournament as Vitas' ranking was down. Vitas showed up to play and they told him his first opponent was that "kid" over there who looked as young as a ball kid. Vitas' was losing and cramped up and was carried off the court on a strecher. As they carried Vitas past Landsdorp, Vitas looked up at Robert and said "you better leave fast I'm ruining your reputation". Vitas was cool and Landsdorp has a lot of history with the game.

sureshs
08-13-2012, 07:53 AM
The guys above cannot decide if you extend on your groundstrokes or only pull across. They have been debating it in every thread. I'll end the debate - IF YOU DON'T HAVE AN STRONG ELEMENT OF EXTENSION THRU CONTACT THE BALL WILL NOT GO FORWARD - SIMPLE PHYSICS.


Unfortunately, some have bought into the fiction that only upwards and across tangential contact is needed. As Peter Burwash pointed out in a recent article, pros swing so fast that the forward component is missed by many. They notice the racket before impact and then across the shoulder, but miss the fact that the racket has gone out in front before crossing over and also in parallel with it. The ball does not know what you did before and after impact. If there is no extension, it will feel no forward component of the force.

5263
08-13-2012, 09:04 AM
Unfortunately, some have bought into the fiction that only upwards and across tangential contact is needed. As Peter Burwash pointed out in a recent article, pros swing so fast that the forward component is missed by many. They notice the racket before impact and then across the shoulder, but miss the fact that the racket has gone out in front before crossing over and also in parallel with it. The ball does not know what you did before and after impact. If there is no extension, it will feel no forward component of the force.

I'm glad you make this post to show where yours and others in your camp mis-
understand "up and across". Apparently you see across as merely tangential as
you state above. You are correct that is fiction, but it is you that bring it in. You
will never see it described as "tangential" by someone who understands Modern
strokes. There are many ways to hit across the "target Line" of traditional tennis
and tangential is one of the worst you could pick. Odd that one would ever see it that
way IMO and actually nearly impossible to execute.

5263
08-13-2012, 09:16 AM
I'll end the debate - IF YOU DON'T HAVE AN STRONG ELEMENT OF EXTENSION THRU CONTACT THE BALL WILL NOT GO FORWARD - SIMPLE PHYSICS.

Maybe this is slightly beyond your "simple physics", but when the hand/racket is
moving in one direction, handle towards the ball, then the hand starts to move up
and across, the racket head/face will swing out on an arc thru the ball/impact.

mightyrick
08-13-2012, 09:22 AM
Gag. Here we go again.

"I feel the sun goes around the sky." "No no no, the sun goes across the sky." "Um, no way man! The sun moves tangential to the sky!" "Really? The sun actually moves through the sky."

The semantic arguments get so ridiculous. I mean it's akin to a bunch of lawyers arguing over the definition and context of a single word.

Forget the semantics. Why not just take a player as a model, show a video to a student, and say, "See how he does that? Do that."

5263
08-13-2012, 09:40 AM
Forget the semantics. Why not just take a player as a model, show a video to a student, and say, "See how he does that? Do that."

Not a bad suggestion, but remember, Nobody is saying not to hit thru the ball...
but some are saying not across..which is wrong.

the debate is about hitting thru 3 balls that are aligned down the traditional target line
from contact to where the ball will land. A better understanding shows that as you
swing thru the contact, the racket is also moving across that target line to some
degree and NOT down that line.
That is what you will see with a good player model if you have a good camera angle.

Off The Wall
08-13-2012, 10:43 AM
Being a product of the classical method and hitting through the ball, I can tell you what we had to do to gain depth control over our shots. (Because otherwise you're using mainly gravity.) Again, this was not taught by local pros; it was knowledge gained through experience. We hit the outside of the ball. The spin imparted created (still does) a hooking topspin.

The point being, the Old Classical method required modifications. I'm not sure what the Neo-Classical method entails. I'm sure it's better now. However, it sounds like MTM starts out with a method that provides a faster transition to spin.

julian
08-13-2012, 11:07 AM
If you want to take a lesson from Landsdorp, by all means do. I think taking 1 lesson from one of the most famous and colorful coaches in recent history would be a blast.

The guys above cannot decide if you extend on your groundstrokes or only pull across. They have been debating it in every thread. I'll end the debate - IF YOU DON'T HAVE AN STRONG ELEMENT OF EXTENSION THRU CONTACT THE BALL WILL NOT GO FORWARD - SIMPLE PHYSICS.

Here's a funny Vitas Geuralatis story about Landsdorp. Vitas was coming back from a period where his fitness and ranking had dropped drasitcally - too much partying. Landsdorp traveled with Vitas to a tournament in Europe. It was a low level tournament as Vitas' ranking was down. Vitas showed up to play and they told him his first opponent was that "kid" over there who looked as young as a ball kid. Vitas' was losing and cramped up and was carried off the court on a strecher. As they carried Vitas past Landsdorp, Vitas looked up at Robert and said "you better leave fast I'm ruining your reputation". Vitas was cool and Landsdorp has a lot of history with the game.
The name of the player is misspelled
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitas_Gerulaitis

treblings
08-13-2012, 11:27 AM
The name of the player is misspelled
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitas_Gerulaitis

the name of the coach as well:)

TennisCJC
08-13-2012, 12:32 PM
Maybe this is slightly beyond your "simple physics", but when the hand/racket is
moving in one direction, handle towards the ball, then the hand starts to move up
and across, the racket head/face will swing out on an arc thru the ball/impact.

Maybe a simple concept is too hard for your overly complex analysis. KISS

You see the hand moving up, thru, and across if you study slow-mo video of pros. I will concede on some shots there is very little extension but on others the hand extension forward toward the net is several inches before it goes directly across or backward.

5263
08-13-2012, 03:14 PM
You see the hand moving up, thru, and across if you study slow-mo video of pros. I will concede on some shots there is very little extension but on others the hand extension forward toward the net is several inches before it goes directly across or backward.

No problem...sounds excellent. I don't know of anyone saying anything that disagrees
with your point that there are varying degrees of hitting thru the ball. It's just
not down the target line.

Uthree
08-13-2012, 03:20 PM
We can go simpler than that - absolutely forget about hitting thru the ball. Never was and never is good a good tip. Put in the same myth category as "watching the ball on to the racket"

TennisCJC
08-14-2012, 06:55 AM
No problem...sounds excellent. I don't know of anyone saying anything that disagrees
with your point that there are varying degrees of hitting thru the ball. It's just
not down the target line.

OK, we can get along on this one. My only point is that many present it like the hand does not go forward even 1 inch beyond contact and I cannot buy into that. By forward, I am not even saying forward up the target line. I am simply saying that there is some degree of forward hand and racket head motion mixed in with the upward and across motions. But, I do agree that the hand and racket hand should not go 100% down the target line. It is a glancing blow with some extension, across and upward elements depending on the type of shot being hit.

