PDA

View Full Version : The concept of the windshield wiper is bogus


Pages : [1] 2

David L
01-21-2009, 04:02 PM
I had never heard the idea of the windshield wiper forehand until I started visiting sites like this. Another notion which was new to me was the idea that a semi-western forehand was in some way modern, revolutionary or difficult to do; to me and most of the people I know who play, it has always been the norm and standard procedure. On top of this, you had people calling the semi-western grip an eastern grip, suggesting a player like Federer hits with an eastern or Agassi with some sort of mild semi-western, almost eastern grip. I think all of these ideas have created confusion and made it more difficult to learn the game properly. The sooner we get rid of the windshield wiper idea, plus the notion the semi-western grip is some sort of extreme complicated stroke, the better. It's a very easy stroke to hit and the most convenient, but consciously coming across the body, in an attempt to emulate a windshield wiper, is not the way to go about it, so here I am posting a couple of YouTube videos that I hope will help people trying to learn the game. The first is from tommyenglish1 and provides additional help, in the text to the right, how to go about executing the stroke. The second is from tennisomnia and shows another person learning the stroke and executing it pretty well. I hope people will be able to pick up a few tips from just observing these videos and reading the text in the first one.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=vK2JougB9sg&feature=channel_page

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VpgFxobhilQ&NR=1

certifiedjatt
01-21-2009, 04:05 PM
what you're trying to do is be reasonable, and examine old ideas under at least a more critical eye....
...this is NO place for that.

BeHappy
01-21-2009, 04:22 PM
What is called an Eastern grip varies to something that is basically a semi western to a borderline continental (chopper grip), I bet this explains your confusion? The names are ****** I have to agree. The so called windshield wiper is the natural effect of the hand rotation caused by using an extreme grip, it is the unguided finish.

David L
01-21-2009, 05:40 PM
what you're trying to do is be reasonable, and examine old ideas under at least a more critical eye....
...this is NO place for that.
.....:lol:

David L
01-21-2009, 05:46 PM
What is called an Eastern grip varies to something that is basically a semi western to a borderline continental (chopper grip), I bet this explains your confusion? The names are ****** I have to agree. The so called windshield wiper is the natural effect of the hand rotation caused by using an extreme grip, it is the unguided finish.

I don't have any confusion on this subject, I've been playing the game for over 25 years. However, I think a lot of the instruction out there for new players trying to learn the game is not helpful and is just wrong.

David L
01-21-2009, 05:49 PM
what you're trying to do is be reasonable, and examine old ideas under at least a more critical eye....
...this is NO place for that.
Just to add, to my mind, the windshield wiper concept is a new and false idea, not an old one.:)

habib
01-21-2009, 05:52 PM
Just to add, to my mind, the windshield wiper concept is a new and false idea, not an old one.:)

Why do you call it a false one? The windshield wiper concept is only new as far as being widespread and so termed. In reality, pros have used such a follow-through for decades, just not as often as you see it nowadays (in part because it's a more natural follow-through for the 'extreme' grips - SW and W).

(And yes, I know you don't see the SW as an extreme, and you're right, but we're talking from the classical perspective here...)

ThA_Azn_DeViL
01-21-2009, 05:57 PM
So what your saying is,

Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Murray, and EVERY single pro on the tour, is doing their motion wrong.

hmm, this intrigues me, i know for sure you wouldnt have a chance of hell in beating a pro.

You dont have to attack techniques that arent suited for you... Sorry if im harsh, its what my opinion is.

herosol
01-21-2009, 06:22 PM
I had never heard the idea of the windshield wiper forehand until I started visiting sites like this. Another notion which was new to me was the idea that a semi-western forehand was in some way modern, revolutionary or difficult to do; to me and most of the people I know who play, it has always been the norm and standard procedure. On top of this, you had people calling the semi-western grip an eastern grip, suggesting a player like Federer hits with an eastern or Agassi with some sort of mild semi-western, almost eastern grip. I think all of these ideas have created confusion and made it more difficult to learn the game properly. The sooner we get rid of the windshield wiper idea, plus the notion the semi-western grip is some sort of extreme complicated stroke, the better. It's a very easy stroke to hit and the most convenient, but consciously coming across the body, in an attempt to emulate a windshield wiper, is not the way to go about it, so here I am posting a couple of YouTube videos that I hope will help people trying to learn the game. The first is from tommyenglish1 and provides additional help, in the text to the right, how to go about executing the stroke. The second is from tennisomnia and shows another person learning the stroke and executing it pretty well. I hope people will be able to pick up a few tips from just observing these videos and reading the text in the first one.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=vK2JougB9sg&feature=channel_page

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VpgFxobhilQ&NR=1

David L

Are you trying to imply that Federer, Nadal, Murray, Djoker, Nalbandian, Del Potro, Gasquet, Monfils, Davydenko....

That their techniques are all inferior to your own?

I feel bad for ya....almost...

jasoncho92
01-21-2009, 06:55 PM
Just another old guy who thinks tennis died after the S&V died i guess.

BeHappy
01-21-2009, 07:01 PM
Why do you call it a false one? The windshield wiper concept is only new as far as being widespread and so termed. In reality, pros have used such a follow-through for decades, just not as often as you see it nowadays (in part because it's a more natural follow-through for the 'extreme' grips - SW and W).

(And yes, I know you don't see the SW as an extreme, and you're right, but we're talking from the classical perspective here...)

exactly .

certifiedjatt
01-21-2009, 07:12 PM
Just to add, to my mind, the windshield wiper concept is a new and false idea, not an old one.:)

by old, i meant ideas that are repeated w/o basis and accepted without scrutiny because "...my coach said so!" and "...because roger federer does it!"

WildVolley
01-21-2009, 07:21 PM
I'm not sure who you are really complaining about in this post. If you are calling people out, have the guts to call them out.

Most of the people that post on this board, as I recall in past threads, use a semi-western grip. I believe it is usually the most promoted grip here too. So, I'm not sure why you think that this board is discouraging people from using the SW grip?

I know that there have been posts in the past by enthusiasts about subtle differences in the way different players hit. The one that sticks in my mind was the discussion of "push" versus "pull" modern forehands. I ultimately never understood it, but I like the idea that people are trying to expand their knowledge about how to best hit.

David L
01-21-2009, 08:17 PM
Why do you call it a false one? The windshield wiper concept is only new as far as being widespread and so termed. In reality, pros have used such a follow-through for decades, just not as often as you see it nowadays (in part because it's a more natural follow-through for the 'extreme' grips - SW and W).

(And yes, I know you don't see the SW as an extreme, and you're right, but we're talking from the classical perspective here...)
Look at the videos and read the description.

David L
01-21-2009, 08:19 PM
So what your saying is,

Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Murray, and EVERY single pro on the tour, is doing their motion wrong.

hmm, this intrigues me, i know for sure you wouldnt have a chance of hell in beating a pro.

You dont have to attack techniques that arent suited for you... Sorry if im harsh, its what my opinion is.
No, they all hit standard semi-western or western forehands. My point is their technique has nothing to do with emulating a windshield wiper.

David L
01-21-2009, 08:25 PM
David L

Are you trying to imply that Federer, Nadal, Murray, Djoker, Nalbandian, Del Potro, Gasquet, Monfils, Davydenko....

That their techniques are all inferior to your own?

I feel bad for ya....almost...
No, their techniques are all fine and 'correct', but it has nothing to do with a windshield wiper. When you adopt a semi-western or western forehand, your follow-through occurs naturally. The physiology of my technique is just the same as theirs, but neither they or I try to come across the ball. We deal directly with it by hitting through and up the back of it, not coming across it. The racket ends up on the other side of our body after the stroke because this is the natural place for it to go. There is not a conscious effort to emulate a windshield wiper.

David L
01-21-2009, 08:30 PM
I'm not sure who you are really complaining about in this post. If you are calling people out, have the guts to call them out.

Most of the people that post on this board, as I recall in past threads, use a semi-western grip. I believe it is usually the most promoted grip here too. So, I'm not sure why you think that this board is discouraging people from using the SW grip?

I know that there have been posts in the past by enthusiasts about subtle differences in the way different players hit. The one that sticks in my mind was the discussion of "push" versus "pull" modern forehands. I ultimately never understood it, but I like the idea that people are trying to expand their knowledge about how to best hit.
I'm not calling anyone out in particular, just coaches in general who use the windshield wiper concept. Also, where did I say this board was discouraging anyone using the semi-western grip? Did you have a look at the video links I posted?

David L
01-21-2009, 08:33 PM
by old, i meant ideas that are repeated w/o basis and accepted without scrutiny because "...my coach said so!" and "...because roger federer does it!"
Yes I know, I was just being literal.:)

David L
01-21-2009, 08:45 PM
Just another old guy who thinks tennis died after the S&V died i guess.
I'm not old and I was never a huge fan of serve and volley tennis, but I don't mind it.

WildVolley
01-21-2009, 09:00 PM
I'm not calling anyone out in particular, just coaches in general who use the windshield wiper concept. Also, where did I say this board was discouraging anyone using the semi-western grip? Did you have a look at the video links I posted?

You specifically said you got the notion from this site, or similar sites, that the SW was "difficult to do." Perhaps I was reading too much into what you meant by writing that.

I don't think you are correct to disparage the term windshield wiper forehand, as it is possible to hit with a semi-western without using that technique. But I agree with you that the SW isn't hard to teach or learn.

I've taught a number of beginners how to hit the standard SW forehand and it immediately gave them more topspin and power. I actually used tips from this forum to help teach it.

David L
01-22-2009, 12:54 AM
You specifically said you got the notion from this site, or similar sites, that the SW was "difficult to do." Perhaps I was reading too much into what you meant by writing that.
Yes, this site and others. Basically all over the internet. I didn't say the semi-western forehand was difficult. I think it's a very straightforward and intuitive stroke, but reading some of the posts here over the years would suggest otherwise. I was saying I believe some people are over thinking it or over coaching it.

I don't think you are correct to disparage the term windshield wiper forehand, as it is possible to hit with a semi-western without using that technique. But I agree with you that the SW isn't hard to teach or learn.
Okay, this is an honest disagreement. I disparage the term because a windshield wiper motion is not involved in hitting a semi-western/western based forehand. If you were to do this you would come across the ball and not hit through it. No pro hits forehands like this, the only purpose of which would be to literally put side spin on the ball, which is going to create a less effective shot anyway, with less penetration and less topspin. I just think the windshield wiper term is a misnomer which has no benefit and can create misunderstanding about what is and should be happening with a sw/w based forehand.


I've taught a number of beginners how to hit the standard SW forehand and it immediately gave them more topspin and power. I actually used tips from this forum to help teach it.
I'm not saying anything bad about the semi-western forehand. I use it myself and recommend it as the best type of forehand to learn. My only criticism is about understanding the stroke as a windshield wiper. I'm glad you have found helpful tips on this forum, but was one of those understanding sw/w based forehands as windshield wipers? The coach in the video I posted believes this is an incorrect way of understanding the stroke which creates problems in its execution and I agree with him, because you hit through the ball, not across it.

SystemicAnomaly
01-22-2009, 01:33 AM
... I just think the windshield wiper term is a misnomer which has no benefit and can create misunderstanding about what is and should be happening with a sw/w based forehand...

Yes, perhaps a misnomer if you take the idea of a windshield wiper action literally. The WW finish is really a 3-D action, not a 2-dimensional one. The WW term is used to distinguish it from other types of follow-thru motions.

I will agree that the notion of a WW finish can be counterproductive if the terminology throws off the tennis student to the point where he/she is not hitting thru the ball. When using this terminology, it should be emphasized that it is not a 2-D action.

The WW terminology did not have its roots in these forums. It is used by many coaches and respected tennis web sites. John Yandell (TennisPlayer.net (http://www.uspta.com/index.cfm/act/newsletter.cfm/category/USPTA-e-news/menuitemid/1617/MenuGroup/New-USPTA-About/NewsLetterID/572.htm#11)) and others have adopted the terminology. Here is a sampling:

www.Hi-TechTennis.com (http://www.hi-techtennis.com/)
Fuzzy Yellow Balls (http://www.fuzzyyellowballs.com/videos/index.php/view/994/287/Windshield_Wiper_Forehand_Progressions_Step_1_Swin g_and_Follow_Through)
Tennis magazine article - Federer FH (http://www.tennis.com/yourgame/instructionarticles/forehand/forehand.aspx?id=129054)
Tennis magazine article - Nadal FH (http://www.tennis.com/yourgame/instructionarticles/forehand/forehand.aspx?id=56544)

Thud and blunder
01-22-2009, 02:53 AM
I think David is making an important point, which is perhaps too subtle for some posters.
I can relate exactly to what he's saying; when I modernised my forehand, I concentrated too much on emulating the WW follow-through, as a result of which I was hitting very spinny shots with little penetration. You see this a lot also with kids who have just been taught WW. They can only hit semi-moonballs with it.
It's only when you realise that if you set up correctly, and concentrate on hitting through the ball, that the WW finish happens automatically and very naturally...that's when you can make progress.

So I agree, coaches would do better to not even talk about WW, concentrate on the setup and contact phase, and then the WW will take care of itself, usually with better results than if the student is consciously focusing on WW.

It's a bit like the advice to brush up on the ball. Concentrate too much on that, and you're just going to hit fluff.

David L
01-22-2009, 04:12 AM
Yes, perhaps a misnomer if you take the idea of a windshield wiper action literally. The WW finish is really a 3-D action, not a 2-dimensional one. The WW term is used to distinguish it from other types of follow-thru motions.

I will agree that the notion of a WW finish can be counterproductive if the terminology throws off the tennis student to the point where he/she is not hitting thru the ball. When using this terminology, it should be emphasized that it is not a 2-D action.

The WW terminology did not have its roots in these forums. It is used by many coaches and respected tennis web sites. John Yandell (TennisPlayer.net (http://www.uspta.com/index.cfm/act/newsletter.cfm/category/USPTA-e-news/menuitemid/1617/MenuGroup/New-USPTA-About/NewsLetterID/572.htm#11)) and others have adopted the terminology. Here is a sampling:

www.Hi-TechTennis.com (http://www.hi-techtennis.com/)
Fuzzy Yellow Balls (http://www.fuzzyyellowballs.com/videos/index.php/view/994/287/Windshield_Wiper_Forehand_Progressions_Step_1_Swin g_and_Follow_Through)
Tennis magazine article - Federer FH (http://www.tennis.com/yourgame/instructionarticles/forehand/forehand.aspx?id=129054)
Tennis magazine article - Nadal FH (http://www.tennis.com/yourgame/instructionarticles/forehand/forehand.aspx?id=56544)
What other follow-throughs (sic) are there apart from the normal and natural one where you finish on the other side of your body and the reverse forehand, which requires an unnatural intervention to prevent it from going to the other side of the body?

Also, I disagree with much of what Yandell has to say, so he would be one of the people I am criticizing here.

David L
01-22-2009, 04:16 AM
I think David is making an important point, which is perhaps too subtle for some posters.
I can relate exactly to what he's saying; when I modernised my forehand, I concentrated too much on emulating the WW follow-through, as a result of which I was hitting very spinny shots with little penetration. You see this a lot also with kids who have just been taught WW. They can only hit semi-moonballs with it.
It's only when you realise that if you set up correctly, and concentrate on hitting through the ball, that the WW finish happens automatically and very naturally...that's when you can make progress.

So I agree, coaches would do better to not even talk about WW, concentrate on the setup and contact phase, and then the WW will take care of itself, usually with better results than if the student is consciously focusing on WW.

It's a bit like the advice to brush up on the ball. Concentrate too much on that, and you're just going to hit fluff.
This is precisely what I am talking about folks.

ThA_Azn_DeViL
01-22-2009, 04:51 AM
This is precisely what I am talking about folks.

I can somewhat agree with that, you definitely need to be concious that your doing WW motion, but yes, dont force it. I did, paid the price with my wrist, and learned my lesson.

David L
01-22-2009, 05:04 AM
I can somewhat agree with that, you definitely need to be concious that your doing WW motion, but yes, dont force it. I did, paid the price with my wrist, and learned my lesson.
No, I disagree you need to be conscious of the windshield wiper at all, because it happens naturally after contact, whether you are conscious of it or not, and is not an essential part of the stroke, but a consequence of it. Your racket cannot help but go to the other side of your body if you don't try to resist. What you need to be conscious of is hitting through and/or up the back of the ball, the rest takes care of itself.

chico9166
01-22-2009, 05:16 AM
This is precisely what I am talking about folks.

I can appreciate the fact you're trying to promote extension based swing patterns. I too, believe that many players short circuit the learning process by overdoing the right to left movement (wiper effect) of the swing. As a result, the player never learns to hit through the line of the shot properly, and it really hinders their development.

Having said that, good players can, and do, regulate the hand and arm rotation in a situational context. This is where your argument falls short in my opinion. They can extend the hell out of the swing when trying to hit through the court, or amp up the wiper effect to open up the court via a short angle, for instance. In other words, they know how to convert more force to spin production. It's an aquired skill.

Again, I agree that a good coach teaches students extension in the swing initially. This is the cornerstone to good stroke production. However, I also believe,that a student, once a certain level of proficiency is attained, should be taught to enhance spin production via increased hand and arm rotation. In other words, the understanding of "what causes what". They will be better equipped to deal with the dynamic nature of the game.

David L
01-22-2009, 05:36 AM
I can appreciate the fact you're trying to promote extension based swing patterns. I too, believe that many players short circuit the learning process by overdoing the right to left movement (wiper effect) of the swing. As a result, the player never learns to hit through the line of the shot properly, and it really hinders their development.

Having said that, good players can, and do, regulate the hand and arm rotation in a situational context. This is where your argument falls short in my opinion. They can extend the hell out of the swing when trying to hit through the court, or amp up the wiper effect to open up the court via a short angle, for instance. In other words, they know how to convert more force to spin production. It's an aquired skill.

Again, I agree that a good coach teaches students extension in the swing initially. This is the cornerstone to good stroke production. However, I also believe,that a student, once a certain level of proficiency is attained, should be taught to enhance spin production via increased hand and arm rotation. In other words, the understanding of "what causes what". They will be better equipped to deal with the dynamic nature of the game.
Sure, it's not only about hitting through the ball. I mentioned also hitting up the back of it, but the purpose of my original post was to dispute the accuracy of the windshield wiper analogy. Obviously, when it comes to applying more or less topspin, a student will be taught, in addition to following through, that they can use their upper arm, forearm and wrist to accelerate up the back and through the ball from low to high, but the focus should always be on what you want to do to the ball, not about doing windshield wiper impersonations, which will most likely create the wrong action.

jules2
01-22-2009, 06:34 AM
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VpgFxobhilQ&NR=1

On a side note, that guy has a superb forehand. Nice hair too!

Sublime
01-22-2009, 06:54 AM
David,

I think you misunderstand the WW forehand. The WW part of the forehand is a product of the increased angle you take at the ball. On a classic forehand, your hand ramps up to the ball at about a 30 degree angle. A WW forehand attacks the ball at about a 45 degree angle. The consequence of this angle is that your bicep starts heading straight towards your nose if you do a classic "over the shoulder" follow through. So instead up rotate at the shoulder and divert the momentum of the racket down... viola WW follow through.

jessey
01-22-2009, 09:12 AM
David,

I think you misunderstand the WW forehand. The WW part of the forehand is a product of the increased angle you take at the ball. On a classic forehand, your hand ramps up to the ball at about a 30 degree angle. A WW forehand attacks the ball at about a 45 degree angle. The consequence of this angle is that your bicep starts heading straight towards your nose if you do a classic "over the shoulder" follow through. So instead up rotate at the shoulder and divert the momentum of the racket down... viola WW follow through.

I don't think he's putting down the forehand that's been called the "windshield wiper forehand." He's saying the name of it and the way it is being taught in many places are actually misleading and distract people from learning that very technique itself.

Am I right, David?

NamRanger
01-22-2009, 09:23 AM
I had never heard the idea of the windshield wiper forehand until I started visiting sites like this. Another notion which was new to me was the idea that a semi-western forehand was in some way modern, revolutionary or difficult to do; to me and most of the people I know who play, it has always been the norm and standard procedure. On top of this, you had people calling the semi-western grip an eastern grip, suggesting a player like Federer hits with an eastern or Agassi with some sort of mild semi-western, almost eastern grip. I think all of these ideas have created confusion and made it more difficult to learn the game properly. The sooner we get rid of the windshield wiper idea, plus the notion the semi-western grip is some sort of extreme complicated stroke, the better. It's a very easy stroke to hit and the most convenient, but consciously coming across the body, in an attempt to emulate a windshield wiper, is not the way to go about it, so here I am posting a couple of YouTube videos that I hope will help people trying to learn the game. The first is from tommyenglish1 and provides additional help, in the text to the right, how to go about executing the stroke. The second is from tennisomnia and shows another person learning the stroke and executing it pretty well. I hope people will be able to pick up a few tips from just observing these videos and reading the text in the first one.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=vK2JougB9sg&feature=channel_page

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VpgFxobhilQ&NR=1



Your whole argument is blown up here because you don't even understand the concept behind the WW motion. The WW motion is the result of clean contact, hitting through the ball forward and up. It is the EFFECT of a CAUSE.