5263
08-14-2012, 02:28 PM
OK, we can get along on this one. My only point is that many present it like the hand does not go forward even 1 inch beyond contact and I cannot buy into that. By forward, I am not even saying forward up the target line. I am simply saying that there is some degree of forward hand and racket head motion mixed in with the upward and across motions. But, I do agree that the hand and racket hand should not go 100% down the target line. It is a glancing blow with some extension, across and upward elements depending on the type of shot being hit.

Good, glad we can agree.
I think we should throw out the obvious wrong answers like perpendicular to the path,
and any idea of not going forward. Clearly forward is part of the swing, and it
is an across forward...not a straight down the target line forward as traditional
instruction has taught.
I guess I just never conceived that anyone would mistake across for meaning straight sideways??
thanks

5263
09-07-2012, 10:44 AM
I've often thought about how RL contributed so much to so many players and
wondered what the key is.
I had guessed it was reps and some things in the US Open really drove it home
for me.

There is probably no substitute for hitting a lots of balls from the expected spots
on the court. Over time, you will figure out how to make those shots, even if the
form is avg or worse. The biggest key in tennis is to execute shots from certain
areas of the court, to certain areas of the court, along with having that confidence
that you CAN do it. Only with lots of reps will you have that confidence and
consistency of execution.

Excellent form is very helpful, but earned confidence that you can execute as required
is priceless. I think RL excelled in this aspect.

FrisbeeFool
09-07-2012, 11:13 AM
Forgive me if someone has posted this, I didn't want to wade through the entire thread to find out.

http://www.active.com/tennis/Articles/The_Three_Forehand_Finishes.htm

FrisbeeFool
09-07-2012, 11:32 AM
http://paulball.com/Robert%20Lansdorp%20.html

5263
09-07-2012, 11:43 AM
http://paulball.com/Robert%20Lansdorp%20.html
from the ref above-
Looks like this agrees with my earlier post-
""In a world of "do it ... but quickly," he emphasizes repetition to the point of frustration.""

and I think if you are honest I think you have to admit his misses the mark
here.
""In a tennis world that emphasizes top spin, he emphasizes flat, driving groundstrokes.""

FrisbeeFool
09-07-2012, 11:50 AM
^ Yeah, it sounds like 5263 is pushing an agenda rather than offering a honest appraisal of Landsdorp. JMO.

Apologies to the OP for this thread getting derailed a touch! Trying to get back to nearer the original topic...

5263 - You state in your post that this swing is "clearly up and across at contact" - would you not say that the freeze frame above shows extension out towards the target - infact from what I have studied of Lansdorp this position is nearly identical to the position he advocates before adding one of his three finishes?

Your thoughts?

Cheers

Ash

Quoted for truth

5263
09-07-2012, 12:06 PM
I've often thought about how RL contributed so much to so many players and
wondered what the key is.
I had guessed it was reps and some things in the US Open really drove it home
for me.

There is probably no substitute for hitting a lots of balls from the expected spots
on the court. Over time, you will figure out how to make those shots, even if the
form is avg or worse. The biggest key in tennis is to execute shots from certain
areas of the court, to certain areas of the court, along with having that confidence
that you CAN do it. Only with lots of reps will you have that confidence and
consistency of execution.

Excellent form is very helpful, but earned confidence that you can execute as required
is priceless. I think RL excelled in this aspect.
Wow, speak this highly of a guy and some think you have an agenda.
Very positive post!
Maybe like the one they have against Oscar?? Is that why they are quick to
imagine or project the thing they do to others....their agendas??

Well guess it true to an extent. My agenda is that we learn the right lessons
from the right coaches. I made the mistake early on with my teaching that I'd
like to help others not repeat. I though RL must be great with strokes since
many of his students had done well in past eras. Now I realize that he is not
a leader in stroke production, and if anything trying to catch up, BUT
I realize he must have done a LOT correct to have the success he enjoyed.
I guess frisbee thinks we should all be PC incorrect like him too call students b-t-hes,
because that makes as much sense as using his stroke style today.

No, I'm saying let's look at where he excelled and learn from that!
Somehow that is disrespectful??

5263
09-07-2012, 12:31 PM
Good questions on some subtle points.
I would say to see it more clearly, it helps to see it directly from behind the direction of shot vector. From that view you can most often see how the racket face has worked up and across the contact at around 45 degrees. With Nadal you can often see the ball curve the across aspect is so pronounced.

Also you must understand that MTM or Me for that matter, never say there is no extension, but we coach that you get it by pulling across (which causes the face to start to catch up due to the change of direction of swing creating an extension) as opposed to driving the racket with it nearly inline with your forearm like RL demos in his utube vid with the young student. RL's demo'ed extension inline with his forearm is achieved quite differently than MTM's with the racket being more drug by the racket butt, but they will hit some of the same checkpoints leading to questions like yours.

Also I'm not maintaining that Fed is MTM trained and does this on every stroke. In fact I feel that his emphasis on extension over the last couple of years is what has pulled him off his game somewhat. IMO he works up and across the contact most of the time, but pushes the extension sometimes when he really tries to lay into one, and I'm quite convinced this accounts for his high unforced errors on the Fh in latter years.

I would also agree that the more you use the crossing action to flatten the trajectory, the more extension that will result; but this is result, not a driving action.


and here is where that was answered well.
Fed gave us another example of his tendency to over extend and hit too near the lines
& the effects against Byrdich except in 3rd set. In the 3rd set Fed hit with more spin
and avoided the lines much better.

sureshs
09-07-2012, 12:34 PM
Berdych avoided fancy topspin and hit flat and hard to win the match, same as Luke against Nadal. The main reason for Fed's loss was his inability to cope with the big guy's power. Other reasons are minor excuses trying to prove something

5263
09-07-2012, 12:51 PM
Berdych avoided fancy topspin and hit flat and hard to win the match, same as Luke against Nadal. The main reason for Fed's loss was his inability to cope with the big guy's power. Other reasons are minor excuses trying to prove something

There are always opinions of course, but Fed had no problem with him in the 3rd
set when he backed of the lines and pace.
The match was mostly a gift to Byrd really.
I do agree Fed had trouble going at the lines with flat shots against Byrd's pace,
but he would have had little trouble if he'd used the style he did in the 3rd and
against Del Potro last yr after learning from the loss to him in the final.
In that match he took Delpo out decisively by hitting shorter angles and avoiding
the lines.

mightyrick
09-07-2012, 05:43 PM
There are always opinions of course, but Fed had no problem with him in the 3rd
set when he backed of the lines and pace.
It was mostly a gift really.
I do agree Fed had trouble going at the lines with flat shots against Byrd's pace,
but he would have had little trouble if he'd used the style he did in the 3rd and
against Del Potro last yr after learning from the loss to him in the final.

I'm not a Federer groupie, but let's give him a little credit here. I think Federer understands his own strategy and approach better than anyone here. He has a pretty good tennis IQ. Nobody is going to point to a single amazing strategy that he overlooked. I mean this is Roger Federer, c'mon.

Fed loses when his opponents play extremely well and the conditions don't favor his style. PERIOD. He cannot win these matches. But there's two things going for Roger: 1) It is very difficult for Roger's opponents to play extremely well against him given his style, and 2) The conditions aren't usually that much of a factor.