You can name the grips whatever you want, but Federer has his hand clearly closer to what most people call an Eastern FH grip than someone like Nalbandian or Safin does. Although Yandall's notion of multiple CLASSIFICATIONS of SW grips is disagreed upon by some notable names, none of them disagree that professional players DO have different grips within the SW grip.


That is a disagreement over the names, rather than the disagreement of the existence of multiple grips. Most people agree that every professional player tweaks the SW grip to what they want to do. Nalbandian and Ferrero, both who use a very similar grip, have a drastically different grip than Agassi, who is much less extreme than those two.

NamRanger
01-22-2009, 09:30 AM
I don't think he's putting down the forehand that's been called the "windshield wiper forehand." He's saying the name of it and the way it is being taught in many places are actually misleading and distract people from learning that very technique itself.

Am I right, David?


He's putting down something that he has completely no idea what he is talking about. He's quite uninformed if you've ever talked to him before, as he's disagreed with Yandall and Jeff (of Hi-TechTennis) about Henman's grip (which is quite obvious to the naked eye that it is an Eastern Grip).



The first mistake he makes is that he believes that coaches are teaching students to consciously do the WW motion in order to create the spin and power. No, that is not true. Good coaches know that the WW motion is the effect of rotational and linear forces driving through the ball. Not the other way around.


Second is his ignorance about modern tennis. Instead of trying to understand the other person's point of view, he instead just puts it down without even attempting to see the other person's point of view.



Any decent coach will realize the WW motion is nothing but an effect of hitting through the ball with proper technique. Everyone that actually has a decent coaching career realizes that. Nothing new. You are disagreeing with modern tennis in general, don't try to come in here and say that organizations such as the USTA, the French Tennis Federation, the Spanish Tennis Federation, German Tennis Federation, etc. are all wrong. Because they aren't.

wihamilton
01-22-2009, 11:25 AM
What other follow-throughs (sic) are there apart from the normal and natural one where you finish on the other side of your body and the reverse forehand, which requires an unnatural intervention to prevent it from going to the other side of the body?

Also, I disagree with much of what Yandell has to say, so he would be one of the people I am criticizing here.

Hi David. My belief is that the follow through is the product of how you're swinging up to and at contact. It should be the smoothest way to decelerate your tennis racket and body based on what you were doing prior to and at contact. I think we can agree that you don't always swing up to the tennis ball the same way on a forehand -- sometimes you have a relatively horizontal swing plane, other times it's more vertical. The follow throughs for these respective swing planes will be different. And the windshield wiper follow through is the product of a more vertical swing plane. We've made a video on the windshield wiper forehand, linked below. I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtuTHsFlfGg&fmt=22

bhupaes
01-22-2009, 11:45 AM
Well, I agree with David L and everyone else... :)

Personally, I feel that the term "Windshield Wiper" is a cue. It makes one visualize a steep, circular motion, and the body and arm behave accordingly. Of course, it is a result of a cause, and one can start with the cause instead of the result, if that will work better. Different folks, different strokes...

David L
01-22-2009, 11:58 AM
I don't think he's putting down the forehand that's been called the "windshield wiper forehand." He's saying the name of it and the way it is being taught in many places are actually misleading and distract people from learning that very technique itself.

Am I right, David?
Thank you jessey, this is precisely what I am saying.

To everyone else, the title of this thread is, 'The concept of the windshield wiper is bogus'. I have no problem with semi-western or western forehands in all their guises. My issue is with a windshield wiper analogy being used as a method of teaching. One poster has already said this analogy hindered his ability to hit a western based forehand properly before he figured it out for himself, so what I am saying is not pie in the sky. Furthermore, the coach in the first video I posted describes how he believes many coaches create difficulties for students by emphasizing the idea of a windshield wiper, when such an analogy is not necessary, useful or accurate in helping students learn to hit sw/w based forehands. All of this is what I am talking about.

David L
01-22-2009, 12:16 PM
Your whole argument is blown up here because you don't even understand the concept behind the WW motion. The WW motion is the result of clean contact, hitting through the ball forward and up. It is the EFFECT of a CAUSE.



You can name the grips whatever you want, but Federer has his hand clearly closer to what most people call an Eastern FH grip than someone like Nalbandian or Safin does. Although Yandall's notion of multiple CLASSIFICATIONS of SW grips is disagreed upon by some notable names, none of them disagree that professional players DO have different grips within the SW grip.


That is a disagreement over the names, rather than the disagreement of the existence of multiple grips. Most people agree that every professional player tweaks the SW grip to what they want to do. Nalbandian and Ferrero, both who use a very similar grip, have a drastically different grip than Agassi, who is much less extreme than those two.
Not most people I know.

Also, I agree that professional players, and everyone else for that matter, do not use identical semi-western or western grips. The emphasis of the grip will determine what it is called.

Bungalo Bill
01-22-2009, 12:24 PM
I had never heard the idea of the windshield wiper forehand until I started visiting sites like this. Another notion which was new to me was the idea that a semi-western forehand was in some way modern, revolutionary or difficult to do; to me and most of the people I know who play, it has always been the norm and standard procedure.

This is not true. The Eastern forehand was in the norm for a long time and so was the Continental. I can agree with you that it existed but it cetainly was not the norm and "standard" procedure.

On top of this, you had people calling the semi-western grip an eastern grip, suggesting a player like Federer hits with an eastern or Agassi with some sort of mild semi-western, almost eastern grip. I think all of these ideas have created confusion and made it more difficult to learn the game properly.


How has this made the game more difficult to learn? Have you toured the world asking the thousands upon thousands of tennis players if it was difficult? Further, very few people in practice teach inbetween grips and use the standard references for various grips.

Also, who cares if people try to see what a pro player is using for a grip? Your conclusion that this has caused confusion and made it more difficult to learn tennis only happened in your little brain.

And please tell me about learning the game "properly"? Do you have the proper way? I would love to hear it.

The sooner we get rid of the windshield wiper idea, plus the notion the semi-western grip is some sort of extreme complicated stroke, the better.

Who said this? Why do we need to get rid of the windshield wiper motion? Because you said so? Please go on...

And have you seen the countless of other posts that said learning to forehand is actually simple? Or did you selectively choose posts to support your little rant.

It's a very easy stroke to hit and the most convenient, but consciously coming across the body, in an attempt to emulate a windshield wiper, is not the way to go about it, so here I am posting a couple of YouTube videos that I hope will help people trying to learn the game.

Actually it is a way to go if a player choose to use a SW or a Western especially. The beauty of the SW is it gives the player versatility in swing paths, and emphasis in the swing motion. Where are you coming from?

And again, the most important aspect of the swing is not the finish but the process that happen before and during contact.

The first is from tommyenglish1 and provides additional help, in the text to the right, how to go about executing the stroke. The second is from tennisomnia and shows another person learning the stroke and executing it pretty well. I hope people will be able to pick up a few tips from just observing these videos and reading the text in the first one.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=vK2JougB9sg&feature=channel_page

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VpgFxobhilQ&NR=1

I will look at it and comment later, however, your dogmatic position is nonsense.

David L
01-22-2009, 12:37 PM
He's putting down something that he has completely no idea what he is talking about. He's quite uninformed if you've ever talked to him before, as he's disagreed with Yandall and Jeff (of Hi-TechTennis) about Henman's grip (which is quite obvious to the naked eye that it is an Eastern Grip).



The first mistake he makes is that he believes that coaches are teaching students to consciously do the WW motion in order to create the spin and power. No, that is not true. Good coaches know that the WW motion is the effect of rotational and linear forces driving through the ball. Not the other way around.


Second is his ignorance about modern tennis. Instead of trying to understand the other person's point of view, he instead just puts it down without even attempting to see the other person's point of view.



Any decent coach will realize the WW motion is nothing but an effect of hitting through the ball with proper technique. Everyone that actually has a decent coaching career realizes that. Nothing new. You are disagreeing with modern tennis in general, don't try to come in here and say that organizations such as the USTA, the French Tennis Federation, the Spanish Tennis Federation, German Tennis Federation, etc. are all wrong. Because they aren't.
Don't you find it peculiar that Henman, a player who came up through the LTA British system and would have had access to the best coaches in the country, on several occasions has emphasized he uses a semi-western grip, even correcting someone who described his grip as eastern? I think Henman understands his game better than Yandall or Jeff whoever. Maybe, as you say, it's just different terminology for the same grip, but Henman clearly refers to his as semi-western, so if I'm uniformed, he must be too.

The coach in the first video I posted identifies the same problem I refer to in this thread, so I'm not the only one who has this view and this issue is clearly out there, as evidenced by the other poster here who shared his experience.

Anyone can just reel of tennis federations and say they support one's own position, look: These federations support my position, not yours, so are you saying they are wrong? See, it's easy.

habib
01-22-2009, 12:38 PM
Look at the videos and read the description.

This response, and your subsequent ones about the follow-through being natural with such grips, make little sense. There are plenty of players who still follow through to the side of the head with an SW grip - while most of my forehands end with the WW-type finish, I will occasionally end by my head, depending on the type of ball I want to hit. Look at Nadal, whose follow-through is now being emulated by a variety of younger players. If most pros with W forehands end up using that reverse finish in another 15 years, would you argue that it was the "natural" follow-through?

And, yes, Federer has been documented on video to use everything from a strong Eastern (which is the same thing a mild SW) to a nearly Western grip, depending on the incoming ball and what he was hitting in return.

David L
01-22-2009, 12:39 PM
Bungalo Bill

I address all of you points in this thread, so read it.

David L
01-22-2009, 12:41 PM
This response, and your subsequent ones about the follow-through being natural with such grips, make little sense. There are plenty of players who still follow through to the side of the head with an SW grip - while most of my forehands end with the WW-type finish, I will occasionally end by my head, depending on the type of ball I want to hit. Look at Nadal, whose follow-through is now being emulated by a variety of younger players. If most pros with W forehands end up using that reverse finish in another 15 years, would you argue that it was the "natural" follow-through?

And, yes, Federer has been documented on video to use everything from a strong Eastern (which is the same thing a mild SW) to a nearly Western grip, depending on the incoming ball and what he was hitting in return.
Read the thread and my responses, you clearly have not understood what I am saying.

habib
01-22-2009, 12:46 PM
Read the thread and my responses, you clearly have not understood what I am saying.

I've read your responses. You're right. I don't understand what you're saying in much the same way I don't understand the braying of a fallen cow.

David L
01-22-2009, 01:32 PM
I've read your responses. You're right. I don't understand what you're saying in much the same way I don't understand the braying of a fallen cow.
Don't worry about it then.

Bungalo Bill
01-22-2009, 01:41 PM
Don't you find it peculiar that Henman, a player who came up through the LTA British system and would have had access to the best coaches in the country, on several occasions has emphasized he uses a semi-western grip, even correcting someone who described his grip as eastern? I think Henman understands his game better than Yandall or Jeff whoever. Maybe, as you say, it's just different terminology for the same grip, but Henman clearly refers to his as semi-western, so if I'm uniformed, he must be too.

The coach in the first video I posted identifies the same problem I refer to in this thread, so I'm not the only one who has this view and this issue is clearly out there, as evidenced by the other poster here who shared his experience.

Anyone can just reel of tennis federations and say they support one's own position, look: These federations support my position, not yours, so are you saying they are wrong? See, it's easy.

You did not address Namrangers response. You answered his response with a question.

Further, I answered your response. You did not address my response.

Please stop avoiding the inevitable which is putting this post and your claims to bed.

And before we get into your nitpicking on grips, I also want to talk about what the WW really is and why it is okay for players with the western grips to execute.

Did you see my response saying that you are not correct regarding the SW being the "norm" or the "standard?" What do you have to say to that? And please, I am not going to read pages and pages of your nonsense. Answer my post in response to yours.

Now, if you want to humbly admit you went at this the wrong way. If you want us to explain the things you accused us of "not getting" then I am all ears. We can write and further explain what we meant so you can have a more rounded view and the right context regarding the informaiton you may not have agreed with. However, if you dont want to do this, and you want to continue to hold on to your pride and tone regarding a few posts you took way out of context - then I want to continue this debate.

sureshs
01-22-2009, 01:51 PM
I don't think anything in tennis happens "naturally," except perhaps for some extremely talented youngsters. What looks like natural play is the result of many years of lessons and observation. Every stroke and move in tennis, including the grip and the footwork, is counter-intuitive and has to be learned. As an adult who came late to this sport, I am painfully aware of this.

David L
01-22-2009, 02:38 PM
You did not address Namrangers response. You answered his response with a question.

Further, I answered your response. You did not address my response.

Please stop avoiding the inevitable which is putting this post and your claims to bed.

And before we get into your nitpicking on grips, I also want to talk about what the WW really is and why it is okay for players with the western grips to execute.

Did you see my response saying that you are not correct regarding the SW being the "norm" or the "standard." What do you have to say to that? And please, I am not going to read pages and pages of your nonsense. Answer my post in response to yours.

Now, if you want to humbly admit you went at this the wrong way. If you want us to explain the things you accused us of "not getting" then I am all ears. We can write and further explain what we meant so you can have a more rounded view and the right context regarding the informaiton you may not have agreed with. However, if you dont want to do this, and you want to continue to hold on to your pride and tone regarding a few posts you took way out of context - then I want to continue this debate.
Namranger and I have had this discussion many times, so I see no purpose in pursuing it again with him, aside from one or two comments.

I'm not interested in putting my claims to bed because I know it's not possible. There will always be disagreements regardless of the topic. It's enough that some people understand what I am saying and benefit from it.

I did not accuse you or anyone else of anything, I expressed a criticism of a teaching method that uses the term 'windshield wiper' or its analogy. The same criticism expressed by the coach in the video. It's not that I disagree with what you call the 'windshield wiper' technique itself. I disagree with using the word or analogy as a teaching method, because I think it is misleading. Not everyone has to agree. As I said, it's enough that some understand and find his or my comments useful. Some already have in this thread, so I suspect there will be lurkers who will too.

Debating whether the SW is normal or not is not of particular significance in this thread, it was more of an aside on my part. Sure, if you go back to the origins of tennis and it's progression into the early 80s, the eastern was the prominent grip. I was referring to tennis more over the past 20 years.

If you don't want to read my posts, that's perfectly okay, but I am not going to regurgitate what I have already expressed. There are only so many hours in the day. Thud and blunder and jessey have understood what I am saying, so I do not believe anything I have said is particularly esoteric or difficult to understand. Whether one agrees or not is a different matter, but then agreement is not important. I have no real interest in debating the issue because I'm not trying to change minds, just provide information. Those who read this thread can try what the coach and I suggest and may be able to resolve any problems they are experiencing with their stroke. This is my intention, not to debate.

David L
01-22-2009, 02:40 PM
On a side note, that guy has a superb forehand. Nice hair too!
Yes, he hits it well.:)

NamRanger
01-22-2009, 03:02 PM
Don't you find it peculiar that Henman, a player who came up through the LTA British system and would have had access to the best coaches in the country, on several occasions has emphasized he uses a semi-western grip, even correcting someone who described his grip as eastern? I think Henman understands his game better than Yandall or Jeff whoever. Maybe, as you say, it's just different terminology for the same grip, but Henman clearly refers to his as semi-western, so if I'm uniformed, he must be too.

The coach in the first video I posted identifies the same problem I refer to in this thread, so I'm not the only one who has this view and this issue is clearly out there, as evidenced by the other poster here who shared his experience.

Anyone can just reel of tennis federations and say they support one's own position, look: These federations support my position, not yours, so are you saying they are wrong? See, it's easy.



No, these tennis federations do not support your position. I've read countless of instructional tennis books from each tennis federation, and none of them say that the WW motion is an incorrect motion, or that it is an idea that is incorrect. Every major tennis organization to some extent recognizes the WW motion. They also all realize that it is the product of good form.

NamRanger
01-22-2009, 03:03 PM
Don't you find it peculiar that Henman, a player who came up through the LTA British system and would have had access to the best coaches in the country, on several occasions has emphasized he uses a semi-western grip, even correcting someone who described his grip as eastern? I think Henman understands his game better than Yandall or Jeff whoever. Maybe, as you say, it's just different terminology for the same grip, but Henman clearly refers to his as semi-western, so if I'm uniformed, he must be too.

The coach in the first video I posted identifies the same problem I refer to in this thread, so I'm not the only one who has this view and this issue is clearly out there, as evidenced by the other poster here who shared his experience.

Anyone can just reel of tennis federations and say they support one's own position, look: These federations support my position, not yours, so are you saying they are wrong? See, it's easy.


You also do realize that Henman does not directly always answers the questions he receives on his website right?

NamRanger
01-22-2009, 03:24 PM
Even some of the most classic hard nosed coaches agree that the Windshield Wiper motion, or hitting across the body with a lower finish, works better at higher levels of tennis (professional). Robert Lansdorp is a highly renown U.S. coach who teaches very classic methods of tennis. He's highly conservative in his views. Yet he still recognizes the WW motion as a legitimate follow through, especially for more "extreme" grips, such as the SW and Western.



Rick Macci is another coach who is highly conservative. He starts many of his students in the eastern FH grip to get them to learn how to drive through the ball. However, he too does not dismiss the WW motion as a non-legitimate follow through. That is because he realizes that the WW motion is a product of linear and rotational forces, along with the SW and Western grips. It is a natural event that happens once everything is put into place.




That's already two examples of highly renown names that are very conservative in their views, yet fully accept the WW motion. They do not dismiss it, and actually have learned a few things from it. I'm pretty sure they have more credentials than ANYONE on these boards also, considering Lansdrop has coached Sampras, Tracy Austin, Davenport, and Sharapova, while Macci has coached Serena, Venus, Roddick, and Jennifer Capriati.

Bungalo Bill
01-22-2009, 03:24 PM
Namranger and I have had this discussion many times, so I see no purpose in pursuing it again with him, aside from one or two comments.

I'm not interested in putting my claims to bed because I know it's not possible. There will always be disagreements regardless of the topic. It's enough that some people understand what I am saying and benefit from it.

Hahahahahaha...yeah, just as I thought.

I did not accuse you or anyone else of anything, I expressed a criticism of a teaching method that uses the term 'windshield wiper' or its analogy. The same criticism expressed by the coach in the video. It's not that I disagree with what you call the 'windshield wiper' technique itself. I disagree with using the word or analogy as a teaching method, because I think it is misleading. Not everyone has to agree. As I said, it's enough that some understand and find his or my comments useful. Some already have in this thread, so I suspect there will be lurkers who will too.

And I expressed my criticism of your post. There is nothing wrong with using an analogy to explain something. Anaolgies are useful to paint a picture in someones mind as to how something works or can be viewed.

Anaolgies are just that, a tool to use to help explain a concept. Based on this, perhaps thousands upon thousands have accepted and understood what the "Windshield Wiping" motion is and how it can be executed.

Not everyone hangs on exact meanings and has to have perfect explanations before they get something. If you are one of those that thinks the Windshield Wiping analogy can be better explained, great!

However, when you come in here with your "history" lesson on tennis (which was incorrect anyway) and boast your claims about the WW not working, speak for yourself. Provide another anaolgy that can help those that dont quite get the WW analogy. However, dont bash something you largely DONT understand and took out of context from a few posts

Debating whether the SW is normal or not is not of particular significance in this thread, it was more of an aside on my part. Sure, if you go back to the origins of tennis and it's progression into the early 80s, the eastern was the prominent grip. I was referring to tennis more over the past 20 years.

Then say so! You made a broad statement which was incorrect!!!!! And if it is not significant, then why would you say it? Just to look smart? The problem with you is you started out wrong and now you are back peddling like this beat down dog that certain things are not important and if "only a few" get what you mean, you are okay with it. Give me a fricking break.

If you don't want to read my posts, that's perfectly okay, but I am not going to regurgitate what I have already expressed. There are only so many hours in the day. Thud and blunder and jessey have understood what I am saying, so I do not believe anything I have said is particularly esoteric or difficult to understand. Whether one agrees or not is a different matter, but then agreement is not important. I have no real interest in debating the issue because I'm not trying to change minds, just provide information. Those who read this thread can try what the coach and I suggest and may be able to resolve any problems they are experiencing with their stroke. This is my intention, not to debate.

Ahhh, can you be more evasive? It is definietly my intention to debate. I will be sure to look at those videos and will respond accordingly.

And to think someone who originally makes bold statements wants to slither out of explaining them when challenged. Hmmmmm....

NamRanger
01-22-2009, 03:31 PM
Hahahahahaha...yeah, just as I thought.



And I expressed my criticism of your post. There is nothing wrong with using an analogy to explain something. Anaolgies are useful to paint a picture in someones mind as to how something works or can be viewed.

Anaolgies are just that, a tool to use to help explain a concept. Based on this, perhaps thousands upon thousands have accepted and understood what the "Windshield Wiping" motion is and how it can be executed.

Not everyone hangs on exact meanings and has to have perfect explanations before they get something. If you are one of those that thinks the Windshield Wiping analogy can be better explained, great!

However, when you come in here with your "history" lesson on tennis (which was incorrect anyway) and boast your claims about the WW not working, speak for yourself. Provide another anaolgy that can help those that dont quite get the WW analogy. However, dont bash something you largely DONT understand and took out of context from a few posts.
What you are in disagrement with is some coaches methods on getting a person to peform a "windshield wipiing" motion.

Now, if you want to say that some coaches dont teach the WW motion properly, that I can agree with. But when you make this global liimited understanding statement, that just doesnt sit right with me.



Then say so! You made a broad statement which was incorrect!!!!! And if it is not significant, then why would you say it? Just to look smart? The problem with you is you started out wrong and now you are back peddling like this beat down dog that certain things are not important and if "only a few" get what you mean, you are okay with it. Give me a fricking break.



Ahhh, can you be more evasive? It is definietly my intention to debate. I will be sure to look at those videos and will respond accordingly.

And to think someone who originally makes bold statements wants to slither out of explaining them when challenged. Hmmmmm....



Don't bother Bungalo Bill. Even John Yandell couldn't crack through that thick skull of his, with photographic and video evidence to show that Henman was using an Eastern FH grip. He even disagrees that there are no "inbetween" grips, when clearly, they exist. Sure, some of us my disagree on the classifications of the grips, but I don't think any of us can say "inbetween" grips don't exist.



Also, I think he tried to say Ferrero has a Western grip, yet Ferrero uses the same grip as Nalbandian and Hewitt. Yet he classifies the latter 2 as SW grip users.



There's no point in trying to argue with him unless you want either a severe headache, or to make an example out of him. The 2nd would be quite hilarious though.

Bungalo Bill
01-22-2009, 03:44 PM
Don't bother Bungalo Bill. Even John Yandell couldn't crack through that thick skull of his, with photographic and video evidence to show that Henman was using an Eastern FH grip. He even disagrees that there are no "inbetween" grips, when clearly, they exist. Sure, some of us my disagree on the classifications of the grips, but I don't think any of us can say "inbetween" grips don't exist.



Also, I think he tried to say Ferrero has a Western grip, yet Ferrero uses the same grip as Nalbandian and Hewitt. Yet he classifies the latter 2 as SW grip users.



There's no point in trying to argue with him unless you want either a severe headache, or to make an example out of him. The 2nd would be quite hilarious though.


I just dont want people believing bad information. I want to counter his "claims" with better information so that people can at least have a better understanding and not just his.

He is already watering down his "claims" and backpeddling away from a response.

Seems like a crop of nonsense threads are popping up today. We have:

1. The concept of the windshield wiper is bogus

2. Forehand backswing sells subscriptions

I mean come on...#2 should belong in Rants and Raves. Please....

pushing_wins
01-22-2009, 03:59 PM
yawn

10char

Bungalo Bill
01-22-2009, 04:02 PM
yawn

10char

LOL, you cant do it can you? You cant explain how to hit a forehand? LOL!

David L
01-22-2009, 04:06 PM
No back peddling involved. I'm happy to let people read the thread and decide between two conflicting opinions themselves. I think my point is clear enough as is and those who disagree are free to do so, but I'm glad they have the view to consider in the first place.

David L
01-22-2009, 04:08 PM
No, these tennis federations do not support your position. I've read countless of instructional tennis books from each tennis federation, and none of them say that the WW motion is an incorrect motion, or that it is an idea that is incorrect. Every major tennis organization to some extent recognizes the WW motion. They also all realize that it is the product of good form.
I wasn't being literal. I was making a point, but you obviously didn't get that, which doesn't surprise me.

NamRanger
01-22-2009, 04:13 PM
I wasn't being literal. I was making a point, but you obviously didn't get that, which doesn't surprise me.


Don't get what? That you're an idiot who has no idea what you're talking about?


The point is, nearly everyone disagrees with you. From regular people, to professional coaches, to international tennis organizations. Pretty much, 99% of the world. How many people really agree with you? Not that many. Tells you something doesn't it?

David L
01-22-2009, 09:19 PM
Don't get what? That you're an idiot who has no idea what you're talking about?


The point is, nearly everyone disagrees with you. From regular people, to professional coaches, to international tennis organizations. Pretty much, 99% of the world. How many people really agree with you? Not that many. Tells you something doesn't it?
Hey nitwit, do you look as stupid as you sound? I mean, I've come across imbeciles before and I don't expect to find especially smart individuals on a random internet forum, but you are really scraping the barrel. I would indulge your idiocy if it wasn't so time consuming, but one has to draw the line somewhere. There's only so much comedy or use one can gain from a dumbbell such as yourself, so I'll leave you to ponder all these questions you have in the feral contents of your head.:lol:

Steady Eddy
01-22-2009, 09:22 PM
Hey nitwit, do you look as stupid as you sound? I mean, I've come across imbeciles before and I don't expect to find especially smart individuals on a random internet forum, but you are really scraping the barrel. I would indulge your idiocy if it wasn't so time consuming, but one has to draw the line somewhere. There's only so much comedy or use one can gain from a dumbbell such as yourself, so I'll leave you to ponder all these questions you have in the feral contents of your head.:lol:
Dis guy...he's just stoopid.

NamRanger
01-22-2009, 09:36 PM
Using as much big vocabulary as possible is only a sign that you are losing the argument, which you are. Considering you've ignored all credible evidence that has been posted before you, I'd say the only idiot here is you.


Many credible posters here, such as Bungalo Bill, Yandell, and Jeff from Hi-TechTennis have all disagreed with you at some point or another. Typically, it takes alot to get a negative response out of Yandell. For Yandell to call you out on your blindness, it just shows how blind you really are to what people are saying.



Again, the Windshield Wiper is an analogy, it is the effect of a cause. However, it is just that, an analogy. Also, hitting across the body is not a bogus idea, especially when it is done naturally and effectively. Intentional hitting across the body while hitting with poor technique on the other hand, is.


What you do not realize is that the "hitting across the body" is not really hitting across the body. It is the result of the rotational forces created by the torso/hips and rotation of the shoulders. This is what causes the racquet begin to move in what most people would call the modern day forehand. Hitting with proper technique would result in you lining everything up properly, meaning your shoulders are about parallel to the court, and your racquet is out in front, your wrist laid back, and your racquet properly aligned to make contact with the ball. Hitting with poor technique will result in side spin, mishits, etc.


What you are not realizing is that the WW idea is not bogus itself. It is those teaching improper technique, or those using improper technique that are bogus. The WW motion is a follow through that is not consciously done; it is the result of proper use of rotational and linear forces, along with the proper alignment of these forces.




Most of your problems lie within your ignorance of the knowledge about modern tennis in general. It also lies within the fact that you are no better than Nadal_Freak in the General Forums, and it certainly takes alot for anyone to stoop down to his level of ignorance and blindness. Obviously, your only point posting here is to call modern tennis "fraudulent" and John Yandell himself a fraud. Anyways, this thread belongs in the Rants and Raves section anyways, since your purpose is not to inform anyone about anything, but rather to attack Modern Tennis and Yandell.

World Beater
01-22-2009, 09:56 PM
Even some of the most classic hard nosed coaches agree that the Windshield Wiper motion, or hitting across the body with a lower finish, works better at higher levels of tennis (professional). Robert Lansdorp is a highly renown U.S. coach who teaches very classic methods of tennis. He's highly conservative in his views. Yet he still recognizes the WW motion as a legitimate follow through, especially for more "extreme" grips, such as the SW and Western.
.

landsdorp also has said federer's technique is flawed and that sampras has a better fh than federer. i wouldn't take that guy seriously.

sorry to go off-topic.

NamRanger
01-22-2009, 10:03 PM
landsdorp also has said federer's technique is flawed and that sampras has a better fh than federer. i wouldn't take that guy seriously.

sorry to go off-topic.



Actually, from the articles I read, I believe he said Sampras is a better forehand to emulate because it's simpler and less complex, and involves less components that can go wrong.



He never said Federer's forehand technique was flawed. Ever.

Tempest344
01-22-2009, 10:08 PM
I was taught by my coach(and now boss)
to hit my forehand like that(as in the one in the video)
work well enough for me

David L
01-22-2009, 10:08 PM
Dis guy...he's just stoopid.
Well, if someone is going to throw around insults, I myself can throw around insults with the best of them.;)

NamRanger
01-22-2009, 10:11 PM
Well, if someone is going to throw around insults, I myself can throw around insults with the best of them.;)


Well, the truth is the truth. You are an idiot. There is nothing bogus about the windshield wiper motion, or the idea behind it. You are just misunderstanding the concept of the windshield wiper motion. By not understanding it, you then call it bogus. That shows that you are totally ignorant and refuse to understand anything about the concept, especially when many notable posters and coaches all disagree with you.

David L
01-22-2009, 10:13 PM
Well, the truth is the truth. You are an idiot. There is nothing bogus about the windshield wiper motion, or the idea behind it. You are just misunderstanding the concept of the windshield wiper motion. By not understanding it, you then call it bogus. That shows that you are totally ignorant and refuse to understand anything about the concept, especially when many notable posters and coaches all disagree with you.
No, you're the idiot, idiot.

jessey
01-23-2009, 01:06 AM
Have you seen Will's video about the windshield wipper forehand that he posted? I'm interested to hear your reponse to that as well.

JohnYandell
01-23-2009, 05:36 AM
This guy thinks that I am a devoted advocate of the windshield wiper forehand. Which is really funny to anyone who may have followed my work. Uh, it's a little more complicated than that. There is analysis and then there is prescription and then there are levels and variations. I don't mind being criticized but I think it is fair to ask that your views be correctly represented first. Now why is it I don't think this is likely to happen here?


The funniest thing is that I think the little girl in the first clip has a great basic forehand. Tremendous foundation. Pretty much just the way I teach it. Or Rick Macci or Robert Lansdorp for that matter. But I don't think we could call it a semiwestern grip. The other guy is less technically sound although he clearly has great, fast hands.

One thing I've learned from this forum is that evidence is no deterent to the pursuit of zealotry. Anyone remember jumpulse, because this thread is headed in the same direction.

raiden031
01-23-2009, 06:31 AM
I think the OP takes the phrase "windshield wiper motion" too literally.

NamRanger
01-23-2009, 08:57 AM
No, you're the idiot, idiot.


Ignoring my points because you are losing the argument is a great way to make you look good.

NamRanger
01-23-2009, 09:10 AM
This guy thinks that I am an unqualified advocate of the windshield wiper forehand. Which is really funny to anyone who may have followed my work. Uh, it's a little more complicated than that. There is analysis and then there is prescription and then there are levels and variations. I don't mind being criticized but I think it is fair to ask that your views be correctly represented first. Now why is it I don't think this is likely to happen here?


The funniest thing is that I think the little girl in the first clip has a great basic forehand. Tremendous foundation. Pretty much just the way I teach it. Or Rick Macci or Robert Lansdorp for that matter. But I don't think we could call it a semiwestern grip. The other guy is less technically sound although he clearly has great, fast hands.

One thing I've learned from this forum is that evidence is no deterent to the pursuit of zealotry. Anyone remember jumpulse, because this thread is headed in the same direction.



It's alright John; I'm still a zealous subscriber to your site :)



Oh yeah, jump pulse. Didn't the author of that article dodge every type of evidence thrown at him? Sounds like the OP :rolleyes:



Yeah, I read some of Lansdorp's articles, and it seems although he is highly conservative in his views and prefers the eastern FH, he doesn't dismiss the WW motion nor does he dismiss slightly more extreme grips.



Just ignore this guy. It's obvious the point of this thread was not to do anything but attack you and your work, and other people who have studied tennis fundamentals and technique.

Fatmike
01-23-2009, 09:26 AM
check fuzzyyellowballs.com

JohnYandell
01-23-2009, 09:37 AM
Again the funny thing is (other than the grip terminology) I agree with certain things he says.

If you are learning the game it's tremendously important to learn to hit through the ball and extend like that kid. After that you can add the wiper as a variable.

This means you can rotate the hand and arm and still move all the way thru the swing. Federer is the master of this.

Yes, you can also break off the swing for angles and on short or low balls, turn the hand more sooner, and finish across the body sooner. But by choice.

I see tons of kids who are taught the wiper first (or the extreme over the shoulder finish for that matter) who simply can't hit thru. This is another argument for the less extreme grips for beginners. The more underneath the more you have to wiper or turn the hand to get thru the ball.

This is also how Rick Macci teaches kids. Eastern or mild semi western, hit through with on edge finish, then evolve from there.

Slicendicer
01-23-2009, 09:52 AM
Just to add, to my mind, the windshield wiper concept is a new and false idea, not an old one.:)


I disagree in the sense that a "windshield wiper" motion is very effective to imparting topspin. Obviously the racquet must continiue forward motion, unlike an actual windshield wiper, but the "basic" idea is to relate a un-normal motion to a concept that is normal to most people... a windshield wiper.

Would you prefer..

"OK, everybody make rainbowswith your forehand!" :shock:

The "wiper" has worked fine for me, and I used to could hit a damn good tennis ball.

W Cats
01-23-2009, 12:10 PM
A quick question for John Yandell,

Quote: hit through with on edge finish, then evolve from there.

Could you please tell me more about the "on edge finish". Picture would be mince too as I'm a visual and kinesthetic learner. Thanks

JohnYandell
01-23-2009, 12:47 PM
Like the kid in the first video. Not a hard and fast rule but roughly with the racket face on edge or perpendicular to the court on the forward swing. No big turnover or wiper.

Slicendicer
01-23-2009, 12:58 PM
Like the kid in the first video. Not a hard and fast rule but roughly with the racket face on edge or perpendicular to the court on the forward swing. No big turnover or wiper.

Sorta redundant, because the racquet basically has to be perpendicular to the court in order to hit the ball. The "windshield wiper" is more about arcing the finish than ball striking... :)

JohnYandell
01-23-2009, 01:45 PM
The finish controls the path of the racket. So the angle at the finish is important. It either effects the speed and/or the angle of the racket face at the "brush" when the spin is created. Your hand could be in the same position as that kid lengthwise toward the net and either be on edge or turned over in the many degrees of the wiper. That's where a lot of the extra topspin comes from in the modern game.

Slicendicer
01-23-2009, 02:13 PM
The finish controls the path of the racket. So the angle at the finish is important. It either effects the speed and/or the angle of the racket face at the "brush" when the spin is created. Your hand could be in the same position as that kid lengthwise toward the net and either be on edge or turned over in the many degrees of the wiper. That's where a lot of the extra topspin comes from in the modern game.

First let me say I know the mechanics of hitting a tennis ball, you do too.

Now to your post... actually the finish is a product of the swing.

"extra topspin" is just topspin and it is caused by "skinning" the ball. Racquet speed, force of impact, and amount of direct impact on the ball is what determines the amount of topspin.

I hear what you saying, though it matters not what degree the racquet face is at impact in the sense that I've hit with guys who hit alot of topspin with a continental grip forehand... totally perpendicular at impact.

The "wiper" motion that we... errr... you are hating on is just a metaphor... like a windshield wiper. The idea is to arc or elipse through the swing plane so as to not be linear or "hitchy". :)

Bungalo Bill
01-23-2009, 03:10 PM
The finish controls the path of the racket. So the angle at the finish is important. It either effects the speed and/or the angle of the racket face at the "brush" when the spin is created. Your hand could be in the same position as that kid lengthwise toward the net and either be on edge or turned over in the many degrees of the wiper. That's where a lot of the extra topspin comes from in the modern game.

John,

I am gonna disagree here about the finish controls the path. The finish to me is the end result which is subordinate to the path and swing the player takes.

Or did you mean that the player starts with the finish in mind and proceeds to swing in such a way to get that finish? In essence, thinking with the finish in mind would tend to make the finish control or dictate the swing path. I dont know if control is the right word in this case.

So if I want a particular finish, I would need to swing in this manner to get that. Is that what you mean?

I am not so sure this is a good way to teach since the major focus is on the position of the racquet at the finish and less focus on the forward swing, contact with the ball, and the extension.

JohnYandell
01-23-2009, 05:09 PM
I think there are multiple ways to create that gorgeous perfect moment of contact--which of course is what it's about.

This idea of using the finish I first got from Dick Gould when I was teaching for him in the 1970s. You said it exactly right. With the idea or the image of the finish in mind, your racket naturally follows a certain path. So if you can identify the finishes associated with the various shots, you can use them as mental guides.

Dick's theory was if the turn is right and the finish is right (and assuming you are looking at the ball...) everything in between is likely to be right as well.

Doesn't necessarily work for everyone but I've found it to be one of the two or three most powerful concepts I've encountered in teaching groundstrokes.

herosol
01-23-2009, 05:43 PM
No, you're the idiot, idiot.

And progressively. The posts get shorter and shorter. The replies characterizing an increase in stupidity.

What is this amateur hour?

Perhaps you should just leave. Or something more productive, that doesn't have you displaying the ******ation spreading across the masses of your brain.

Your contradictions are just so frustrating.
SOOO FRUSTRATING.

Frustrating is not a good feeling...usually.

bhupaes
01-24-2009, 07:52 AM
I think there are multiple ways to create that gorgeous perfect moment of contact--which of course is what it's about.

This idea of using the finish I first got from Dick Gould when I was teaching for him in the 1970s. You said it exactly right. With the idea or the image of the finish in mind, your racket naturally follows a certain path. So if you can identify the finishes associated with the various shots, you can use them as mental guides.

Dick's theory was if the turn is right and the finish is right (and assuming you are looking at the ball...) everything in between is likely to be right as well.

Doesn't necessarily work for everyone but I've found it to be one of the two or three most powerful concepts I've encountered in teaching groundstrokes.

This is in perfect agreement with my limited universe...

I have experienced great improvements by concentrating on two things, mainly: the spot on the ball I want to contact, and how I want to finish - that is, "visualizing" the stroke. In this sense, "windshield wiper" is nothing but a visual cue for me.

David L
01-24-2009, 10:23 AM
Ignoring my points because you are losing the argument is a great way to make you look good.
No, I'm ignoring you because you're an idiot. Kapeesch?

David L
01-24-2009, 10:32 AM
I disagree in the sense that a "windshield wiper" motion is very effective to imparting topspin. Obviously the racquet must continiue forward motion, unlike an actual windshield wiper, but the "basic" idea is to relate a un-normal motion to a concept that is normal to most people... a windshield wiper.

Would you prefer..

"OK, everybody make rainbowswith your forehand!" :shock:

The "wiper" has worked fine for me, and I used to could hit a damn good tennis ball.
I can concede it works for some, but it also confuses others. My suggestion would be to concentrate on what one wants to do with the ball i.e. spinning it forward, spinning it backwards etc, similar to what the coach suggests in the comments section.

Jackie T. Stephens
01-24-2009, 10:36 AM
The wind-shield whipper was how I was taught topspin and that was a long time ago when my forehand had just spin, no power.

David L
01-24-2009, 10:42 AM
This guy thinks that I am a devoted advocate of the windshield wiper forehand. Which is really funny to anyone who may have followed my work. Uh, it's a little more complicated than that. There is analysis and then there is prescription and then there are levels and variations. I don't mind being criticized but I think it is fair to ask that your views be correctly represented first. Now why is it I don't think this is likely to happen here?


The funniest thing is that I think the little girl in the first clip has a great basic forehand. Tremendous foundation. Pretty much just the way I teach it. Or Rick Macci or Robert Lansdorp for that matter. But I don't think we could call it a semiwestern grip. The other guy is less technically sound although he clearly has great, fast hands.

One thing I've learned from this forum is that evidence is no deterent to the pursuit of zealotry. Anyone remember jumpulse, because this thread is headed in the same direction.
Yes, I'm not intimately familiar with your methods. Someone else brought up your name, so I responded. However, not all coaches endorse the windshield wiper idea, as the video I posted indicates and not all benefit from this notion, as some posters have indicated. So while promoting the analogy of a windshield wiper may produce positive results for some, it can also hinder others. Obviously, I don't know what all the coaches all over the world are doing, but I believe the windshield wiper analogy itself is misleading for the reasons I have already stated.