All that being said. The wind has always bothered Roger's game. Roger plays a line-painting style that is highly susceptible to wind. Secondly, when Roger plays an extremely hard-hitter in the wind, it makes it all the more difficult for him to keep these balls in.

Roger does not just "put balls into play" (to quote his own words). He isn't a clay-courter. The man is in his 30s now. He cannot have long, "get it back" rallies against the likes of Del Potro or Berdych. For the last few years, Roger needs to end points quickly. That means high pace painting of lines.

Berdych was playing very well. The elements were not in Federer's favor. And Federer has never had a plan B in that situation. In that situation, ******** shows up. Always has, always will. Go watch Federer's press conference at the Aussie Open when he got beat by Nadal last year. It is very enlightening. He clearly knows what he does well and he knows when it won't work.

Plain and simple, Berdych played awesome. The elements were a factor. ******** showed up. We've seen it before more than a few times.

5263
09-07-2012, 08:12 PM
All that being said. The wind has always bothered Roger's game. Roger plays a line-painting style that is highly susceptible to wind. Secondly, when Roger plays an extremely hard-hitter in the wind, it makes it all the more difficult for him to keep these balls in.

Roger does not just "put balls into play" (to quote his own words). He isn't a clay-courter. The man is in his 30s now. He cannot have long, "get it back" rallies against the likes of Del Potro or Berdych. For the last few years, Roger needs to end points quickly. That means high pace painting of lines.
.

Well ...your strategy is not how he played in his best years or in some of his better matches of late.
Funny how you guys think just because a player, or a businessman for that matter, knows so much because they are
successful. Many top performers are sharp enough to tell you the were often
successful in spite or or even because how little they knew. THey didn't know enough to see
their problems and just bulled thru on will, effort and talent. Only later did they
become aware of the many blatant mistakes they had made while building their
game or business.
In my work, I've met and heard quite a few speak on this.

Either they were right that the were wrong early on,
OR they wrong later on in
saying they were wrong early on. Either way, they were quite mistaken at times,
in spite of top notch results, a fact you don't seem to recognize.

sundaypunch
09-08-2012, 07:11 AM
I'm not a Federer groupie, but let's give him a little credit here. I think Federer understands his own strategy and approach better than anyone here. He has a pretty good tennis IQ. Nobody is going to point to a single amazing strategy that he overlooked. I mean this is Roger Federer, c'mon.

Fed loses when his opponents play extremely well and the conditions don't favor his style. PERIOD. He cannot win these matches. But there's two things going for Roger: 1) It is very difficult for Roger's opponents to play extremely well against him given his style, and 2) The conditions aren't usually that much of a factor.

All that being said. The wind has always bothered Roger's game. Roger plays a line-painting style that is highly susceptible to wind. Secondly, when Roger plays an extremely hard-hitter in the wind, it makes it all the more difficult for him to keep these balls in.

Roger does not just "put balls into play" (to quote his own words). He isn't a clay-courter. The man is in his 30s now. He cannot have long, "get it back" rallies against the likes of Del Potro or Berdych. For the last few years, Roger needs to end points quickly. That means high pace painting of lines.

Berdych was playing very well. The elements were not in Federer's favor. And Federer has never had a plan B in that situation. In that situation, ******** shows up. Always has, always will. Go watch Federer's press conference at the Aussie Open when he got beat by Nadal last year. It is very enlightening. He clearly knows what he does well and he knows when it won't work.

Plain and simple, Berdych played awesome. The elements were a factor. ******** showed up. We've seen it before more than a few times.

I think this is a good summary of the Berdych match. There is no plan-B because the "play safer and grind it out" strategy isn't feasible for him at this age.

sureshs
09-08-2012, 09:19 AM
Well ...your strategy is not how he played in his best years or in some of his better matches of late.
Funny how you guys think just because a player, or a businessman for that matter, knows so much because they are
successful. Many top performers are sharp enough to tell you the were often
successful in spite or or even because how little they knew. THey didn't know enough to see
their problems and just bulled thru on will, effort and talent. Only later did they
become aware of the many blatant mistakes they had made while building their
game or business.
In my work, I've met and heard quite a few speak on this.

Either they were right that the were wrong early on,
OR they wrong later on in
saying they were wrong early on. Either way, they were quite mistaken at times,
in spite of top notch results, a fact you don't seem to recognize.

Maybe, but that is not relevant to the Berdych match. Berdych is 6'5" and served amazingly well and just hit very hard. Fed may have tried some adjustments but it was beyond him, just like Rosol vs Nadal.

At 31, Fed would not still be playing if his style was safe spin clearing high over the net. Nadal has ruined his knees with that style of play. On the other hand, Nadal has 11 Slams and is also very successful. So it all depends on many factors.

5263
09-08-2012, 09:38 AM
Maybe, but that is not relevant to the Berdych match.

Sure it is, because we are talking about how to win that match...not extend a
career.
Fed would surely do any style of play just to make a US Open Final, and even
more so to get one more final slam win. No way is going to "go for the lines" and
lose in a Major to extend his career. Maybe he would in other tournaments.

No, he has either bought into the poor suggestions that you and Mighty make
here or he let his opponent make him feel he had to do more...that little extra
that good players trick you into thinking you need.

And the reason you guys don't understand the strategy is how you go from
one extreme to the other. Just a flawed mental approach to the situation.
You say he must "go for the lines" or the other option
is "safe spin and high over the net grinding."
What you guys need to realize is there is a ton of options between those 2 extremes
and somewhere in there, shaded to the aggressive side, is where
he needed to be.

Extending a career is out the window in the late rounds of a Major, : )

5263
09-08-2012, 10:31 AM
I think this is a good summary of the Berdych match. There is no plan-B because the "play safer and grind it out" strategy isn't feasible for him at this age.

Fine theory, except the plan B I recommend was what he used against del Potro
at OZ in 2012 Major, where he won fairly easily in straight sets and del Potro,
who by the way, was hitting bigger than Berdych.

mightyrick
09-08-2012, 11:09 AM
Sure it is, because we are talking about how to win that match...not extend a
career.
Fed would surely do any style of play just to make a US Open Final, and even
more so to get one more final slam win. No way is going to "go for the lines" and
lose in a Major to extend his career. Maybe he would in other tournaments.

No, he has either bought into the poor suggestions that you and Mighty make
here or he let his opponent make him feel he had to do more...that little extra
that good players trick you into thinking you need.

And the reason you guys don't understand the strategy is how you go from
one extreme to the other. Just a flawed mental approach to the situation.
You say he must "go for the lines" or the other option
is "safe spin and high over the net grinding."
What you guys need to realize is there is a ton of options between those 2 extremes
and somewhere in there, shaded to the aggressive side, is where
he needed to be.

Extending a career is out the window in the late rounds of a Major, : )

There isn't a "ton of options". That is purely speculative. At the highest of levels of tennis, the margins between victory and defeat are razor thin. This isn't recreational tennis.