David L
01-24-2009, 10:46 AM
And progressively. The posts get shorter and shorter. The replies characterizing an increase in stupidity.

What is this amateur hour?

Perhaps you should just leave. Or something more productive, that doesn't have you displaying the ******ation spreading across the masses of your brain.

Your contradictions are just so frustrating.
SOOO FRUSTRATING.

Frustrating is not a good feeling...usually.
Another moron. You must be friends with Namranger.

Jackie T. Stephens
01-24-2009, 10:47 AM
Yes, I'm not intimately familiar with your methods. Someone else brought up your name, so I responded. However, not all coaches endorse the windshield wiper idea, as the video I posted indicates and not all benefit from this notion, as some posters have indicated. So while promoting the analogy of a windshield wiper may produce positive results for some, it can also hinder others. Obviously, I don't know what all the coaches all over the world are doing, but I believe the windshield wiper analogy itself is misleading for the reasons I have already stated.

Windshield wiper is mainly for beginners to learn topspin, I was taught that by my first coach and currently he's on tour right now playing ATP, the results show it.

JohnYandell
01-24-2009, 11:22 AM
David,

May I suggest that in the future you determine the actual facts before forming your opinions?

Much of my work has been trying to unravel the truth from the reality of what happens in pro tennis. Because everyone and every pro references the pros with greater, or lesser degrees of accuracy unless they have studied video themselves. So my work includes explaining what happens when the hand and racket turn over radically in the course of the swing--the so-called wiper.

But if you read my work, you'll see that I am very circumspect in what I suggest in coaching. In fact I have argued that teaching the wiper first or at the expense of extension through the ball is one of the major mistakes in coaching. And thinking that players like Federer always move quickly across to the left side is one of the major fallacies in opinion about the pros.

Kevo
01-24-2009, 12:09 PM
The racket ends up on the other side of our body after the stroke because this is the natural place for it to go. There is not a conscious effort to emulate a windshield wiper.

Very good point. I don't really mind the windshield wiper label, however, it is important to understand that the result of an action can look like the intended action itself, but that is not necessarily the case.

Kevo
01-24-2009, 12:42 PM
Wow, I just finished reading through this entire thread, and I think some of us need to really remember to take our meds. Now where's my prozac! :-P

Anyway, I like the contrast brought up by Yandell's bold and unconventional assertion: the finish dictates, and the responses saying the finish is the result of the start.

Both are perfectly valid viewpoints once you take the time to consider and understand the perspective from which they came.

It's great to have alternate points of view and to get other angles to understand the game from. It's especially helpful for teaching. You never know what is going to finally help the light turn on for someone.


(I wonder what the response would have been to Yandell's finish dictator had it come from a less respected name? (That's finish with one 'n' and a lower case 'f'. I have no knowledge of any puppet governments in the possession of Mr. Yandell or any other TW Forum participants.))

NamRanger
01-24-2009, 01:15 PM
Yes, I'm not intimately familiar with your methods. Someone else brought up your name, so I responded. However, not all coaches endorse the windshield wiper idea, as the video I posted indicates and not all benefit from this notion, as some posters have indicated. So while promoting the analogy of a windshield wiper may produce positive results for some, it can also hinder others. Obviously, I don't know what all the coaches all over the world are doing, but I believe the windshield wiper analogy itself is misleading for the reasons I have already stated.



That's a problem with bad teaching, not a problem with the concept behind the windshield wiper motion. Coaches who try to teach advanced techniques before teaching the basic foundations of tennis. Your argument is that the windshield wiper analogy and motion are bogus. This is simply not true.


Again, try learning to understand other people's point of views before putting them down and ignoring them. Your problem lies within coaches themselves and the application of the Windshield Wiper. Poor application results in poor form. That's obvious to anyone. You haven't posted one thing that makes the Windshield Wiper "bogus" at all.


This thread should be locked due to the negative connotations of the OP. This whole topic was created in a way to attack a well respected member in the tennis community and to attack a well known and established advanced concept in tennis. He has posted nothing of use in this thread. His problem lies within the application of a certain technique. There is nothing wrong or bogus about the Windshield Wiper motion.

JohnYandell
01-24-2009, 03:27 PM
If you haven't experimented with it, it's worth a try. Find the point in the model stroke where the racket has reached max forward and upward extension. Close your eyes and make an image of it. Watch the ball and visualize the mental image of the model finish. Boom. Results in incredible consistency and yet can be varied for different angles--and YES--more windshield wiper!

naylor
01-24-2009, 05:21 PM
... teaching the wiper first or at the expense of extension through the ball...

I'm prone to being late and get pinned with my right elbow close to and slightly behind my body, and as a result my forehand often ends as my forearm rotating around my elbow (in a shallow WW), with no forward extension. So, I get some spin, but limited by the low racket-head speed, and little pace. I get away with it in doubles - a nice dipper over the net or at the server's feet - but I get killed in singles, as the ball sits up short of the baseline.

All I'm working on is to ensure on the backswing I move my elbow away from my side, so that on the forward swing my elbow and forearm can push forward past my side and extend through the ball to create and pass the forward momentum onto the ball. Then, as a natural result of the follow-through, forearm and racket will come around WW-like, but my hand will be nearly a full arm extension in front of my chest, rather than barely in front.

Ballinbob
01-24-2009, 05:30 PM
I can concede it works for some, but it also confuses others. My suggestion would be to concentrate on what one wants to do with the ball i.e. spinning it forward, spinning it backwards etc, similar to what the coach suggests in the comments section.

I don't think so....The windshield wiper motion is not confusing at all, and every coach/pro I've seen teaches it. For the average player this is a good motion to use as the topspin generated from it really helps with consistency. It's a simple technique that improves consistency/spin and I think its stupid not to learn it. Using a WW motion doesnt mean your hitting really spinny shots at the service line. It's just a finish used to get more topspin, that's all.

I'm not sure why you think its a bad technique/idea. Very simple and very effective. What more can you ask for?

David L
01-24-2009, 06:13 PM
David,

May I suggest that in the future you determine the actual facts before forming your opinions?

Much of my work has been trying to unravel the truth from the reality of what happens in pro tennis. Because everyone and every pro references the pros with greater, or lesser degrees of accuracy unless they have studied video themselves. So my work includes explaining what happens when the hand and racket turn over radically in the course of the swing--the so-called wiper.

But if you read my work, you'll see that I am very circumspect in what I suggest in coaching. In fact I have argued that teaching the wiper first or at the expense of extension through the ball is one of the major mistakes in coaching. And thinking that players like Federer always move quickly across to the left side is one of the major fallacies in opinion about the pros.
No problem.

Also, what you say in your second paragraph is what I have been alluding to.

As for the girl, her coach in the written descriptions say she is using a semi-western grip, so while you do not think it is semi-western, he does and so do I. It seems not everyone is on the same page when it comes to understanding or identifying the grips. These differences seem to me to represent different schools of thought, rather than one person being right and the other wrong, much like the fact the English spell 'labour', say, with a u and Americans without.

chico9166
01-24-2009, 06:13 PM
I find it a valuable term when teaching. As long as the player understands the almost inverse relationship between extension and hand and arm rotation, or "wiper effect".

Can't tell ya how many times in the last few years, I've told Jr's to tone down the wipe on the ball to get the ball to go through the air. Or to increase the effect to break off angles. It's really not that hard for many, when they inderstand "what causes what". The term is not taboo.

David L
01-24-2009, 06:16 PM
Wow, I just finished reading through this entire thread, and I think some of us need to really remember to take our meds. Now where's my prozac! :-P

Anyway, I like the contrast brought up by Yandell's bold and unconventional assertion: the finish dictates, and the responses saying the finish is the result of the start.

Both are perfectly valid viewpoints once you take the time to consider and understand the perspective from which they came.

It's great to have alternate points of view and to get other angles to understand the game from. It's especially helpful for teaching. You never know what is going to finally help the light turn on for someone.


(I wonder what the response would have been to Yandell's finish dictator had it come from a less respected name? (That's finish with one 'n' and a lower case 'f'. I have no knowledge of any puppet governments in the possession of Mr. Yandell or any other TW Forum participants.))
Yes, always a good thing and you're right, you never know what perspective will make the positive difference.

Slicendicer
01-24-2009, 06:17 PM
David,

May I suggest that in the future you determine the actual facts before forming your opinions?

Much of my work has been trying to unravel the truth from the reality of what happens in pro tennis. Because everyone and every pro references the pros with greater, or lesser degrees of accuracy unless they have studied video themselves. So my work includes explaining what happens when the hand and racket turn over radically in the course of the swing--the so-called wiper.

But if you read my work, you'll see that I am very circumspect in what I suggest in coaching. In fact I have argued that teaching the wiper first or at the expense of extension through the ball is one of the major mistakes in coaching. And thinking that players like Federer always move quickly across to the left side is one of the major fallacies in opinion about the pros.

The wiper-motion is a result of pronation of the wrist, not a phenomenon. I've coached players with success using the "wiper" technique as a reference. My coaches taught me and several pros on ATP Top 100, Top 30 players this ... so to say it is not effective is not true. Maybe you prefer not to teach this method, doesn't mean it is wrong.

David L
01-24-2009, 06:18 PM
I find it a valuable term when teaching. As long as the player understands the almost inverse relationship between extension and hand and arm rotation, or "wiper effect".

Can't tell ya how many times in the last few years, I've told Jr's to tone down the wipe on the ball to get the ball to go through the air. Or to increase the effect to break off angles. It's really not that hard for many, when they inderstand "what causes what". The term is not taboo.
This was the point of my thread.

David L
01-24-2009, 06:19 PM
Have you seen Will's video about the windshield wipper forehand that he posted? I'm interested to hear your reponse to that as well.
Are you talking to me? Do you have a link?

David L
01-24-2009, 06:24 PM
I'm prone to being late and get pinned with my right elbow close to and slightly behind my body, and as a result my forehand often ends as my forearm rotating around my elbow (in a shallow WW), with no forward extension. So, I get some spin, but limited by the low racket-head speed, and little pace. I get away with it in doubles - a nice dipper over the net or at the server's feet - but I get killed in singles, as the ball sits up short of the baseline.

All I'm working on is to ensure on the backswing I move my elbow away from my side, so that on the forward swing my elbow and forearm can push forward past my side and extend through the ball to create and pass the forward momentum onto the ball. Then, as a natural result of the follow-through, forearm and racket will come around WW-like, but my hand will be nearly a full arm extension in front of my chest, rather than barely in front.
Yes, further confirmation that I have a point.

David L
01-24-2009, 06:28 PM
I don't think so....The windshield wiper motion is not confusing at all, and every coach/pro I've seen teaches it. For the average player this is a good motion to use as the topspin generated from it really helps with consistency. It's a simple technique that improves consistency/spin and I think its stupid not to learn it. Using a WW motion doesnt mean your hitting really spinny shots at the service line. It's just a finish used to get more topspin, that's all.

I'm not sure why you think its a bad technique/idea. Very simple and very effective. What more can you ask for?
You have several people in this thread identifying problems they encountered with the windshield wiper idea. So while it may not be confusing for some, such as yourself, it clearly has been for others.

Ballinbob
01-24-2009, 06:41 PM
^^ But the thing is, hitting without using a WW motion makes it hard to generate topspin. The classic finish is great for flat shots, but alot of people don't have the good timing to hit flat shots consistently.

I get the sense that you would like to see more people use the classic finish instead of the WW, but I don't see why. Today's game revolves around topspin, and the WW motion is a great way to get topspin/consistency in your game. Some people may have trouble with it, thats true. But I think its safe to say that vast majority of tennis players have benefited from using the WW technique...

NamRanger
01-24-2009, 07:34 PM
^^ But the thing is, hitting without using a WW motion makes it hard to generate topspin. The classic finish is great for flat shots, but alot of people don't have the good timing to hit flat shots consistently.

I get the sense that you would like to see more people use the classic finish instead of the WW, but I don't see why. Today's game revolves around topspin, and the WW motion is a great way to get topspin/consistency in your game. Some people may have trouble with it, thats true. But I think its safe to say that vast majority of tennis players have benefited from using the WW technique...


He doesn't believe a WW motion exists at all. Don't bother. His problem lies within the application of the WW motion, not with the motion itself. Except, he's too blind and ignorant to see that.

Ballinbob
01-24-2009, 10:03 PM
He doesn't believe a WW motion exists at all. Don't bother. His problem lies within the application of the WW motion, not with the motion itself. Except, he's too blind and ignorant to see that.

He doesn't even think it exists? I wonder what motion I'm using for my forehand then.

I just don't see why he doesn't like the WW motion. It's a perfectly good motion that gives players some extra topspin. its easy to learn,effective, and makes our shots more consistent. I mean its like God's gift to us tennis players lol

jessey
01-24-2009, 10:25 PM
Are you talking to me? Do you have a link?

Yah, it's one of the earlier reply to this post,. Here it is.
Hi David. My belief is that the follow through is the product of how you're swinging up to and at contact. It should be the smoothest way to decelerate your tennis racket and body based on what you were doing prior to and at contact. I think we can agree that you don't always swing up to the tennis ball the same way on a forehand -- sometimes you have a relatively horizontal swing plane, other times it's more vertical. The follow throughs for these respective swing planes will be different. And the windshield wiper follow through is the product of a more vertical swing plane. We've made a video on the windshield wiper forehand, linked below. I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtuTHsFlfGg&fmt=22

SystemicAnomaly
01-24-2009, 10:42 PM
Are you talking to me? Do you have a link?

Links for FYB were given twice on page 2 of this thread. 1st by me, then again by Will himself.

(Edit: looks like jessey beat me to the punch)
.

SystemicAnomaly
01-24-2009, 11:50 PM
... The WW term is used to distinguish it from other types of follow-thru motions...

What other follow-throughs (sic) are there apart from the normal and natural one where you finish on the other side of your body and the reverse forehand, which requires an unnatural intervention to prevent it from going to the other side of the body? ...

"...the normal and natural one"!!!

If the modern finish that you describe (for a topspin FH shot) is so normal & natural, then why was it not in common usage until fairly recently? In the 35+ years that I've been playing the game, there have been at least 3 topspin FH finishes that have been considered the norm (not counting the buggy whip & variations of the reverse finish). According to one source, the WW finish has apparently been used as far back as Tilden's time. However, it has not been the dominant finish until modern times.

The 3 different "normal" finishes that I have employed are the product of differentt (dominant) grips and different swing paths. The amount of topspin employed has also been a factor. The dominant finish of the 60s thru the 80s (and earlier decades) was a somewhat abbreviated follow-thru that had the racket finishing forward & up. The doiminant FH grips of the time where the Eastern FH and the Continental grips. Only moderate topspin was used at the time.

In the early-to-mid 90s, my dominant FH finish became the over-the-shoulder finish. The dominant FH grips during the latter part of the 1980s thru the 90s were the Eastern FH grip , extreme Eastern/mild SW grips and, to a lesser extent, the SW grip. More topspin was generally employed with this finish. This OTS finish is still very common today, especially with players using an Eastern or extreme Eastern grip.

Since the SW (and mild SW) appears to have replaced the Eastern FH grip as the dominant grip in recent years, the WW finish has become much more common. Robert Lansdorp talks about 3 forehand finishes in the modern game (with the reverse finish as the 3rd type):

The Three Forehand Finishes - Robert Lansdorp (http://www.tennisplayer.net/public/famouscoach/lansdorp_three_forhand_finishes/lansdorp_three_forhand_finishes_samplearticle.html )

.

5263
01-25-2009, 09:54 AM
I think David is making an important point, which is perhaps too subtle for some posters.
I can relate exactly to what he's saying; when I modernised my forehand, I concentrated too much on emulating the WW follow-through, as a result of which I was hitting very spinny shots with little penetration. You see this a lot also with kids who have just been taught WW. They can only hit semi-moonballs with it.
It's only when you realise that if you set up correctly, and concentrate on hitting through the ball, that the WW finish happens automatically and very naturally...that's when you can make progress.

So I agree, coaches would do better to not even talk about WW, concentrate on the setup and contact phase, and then the WW will take care of itself, usually with better results than if the student is consciously focusing on WW.

It's a bit like the advice to brush up on the ball. Concentrate too much on that, and you're just going to hit fluff.

There is a reason most won't get this so called "subtle" point.

Most won't make the mistake you bring up here, and just spin the ball or concentrate too much on the follow thru. Follow thru is a symptom of the good swing, not the process. Talking of the follow thru is just to make sure u understand u don't need to finish above the shoulder.

IMO, the prime reason for the WW FH is to combined power and spin. It is a way for power hitters to add some major spin to their driving balls, as well as a way for heavy TS spinners to hit more thru and drive the ball without giving up all the spin. It is much like serving with pronation, which is a way of getting a "power" spin on your serve, opposed to carving the ball for spin, across the body or just hitting flat for power. With pronation, you get power and spin, like is the reason of the WW FH.

I watched the 2 vids provided and didn't see anything I would call a good example of the WW FH, so I'm not sure the OP even knows what the WW is. You can't call it a WW just because you finish in the same place!

In the end, WW is just a name. It's one that works for a lot of people. If you can't see it, thats about you, not the chosen name. One of my buddies calls his FH the Terminator. I guess you would hate that name.

Jackie T. Stephens
01-25-2009, 09:55 AM
Look very simple, racquet head under the ball, brush up through the ball and clean follow through. That's all you need.

jessey
01-25-2009, 10:52 AM
Links for FYB were given twice on page 2 of this thread. 1st by me, then again by Will himself.

(Edit: looks like jessey beat me to the punch)
.

Got to be fast in this forum :)

stormholloway
01-25-2009, 12:16 PM
Seems misleading to call one forehand 'windshield wiper' and others not when there are simply varying degrees of paths and racquet angles that can be used.

JohnYandell
01-25-2009, 12:26 PM
That's an interesting point. The windshielder wiper is a unitary counter clockwise rotation of the hand arm and racket.

If you look at more classic on edge finishes even they have up to 90 degrees of this rotation. We call it the wiper when the rotation goes further and the tip of the racket ends up pointing more at the side fence than straight up and down. That looks like a windshield wiper motion on a care, but really it's just a more extreme version of something that is already happening in the swing.

The other point to understand is that there is much more of this rotation built into the swings with extreme grips.

Still I think the term is useful to understand how much rotation occurs when.

VaBeachTennis
01-25-2009, 12:49 PM
No, I disagree you need to be conscious of the windshield wiper at all, because it happens naturally after contact, whether you are conscious of it or not, and is not an essential part of the stroke, but a consequence of it. Your racket cannot help but go to the other side of your body if you don't try to resist. What you need to be conscious of is hitting through and/or up the back of the ball, the rest takes care of itself.

Excellent points.

chico9166
01-25-2009, 12:54 PM
That's an interesting point. The windshielder wiper is a unitary counter clockwise rotation of the hand arm and racket.

If you look at more classic on edge finishes even they have up to 90 degrees of this rotation. We call it the wiper when the rotation goes further and the tip of the racket ends up pointing more at the side fence than straight up and down. That looks like a windshield wiper motion on a care, but really it's just a more extreme version of something that is already happening in the swing.

The other point to understand is that there is much more of this rotation built into the swings with extreme grips.

Still I think the term is useful to understand how much rotation occurs when.
Yes, to me this is key. As the grips get stronger, the structure, for the most part, is going to turn over. Even if one tries to extend alot. When, and at what rate of speed ,the structure turns over out on the line of extension is noteworthy, however, as it gives an indication as to the extent that the wiper is applied . The more one activates the wiper, the quicker the structure generally turns over, and vice versa.

At least that's how I see it.

VaBeachTennis
01-25-2009, 12:55 PM
I can appreciate the fact you're trying to promote extension based swing patterns. I too, believe that many players short circuit the learning process by overdoing the right to left movement (wiper effect) of the swing. As a result, the player never learns to hit through the line of the shot properly, and it really hinders their development.

Having said that, good players can, and do, regulate the hand and arm rotation in a situational context. This is where your argument falls short in my opinion. They can extend the hell out of the swing when trying to hit through the court, or amp up the wiper effect to open up the court via a short angle, for instance. In other words, they know how to convert more force to spin production. It's an aquired skill.

Again, I agree that a good coach teaches students extension in the swing initially. This is the cornerstone to good stroke production. However, I also believe,that a student, once a certain level of proficiency is attained, should be taught to enhance spin production via increased hand and arm rotation. In other words, the understanding of "what causes what". They will be better equipped to deal with the dynamic nature of the game.