All I am saying is that you are second guessing a man who has really no right to be second guessed at this point. He isn't some career Tour hack enjoying the life. This is ROGER FEDERER. And he has one of the greatest coaches ever in Paul Annacone . FAR GREATER THAN YOU, I'M SURE. You questioning Federer and Annacone is ridiculous.

Which is more likely? That you, 5263, has found an amazing insight that Federer and Annacone haven't thought of or explored? Or that you, 5263, don't have near enough data points and are being overly simplistic?

When I apply Occam's razor, I know which option I'm choosing.

5263
09-08-2012, 11:52 AM
There isn't a "ton of options".

That you, 5263, has found an amazing insight that Federer and Annacone haven't thought of or explored? Or that you, 5263, don't have near enough data points and are being overly simplistic?

When I apply Occam's razor, I know which option I'm choosing.

Sure there are a ton of options, lol, that you can't see them does not make them
go away.

This is a great example of how the beginner's mind works in tennis. I never stated
that Roger or Paul "haven't thought of or explored" as you say. Thats just where
your frantic mind took you. I even stated he has used the strategy in the
past and as recent as the OZ Open on a big hitter like this. I'm not trying to
take credit designing the better strategy here, but have observed Fed use it!
So your whole premise never even gets a start.

I'm simply stating that of the options that Fed has used in the past, he chose the WRONG
one for this match. He even went to it for a period of the 3rd set
where he dominated handily. We can only guess why he didn't stay the winning course.

As for me questioning his choice of strategy...well that is not near as out of place
as you questioning mine. As a young 3.5 closing in on 4.0, your trying to make
sense of what you are seeing to pass judgement is far, far more of a stretch
than me doing it with my experience as a player and coach. So with Occam's
razor, it's a no brainer to go with my assessment over yours (to use your thinking),
especially considering yours and Feds was proven unsuccessful! At least mine still
is has the chance it could be better, where yours is in the books as a loss.
Funny you ref Occam's, but say I may be too simplistic and suggest I have too few
data points when you have no idea how many I have. : ) reaching greatly.

Yes, I know you are thinking yours is better because it lines up with Fed, maybe the GOAT,
BUT he did lose this one and I think we all know it was
a winnable match for him if he could have made some better decisions.
So stick with Occam, but learn to use it better. The simple solution is
not usually one already dis-proven and a 3.5 rarely has better insight than
a much higher level player/coach.

mightyrick
09-08-2012, 12:43 PM
Sure there are a ton of options, lol, that you can't see them does not make them
go away.

This is a great example of how the beginner's mind works in tennis. I never stated
that Roger or Paul "haven't thought of or explored" as you say. Thats just where
your frantic mind took you. I even stated he has used the strategy in the
past and as recent as the OZ Open on a big hitter like this. I'm not trying to
take credit designing the better strategy here, but have observed Fed use it!
So your whole premise never even gets a start.

I'm simply stating that of the options that Fed has used in the past, he chose the WRONG
one for this match. He even went to it for a period of the 3rd set
where he dominated handily. We can only guess why he didn't stay the winning course.

As for me questioning his choice of strategy...well that is not near as out of place
as you questioning mine. As a young 3.5 closing in on 4.0, your trying to make
sense of what you are seeing to pass judgement is far, far more of a stretch
than me doing it with my experience as a player and coach. So with Occam's
razor, it's a no brainer to go with my assessment over yours (to use your thinking),
especially considering yours and Feds was proven unsuccessful! At least mine still
is has the chance it could be better, where yours is in the books as a loss.
Yes, I know you are thinking yours is better because it lines up with Fed, maybe the GOAT,
BUT he did lose this one and I think we all know it was
a winnable match for him if he could have made some better decisions.
So stick with Occam, but learn to use it better. The simple solution is
not usually one already dis-proven and a 3.5 rarely has better insight than
a much higher level player/coach.

I just listened to Federer's press conference. In the end, his reasoning for the loss wasn't a bunch of strategy gaps. He repeatedly said that it just wasn't there for him that night... and that he could have played better... taking advantage of his opportunities. But he didn't, so he lost.

Some nights, you just don't hit your shots -- because of whatever factors. And on those nights, you're going to lose. Period.

It might not be good enough for you, but I'll still take their view over yours. I might be a fledgling in tennis, but I've been on the earth long enough to know how to identify qualified experts.

FrisbeeFool
09-08-2012, 01:12 PM
So 5263, when Federer loses, it's because he's using an outdated Lansdorp style, but when he wins, it's because he used the modern mtm style?? Is that what this boils to for you?

You've filled up another page in the thread, and few if any of your comments are about Robert Lansdorp's coaching. Why turn every thread into an MTM debate? It's really silly.

sureshs
09-08-2012, 01:30 PM
So 5263, when Federer loses, it's because he's using an outdated Lansdorp style, but when he wins, it's because he used the modern mtm style?? Is that what this boils to for you?

You've filled up another page in the thread, and few if any of your comments are about Robert Lansdorp's coaching. Why turn every thread into an MTM debate? It's really silly.

I don't know why he insists on seeing everything from just one angle. It is getting tiring dealing with this all the time and responding to him about the countless other things that are going on.

5263
09-08-2012, 02:13 PM
Why turn every thread into an MTM debate? It's really silly.

You darned right this is silly, lol. You don't even know a MTM issue. This has nothing
to do with MTM that I know of Except does not teach to overextend like that. But I
don't remember mentioning it. It is a RL thread, so his overexertion is on topic.
Really the Fed tactics deal more with targeting issues though.
You are showing how little you know on all the
issues at hand...sorry.
I would have thought Sureshs knew better though.
I'm impressed with the boldness of the 3.5s and their knowledge online, but
they tend to be much more humble on court : )

mightyrick
09-08-2012, 02:35 PM
I'm impressed with the boldness of the 3.5s and their knowledge online, but
they tend to be much more humble on court : )

I'm pretty humble when it comes to advanced tennis concepts. If you'll notice, I didn't offer any strategy at all. No suggestions. All I did was offer observations of what I saw. I am nowhere near qualified to tell Federer the nuances of what he should or shouldn't have done in that situation.

The only thing I said is that I trust Federer and Annacone's view and strategic approach more than I trust yours. Why? Because they are imminently more qualified than you are. You certainly aren't going to disagree with that.

How you can say it is overly bold of me to take that stance, I simply don't understand. If anything, I would think I'd be praised for it. Because I'm deferring to the ultimate authority. Not some NTRP four point something middle man who happens to be a coach of other four point something players.

JW10S
09-08-2012, 06:15 PM
I don't know why he insists on seeing everything from just one angle. It is getting tiring dealing with this all the time and responding to him about the countless other things that are going on.Because he simply doesn't understand that there is more than one way to effectively play tennis, or to effectively hit the ball. As I've said before not everyone can, or should, play the same way--one size does not fit all as is evident by watching the pros play. He only knows one way--the one someone else told him--not the one he developed through his own experience. What's more tiring is that whenever anyone disagrees with him it's because, according to him, they 'just don't understand MTM'. It's not rocket science, it's tennis...we get it. We see it for exactly what it is--and for what it isn't.

5263
09-08-2012, 08:01 PM
Because he simply doesn't understand that there is more than one way to effectively play tennis, or to effectively hit the ball. As I've said before not everyone can, or should, play the same way--one size does not fit all as is evident by watching the pros play. He only knows one way--the one someone else told him--not the one he developed through his own experience. What's more tiring is that whenever anyone disagrees with him it's because, according to him, they 'just don't understand MTM'. It's not rocket science, it's tennis...we get it. We see it for exactly what it is--and for what it isn't.

You guys are clearly the ones who want to discuss MTM and keep bringing it up.
Must be a real sore spot for you. Is that envy?? I don't get your fasination.
Clearly several of you are quite preoccupied with Oscar and MTM, lol.
This discussion on Fed is mostly a strategy issue, which is not directly related
to MTM from my perspective.

But should be no surprise, since you love to talk about things you no NOTHING
about, like what my experience is or why I learned to appreciate MTM so.
But guess that is just how you roll with false assumptions. Looks like your learning
from your experience is full of false info, so what kind of example is that.
Maybe I shouldn't call it learning though.
What is truly tiring is correcting your mistakes from such a self professed hot shot.

So are you agreeing with those who think it was Fed's only chance to go for the lines?
Or just using this to bring up and take a shot at MTM?

sundaypunch
09-09-2012, 07:00 AM
I just listened to Federer's press conference. In the end, his reasoning for the loss wasn't a bunch of strategy gaps. He repeatedly said that it just wasn't there for him that night... and that he could have played better... taking advantage of his opportunities. But he didn't, so he lost.

Some nights, you just don't hit your shots -- because of whatever factors. And on those nights, you're going to lose. Period.

It might not be good enough for you, but I'll still take their view over yours. I might be a fledgling in tennis, but I've been on the earth long enough to know how to identify qualified experts.

Yes, that is exactly how the game works. Sometimes there isn't an alternate strategy that would have changed the outcome of the match. It is simplistic for people to assume that they know more about what works for Federer than he does, Paul Annacone, etc.

5263
09-09-2012, 01:18 PM
Yes, that is exactly how the game works. Sometimes there isn't an alternate strategy that would have changed the outcome of the match. It is simplistic for people to assume that they know more about what works for Federer than he does, Paul Annacone, etc.

Yep, those experts have all the answers, riiiight, lol.

That's why a certain superstar D1 coach tried to run off a certain QB who was
not even listed on the depth chart to get his scholarship available.
But after a couple of transfers and injuries, that QB was all that was left in a
offense that sputtered using the top QBs.
That expendable QB goes on to get the offense going,
win MVP of his first bowl game and lead them to SEC championship the next yr,
leaving the school holding SEC & NCAA records.

That's why another D1 school with ok offense had to go with 5th string tailback after some suspensions and injuries, then this 5th stringer goes for
over 200yds (highest for team that season and bowl record) in 1st game and is MVP, but had been buried in the depth chart by YOUR EXPERTS.

Thats why you hear of a player getting a certain injury and having to change what shots
he able to attempt, then makes a big comeback due to changes forced on his game style.

That why Tebow, who experts say can't throw or be a NFL QB, leads Broncos to playoff
with like 7wins on a previously losing team and several won on his passes.

That's why the Cowboys whipped the Superbowl champs Wed after ESPN experts said they
had no chance with the awesome Giants pass rush and the poor Dallas O line.

Yes, those experts have all the answers all the time...continue to believe that.:)

JW10S
09-09-2012, 02:16 PM
You guys are clearly the ones who want to discuss MTM and keep bringing it up.
Must be a real sore spot for you. Is that envy?? I don't get your fasination.
Clearly several of you are quite preoccupied with Oscar and MTM, lol.
This discussion on Fed is mostly a strategy issue, which is not directly related
to MTM from my perspective.

But should be no surprise, since you love to talk about things you no NOTHING
about, like what my experience is or why I learned to appreciate MTM so.
But guess that is just how you roll with false assumptions. Looks like your learning
from your experience is full of false info, so what kind of example is that.
Maybe I shouldn't call it learning though.
What is truly tiring is correcting your mistakes from such a self professed hot shot.

So are you agreeing with those who think it was Fed's only chance to go for the lines?
Or just using this to bring up and take a shot at MTM? I 'no NOTHING'--what does that mean? Sorry, I don't share the same narrow view of how the game should be played as you do--and I feel sorry for your clients since they are getting such limited instruction.

BTW, Lansdorp never worked with either Federer or Berdych, so discussions of their match has no relevance in this thread.

And only a 'self professed hot shot' like you, who has never played professional tennis, would assume that they know how Federer, the World #1 and holder of a record number of Grand Slam titles, as well as many other records, should play--I wouldn't, and I have played professional tennis. Correcting my mistakes? I think not...

5263
09-09-2012, 04:07 PM
BTW, Lansdorp never worked with either Federer or Berdych, so discussions of their match has no relevance in this thread.

And only a 'self professed hot shot' like you,..

No relevance?? Now that is a narrow perspective.

No, I'm not the hot shot one who brags on traveling to lecture on tennis or the
one who brags about what I make and rarely if ever shares tips while
lurking in the tips and instruction forum.

JW10S
09-09-2012, 04:48 PM
No relevance?? Now that is a narrow perspective.

No, I'm not the hot shot one who brags on traveling to lecture on tennis or the
one who brags about what I make and rarely if ever shares tips while
lurking in the tips and instruction forum.No, I don't log on here several times a day, everyday, like you. This is a far more important part of your life than it is mine. So your assertion that I 'lurk', which implies I read this forum regulary is where your are wrong--yet again. But on the occasion that I do I keep hoping I'll learn something like I do in my travels around the world. Unfortunately what I find is mostly drivel and nonsense from people who are not even coaches. Even though this is a tips/instruction forum most of those who post here are not coaches--I feel sorry for those who post vids here looking for help but are in reality getting advice from players who are worse than they are. I learn a lot from top coaches around the world, not just tennis coaches, but those from other sports as well. And you are the one who is most interested in what I make and keeps bringing it up--jealous much? The Berdych/Federer match has nothing to do with Lansdorp. Anyone implying such has another agenda they are trying to put forth.

sundaypunch
09-09-2012, 05:00 PM
Yep, those experts have all the answers, riiiight, lol.

That's why a certain superstar D1 coach tried to run off a certain QB who was
not even listed on the depth chart to get his scholarship available.
But after a couple of transfers and injuries, that QB was all that was left in a
offense that sputtered using the top QBs.
That expendable QB goes on to get the offense going,
win MVP of his first bowl game and lead them to SEC championship the next yr,
leaving the school holding SEC & NCAA records.

That's why another D1 school with ok offense had to go with 5th string tailback after some suspensions and injuries, then this 5th stringer goes for
over 200yds (highest for team that season and bowl record) in 1st game and is MVP, but had been buried in the depth chart by YOUR EXPERTS.

Thats why you hear of a player getting a certain injury and having to change what shots
he able to attempt, then makes a big comeback due to changes forced on his game style.