Right on the money. In my opinion, after a basic stroke is "grooved", it's important to "experiment" with different swing paths and their effect on the ball and it's different spins and trajectories.

VaBeachTennis
01-25-2009, 01:05 PM
Hi David. My belief is that the follow through is the product of how you're swinging up to and at contact. It should be the smoothest way to decelerate your tennis racket and body based on what you were doing prior to and at contact. I think we can agree that you don't always swing up to the tennis ball the same way on a forehand -- sometimes you have a relatively horizontal swing plane, other times it's more vertical. The follow throughs for these respective swing planes will be different. And the windshield wiper follow through is the product of a more vertical swing plane. We've made a video on the windshield wiper forehand, linked below. I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtuTHsFlfGg&fmt=22

Excellent video. It's nice to see it from a fellow lefty's perspective as well.

chico9166
01-25-2009, 01:10 PM
Excellent video. It's nice to see it from a fellow lefty's perspective as well.

Yes, the young man has done a great job with the website. And he is a credit to the profession.

VaBeachTennis
01-25-2009, 02:03 PM
Look very simple, racquet head under the ball, brush up through the ball and clean follow through. That's all you need.

:) Yep! Different angles on the swing will yield different results as well.

VaBeachTennis
01-25-2009, 02:08 PM
Yes, the young man has done a great job with the website. And he is a credit to the profession.

I also like the way that he replied to DavidL in a classy manner. The fighting on this thread is almost akin to the fighting and personal attacks on the political forums! lol
In my opinion it's good to exchange and debate ideas, that's how we learn............ The other B.S. adds nothing but a distraction to the original subject.

David L
01-25-2009, 02:26 PM
^^ But the thing is, hitting without using a WW motion makes it hard to generate topspin. The classic finish is great for flat shots, but alot of people don't have the good timing to hit flat shots consistently.

I get the sense that you would like to see more people use the classic finish instead of the WW, but I don't see why. Today's game revolves around topspin, and the WW motion is a great way to get topspin/consistency in your game. Some people may have trouble with it, thats true. But I think its safe to say that vast majority of tennis players have benefited from using the WW technique...
You have misunderstood my posts. I am not advocating that people hit flat shots or don't hit flat shots. I am not advocating that people have a classic finish or don't have a classic finish. I am not advocating that people hit with topspin or don't hit with topspin. What I am suggesting is that the term and analogy of a windshield wiper is misleading when trying to help players hit western based grips, whether they are being taught to hit flat or with topspin. The reason why I believe it is misleading is because there is a tendency for many to believe they have to come across the ball, instead of hitting through and up the back of it. A number of posters have already shared their experiences where this was the case for them and others have said they have witnessed this tendency a lot too. So, my point is get rid of the term "windshield wiper" and find a better one which will not mislead so many people.

When most people think of a windshield wiper, they think of a mechanism that moves across from one side to the other, but the correct mechanism for striking a tennis ball requires one to move the racket forward and vertically up the back of it; no side to side action is involved when actually making contact. To me, there is a discord between the analogy and what one is being asked to do with the stroke, which subsequently creates some of the problems you have heard some people here say they have encountered. To compound the problem, when you look at another player hit topspin with a western based grip, it can sometimes appear to be a side to side motion, hence the windshield wiper analogy, but the look of a stroke and the sensation of it are two totally different things. A voice impersonator will exaggerate or caricaturize (sic) the voice they are trying to impersonate and this is what some people have a tendency to do when they hear "windshield wiper". They try to go from side to side, when they should be going forward and upward, letting their natural anatomy do what comes naturally after the ball has left their racket. It's my view that simply getting rid of the term, "windshield wiper", would see a reduction in people having shallow extensions and coming across the ball. I think more focus should be given to the manipulation of the ball, complimented by the necessary mechanics, with better analogies if need be.

David L
01-25-2009, 02:44 PM
Hi David. My belief is that the follow through is the product of how you're swinging up to and at contact. It should be the smoothest way to decelerate your tennis racket and body based on what you were doing prior to and at contact. I think we can agree that you don't always swing up to the tennis ball the same way on a forehand -- sometimes you have a relatively horizontal swing plane, other times it's more vertical. The follow throughs for these respective swing planes will be different. And the windshield wiper follow through is the product of a more vertical swing plane. We've made a video on the windshield wiper forehand, linked below. I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtuTHsFlfGg&fmt=22
Okay, sorry for the late reply. I missed your post. I think your video is good, but I think the most important information you provide in it is the idea that one's swing path must be more vertical, swinging up on the ball more from below its height than horizontally through it. I personally would not mention windshield wipers at all because this racket finish occurs naturally when you have a more vertical flight path. At the start of the video there is a lot about the side to side aspect of the racket face, but as you say, the windshield wiper follow through is the product of a more vertical swing plane, so it's not really necessary to give it so much air time. I would just emphasize the more vertical swing plane.

VaBeachTennis
01-25-2009, 03:00 PM
Okay, sorry for the late reply. I missed your post. I think your video is good, but I think the most important information you provide in it is the idea that one's swing path must be more vertical, swinging up on the ball more from below its height than horizontally through it. I personally would not mention windshield wipers at all because this racket finish occurs naturally when you have a more vertical flight path. At the start of the video there is a lot about the side to side aspect of the racket face, but as you say, the windshield wiper follow through is the product of a more vertical swing plane, so it's not really necessary to give it so much air time. I would just emphasize the more vertical swing plane.

I understand some of your points, but different people teach the same thing in a different way or presentation, just like people learn the same thing in different ways and can understand different presentations better than others. The video you referenced gave a nice presentation and explanation, I just would have liked to see him show the difference between the classical follow through and the WW follow through when hitting the ball. As far as I remember, he only showed the WW follow through's effect on the ball.

chico9166
01-25-2009, 03:13 PM
I also like the way that he replied to DavidL in a classy manner. The fighting on this thread is almost akin to the fighting and personal attacks on the political forums! lol
In my opinion it's good to exchange and debate ideas, that's how we learn............ The other B.S. adds nothing but a distraction to the original subject.

Well said.

David L
01-25-2009, 03:24 PM
"...the normal and natural one"!!!

If the modern finish that you describe (for a topspin FH shot) is so normal & natural, then why was it not in common usage until fairly recently? In the 35+ years that I've been playing the game, there have been at least 3 topspin FH finishes that have been considered the norm (not counting the buggy whip & variations of the reverse finish). According to one source, the WW finish has apparently been used as far back as Tilden's time. However, it has not been the dominant finish until modern times.

The 3 different "normal" finishes that I have employed are the product of differentt (dominant) grips and different swing paths. The amount of topspin employed has also been a factor. The dominant finish of the 60s thru the 80s (and earlier decades) was a somewhat abbreviated follow-thru that had the racket finishing forward & up. The doiminant FH grips of the time where the Eastern FH and the Continental grips. Only moderate topspin was used at the time.

In the early-to-mid 90s, my dominant FH finish became the over-the-shoulder finish. The dominant FH grips during the latter part of the 1980s thru the 90s were the Eastern FH grip , extreme Eastern/mild SW grips and, to a lesser extent, the SW grip. More topspin was generally employed with this finish. This OTS finish is still very common today, especially with players using an Eastern or extreme Eastern grip.

Since the SW (and mild SW) appears to have replaced the Eastern FH grip as the dominant grip in recent years, the WW finish has become much more common. Robert Lansdorp talks about 3 forehand finishes in the modern game (with the reverse finish as the 3rd type):

The Three Forehand Finishes - Robert Lansdorp (http://www.tennisplayer.net/public/famouscoach/lansdorp_three_forhand_finishes/lansdorp_three_forhand_finishes_samplearticle.html )

.
Yes, I agree 3 finishes pretty much covers all bases, although I don't consider the reverse forehand a natural finish because it depends on the circumvention of a natural follow through. Also, with semi-western and western grips, it doesn't feel comfortable to have an eastern type flat follow through. The wrist almost wants you to hit a 'modern forehand' whether you want to or not. This is especially true if you want to hit with topspin, which will require a more vertical swing.

Lastly, while it's interesting and entertaining to know about and view archive material about earlier periods in the game, tennis is what it is today. This is why I do not speak in terms of modern and classic technique. Classic technique is obsolete and therefore not relevant to today's game. Today's game has been well established for over 20 years. Becker won Wimbledon back in 1985 with 'modern' technique, so to me it's just standard technique, not modern technique.

David L
01-25-2009, 03:41 PM
I understand some of your points, but different people teach the same thing in a different way or presentation, just like people learn the same thing in different ways and can understand different presentations better than others. The video you referenced gave a nice presentation and explanation, I just would have liked to see him show the difference between the classical follow through and the WW follow through when hitting the ball. As far as I remember, he only showed the WW follow through's effect on the ball.
Yes, people will have different approaches and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

On the question of comparisons between classic and modern technique, I don't think it's really important to know about classic technique other than for academic or historical purposes. The game is what it is today, so players have to have the skills to be competitive in this environment. Knowing how players played pre mid 80s is not going to help them, so I tend not to consider discussions about tennis that far back as relevant today when talking about actual play. I think the modern game has been established long enough to become the standard form, as opposed to the modern form, it's certainly more relevant.

wihamilton
01-25-2009, 04:07 PM
Okay, sorry for the late reply. I missed your post. I think your video is good, but I think the most important information you provide in it is the idea that one's swing path must be more vertical, swinging up on the ball more from below its height than horizontally through it. I personally would not mention windshield wipers at all because this racket finish occurs naturally when you have a more vertical flight path. At the start of the video there is a lot about the side to side aspect of the racket face, but as you say, the windshield wiper follow through is the product of a more vertical swing plane, so it's not really necessary to give it so much air time. I would just emphasize the more vertical swing plane.

Hey David no sweat on the late reply. You've got a lot of people vying for your attention, heh. And thanks for the kind words about the video.

My feeling is that the follow through isn't always the natural consequence of what's going on prior to and at contact. You need to teach someone how to slow down / decelerate their racket and body smoothly for pretty much every shot in tennis -- not just the windshield wiper.

While you're right that the windshield wiper follow through is the product of a more vertical swing plane, it's not the only option when following through. As I mentioned in the video, you could continue to extend your arm and the racket straight up into the air. In a way that's more intuitive than turning your arm / racket over to create the windshield wiper effect.

JohnYandell
01-25-2009, 04:21 PM
OK I love this! I'm sure I'm not the only one who noticed. David, as is his pattern, didn't respond to all the comments that pointed out the errors and contradictions in his posts, and certainly didn't apologize for his various mistatements of facts.

But the best part is now he agrees with Lansdorp about the three finishes. And of course what Robert calls the downward finish is the same finish everyone else calls the windshield wiper.

So I guess so long as you don't call it the wiper, the wiper finish is a key part of the modern game. But wait I thought it was the CONCEPT of the wiper that was bogus. Hmm... that doesn't really make sense does it? Just another contradiction that will of course be ignored.

Now as for that hard distinction between classical and modern, that won't really hold up either. There were western forehands in the 1920s. The rackets changed the preponderance of grips and shot types. But every shot in the game, including the wiper forehand, and the reverse forehand have always been part of the game.

You can see Tilden hit a wiper forehand on our site. Also Pancho Gonzales. And Fred Perry hitting a reverse forehand--with a continental grip.

The rackets allowed the players to (eventually) figure out the advantages of the more extreme grips and spins (the real benefit of the wiper at high levels), but great players in all eras intuitively new how to use the racket in the way that best facilitated what they were trying to do.

Anyway this has been a fun exercise as a compliment to watching the AO. Love the Dokic thing and we have some amazing high speed footage of her forehand I'll put up now that she's back. And yes, to stay on the topic of the thread, she hits an amazing wiper as one of her forehand variations, one of the first women to do that routinely going back to when she was in the top 10 as a teenager. And have to say it's the opposite of bogus.

NamRanger
01-26-2009, 12:26 AM
Yandell dissing someone. Man, that's something I haven't seen since BeHappy was trying to say the Serve Doc was wrong.

Bungalo Bill
01-26-2009, 07:49 AM
This idea of using the finish I first got from Dick Gould when I was teaching for him in the 1970s. You said it exactly right. With the idea or the image of the finish in mind, your racket naturally follows a certain path. So if you can identify the finishes associated with the various shots, you can use them as mental guides.

Dick's theory was if the turn is right and the finish is right (and assuming you are looking at the ball...) everything in between is likely to be right as well.

Doesn't necessarily work for everyone but I've found it to be one of the two or three most powerful concepts I've encountered in teaching groundstrokes.

Yeah, I can see what Dick was trying to say. Unfortunately, you and I have played that game where you say one thing to a person and by the time it has been said to fifteen others it ends up being much different than the original meaning or phrase.

If one understands that the process is equally important, having players swing with the finish in mind is okay. However, many coaches ignore the process and only focus on the finish.

JohnYandell
01-26-2009, 08:02 AM
BB,

I must agree that it is all about process. And again the finish thing is just one tool. If the preparation isn't correct, it won't matter how you finish. If the movement and the set up isn't right, etc, etc.

So the idea of visualizing the finish and allowing this image to guide the foreswing is one part of producing the whole.

I have also found that some players will be late at contact even if the finish is correct, in which case the focus needs to shift to the image of the contact. If you think of the forward swing as a continuum, an image of any part may produce the whole--or even a moving image of the whole motion.

John McEnroe once said to me: sometimes I'll just see the shot flash across my mind before I hit it.

Bungalo Bill
01-26-2009, 08:06 AM
I can concede it works for some, but it also confuses others. My suggestion would be to concentrate on what one wants to do with the ball i.e. spinning it forward, spinning it backwards etc, similar to what the coach suggests in the comments section.

Okay, I can start buying your information. You do know, you came off a bit strong which threw everyone out of whack. Lots of passionate players and coaches here.

So, with that said, I am a process person. Some people here are an end result type people. However, I love the process and can buy into what you are saying above. You are not dishing the WW pattern or finish, what it seems like is you are dishing is those that ONLY focus on or glorify the finish as if it is the Holy Grail to improve your ability to hit topspin, consistently, on time, and cleanly. In this case, I am with you.

So, if this is true. the point is we both know, no matter how you slice the swing, need to understand that the most important aspect of the swing is your racquet making contact with the ball on time and hitting it cleanly.

People like John Yandell know that the contact with the ball is very important or he wouldnt have come out with the book Visual Tennis. However, there are some coaches out there that ignore the process and just emphasize a certain finish. With these people, I am in disagreement.

What happens in the backswing, drop, forward swing, contact, extention, followthough, and finish are all important elements that provide feedback to the various stages of the swing. For example, if a player breaks off into the finish too soon, this might shed light that he is not accelerating to and through the ball in the stages prior to the finish. Or he might not be extending very well through the ball.

So if my explanation is aligned with your original objectives for this thread, I am fully with you. I am not a finish person as well, I am a process person. I place more emphasis in the swing path portion that leads up and goes into the extension of the stoke more than anything. I rarely concentrate on the finish because I will get the finish I want by concentrating on what happens before the finish. However, for coaches and players that understand the process is important as well, getting players to think of the finish can work as well.

I wish you would have said it this way to begin with!!!

Bungalo Bill
01-26-2009, 08:09 AM
BB,

I must agree that it is all about process. And again the finish thing is just one tool.

John, I know you think that way, otherwise, you would have never wrote the book Visual Tennis. In that book, you provide a step by step process that leads up to the finished result and you provide the information to players on what they should be feeling and doing along the way.


If the preparation isn't correct, it won't matter how you finish. If the movement and the set up isn't right, etc, etc.

So the idea of visualizing the finish and allowing this image to guide the foreswing is one part of producing the whole.

I have also found that some players will be late at contact even if the finish is correct, in which case the focus needs to shift to the image of the contact. If you think of the forward swing as a continuum, an image of any part may produce the whole--or even a moving image of the whole motion.

John McEnroe once said to me: sometimes I'll just see the shot flash across my mind before I hit it.

Yes, I gotcha. Some coaches or players dont get that though. :) They just think "oh John Yandell said I should be concentrating on ONLY the finish." And off they go...

Uhhhh, no. That is not what he said or meant. You know the drill.

JohnYandell
01-26-2009, 08:11 AM
Sorry Nam yeah I couldn't resist. I just think when people post controversial views and then actually get responses from those they may be crticizing they should have the integrity to continue the discussion--even if it means admitting they have misspoken, need to enlarge their perspective etc.

This happens to me all the time when I speak at coaching conferences. I'll show a piece of high speed footage and inevitably get a question or a comment that I can't answer or haven't considered. It can be challenging at times, particularly if the coach is very avid with a criticism, but I've learned that by really taking it in and figuring how it relates to my work, I learn more and expand/or change my perspecitve.

JohnYandell
01-26-2009, 08:16 AM
I can say for me, when I have a nice short ball in the strike zone and the thought goes through my mind "I hope I don't miss this at break point..." well that thought itself is the kiss of death of course. So by visualizing a perfect finish and imagining making it you block the doubt and give yourself a powerful positive image. It makes a huge difference in the ability to execute and percentages of shot making. And in Visual Tennis it's the final payoff of building the stroke from the ground up.

Oh, and on "finish "probably really important to say by that term I mean the extension of the stroke, the extension of the forward swing--the last point in the forward motion where the racket is going upward and/or outward. NOT the wrap, or the backward motion part of the wiper. That's probably really important to make clear. The stuff after extension I believe happens on it's on and is a mistake to create mechanically.

Bungalo Bill
01-26-2009, 08:16 AM
Well said.

Wow, for someone that wants this, why do you dish it out? I disagreed with you a few times (in a polite way) and you took it so personal. Geeez, get a backbone.

The bottom-line, is we are all competitive tennis players and are passionate about tennis or we wouldnt be here. If you cant take someone dishing it out here, or maybe doing a verbal "fist pump" at you, you probably should leave so it wont hurt your little ears or feelings. lol

chico9166
01-26-2009, 08:26 AM
Wow, for someone that wants this, why do you dish it out? I disagreed with you a few times (in a polite way) and you took it so personal. Geeez, get a backbone.

The bottom-line, is we are all competitive tennis players and are passionate about tennis or we wouldnt be here. If you cant take someone dishing it out here, or maybe doing a verbal "fist pump" at you, you probably should leave so it wont hurt your little ears or feelings. lol

I just don't think it takes a particularly "big man" to hurl insults, over the internet, which is something you do on a regular basis. But then again, maybe I'm a little old school. Just not internet savy.

Bungalo Bill
01-26-2009, 08:31 AM
I just don't think it takes a particularly "big man" to hurl insults, over the internet, which is something you do on a regular basis. But then again, maybe I'm a little old school. Just not internet savy.

But you did? I dont get it. So you can imply an insult, execute an insult but no one can do it to you? What kind of nonsense is that?

I posted a perfectly fine post WITHOUT any insults to you while giving you the benefit of the doubt (although it didnt agree with your opinion) and you got all bent out of shape and provide your own "insults."

So, how do we need to treat you? With kids gloves? The internet is the internet. People are allowed to speak freely. If they dish it out, they should expect to get dished back.

The bottom-line is, the internet is a tough place, if you cant handle it, you probably shouldnt be here.

chico9166
01-26-2009, 08:42 AM
But you did? I dont get it. So you can imply an insult, execute an insult but no one can do it to you? What kind of nonsense is that?

I posted a perfectly fine post WITHOUT any insults to you while giving you the benefit of the doubt (although it didnt agree with your opinion) and you got all bent out of shape and provide your own "insults."

So, how do we need to treat you? With kids gloves? The internet is the internet. People are allowed to speak freely. If they dish it out, they should expect to get dished back.

The bottom-line is, the internet is a tough place, if you cant handle it, you probably shouldnt be here.

Just let it go, it's obvious neither one of us are interested in the others opinion. I'm certainly not interested in resolving whatever problem you have with me. Period.

Bungalo Bill
01-26-2009, 08:47 AM
Just let it go, it's obvious neither one of us are interested in the others opinion. I'm certainly not interested in resolving whatever problem you have with me. Period.

LOL, I see, so whenever someone confronts you with the truth, you run and hide.

I think you are a hypocrite for posting your nonsense when you insulted me and others. It is a flat out joke. And as far as letting it go? LOL!!! Sorry, no such thing is gonna happen.

And as far resolving? Are you kidding? LOL!!! I wasnt trying to resolve anything! PERIOD!

Bungalo Bill
01-26-2009, 09:00 AM
Excellent points.

LOL, what are excellent points? Here is what you quoted too?

Originally Posted by David L http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=3032296#post3032296)
No, I disagree you need to be conscious of the windshield wiper at all, because it happens naturally after contact, whether you are conscious of it or not, and is not an essential part of the stroke, but a consequence of it. Your racket cannot help but go to the other side of your body if you don't try to resist. What you need to be conscious of is hitting through and/or up the back of the ball, the rest takes care of itself.