That why Tebow, who experts say can't throw or be a NFL QB, leads Broncos to playoff
with like 7wins on a previously losing team and several won on his passes.

That's why the Cowboys whipped the Superbowl champs Wed after ESPN experts said they
had no chance with the awesome Giants pass rush and the poor Dallas O line.

Yes, those experts have all the answers all the time...continue to believe that.:)

You know, I generally agree with most of your MTM related comments. When you start professing to know more about how Federer should play than he or his coach does....... frankly, that just makes you sound as if you are completely out of touch with reality.

You might be a competent instructor. As an anonymous poster here we don't even know that. There isn't a person here that thinks you are capable of giving Roger Federer any new insight.

5263
09-09-2012, 06:09 PM
You know, I generally agree with most of your MTM related comments. When you start professing to know more about how Federer should play than he or his coach does....... frankly, that just makes you sound as if you are completely out of touch with reality.

You might be a competent instructor. As an anonymous poster here we don't even know that. There isn't a person here that thinks you are capable of giving Roger Federer any new insight.

You are making the common mistake of putting you words to me. I didn't ever
say I know more than them, but said they made a mistake. Big difference.

That is fine. You are entitled to your opinion. I'm not trying to elevate myself so
much as I just don't put folks on a pedestal like that. For me, they are just
people that have done well in a sport or a business. I've done pretty well in
a few things myself and don't put myself on any pedestal either.
I know your perspective is far more common and understand that many people
tend to idolize and imagine their superhuman abilities; some more than others.
It's all fine and you will believe as you do of course. I've just been blessed to
have played with and closely associated with some of the best athletes of our
time. As amazing as they are in some areas to you, they can be so avg or common
in others, but maybe that is a reality not available to you.
It's all good:)

Uthree
09-09-2012, 06:40 PM
You know, I generally agree with most of your MTM related comments. When you start professing to know more about how Federer should play than he or his coach does....... frankly, that just makes you sound as if you are completely out of touch with reality.

You might be a competent instructor. As an anonymous poster here we don't even know that. There isn't a person here that thinks you are capable of giving Roger Federer any new insight.

You should probably speak only for yourself. I think he may well be capable of adding new insight as may others. You don't need a special qualification to add a new perspective.

FrisbeeFool
09-09-2012, 09:47 PM
BTW, Lansdorp never worked with either Federer or Berdych, so discussions of their match has no relevance in this thread.


Thank God, a ray of sanity, in this crazy thread! Why don't we talk about Lansdorp's work with Myskina, Sampras, Davenport etc. Why are we talking about berdych and federer when neither player has any connection to Robert Lansdorp.

FrisbeeFool
09-09-2012, 09:57 PM
http://tenniskalamazoo.blogspot.com/2009/03/talking-with-robert-lansdorp.html

If you go down to the comments section there are some interesting comments from players that trained with Robert Lansdorp.

FrisbeeFool
09-09-2012, 10:23 PM
Another interesting read is Sampras's autobiography. He speaks very highly of Lansdorp.

treblings
09-09-2012, 10:43 PM
http://tenniskalamazoo.blogspot.com/2009/03/talking-with-robert-lansdorp.html

If you go down to the comments section there are some interesting comments from players that trained with Robert Lansdorp.

interesting link, thanks
would you say that RL had more influence on u.s. tennis in the last decades than Nick Bollettieri? who is much more known btw over here in Europe

5263
09-09-2012, 10:45 PM
You should probably speak only for yourself. I think he may well be capable of adding new insight as may others. You don't need a special qualification to add a new perspective.

I know my observations are not enough for the doubters, but
Here is a bit of an Expert who covers not hitting for the lines.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrpXbmTjZNo
Thanks for the words. Don't know why they are so threatened by a different
perspective.

Uthree
09-10-2012, 01:32 AM
I know my observations are not enough for the doubters, but
Here is a bit of an Expert who covers not hitting for the lines.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrpXbmTjZNo
Thanks for the words. Don't know why they are so threatened by a different
perspective.

No worries. I'm interested in specifics what I can use on the court today.

FrisbeeFool
09-10-2012, 01:33 AM
interesting link, thanks
would you say that RL had more influence on u.s. tennis in the last decades than Nick Bollettieri? who is much more known btw over here in Europe

Hard to say. I don't know much about Bollettieri. I got interested in Lansdorp after reading Sampras's biography. I think Bolletieri might be more of a businessman, more into branding and promotion. I think he hires experts to help him with the coaching. As I understand it, he's more of a mentor and motivator, than an expert on technique.

I think Lansdorp is interested in one on one coaching and less into the business side.

They seem to have divergent approaches that were both effective in their own way.

treblings
09-10-2012, 01:54 AM
Hard to say. I don't know much about Bollettieri. I got interested in Lansdorp after reading Sampras's biography. I think Bolletieri might be more of a businessman, more into branding and promotion. I think he hires experts to help him with the coaching. As I understand it, he's more of a mentor and motivator, than an expert on technique.

I think Lansdorp is interested in one on one coaching and less into the business side.

They seem to have divergent approaches that were both effective in their own way.

i agree why Bollettieri is more of a household name than Lansdorp. just check youtube, and you know who is more into self-promoting and the business end of things.
but there seems to be a school of thought, that Lansdorp is more influential
in how american tennis developed over the last decades and that he is maybe indirectly responsible for the lack of success of u.s. players in the present.
i would like to understand why that is. or maybe i just misunderstood that point

treblings
09-10-2012, 02:02 AM
I know my observations are not enough for the doubters, but
Here is a bit of an Expert who covers not hitting for the lines.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrpXbmTjZNo
Thanks for the words. Don't know why they are so threatened by a different
perspective.

talk tennis is about bringing your observations, opinions and perspectives to the debate, isnīt it? even if i disagree with something, it forces me to focus my own thinking on the subject.
posters like you bring a lot to the forum, because they actively contribute with tips and advice rather than just critizising others.

FrisbeeFool
09-10-2012, 02:40 AM
i agree why Bollettieri is more of a household name than Lansdorp. just check youtube, and you know who is more into self-promoting and the business end of things.
but there seems to be a school of thought, that Lansdorp is more influential
in how american tennis developed over the last decades and that he is maybe indirectly responsible for the lack of success of u.s. players in the present.
i would like to understand why that is. or maybe i just misunderstood that point

One of the coaches that contribute here could answer this better, but I'll give it a try. In America, the best athletes gravitate towards football, basketball and other sports. Tennis does not have the same level of prestige. For instance on espn's one hour long episode of sportscenter last night they devoted maybe 45 minutes to the first week of regular season football, but 45 seconds to Serena's US open win.

Tennis is more global now. Competition is coming from all over the globe. No one coach is to blame for a lack or American success. The US coaching system is very decentralized, and individual coaches like Mike Wolf, who coached up Jack Sock in suburban Kansas continue to do great work. Unfortunately many of the best athletes in America can find more prestige within American culture in other sports.