Sorry but the definition of a WW wiper is something that players can be conscious about when they hit a ball with this pattern. It is not something that "just" happens. The windshield wiping motion is more than just a finish or where your racquet is going.

And the hitting through part? If a player chooses to use a WW motion up across the back of the ball, it is the angular momentum that needs to be sent INTO the ball for full effect. The reference point for your angular momentum is your back shoulder.

Let's back up, do you even know what a Windshield wiping motion is and how it is performed? When I hit with a windshield wiping motion, you bet I am thinking about it.

Bungalo Bill
01-26-2009, 09:02 AM
Right on the money. In my opinion, after a basic stroke is "grooved", it's important to "experiment" with different swing paths and their effect on the ball and it's different spins and trajectories.

But didnt you agree that the WW wiping motion was what happens "naturally" or is something a player DOESNT need to concentrate on? WHERE ARE YOU GOING!!!!!

Bungalo Bill
01-26-2009, 09:08 AM
I find it a valuable term when teaching. As long as the player understands the almost inverse relationship between extension and hand and arm rotation, or "wiper effect".

Can't tell ya how many times in the last few years, I've told Jr's to tone down the wipe on the ball to get the ball to go through the air. Or to increase the effect to break off angles. It's really not that hard for many, when they inderstand "what causes what". The term is not taboo.

It is easy to teach players to continue to use a strong wiper motion without telling them to "tone it down" while getting them to go through the ball more.

You are looking at the wrong body parts to get that done. And you teach?

NamRanger
01-26-2009, 10:07 AM
LOL, what are excellent points? Here is what you quoted too?

Originally Posted by David L http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=3032296#post3032296)
No, I disagree you need to be conscious of the windshield wiper at all, because it happens naturally after contact, whether you are conscious of it or not, and is not an essential part of the stroke, but a consequence of it. Your racket cannot help but go to the other side of your body if you don't try to resist. What you need to be conscious of is hitting through and/or up the back of the ball, the rest takes care of itself.

Sorry but the definition of a WW wiper is something that players can be conscious about when they hit a ball with this pattern. It is not something that "just" happens. The windshield wiping motion is more than just a finish or where your racquet is going.

And the hitting through part? If a player chooses to use a WW motion up across the back of the ball, it is the angular momentum that needs to be sent INTO the ball for full effect. The reference point for your angular momentum is your back shoulder.

Let's back up, do you even know what a Windshield wiping motion is and how it is performed? When I hit with a windshield wiping motion, you bet I am thinking about it.



I find that the Windshield Wiper motion just occurs naturally to me. I focus more on clean contact and proper setup. However, this may occur because I've practiced the WW motion enough for it to become my normal stroke.

Bungalo Bill
01-26-2009, 10:27 AM
I find that the Windshield Wiper motion just occurs naturally to me. I focus more on clean contact and proper setup. However, this may occur because I've practiced the WW motion enough for it to become my normal stroke.

Exactly!!! The "real" WW motion is something that is practiced. Anything practiced is not natural and the brain needs to consciously engage to automate it.

tennis_balla
01-26-2009, 11:04 AM
Bungalo Bill sure loves to type doesn't he :razz:

Bungalo Bill
01-26-2009, 11:27 AM
Bungalo Bill sure loves to type doesn't he :razz:

You bet. I love to type and explain. I also like to help those that cant afford a coach.

stormholloway
01-26-2009, 11:48 AM
Exactly!!! The "real" WW motion is something that is practiced. Anything practiced is not natural and the brain needs to consciously engage to automate it.

Walking needs to be practiced as a child. Is walking not natural?

oneguy21
01-26-2009, 11:54 AM
Exactly!!! The "real" WW motion is something that is practiced. Anything practiced is not natural and the brain needs to consciously engage to automate it.

This swing was actually my natural swing.

Bungalo Bill
01-26-2009, 11:57 AM
Walking needs to be practiced as a child. Is walking not natural?

At first it is not. Isn't that obvious? lol

Do all players stepout with their inside foot on both sides? Why and why not? Why isnt it "natural" for them to do it on both sides? Can people perform the same things on their right side as their leftside? Why is the non-dominant side not natural at doing the same things as the dominant side?

Or are you simply flattening the word "natural" to mean anything you want it to mean. If that is the case, I would disagree with your definition and the context you try to use it in.

Do you really want to "walk" down this path with me? If you want to call "natural" an umbrella of things that are learned at various stages such as going from "crawling to walking", I might be able to buy into your concept.

However, is playing tennis natural? Is it a skill? Is performing the WW a skill, natural, or both?

What about artistry? Is artistic skill learned or is it natural?

jessey
01-26-2009, 12:43 PM
Walking needs to be practiced as a child. Is walking not natural?

If you ask a biologist he/she will tell you that walking on two legs for humanbeings is very unnatrual for our body. That's why our knees are so prone to damages. It's a evolutionary advantage that we have adapted.

sureshs
01-26-2009, 12:46 PM
Walking needs to be practiced as a child. Is walking not natural?

Walking is natural to humans (though other species do it much earlier in their childhood) because it is part of our evolutionary heritage. Swimming is not natural to us as a child but it is to many other animals. Playing tennis had no evolutionary advantage for us, and still does not have. That is why it has to be learnt. Natural way to move sideways is crossstep. It takes a while to get the outside foot moving first. Natural way to serve is to pat the ball using a forehand grip. Use of continental grip and the serve motion has to be learnt. Natural way to hit backhand seems to be to slice all the time. And so on.

Bungalo Bill
01-26-2009, 12:47 PM
If you ask a biologist he/she will tell you that walking on two legs for humanbeings is very unnatrual for our body. That's why our knees are so prone to damages. It's a evolutionary advantage that we have adapted.

Hahahaha, too funny. Thanks. You saved me a lot of time and energy. I wonder if we now can define what "natural" really is or are we simply talking about "skill".

sureshs
01-26-2009, 12:57 PM
If you ask a biologist he/she will tell you that walking on two legs for humanbeings is very unnatrual for our body. That's why our knees are so prone to damages. It's a evolutionary advantage that we have adapted.

That is a whole different issue. Walking is natural for humans (otherwise the upright stance which gave us so much more visibility than our close relatives would not be useful). You are talking about design here. Contrary to what is put out there, design has not been very intelligent (actually, design did not happen). There was a whole Sci Am issue dedicated to engineering flaws in the human body. e.g., the exposure of the spinal column at the neck is a cause of many paralysing accidents. It is because the upright neck was the only way to go to preserve the vertebrate heritage, but it leaves room for attack and injury. The human eye has receptors behind translucent material which reduces the amount of light hitting them. The eye has evolved multiple times independently. In the jellyfish, evolution got it right, putting the receptors in front where the light is maximum. So we have been shaped from whatever was available before, and among multiple possible paths, only with what survived in the present path.

jessey
01-26-2009, 01:02 PM
Walking is natural to humans (though other species do it much earlier in their childhood) because it is part of our evolutionary heritage. Swimming is not natural to us as a child but it is to many other animals. Playing tennis had no evolutionary advantage for us, and still does not have. That is why it has to be learnt. Natural way to move sideways is crossstep. It takes a while to get the outside foot moving first. Natural way to serve is to pat the ball using a forehand grip. Use of continental grip and the serve motion has to be learnt. Natural way to hit backhand seems to be to slice all the time. And so on.

Yah, definitely different definitions of what "natural" means we're talking about. I think I can say that it has become "natural" for us as a specie (walking that is) through the evolutionary process, but not as individual. Meaning our body isnít completely adapted to walking on two legs and if a child isn't taught to walk on two legs, it will not be able to do it (if you look at those rare cases of neglected children being raised by animals, the so called feral children, they donít know how to walk on two legs, unlike fish which doesnít need to be taught how to swim.)

Anyway, geez I thought this is a tennis forum :)

Noaler
01-26-2009, 01:03 PM
Wow, going off topic???

oneguy21
01-26-2009, 01:05 PM
Yah, definitely different definitions of what "natural" means we're talking about. I think I can say that it has become "natural" for us as a specie (walking that is) through the evolutionary process, but not as individual. Meaning our body isnít completely adapted to walking on two legs and if a child isn't taught to walk on two legs, it will not be able to do it (if you look at those rare cases of neglected children being raised by animals, the so called feral children, they donít know how to walk on two legs, unlike fish which doesnít need to be taught how to swim.)

Anyway, geez I thought this is a tennis forum :)

I am a Ph.D candidate in evolutionary psychology at Georgetown and I can tell you that both of you don't know what you're talking about. Keep that stuff out of these boards.

jessey
01-26-2009, 01:08 PM
I am a Ph.D candidate in evolutionary psychology at Georgetown and I can tell you that both of you don't know what you're talking about. Keep that stuff out of these boards.

Ha! Fair enough.
By the way, evolutionary psychology? Sounds like a very interesting subject...

Bungalo Bill
01-26-2009, 01:11 PM
Wow, going off topic???

It always does when the topic had been answered over and over again and when someone didnt like to hear they were wrong. So now we walk down the path of whether or not the WW is natural to all.

sureshs
01-26-2009, 01:14 PM
I am a Ph.D candidate in evolutionary psychology at Georgetown and I can tell you that both of you don't know what you're talking about. Keep that stuff out of these boards.

I know very well what I am talking about. I am not a biologist, but I keep my eyes and ears open to information from reputable sources. Instead of ridiculing people, a man of science such as yourself needs to develop the humility to explain things to people. Throwing references to degrees is not what makes a great scientific mind. Same thing holds for tennis, BTW. Great coaches don't make a living by ridiculing others.

Bungalo Bill
01-26-2009, 01:15 PM
I am a Ph.D candidate in evolutionary psychology at Georgetown and I can tell you that both of you don't know what you're talking about. Keep that stuff out of these boards.

I disagree to keep this out of this thread. This conversation has taken a "natural" path in discussing if the WW is "natural." Or if walking "if learned" is natural.

If you are so "knowledgeable" on this and can differentiate what we are saying, talk. If not, I suggest you go back and read your books.

Is the WW natural? Can you answer this please.

Bungalo Bill
01-26-2009, 01:17 PM
I know very well what I am talking about. I am not a biologist, but I keep my eyes and ears open to information from reputable sources. Instead of ridiculing people, a man of science such as yourself needs to develop the humility to explain things to people. Throwing references to degrees is not what makes a great scientific mind. Same thing holds for tennis, BTW. Great coaches don't make a living my ridiculing others.

He doesnt know Sureshs. He just reads books and he hasnt read all of them yet. He is just a "candidate" which means "I AM STILL TRYING TO FIGURE THINGS OUT."

oneguy21
01-26-2009, 01:18 PM
I know very well what I am talking about. I am not a biologist, but I keep my eyes and ears open to information from reputable sources. Instead of ridiculing people, a man of science such as yourself needs to develop the humility to explain things to people. Throwing references to degrees is not what makes a great scientific mind. Same thing holds for tennis, BTW. Great coaches don't make a living my ridiculing others.

Ha! I was bsing. I'm only in HS, lol!

btw, back to the walking subject, I think humans first learn to walk by means of operant conditioning.

jessey
01-26-2009, 01:19 PM
It always does when the topic had been answered over and over again and when someone didnt like to hear they were wrong. So now we walk down the path of whether or not the WW is natural to all.

More like whether or not the WW is evolutionarily natural to the human as a specie and as an individual....

Haha, yah, it was WAY off topic.

jessey
01-26-2009, 01:21 PM
Ha! I was bsing. I'm only in HS, lol!

btw, back to the walking subject, I think humans first learn to walk by means of operant conditioning.

The many dangers of discussing things on an internet forum. Who knows how many real posers are there...

Bungalo Bill
01-26-2009, 01:27 PM
Ha! I was bsing. I'm only in HS, lol!

btw, back to the walking subject, I think humans first learn to walk by means of operant conditioning.

In what context?
Positive or Negative Reinforcment? Positive or negative punishment?

VaBeachTennis
01-26-2009, 01:38 PM
I can say for me, when I have a nice short ball in the strike zone and the thought goes through my mind "I hope I don't miss this at break point..." well that thought itself is the kiss of death of course. So by visualizing a perfect finish and imagining making it you block the doubt and give yourself a powerful positive image. It makes a huge difference in the ability to execute and percentages of shot making. And in Visual Tennis it's the final payoff of building the stroke from the ground up.

Oh, and on "finish "probably really important to say by that term I mean the extension of the stroke, the extension of the forward swing--the last point in the forward motion where the racket is going upward and/or outward. NOT the wrap, or the backward motion part of the wiper. That's probably really important to make clear. The stuff after extension I believe happens on it's on and is a mistake to create mechanically.

Wow, a LOT of great points and knowledge in two paragraphs! Thanks!

oneguy21
01-26-2009, 01:42 PM
In what context?
Positive or Negative Reinforcment? Positive or negative punishment?

Probably positive reinforcement. Punishment only diminishes behavior so it can't play a role. Negative reinforcement strenghens behavior through the removal of an aversive stimulus, so I guess if parents spank their child for not walking children may learn to walk this way.

This is all from what I've learned in AP Psychology, so stop trying to test my knowledge, jeez.

Why don't y'all go back to tennis now.

sureshs
01-26-2009, 01:46 PM
Ha! I was bsing. I'm only in HS, lol!

btw, back to the walking subject, I think humans first learn to walk by means of operant conditioning.

OK you had me there.

Bungalo Bill
01-26-2009, 01:46 PM
Probably positive reinforcement. Punishment only diminishes behavior so it can't play a role. Negative reinforcement strenghens behavior through the removal of an aversive stimulus, so I guess if parents spank their child for not walking children may learn to walk this way.

This is all from what I've learned in AP Psychology, so stop trying to test my knowledge, jeez.

Why don't y'all go back to tennis now.

Glad you said that because I was coming up with a rebuttal to your words above. :)

VaBeachTennis
01-26-2009, 01:47 PM
LOL, what are excellent points? Here is what you quoted too?

Originally Posted by David L http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=3032296#post3032296)
No, I disagree you need to be conscious of the windshield wiper at all, because it happens naturally after contact, whether you are conscious of it or not, and is not an essential part of the stroke, but a consequence of it. Your racket cannot help but go to the other side of your body if you don't try to resist. What you need to be conscious of is hitting through and/or up the back of the ball, the rest takes care of itself.

Sorry but the definition of a WW wiper is something that players can be conscious about when they hit a ball with this pattern. It is not something that "just" happens. The windshield wiping motion is more than just a finish or where your racquet is going.

And the hitting through part? If a player chooses to use a WW motion up across the back of the ball, it is the angular momentum that needs to be sent INTO the ball for full effect. The reference point for your angular momentum is your back shoulder.

Let's back up, do you even know what a Windshield wiping motion is and how it is performed? When I hit with a windshield wiping motion, you bet I am thinking about it.

LOL, did someone **** on your Cherrios today? Here's what John Yandell wrote: "Oh, and on "finish "probably really important to say by that term I mean the extension of the stroke, the extension of the forward swing--the last point in the forward motion where the racket is going upward and/or outward. NOT the wrap, or the backward motion part of the wiper. That's probably really important to make clear. The stuff after extension I believe happens on it's own and is a mistake to create mechanically."
The two bold sentences is what I was saying "great points" to. Of course I know what the "windshield wiper motion" is and how it's performed..............

jessey
01-26-2009, 01:52 PM
OK you had me there.

The internet forums really teach people not to be gullible (like me...), don't they? Sigh...

Bungalo Bill
01-26-2009, 02:13 PM
LOL, did someone **** on your Cherrios today?

Yup. Someone did.

Here's what John Yandell wrote: "Oh, and on "finish "probably really important to say by that term I mean the extension of the stroke, the extension of the forward swing--the last point in the forward motion where the racket is going upward and/or outward. NOT the wrap, or the backward motion part of the wiper. That's probably really important to make clear. The stuff after extension I believe happens on it's own and is a mistake to create mechanically."
The two bold sentences is what I was saying "great points" to. Of course I know what the "windshield wiper motion" is and how it's performed..............

Do you know? I actually didnt think you knew. You have provided nothing in this conversation to indicate that. And as far as finish, we have been clarifying this much farther back.

dennis10is
01-26-2009, 02:31 PM
Ha! I was bsing. I'm only in HS, lol!

btw, back to the walking subject, I think humans first learn to walk by means of operant conditioning.

I'm glad you cleared it up that you were just joking.

There is such a thing as evolutionary psychology. It is a controversial, relatively, new sub-division in psychology. I knew the folks who started this field. Shared researched labs with their grad students when I was a grad student.

I was doubtful because you said Georgetown and I didn't know had a doctoral program in Evo. Psych. Not because Gtown is Jesuit. Jesuits have no issues with Evolution,

FYI, Behaviorist hates Evo. Psychologist so I don't even know if you understand your joke when you said it was probably Operant conditioning.

Operant and classical conditioning principles can and should be used to modify stroke production, tennis tactics, etc...

The reason why hackers can not break their bad habits even though they say they do, is because their current strokes have been formed and now supported by a massive reinforcement history. Even though the stroke is bad, they've won points, matches, have enjoyed all things tennis for however many years. It isn't easy to introduce something new because it can't compete with the rewards a person gets from hitting it poorly (operant conditioning)

BTW, another set of reasons why going to a tennis vacation, with all different people, scenery, makes people feel like they can indeed break old habits and while they are their they can hit with their new stroeks. However, when they return to their old haunts, everything in their old environments trigger the old response (classical conditioning).

these two mechanisms are very powerful in keep people hitting with the same strokes.

oneguy21
01-26-2009, 02:39 PM
I'm glad you cleared it up that you were just joking.

There is such a thing as evolutionary psychology. It is a controversial, relatively, new sub-division in psychology. I knew the folks who started this field. Shared researched labs with their grad students when I was a grad student.

I was doubtful because you said Georgetown and I didn't know had a doctoral program in Evo. Psych. Not because Gtown is Jesuit. Jesuits have no issues with Evolution,

FYI, Behaviorist hates Evo. Psychologist so I don't even know if you understand your joke when you said it was probably Operant conditioning.

Operant and classical conditioning principles can and should be used to modify stroke production, tennis tactics, etc...

The reason why hackers can not break their bad habits even though they say they do, is because their current strokes have been formed and now supported by a massive reinforcement history. Even though the stroke is bad, they've won points, matches, have enjoyed all things tennis for however many years. It isn't easy to introduce something new because it can't compete with the rewards a person gets from hitting it poorly (operant conditioning)

BTW, another set of reasons why going to a tennis vacation, with all different people, scenery, makes people feel like they can indeed break old habits and while they are their they can hit with their new stroeks. However, when they return to their old haunts, everything in their old environments trigger the old response (classical conditioning).

these two mechanisms are very powerful in keep people hitting with the same strokes.

So only by losing matches do people seriously consider modifying their strokes.


Btw, are you a psychology major?

dennis10is
01-26-2009, 04:53 PM
So only by losing matches do people seriously consider modifying their strokes.


Btw, are you a psychology major?

ADDED: you may consciously state that because you lose you will want to change your strokes.

However, losing is a form of punishment and the massive body of research has shownt that punishment will not work in terms of changing the offending behavior. I know that untutored people will disagree but the massive body of work showed that punishment will temporarily suppress the behavior but when the threat is removed the behaviors comes back.

Not to be political but speeding tickets, war, does not stop people from speed or from killing each other once the enforcers leaves.

The human mind works on reward, meaning you behavior changes to get more reward, and it wants to keep on getting rewarded. Hence, you can try to stop the bad behavior temporarily with punishment but to engrain new "better" behavior, you need to support and reward the new behavior.

Issuing speeding tickets will suppress speeding but does not change people minds or behavior on speeding. They will all speed when they don't think the cops will get them. When gas was over four dollars, people were for once, rewarded for driving 55, they saved lots of money and that's what happened. Now that gas is cheaper, people goes back to speeding.

I was a psych major, I got my PhD, I was a college professor and now I'm working in IT.

Slicendicer
01-26-2009, 05:04 PM
ADDED: you may consciously state that because you lose you will want to change your strokes.

However, losing is a form of punishment and the massive body of research has shownt that punishment will not work in terms of changing the offending behavior. I know that untutored people will disagree but the massive body of work showed that punishment will temporarily suppress the behavior but when the threat is removed the behaviors comes back.

Not to be political but speeding tickets, war, does not stop people from speed or from killing each other once the enforcers leaves.

The human mind works on reward, meaning you behavior changes to get more reward, and it wants to keep on getting rewarded. Hence, you can try to stop the bad behavior temporarily with punishment but to engrain new "better" behavior, you need to support and reward the new behavior.