5263 has an axe to grind with Lansdorp because 5263 is a devotee of Oscar Wegner. Nearly everyone here disagrees with 5263, but he posts 10 times for each one post of other posters. Wegner tries to sell DVDs and books online by denegrating other coaches and exaggerating his own credentials. http://www.oscarwegner.com/2012/05/the-real-history-of-usa-tennis-instruction-what-happened-when-and-where-by-john-carpenter/ In this link, Wegner claims Lansdorp doesn't understand topspin, and didn't play a significant role in coaching Pete Sampras. Pete Sampras's own autobiography contradicts this, and is highly laudatory in regards to Robert Lansdorp.

Lansdorp has personally developed many number one players, so how can anyone blame him for Americas alleged tennis failures. He is just one guy coaching private lessons in Southern California.

If you read the junior tennis forums, there is a lot of debate there about Patrick McEnroe and the USTA. I can't comment on that, I'm not an expert.

treblings
09-10-2012, 04:40 AM
One of the coaches that contribute here could answer this better, but I'll give it a try. In America, the best athletes gravitate towards football, basketball and other sports. Tennis does not have the same level of prestige. For instance on espn's one hour long episode of sportscenter last night they devoted maybe 45 minutes to the first week of regular season football, but 45 seconds to Serena's US open win.

Tennis is more global now. Competition is coming from all over the globe. No one coach is to blame for a lack or American success. The US coaching system is very decentralized, and individual coaches like Mike Wolf, who coached up Jack Sock in suburban Kansas continue to do great work. Unfortunately many of the best athletes in America can find more prestige within American culture in other sports.

5263 has an axe to grind with Lansdorp because 5263 is a devotee of Oscar Wegner. Nearly everyone here disagrees with 5263, but he posts 10 times for each one post of other posters. Wegner tries to sell DVDs and books online by denegrating other coaches and exaggerating his own credentials. http://www.oscarwegner.com/2012/05/the-real-history-of-usa-tennis-instruction-what-happened-when-and-where-by-john-carpenter/ In this link, Wegner claims Lansdorp doesn't understand topspin, and didn't play a significant role in coaching Pete Sampras. Pete Sampras's own autobiography contradicts this, and is highly laudatory in regards to Robert Lansdorp.

Lansdorp has personally developed many number one players, so how can anyone blame him for Americas alleged tennis failures. He is just one guy coaching private lessons in Southern California.

If you read the junior tennis forums, there is a lot of debate there about Patrick McEnroe and the USTA. I can't comment on that, I'm not an expert.

tennis has the same problem in large parts of europe. if you want your kid to succeed in sports, let him/her play soccer/football.
if you want to mortage your house to pay coaches, travel costs, court time, etc let your kid play tennis
in many countries there is no coordinated system in regards of coaching.
a kid changes coaches, and the new coach often values different things, favors different approaches and the kid has to unlearn,re-learn, etc

concerning Lansdorp. when you are as successful as he obviously is/was, than you are influencing people to follow in your footsteps and copy your methods and ideas. i got the feeling from tt that some think, his technical teaching might be considered outdated.

i cannot share your antipathy towards 5263. i like him and value him.

mightyrick
09-10-2012, 06:10 AM
I know my observations are not enough for the doubters, but
Here is a bit of an Expert who covers not hitting for the lines.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrpXbmTjZNo
Thanks for the words. Don't know why they are so threatened by a different
perspective.

Nobody is threatened by a perspective or an observation. The issue is with HOW you state your opinions (and they are opinions, not fact). You speak as if you have absolute proof and evidence. You never say something like, "I wonder if Roger might have hit a little safer if it wouldn't have had a better effect." You end up say something like, "They made a mistake." There is a big difference.

And the second somebody calls you on it, you climb up on the cross, nail yourself to it, and get all bent out of shape. It's ridiculous.

Let's be clear. You don't know Federer's game better than Federer and Annacone. You don't know if your suggested approach would have worked or not. You don't know if Federer and Annacone considered this approach or not. You don't know what the outcome would have been in those conditions.

It's one thing to posit an alternative strategy with some humility and have a reasonable discussion. It's another thing to say "they made a mistake" with no humility and a know-it-all attitude.

If you were just a tad more humble in your posts and acted with a little more modesty, you might find people would be more inclined to focus on your content and have a reasonable discussion with you... as opposed to basically having discussions about you acting like a dork.

5263
09-10-2012, 09:32 AM
If you were just a tad more humble in your posts and acted with a little more modesty, you might find people would be more inclined to focus on your content and have a reasonable discussion with you... as opposed to basically having discussions about you acting like a dork.

Probably pretty good advice overall, but even better for yourself and FrisFool.
Sometimes I mention imo, but generally figure folks should realize that is how
a forum works. Sometimes I put my reference, which really ticks off folks who
don't like that approach. In the end, you can't please everyone and I don't
need to. You always have those like FrisFool that will say anything to advance
their agenda like the several black and white lies above.

5263
09-10-2012, 09:38 AM
5263 has an axe to grind with Lansdorp because 5263 is a devotee of Oscar Wegner.

At least I give an even handed account on RL strengths and weaknesses as I
see them, and not bold lies like you above. You seem way more of a devotee or
follower because you can't abide any possible negative about RL and you see
nothing good with MTM. Good sign of one with an agenda.

The two issues above are unrelated other than how their techniques differ.
What does RL have to do with Oscar? how do you get there?

Limpinhitter
09-10-2012, 10:09 AM
Nobody is threatened by a perspective or an observation. . . .

Really? You might want to reconsider that premise.

FrisbeeFool
09-10-2012, 11:42 AM
At least I give an even handed account on RL strengths and weaknesses as I
see them, and not bold lies like you above. You seem way more of a devotee or
follower because you can't abide any possible negative about RL and you see
nothing good with MTM. Good sign of one with an agenda.

The two issues above are unrelated other than how their techniques differ.
What does RL have to do with Oscar? how do you get there?

Look at the entire post you quoted instead of taking one line out of context and you will have an answer to your question. The two have no connection in mind, just like Federer and Berdych have no place in this discussion. I trust Sampras's first hand accounts of his experiences with Robert Lansdorp. I have offered links that offer even-handed first hand accounts of Robert Lansdorp, and discuss his strengths and weakness. Most of your posts in this thread are not on topic and are actually not about the real Robert Lansdorp or his coaching. I think I'll trust Sampras, Davenport, Austin, and others first hand accounts of their personal experiences with Robert Lansdorp, thank you.

Did you read the link I posted, where Eric Amend contributes his first hand opinion of Lansdorp in the comments section. It's pretty illuminating.



5263 has an axe to grind with Lansdorp because 5263 is a devotee of Oscar Wegner. Nearly everyone here disagrees with 5263, but he posts 10 times for each one post of other posters. Wegner tries to sell DVDs and books online by denegrating other coaches and exaggerating his own credentials. http://www.oscarwegner.com/2012/05/the-real-history-of-usa-tennis-instruction-what-happened-when-and-where-by-john-carpenter/ In this link, Wegner claims Lansdorp doesn't understand topspin, and didn't play a significant role in coaching Pete Sampras. Pete Sampras's own autobiography contradicts this, and is highly laudatory in regards to Robert Lansdorp.