Issuing speeding tickets will suppress speeding but does not change people minds or behavior on speeding. They will all speed when they don't think the cops will get them. When gas was over four dollars, people were for once, rewarded for driving 55, they saved lots of money and that's what happened. Now that gas is cheaper, people goes back to speeding.

I was a psych major, I got my PhD, I was a college professor and now I'm working in IT.

A true scholarly dissertation. :)

oneguy21
01-26-2009, 06:20 PM
ADDED: you may consciously state that because you lose you will want to change your strokes.

However, losing is a form of punishment and the massive body of research has shownt that punishment will not work in terms of changing the offending behavior. I know that untutored people will disagree but the massive body of work showed that punishment will temporarily suppress the behavior but when the threat is removed the behaviors comes back.

Not to be political but speeding tickets, war, does not stop people from speed or from killing each other once the enforcers leaves.

The human mind works on reward, meaning you behavior changes to get more reward, and it wants to keep on getting rewarded. Hence, you can try to stop the bad behavior temporarily with punishment but to engrain new "better" behavior, you need to support and reward the new behavior.

Issuing speeding tickets will suppress speeding but does not change people minds or behavior on speeding. They will all speed when they don't think the cops will get them. When gas was over four dollars, people were for once, rewarded for driving 55, they saved lots of money and that's what happened. Now that gas is cheaper, people goes back to speeding.

I was a psych major, I got my PhD, I was a college professor and now I'm working in IT.


You must be BF Skinner. He spoke the way you did. Also, rewarding one for doing something he/she already likes to do will overjustify the behavior and now the person may see the reward, rather than the intrinsic interest as the motivation for doing the task.

dennis10is
01-26-2009, 07:49 PM
You must be BF Skinner. He spoke the way you did. Also, rewarding one for doing something he/she already likes to do will overjustify the behavior and now the person may see the reward, rather than the intrinsic interest as the motivation for doing the task.

Thanks, I think. I should be able to sound like Skinner if I want to :)

BTW, I'm trained as a cognitivist. These are the folks who replaced Behaviorism as the domininant paradigm in psychology, but I like behaviorism the most when it comes to explaining changing behavior.

Regarding what you wrote above. Murky to talk about "instrinsic" interests in something like tennis. There are many reasons why a person would be rewarded for playing tennis. When people talk about forgeting why they play it could mean that one type of reward becomes overwhelming.

For example, you play tennis and become rich and famous. The amount of reward is so much that you end up playing to achieve more riches and fame and then one could say, you've forgotten the real reason why you play tennis. It is somewhat judgmental to say that the original reinforcer were better than the more recent reinforcers. Here's a counter-example. You play tennis because you want to get the attention of the girls. You want to letter in tennis. Years later, you play tennis for different reasons. You wouldn't say that the intrinsic reasons you originally played tennis, to "get some" was "better" than the reasons now, the commaraderie of fellow tennis players?

You can say, that growing up is to acquire a richer, more varied, intertwining set of "reasons" why you do what you do.

ichibanosaru
01-26-2009, 08:46 PM
I disagree to keep this out of this thread. This conversation has taken a "natural" path in discussing if the WW is "natural." Or if walking "if learned" is natural.

If you are so "knowledgeable" on this and can differentiate what we are saying, talk. If not, I suggest you go back and read your books.

Is the WW natural? Can you answer this please.

For some, no question. I've seen MANY players learn the WW forehand at a very young age and as they got older execute the shot quite well. In fact, I believe many of these players do it naturally without even thinking about it (much like walking as mentioned earlier).

Watch some top USTA wheelchair players hit around invariably almost all of them have a WW forehand. For them it has become natural because the chair itself gets in the way of what many consider a "traditional" forehand stroke.

Take care and stay warm-

CHOcobo
01-26-2009, 08:52 PM
windshield forehand work wonders for me. no problem. it only makes me a better hitter.

stormholloway
01-27-2009, 02:41 AM
If you ask a biologist he/she will tell you that walking on two legs for humanbeings is very unnatrual for our body. That's why our knees are so prone to damages. It's a evolutionary advantage that we have adapted.

I don't really care what a biologist says if it's preceded with the idea that humans shouldn't walk on two legs. What else should we do? Crawl? I'm sure that'd be great for our knees.

Walking is natural, but as an infant one's faculties haven't developed. They need honing.

Anyway, everything in tennis is natural because they involve natural laws. Everyone knows tennis is best learned through 'feel'. If we can feel our way through the technique, then it is natural to us. Humans have an innate understanding of natural laws.

jessey
01-27-2009, 11:10 AM
I don't really care what a biologist says if it's preceded with the idea that humans shouldn't walk on two legs. What else should we do? Crawl? I'm sure that'd be great for our knees.

Walking is natural, but as an infant one's faculties haven't developed. They need honing.

Anyway, everything in tennis is natural because they involve natural laws. Everyone knows tennis is best learned through 'feel'. If we can feel our way through the technique, then it is natural to us. Humans have an innate understanding of natural laws.

Are you saying that coaches and instructions are not necessary?

Yes, feel is definitely important, and honing our tennis feel is very crucial, and yes, a sound technique is going to be bio-physically natural to our bodies. But I have to say, rarely does our bodies do what's bio-physically natural in regard to executing a technique in tennis. Just look at how many club players are forever stuck at the 3.5 rating, and how many people are destroying their elbows through bad techniques, which are so obvious to others, but they themselves feel nothing wrong about them, because the techniques have become "natural" for them.

It has happened again and again: a beginner learns an improper technique, and he/she begins developing it more and more, so that it does become more and more effective on the tennis court, but over time, the bad technique becomes a limitation, and more importantly, become harmful to the player.

It is very important for beginners to receive proper instruction on the execution of techniques so they know what a proper technique feels like in the first place.

As regard to walking, obviously I'm not saying we shouldn't walk, I'm saying infants need to be taught how to walk.

oneguy21
01-27-2009, 11:17 AM
Are you saying that coaches and instructions are not necessary?

Yes, feel is definitely important, and honing our tennis feel is very crucial, and yes, a sound technique is going to be bio-physically natural to our bodies. But I have to say, rarely does our bodies do what's bio-physically natural in regard to executing a technique in tennis. Just look at how many club players are forever stuck at the 3.5 rating, and how many people are destroying their elbows through bad techniques, which are so obvious to others, but they themselves feel nothing wrong about them, because the techniques have become "natural" for them.

It has happened again and again: a beginner learns an improper technique, and he/she begins developing it more and more, so that it does become more and more effective on the tennis court, but over time, the bad technique becomes a limitation, and more importantly, become harmful to the player.

It is very important for beginners to receive proper instruction on the execution of techniques so they know what a proper technique feels like in the first place.

As regard to walking, obviously I'm not saying we shouldn't walk, I'm saying infants need to be taught how to walk.

I heard of a coach in Tennis magazine who doesn't try to be too technical on technique because he believes players will use their intuition to figure out the proper technique for themselves.

dennis10is
01-27-2009, 11:35 AM
I heard of a coach in Tennis magazine who doesn't try to be too technical on technique because he believes players will use their intuition to figure out the proper technique for themselves.

This was how I was taught by my coach. Everything was reduced to swinging a tube sock with a tennis ball in it or a stick, even a flower, a fan.

One caveat, he also stood there giving me continuous feedback for years as I was hitting the ball. That's the part that they neglect to tell you. Accurate and timely feedback, the more immediate the feedback the better.

jessey
01-27-2009, 11:40 AM
I heard of a coach in Tennis magazine who doesn't try to be too technical on technique because he believes players will use their intuition to figure out the proper technique for themselves.

That is completely bogus IMO. I think a good coach will let and help the students to develop their own style once they've learned the basics. If that's the case of the coach in the magazine, that is absolutely legitimate and wonderful. But playing tennis isn't intuitive for humans. We are not naturally incline to pick up a stick and begin to whack at a little fuzzy ball back and forth between us.

Bungalo Bill
01-27-2009, 11:47 AM
For some, no question. I've seen MANY players learn the WW forehand at a very young age and as they got older execute the shot quite well. In fact, I believe many of these players do it naturally without even thinking about it (much like walking as mentioned earlier).

Watch some top USTA wheelchair players hit around invariably almost all of them have a WW forehand. For them it has become natural because the chair itself gets in the way of what many consider a "traditional" forehand stroke.

Take care and stay warm-

I dont know. That is your opinion. I call it a learned skill. If you want to say that is natural, then I guess everything we do is "natural." lol

Normally, when a tennis player says to another player, "just do what is natural", to me they are basically saying, "I have no clue how to explain it or help you, so just go figure it out yourself."

And if that player ends up doing something funky or something that can shorten their enjoyment of tennis, should we call that natural as well?

Bungalo Bill
01-27-2009, 11:52 AM
This was how I was taught by my coach. Everything was reduced to swinging a tube sock with a tennis ball in it or a stick, even a flower, a fan.

One caveat, he also stood there giving me continuous feedback for years as I was hitting the ball. That's the part that they neglect to tell you. Accurate and timely feedback, the more immediate the feedback the better.

Having someone or something provide you feedback while you are learning is not the same as just "learning it naturally."

You are being coached and you are receiving feedback to make immediate adjustments. These adjustments are changing something you are doing NATURALLY into something to do unnaturally. In other words, if left to yourself, the chances are higher that you would engrain a bad habit. A bad habit that was "natural" in the start.

oneguy21
01-27-2009, 11:55 AM
I dont know. That is your opinion. I call it a learned skill. If you want to say that is natural, then I guess everything we do is "natural." lol

Normally, when a tennis player says to another player, "just do what is natural", to me they are basically saying, "I have no clue how to explain it or help you, so just go figure it out yourself."

And if that player ends up doing something funky or something that can shorten their enjoyment of tennis, should we call that natural as well?


I kind of agree with you. Most beginners will serve with an eastern forehand grip and think that it's "natural" b/c it feels more comfortable for them. Even I changed to continental when I was told by my coach to do so.

If players were taught to play naturally, they would be serving use the efh grip, swinging slower on 2nd serves, and they would probably have poor footwork.

Bungalo Bill
01-27-2009, 11:59 AM
That is completely bogus IMO. I think a good coach will let and help the students to develop their own style once they've learned the basics.

You are right it is BS. I call it "cop-out coaching" and "I dont want to take any responsibility if you dont get it" coaching.

Fundamentals are what is important to teach players. Fundamentals. Personality, style, preferences, tendencies, attitude, is what you give lattitude for the players to develop around the ball.

If that's the case of the coach in the magazine, that is absolutely legitimate and wonderful. But playing tennis isn't intuitive for humans. We are not naturally incline to pick up a stick and begin to whack at a little fuzzy ball back and forth between us.

And you are right about tennis NOT being a intuitive sport. All you have to do is coach one day to find that out. I beleive an article awhile back pointed out that tennis and golf are the two hardest sports to learn.

The trouble is we want to mix our natural make-up of our personalities into the technical aspect of how to hit a ball. How to hit a ball is not intuitive or natural. Just watch kids, the first thing a coach wrestles with is keeping the racquet in the kids hands in the right grip. They flip the racquet around, turn it wrong, turn their wrists up. Point the racquet face up, and on and on....

I wish the people here that advise players to "do what is natural" would conduct their own research.

Tell them to get 50 kids and stick a racquet in their hands. Dont provide any adivse and just feed them balls. And over several months, see how many develop good form and technique. Bunch of big talkers.

Bungalo Bill
01-27-2009, 12:05 PM
I kind of agree with you. Most beginners will serve with an eastern forehand grip and think that it's "natural" b/c it feels more comfortable for them. Even I changed to continental when I was told by my coach to do so.

If players were taught to play naturally, they would be serving use the efh grip, swinging slower on 2nd serves, and they would probably have poor footwork.

The uee of the word natural is what is the problem. This has many different meanings to many people.

What is natural in tennis? If tennis and golf are considered the two hardest sports to learn, isn't a player telling another player to "do what feels right", or "do what comes natural", a bit arrogant?

How many "natural" tennis players vs. coached players using discipline and fundamentals are out there in the clubs?

If all we care about is "do what is natural" then why even get all ****y about how good a coach is? What would it matter if they are experts in technique? Why fuss over lessons?

So what is the meaning of the word "natural" to us? WE can certainly provdie Websters definition, however, I think some of us add to it to have it mean something slightly different or broad.

jessey
01-27-2009, 12:14 PM
The uee of the word natural is what is the problem. This has many different meanings to many people.

What is natural in tennis? If tennis and golf are considered the two hardest sports to learn, isn't a player telling another player to "do what feels right", or "do what comes natural", a bit arrogant?

How many "natural" tennis players vs. coached players using discipline and fundamentals are out there in the clubs?

If all we care about is "do what is natural" then why even get all ****y about how good a coach is? What would it matter if they are experts in technique? Why fuss over lessons?

So what is the meaning of the word "natural" to us? WE can certainly provdie Websters definition, however, I think some of us add to it to have it mean something slightly different or broad.

Yup, the word "natural" has been thrown around without having a unified definition, and that's one of the sources of the confusion that's taking place.

People have been substituting two different meanings here for the word.
1. Natural being "bio-physically sound." Meaning if a technique is natural, it's movement will be efficient, and it will less likely to cause harm to our bodies.

2. Natural being "intuitive/innate."

Bungalo Bill
01-27-2009, 01:02 PM
Yup, the word "natural" has been thrown around without having a unified definition, and that's one of the sources of the confusion that's taking place.

People have been substituting two different meanings here for the word.
1. Natural being "bio-physically sound." Meaning if a technique is natural, it's movement will be efficient, and it will less likely to cause harm to our bodies.

2. Natural being "intuitive/innate."

Yes, some players have natural ability. They are able to use their undeveloped talent and become very good tennis players over time. Some people do not possess this talent or ability.

And as far as intuitiveness, this is something that comes in various degrees in all of us. What is intuitive to one person may not be intuitive to another.

If tennis is "natural", then why so many questions about forehands, backhands, serves, volleys, movement, etc...here? Just doesnt make any sense to me.

Slicendicer
01-27-2009, 01:03 PM
FWIW, just watched a slow-motion ESPN video of Federer's "windshield wiper" forehand... he's pretty good, right?

dennis10is
01-27-2009, 01:48 PM
Having someone or something provide you feedback while you are learning is not the same as just "learning it naturally."

You are being coached and you are receiving feedback to make immediate adjustments. These adjustments are changing something you are doing NATURALLY into something to do unnaturally. In other words, if left to yourself, the chances are higher that you would engrain a bad habit. A bad habit that was "natural" in the start.

I never said that I was taught "naturally". The term taught would mean that it wasn't self-taught or innate. I was trained from day one and was not given a chance to form bad habbits. People who compliment me on my strokes and say "you must be very coordinated", my reply has always been, I was well coached from day one. It doesn't take an above average coordination to have well-formed strokes. I'm one of those fortunate players to have grown up in So Cal at the height of the tennis boom and benefited from top notch coaching. All the credit goes to my coaches.

Not getting into vague definitional argument about "natural/innate" with you guys.

What I was trying to say is that my coach did not spend endless hours on grip/ and technical descriptions so favored by fourm members. I had the luxury of having my coach standing there giving me the feedback. You learn by doing, and the best coaching is to have the expert correct you immediately with a verbal analogy that hopefully you can internalize into a skillset.

I find it funny, hilarious that people spend time typing about how to hit a tennis ball when the only way to teach anyone is to be there with them.

Self-report is horrible, horrible. You need an expert observing you to tell you if you are doing wrong and you need to immediately see the consequences of your actions/corrections.

Everyone, I suggest you look up the difference between declarative knowledge versus procedural knowledge. Spending time on the board will just improve your declarative knowledge. You end up sounding like you know much about tennis. It does absolutely nothing to your procedural knowledge.

jessey
01-27-2009, 02:54 PM
I never said that I was taught "naturally". The term taught would mean that it wasn't self-taught or innate. I was trained from day one and was not given a chance to form bad habbits. People who compliment me on my strokes and say "you must be very coordinated", my reply has always been, I was well coached from day one. It doesn't take an above average coordination to have well-formed strokes. I'm one of those fortunate players to have grown up in So Cal at the height of the tennis boom and benefited from top notch coaching. All the credit goes to my coaches.

Not getting into vague definitional argument about "natural/innate" with you guys.

What I was trying to say is that my coach did not spend endless hours on grip/ and technical descriptions so favored by fourm members. I had the luxury of having my coach standing there giving me the feedback. You learn by doing, and the best coaching is to have the expert correct you immediately with a verbal analogy that hopefully you can internalize into a skillset.

I find it funny, hilarious that people spend time typing about how to hit a tennis ball when the only way to teach anyone is to be there with them.

Self-report is horrible, horrible. You need an expert observing you to tell you if you are doing wrong and you need to immediately see the consequences of your actions/corrections.

Everyone, I suggest you look up the difference between declarative knowledge versus procedural knowledge. Spending time on the board will just improve your declarative knowledge. You end up sounding like you know much about tennis. It does absolutely nothing to your procedural knowledge.

Yah, the best way to learn tennis is to play tennis and not read about tennis, but I think a lot of people are here asking questions or what not because they don't have the money to hire a coach...So yah, while having a coach to give you instructions are definitely the best thing, self-reporting is the best thing that many of the people here can afford.

CoachingMastery
01-27-2009, 03:12 PM
Yah, the best way to learn tennis is to play tennis and not read about tennis, but I think a lot of people are here asking questions or what not because they don't have the money to hire a coach...So yah, while having a coach to give you instructions are definitely the best thing, self-reporting is the best thing that many of the people here can afford.

This is one of the common myths about tennis: "the best way to learn tennis is to play tennis." The vast majority of weak 3.0 or stagnant 3.5 players are those who taught themselves tennis by "playing".

Skilled tennis strokes, those related to hitting with more consistency, more pace, more control, more effect, more angles, more spin, more diversity, are seldom comfortable or familiar swing patterns, grips or footwork.

While there are hundreds of ways to hit a ball over the net, the vast majority of ways that people hit balls over the net among the recreational/club crowd, are seldom proficient nor skilled in execution.

Sure, you can figure ways out to get a ball over the net through simple attrition...do something enough times, you can figure out where to aim and how hard (or how soft) to hit it so it goes in. This equates to how someone might teach themselves the piano with no one to guide them: they use their index fingers and pluck notes out without any semblence of effective piano playing. (And, in time, becomes very boring!)

There are exceptions to this: those who watch skilled players and emulate. This, of course, requires the ability to know what a player is doing themselves, and then emulating correctly the skilled pattern they are trying to copy.

As investments go, tennis lessons are priceless.

And your comment about reading is just about as ignorant: Studies show that people who study tennis (reading, looking at video clips, etc.) and practice or play a little each week get better faster than those who play a lot more but don't spend any time studying the sport outside court time.

Quite frankly, building the cognitive connection to the physical connection is a common attribute of skilled and successful players in all sports.

But, if you don't have the money to hire coaches, you can still become a potentially great player if you indeed study tennis from books, videos, and discussing tennis with KNOWLEDGABLE players. Stand in front of a mirror and generate a grooved swing pattern. Hit on walls (correctly), get a basket of balls and practice serves; find a partner who also wants to improve...

THEN STUDY WHAT SKILLED TENNIS LOOKS LIKE!

stormholloway
01-27-2009, 03:32 PM
Are you saying that coaches and instructions are not necessary?

Necessary and helpful are two different things. Just by existing your mind has a feel for the law of gravity, which is about all it needs to feel to understand tennis.

Yes, feel is definitely important, and honing our tennis feel is very crucial, and yes, a sound technique is going to be bio-physically natural to our bodies. But I have to say, rarely does our bodies do what's bio-physically natural in regard to executing a technique in tennis. Just look at how many club players are forever stuck at the 3.5 rating, and how many people are destroying their elbows through bad techniques, which are so obvious to others, but they themselves feel nothing wrong about them, because the techniques have become "natural" for them.

The overpowering problem that has arisen is that the wrong part of the mind is involved in playing tennis. The natural "feeling" part of the mind is put aside while the language and logic oriented part of the mind involves itself unnecessarily. There are a lot of reasons why players get stuck at the 3.5 level. That's very general.

It has happened again and again: a beginner learns an improper technique, and he/she begins developing it more and more, so that it does become more and more effective on the tennis court, but over time, the bad technique becomes a limitation, and more importantly, become harmful to the player.

Well then you've just contradicted yourself. This person learned "bad technique". So this person is just repeating ideas of someone else rather than feeling what is right through intuition.

As regard to walking, obviously I'm not saying we shouldn't walk, I'm saying infants need to be taught how to walk.

They need to be taught how to walk? Are you sure? Infants can't understand complete sentences. How can you teach them to walk? They see others walking and they do it. That's it. Just like tennis: some of the best instruction I've had is by simply watching other tennis players and by my own intution, just like an infant learning to walk.