Lansdorp has personally developed many number one players, so how can anyone blame him for Americas alleged tennis failures. He is just one guy coaching private lessons in Southern California.

tennisfan69
09-11-2012, 10:04 AM
Look at the entire post you quoted instead of taking one line out of context and you will have an answer to your question. The two have no connection in mind, just like Federer and Berdych have no place in this discussion. I trust Sampras's first hand accounts of his experiences with Robert Lansdorp. I have offered links that offer even-handed first hand accounts of Robert Lansdorp, and discuss his strengths and weakness. Most of your posts in this thread are not on topic and are actually not about the real Robert Lansdorp or his coaching. I think I'll trust Sampras, Davenport, Austin, and others first hand accounts of their personal experiences with Robert Lansdorp, thank you.

Did you read the link I posted, where Eric Amend contributes his first hand opinion of Lansdorp in the comments section. It's pretty illuminating.

Can we say if we send one talented 5 year old kid to Robert and make the kid stay and learn/coach/drill with Robert till he is say 19-20 years, we can get a grand slam champion. i would say Yes. what say you all....

connico
09-11-2012, 03:18 PM
Can we say if we send one talented 5 year old kid to Robert and make the kid stay and learn/coach/drill with Robert till he is say 19-20 years, we can get a grand slam champion. i would say Yes. what say you all....

I wouldn't bet on it...

5263
09-11-2012, 03:23 PM
Look at the entire post you quoted instead of taking one line out of context .

Naa, I'll just do my post and let you do yours.
By the way, tennis magazine digital suggest that Fed's 40 UEs tell the story
of the match & UEs most often come from going for too much.

I don't have any problem with RL, and am glad to hear all the good things his
fans can share about him. I'm very happy to look thru those for some useful
truths. Would be nice if I didn't have to deal with fans who want to create
drama with misinfo and mis-stating my position.
Clearly he has made a fine contribution to many players games and imo
the obvious couple of things have some forth and maybe some more subtle
things will be learned with time.

5263
09-11-2012, 06:25 PM
Did you read the link I posted, where Eric Amend contributes his first hand opinion of Lansdorp in the comments section. It's pretty illuminating.
sure did and agree with you very... illuminating & like my take on him as well.
Quoted it before, but guess you missed it.
Here are most of the final summary pts:

In a world of PC, he is politically incorrect....who really cares, but over does it
In a world of the quick fix, he teaches discipline....probably his best quality!
In a world of technology, he uses an ace bandage to tie the player's hand to his racket so as to make the player and the racket "one.".....Ok I guess
In a world of "do it ... but quickly," he emphasizes repetition to the point of frustration....Right up there as a best quality!
In a world of many tennis grips, he prefers one or two grips to be used consistently....RL is on record that aggressive grips are a negative but is wrong
In a tennis world that emphasizes top spin, he emphasizes flat, driving groundstrokes....another mistake as you must have both in spades

5263
09-11-2012, 06:28 PM
Can we say if we send one talented 5 year old kid to Robert and make the kid stay and learn/coach/drill with Robert till he is say 19-20 years, we can get a grand slam champion. i would say Yes. what say you all....

Totally unfair challenge but would be incredibly impressive if he could.
Conni is right, and highly unlikely for any coach at least in Men's game.
Might could do it in WTA if he screened the girl well.

JohnYandell
09-11-2012, 07:24 PM
Robert would be the first to say--I've asked him--that when he looks at a young player there is no way to say this one is a sure champion. "Maybe" is as far as anyone can really say, but beyond that only time with all the factors involved can tell. No one is a fortune teller and those that claim to be have the credibility of fortune tellers.

Robert has proved himself one of the most flexible and adaptive coaches in the history of junior development. He has learned from the players. As the game has evolved with reverse finishes and wiper finishes, he has studied that evolution and incorporated it into his teaching.

He understands players from Pete to Nadal. He isn't bound by any ideologies.

arche3
09-12-2012, 05:16 AM
Robert would be the first to say--I've asked him--that when he looks at a young player there is no way to say this one is a sure champion. "Maybe" is as far as anyone can really say, but beyond that only time with all the factors involved can tell. No one is a fortune teller and those that claim to be have the credibility of fortune tellers.



So is Ric Maci a fool for proclaiming one of his young kids is a slam champion every few years? I agree with Robert. No way to know. How does Maci know?

5263
09-12-2012, 06:42 AM
So is Ric Maci a fool for proclaiming one of his young kids is a slam champion every few years? I agree with Robert. No way to know. How does Maci know?

Macci is picking from his best of the best he has to look at and will still likely
not have a top 10 players in most cases, much less a winner of Majors (on
men's side) I do think the women's side is wide open for odd things to happen.

Macci is a promoter in this case. Not a fool, cause he makes money and few will
remember unless he is right.
Remember, he was passing on Williams sisters till one walked off the courts on
her hands, lol.
I guess when my son was there at 15 he should have dunked as he left the court
having beat Macci's yr older player 1 &1.

tennisfan69
09-12-2012, 08:19 AM
......
.....
In a world of many tennis grips, he prefers one or two grips to be used consistently....RL is on record that aggressive grips are a negative but is wrong
In a tennis world that emphasizes top spin, he emphasizes flat, driving groundstrokes....another mistake as you must have both in spades

heard from my friend in LA, Robert has stopped recommending or changing grips to players UNLESS the player has been coaching with him continuously for some time and the kid is young enough.

Flat hitting is recommended for most of the shots by Robert. He also recommends using spin for situations where it is required.

actually i agree with John that Robert is still a great learner of Current tennis, I wouldnt call it Modern because what ever IS current IS modern, but he has also some foundation building methods that are age and time tested and proven.

TennisCJC
09-12-2012, 08:58 AM
Can we say if we send one talented 5 year old kid to Robert and make the kid stay and learn/coach/drill with Robert till he is say 19-20 years, we can get a grand slam champion. i would say Yes. what say you all....

I say yea if the kid is an offspring of Andre Agassi and Steffi Graff. I like Robert and would love to take a lesson from him but let's give him a sporting chance by priming the pump with some good genes.

5263
09-12-2012, 09:48 AM
heard from my friend in LA, Robert has stopped recommending or changing grips to players UNLESS the player has been coaching with him continuously for some time and the kid is young enough.

Flat hitting is recommended for most of the shots by Robert. He also recommends using spin for situations where it is required.

actually i agree with John that Robert is still a great learner of Current tennis, I wouldnt call it Modern because what ever IS current IS modern, but he has also some foundation building methods that are age and time tested and proven.

Yes, he is learning after multiple GSs are won by less conservative grips, which he
said couldn't happen, but wasn't long ago where he was loudly proclaiming how
coaches who allow this were not telling you that 6-8 yrs down the road, these
grip left you screwed. (paraphrased)
Not bashing him or anything, but just an area where he decided to be outspoken
and drive home a point, but was very wrong. I still think his reps and discipline are
very key! I know some will whine at any mention of a mistake by him.

JohnYandell
09-12-2012, 10:02 AM
I don't think I have heard Rick say this or that kid will definitely win a slam.