That is completely bogus IMO. I think a good coach will let and help the students to develop their own style once they've learned the basics. If that's the case of the coach in the magazine, that is absolutely legitimate and wonderful. But playing tennis isn't intuitive for humans. We are not naturally incline to pick up a stick and begin to whack at a little fuzzy ball back and forth between us.

That's not the point. Humans have an innate understand of momentum, movement, anticipation, and the host of the aspects of tennis.

You are right it is BS. I call it "cop-out coaching" and "I dont want to take any responsibility if you dont get it" coaching.

Fundamentals are what is important to teach players. Fundamentals. Personality, style, preferences, tendencies, attitude, is what you give lattitude for the players to develop around the ball.

And you are right about tennis NOT being a intuitive sport. All you have to do is coach one day to find that out. I beleive an article awhile back pointed out that tennis and golf are the two hardest sports to learn.

The trouble is we want to mix our natural make-up of our personalities into the technical aspect of how to hit a ball. How to hit a ball is not intuitive or natural. Just watch kids, the first thing a coach wrestles with is keeping the racquet in the kids hands in the right grip. They flip the racquet around, turn it wrong, turn their wrists up. Point the racquet face up, and on and on....

I wish the people here that advise players to "do what is natural" would conduct their own research.

Tell them to get 50 kids and stick a racquet in their hands. Dont provide any adivse and just feed them balls. And over several months, see how many develop good form and technique. Bunch of big talkers.

I think the truth is that, as a coach, you want to wield more power than you deserve. Tim Gallwey more or less blew the lid off of this subject. You don't need some guy talking about windshield wipers or backscratching or any other silly metaphors or distractions. The best thing a coach can do is create an environment where the student feels free to exploring their intuitive mind.

A video was posted on this board showing Tim Gallwey, many years ago, teaching a middle aged, fat woman who had never played tennis how to play. He gave no instructions whatsoever on how to swing the racquet. All he said was "bounce hit" and she learned the game in fifteen minutes, including serves. She was playing the game of tennis consistently in a matter of minutes and had never picked up the racquet. Is this cop-out coaching?

oneguy21
01-27-2009, 03:33 PM
I never said that I was taught "naturally". The term taught would mean that it wasn't self-taught or innate. I was trained from day one and was not given a chance to form bad habbits. People who compliment me on my strokes and say "you must be very coordinated", my reply has always been, I was well coached from day one. It doesn't take an above average coordination to have well-formed strokes. I'm one of those fortunate players to have grown up in So Cal at the height of the tennis boom and benefited from top notch coaching. All the credit goes to my coaches.

Not getting into vague definitional argument about "natural/innate" with you guys.

What I was trying to say is that my coach did not spend endless hours on grip/ and technical descriptions so favored by fourm members. I had the luxury of having my coach standing there giving me the feedback. You learn by doing, and the best coaching is to have the expert correct you immediately with a verbal analogy that hopefully you can internalize into a skillset.

I find it funny, hilarious that people spend time typing about how to hit a tennis ball when the only way to teach anyone is to be there with them.

Self-report is horrible, horrible. You need an expert observing you to tell you if you are doing wrong and you need to immediately see the consequences of your actions/corrections.

Everyone, I suggest you look up the difference between declarative knowledge versus procedural knowledge. Spending time on the board will just improve your declarative knowledge. You end up sounding like you know much about tennis. It does absolutely nothing to your procedural knowledge.


Procedural knowledge is gained unconsciously right? It's also controlled by the cerebellum.

..from what I've learned in AP psychology.

jessey
01-27-2009, 03:35 PM
This is one of the common myths about tennis: "the best way to learn tennis is to play tennis." The vast majority of weak 3.0 or stagnant 3.5 players are those who taught themselves tennis by "playing".

Skilled tennis strokes, those related to hitting with more consistency, more pace, more control, more effect, more angles, more spin, more diversity, are seldom comfortable or familiar swing patterns, grips or footwork.

While there are hundreds of ways to hit a ball over the net, the vast majority of ways that people hit balls over the net among the recreational/club crowd, are seldom proficient nor skilled in execution.

Sure, you can figure ways out to get a ball over the net through simple attrition...do something enough times, you can figure out where to aim and how hard (or how soft) to hit it so it goes in. This equates to how someone might teach themselves the piano with no one to guide them: they use their index fingers and pluck notes out without any semblence of effective piano playing. (And, in time, becomes very boring!)

There are exceptions to this: those who watch skilled players and emulate. This, of course, requires the ability to know what a player is doing themselves, and then emulating correctly the skilled pattern they are trying to copy.

As investments go, tennis lessons are priceless.

And your comment about reading is just about as ignorant: Studies show that people who study tennis (reading, looking at video clips, etc.) and practice or play a little each week get better faster than those who play a lot more but don't spend any time studying the sport outside court time.

Quite frankly, building the cognitive connection to the physical connection is a common attribute of skilled and successful players in all sports.

But, if you don't have the money to hire coaches, you can still become a potentially great player if you indeed study tennis from books, videos, and discussing tennis with KNOWLEDGABLE players. Stand in front of a mirror and generate a grooved swing pattern. Hit on walls (correctly), get a basket of balls and practice serves; find a partner who also wants to improve...

THEN STUDY WHAT SKILLED TENNIS LOOKS LIKE!

Try to actually read next time instead of calling people ignorant, and you'll see you've pretty much repeated what I was saying.

Bungalo Bill
01-27-2009, 03:36 PM
I find it funny, hilarious that people spend time typing about how to hit a tennis ball when the only way to teach anyone is to be there with them.

Self-report is horrible, horrible. You need an expert observing you to tell you if you are doing wrong and you need to immediately see the consequences of your actions/corrections.

Everyone, I suggest you look up the difference between declarative knowledge versus procedural knowledge. Spending time on the board will just improve your declarative knowledge. You end up sounding like you know much about tennis. It does absolutely nothing to your procedural knowledge.

Not always. And thank goodness this is just your opinion and your effort to twist things out of context.

There is definetly merit to on-court instruction and feedback. No one has disputed that. Did you think anyone did?

However, to throw everything out with the bath water and to arrogantly imply players can ONLY LEARN TENNIS IF THEY HAVE SOMEONE COACHING THEM RIGHT THEN AND THERE is so foolish that I woudl dare you to debate me on this issue.

A court, a book, the internet, videos, demonstration, pictures, or whatever...are all tools a player can use to learn tennis. Whether they are learning something cognitively or through psycho-motor it is all good. It is called information and many times coaches run out of anaologies, or are unable to communicate what they are trying to get the student to do.

What you are implying is that every single coach provides perfect communication. That every single coach has the skills to disect a stroke and provide immediate advice on how to improve it.

YOU ARE WRONG IF YOU THINK THAT.

A good communicator can equally share their thoughts, provide their examples, and paint a picture in a persons mind in writing just as easy as verbally saying it.

It is the picture that you want to paint in a persons mind and at this site we have plenty of tools at our disposal to demonstrate what we are trying to say.

Everyone gathers, analyzes, processes, and implements knowledge differently. The written word is a viable communication medium and always will be.

People have different talent, skills, backgrounds, training, coordination, intuitiveness, etc...

People can learn from the written word just as they can learn by watching a video.

To be so absolute and finite with your "declaritive knowledge" shows your ignorance on what humans can do with things. Not everyone needs a coach physically standing in front of them watching their every move.

We also have players at various degrees of skill who needing direction or guidance. Some people simply need clarification and since I cant be everywhere at a moments notice, the internets ability to communicate to a lot of people at once is awesome.

Further, if people cant learn here then why the success stories? Are you so naive that your little "coaching" world is only glued to how you learned tennis? Okay, so you sucked at sports and needed to be held by the hand learning tennis. Not everyone is like that.

I didnt have a coach shadowing me and I learned to play tennis pretty darn well. Do you want to know how I learned Mr. Procedural Knowledge? I LEARNED BY READING!!!!!

Sort of shoots your opinion to crap doesnt it.

oneguy21
01-27-2009, 03:40 PM
Not always. And thank goodness this is just your opinion and your effort to twist things out of context.

There is definetly merit to on-court instruction and feedback. No one has disputed that. Did you think anyone did?

However, to throw everything out with the bath water and to arrogantly imply players can ONLY LEARN TENNIS IF THEY HAVE SOMEONE COACHING THEM RIGHT THEN AND THERE is so foolish that I woudl dare you to debate me on this issue.

A court, a book, the internet, videos, demonstration, pictures, or whatever...are all tools a player can use to learn tennis. Whether they are learning something cognitively or through psycho-motor it is all good. It is called information and many times coaches run out of anaologies, or are unable to communicate what they are trying to get the student to do.

What you are implying is that every single coach provides perfect communication. That every single coach has the skills to disect a stroke and provide immediate advice on how to improve it.

YOU ARE WRONG IF YOU THINK THAT.

A good communicator can equally share their thoughts, provide their examples, and paint a picture in a persons mind in writing just as easy as verbally saying it.

It is the picture that you want to paint in a persons mind and at this site we have plenty of tools at our disposal to demonstrate what we are trying to say.

Everyone gathers, analyzes, processes, and implements knowledge differently. The written word is a viable communication medium and always will be.

People have different talent, skills, backgrounds, training, coordination, intuitiveness, etc...

People can learn from the written word just as they can learn by watching a video.

To be so absolute and finite with your "declaritive knowledge" shows your ignorance on what humans can do with things. Not everyone needs a coach physically standing in front of them watching their every move.

We also have players at various degrees of skill who needing direction or guidance. Some people simply need clarification and since I cant be everywhere at a moments notice, the internets ability to communicate to a lot of people at once is awesome.

Further, if people cant learn here then why the success stories? Are you so naive that your little "coaching" world is only glued to how you learned tennis? Okay, so you sucked at sports and needed to be held by the hand learning tennis. Not everyone is like that.

I didnt have a coach shadowing me and I learned to play tennis pretty darn well. Do you want to know how I learned Mr. Procedural Knowledge? I LEARNED BY READING!!!!!

Sort of shoots your opinion to crap doesnt it.


This guy was a psychology professor according to him.

Bungalo Bill
01-27-2009, 03:43 PM
I think the truth is that, as a coach, you want to wield more power than you deserve.

LOL, I dont even know how to comment to this nonsense.

Tim Gallwey more or less blew the lid off of this subject. You don't need some guy talking about windshield wipers or backscratching or any other silly metaphors or distractions. The best thing a coach can do is create an environment where the student feels free to exploring their intuitive mind.

Well, I do that! I get out some candles, have everyone assume to Ooooommmmmmmmmm, position and ask them, gently of course, to look inside to their inner child and tell the group what do they see. I tell them to explore the universe tennis with their intutitive minds and fly if they can to their happy place.

Shortly after this episode, I blow out the candles and I see peaceful faces smiling at one another and everyone feels like one. One team, one unit, one force.

I use my Third-eye to feed a ball to them and they intuitively get into the right grip, perform the unit turn perfectly, execute the drop of the racquet with perfect racquet head control, and pow! The ball is hit perfectly by using thier intuitive minds.

You have so much to learn grasshopper.

And by the way, the next time you provide any thing resembling advice? I will own you.

A video was posted on this board showing Tim Gallwey, many years ago, teaching a middle aged, fat woman who had never played tennis how to play. He gave no instructions whatsoever on how to swing the racquet. All he said was "bounce hit" and she learned the game in fifteen minutes, including serves. She was playing the game of tennis consistently in a matter of minutes and had never picked up the racquet. Is this cop-out coaching?

Yeah, it is. I read that book and some of it is good, the rest is utter nonsense.

Try putting 100 more middle aged fat women out there and see what the percentage is. Anyone can have a student that gets things without much anything else. Geeez....

junbug
01-27-2009, 03:45 PM
bill, have you tried explaining your concept via video? you do have a lot of very valid points that can be better explained if you put it on video like youtube or something.

Bungalo Bill
01-27-2009, 03:45 PM
Procedural knowledge is gained unconsciously right? It's also controlled by the cerebellum.

..from what I've learned in AP psychology.

There are only a few coaches that can communicate in writing and verbally. Denis10ns isn't one of them. And as far as his Procdural and Declaritive knowledge? He is putting things out of context and slanting things towards his argument. He hasnt provided the pros and cons of each. Or what the benefits are for each. The point is human beings learn from both areas and can apply what they learn from both sides.

He also doesnt mention that if a coach doesnt have good communication or communicates improperly what damage that can cause.

Let's get this debate a rummbling!!!! I hope he choses to debate me on this topic because I have information that will stifle this all up.

oneguy21
01-27-2009, 03:52 PM
There are only a few coaches that can communicate in writing and verbally. Denis10ns isn't one of them. And as far as his Procdural and Declaritive knowledge? He is putting things out of context and slanting things towards his argument. He hasnt provided the pros and cons of each. Or what the benefits are for each. The point is human beings learn from both areas and can apply what they learn from both sides.

He also doesnt mention that if a coach doesnt have good communication or communicates improperly what damage that can cause.

Let's get this debate a rummbling!!!!


I'm not sure what you people are debating.

A good coach gives good advice and motivates the player.

Discussion over. :)

stormholloway
01-27-2009, 03:59 PM
LOL, I dont even know how to comment to this nonsense.

Exactly.

Well, I do that! I get out some candles, have everyone assume to Ooooommmmmmmmmm, position and ask them, gently of course, to look inside to their inner child and tell the group what do they see. I tell them to explore the universe tennis with their intutitive minds and fly if they can to their happy place.

Shortly after this episode, I blow out the candles and I see peaceful faces smiling at one another and everyone feels like one. One team, one unit, one force.

I use my Third-eye to feed a ball to them and they intuitively get into the right grip, perform the unit turn perfectly, execute the drop of the racquet with perfect racquet head control, and pow! The ball is hit perfectly by using thier intuitive minds.

You have so much to learn grasshopper.

How many copies did your book sell again? By the way, he also wrote The Inner Game of Golf. If there weren't a WHOLE LOT to this philosophy and methods, neither book nor the massive results that followed would have occurred.

And by the way, the next time you provide any thing resembling advice? I will own you.

Yeah. Like your inability to distinguish the difference between the way Federer and Davydenko/Djokovic/et al look at the tennis ball? You've utterly failed in owning anybody.

Yeah, it is. I read that book and some of it is good, the rest is utter nonsense.

But lemme guess, you can't specify which of it is nonsense?

Try putting 100 more middle aged fat women out there and see what the percentage is. Anyone can have a student that gets things without much anything else. Geeez....

But wait, I thought tennis wasn't natural? Sure, there would be plenty of middle aged fat women that wouldn't do what she did, but it has nothing to do with not understanding technique, because the women in the video wasn't instructed on technique with specificity. Do you really think that this was the only time he instructed a layman in such a manner? The guy has been thoroughly vetted and so have his methods.

I think it just ticks off someone who likes to dole out advice that teaching is really so simple. Teaching tennis, in reality, is best done by letting the student learn. Other than that, it's all training, i.e. fortifying what has been learned, through feel, by repetition.

Words, steps, metaphors, hierarchies, numbers, and the rest of them are never a match for the natural intuition of the human mind, as much as the orange cone-holding, whistle-blowing, number-crunching, Bollettieri wannabe would like them to be.

stormholloway
01-27-2009, 04:00 PM
I'm not sure what you people are debating.

A good coach gives good advice and motivates the player.

Discussion over. :)

Except the moment a coach says "swinging a tennis racquet isn't natural" he does the opposite of coaching.

What he does is take away one's natural inclination to feel, and replace it with words.

Bungalo Bill
01-27-2009, 04:04 PM
This guy was a psychology professor according to him.

LOL, yeah, you mean locker room lawyer.

Let's get this straight. We have digressed into another topic because the answers have been provided regarding the WW motion being bogus. We then moved into the area of what is natural. I think we put that to bed except for those lingering few that are now thinking the "third-eye" might have something to do with playing tennis intuitively or naturally.

Now, we heard or read this:

And by the way, I find this guy hilarious as well because he spends time typing information as well.



I find it funny, hilarious that people spend time typing about how to hit a tennis ball when the only way to teach anyone is to be there with them.

Self-report is horrible, horrible. You need an expert observing you to tell you if you are doing wrong and you need to immediately see the consequences of your actions/corrections.

Everyone, I suggest you look up the difference between declarative knowledge versus procedural knowledge. Spending time on the board will just improve your declarative knowledge. You end up sounding like you know much about tennis. It does absolutely nothing to your procedural knowledge.


Anyway, he said it DOES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING FOR YOUR PROCEDURAL KNOWLEDGE which implies learning cognitively will have absolutely no transfer to the courts since the only way you can learn to play tennis is through procedural knowledge. Or, you end up SOUNDING like you know much about tennis but you really don’t.

I can’t wait to debate this and show how ignorant his statement is.

Maybe we can all learn how declarative knowledge supports procedural knowledge and vice versa.

Basically our Psychology Professor is saying that declarative knowledge is of little use in decision-making, judgment, etc...or in learning.

dennis10is
01-27-2009, 04:08 PM
Not always. And thank goodness this is just your opinion and your effort to twist things out of context.

There is definetly merit to on-court instruction and feedback. No one has disputed that. Did you think anyone did?

However, to throw everything out with the bath water and to arrogantly imply players can ONLY LEARN TENNIS IF THEY HAVE SOMEONE COACHING THEM RIGHT THEN AND THERE is so foolish that I woudl dare you to debate me on this issue.

A court, a book, the internet, videos, demonstration, pictures, or whatever...are all tools a player can use to learn tennis. Whether they are learning something cognitively or through psycho-motor it is all good. It is called information and many times coaches run out of anaologies, or are unable to communicate what they are trying to get the student to do.

What you are implying is that every single coach provides perfect communication. That every single coach has the skills to disect a stroke and provide immediate advice on how to improve it.

YOU ARE WRONG IF YOU THINK THAT.

A good communicator can equally share their thoughts, provide their examples, and paint a picture in a persons mind in writing just as easy as verbally saying it.

It is the picture that you want to paint in a persons mind and at this site we have plenty of tools at our disposal to demonstrate what we are trying to say.

Everyone gathers, analyzes, processes, and implements knowledge differently. The written word is a viable communication medium and always will be.

People have different talent, skills, backgrounds, training, coordination, intuitiveness, etc...

People can learn from the written word just as they can learn by watching a video.

To be so absolute and finite with your "declaritive knowledge" shows your ignorance on what humans can do with things. Not everyone needs a coach physically standing in front of them watching their every move.

We also have players at various degrees of skill who needing direction or guidance. Some people simply need clarification and since I cant be everywhere at a moments notice, the internets ability to communicate to a lot of people at once is awesome.

Further, if people cant learn here then why the success stories? Are you so naive that your little "coaching" world is only glued to how you learned tennis? Okay, so you sucked at sports and needed to be held by the hand learning tennis. Not everyone is like that.

I didnt have a coach shadowing me and I learned to play tennis pretty darn well. Do you want to know how I learned Mr. Procedural Knowledge? I LEARNED BY READING!!!!!

Sort of shoots your opinion to crap doesnt it.


Here's our point of disagreement:

I believe that you need the assistance of experts to help you become good.

You believe that you can get "darned good" without lessons but by reading and imitation.

OK, this is a forum. We both stated our positions.

Now, why the personal attacks, derogatory statements, bad language?
Did I reference you or anything about you? I could understand this if I said something deragatory about you but I didn't.

Your disproportionate response to a posting not directed at you would suggest that you are highly susceptible to having your defense mechanisms activated even others would not activate at all. You could have said 'I disagee".

So, I will ignore your posts from now on, so please reciprocate and do not respond to my postings and I will not respond to yours.

junbug
01-27-2009, 04:10 PM
bill, i'd still like to see a video of you explaining your points. with you demo'ing it. i'm not disagreeing with what you say. but if you had a video demo i can get a better picture.

jessey
01-27-2009, 04:23 PM
Necessary and helpful are two different things. Just by existing your mind has a feel for the law of gravity, which is about all it needs to feel to understand tennis...

I agree with some of what you're implying, which is learning about the physics behind the techniques and the movements does not automatically make you a great tennis player. I agree that over-emphasizing that could have a negative effect. In fact, there are great players out there who know nothing about that. That's why some of the best players are horrible teachers--they simply don't know how to explain their movements.

But I cannot agree with what you're actually saying (perhaps I'm misunderstanding you?). To say we can learn to play tennis through our feeling of gravity is just too much, don't you think? I don't think a person can become a good player by simply giving him a racquet and telling him to just hit the ball without ANY guidance. He is going to need guidance, whether it be verbal instructions from coaches, or visual guidance from watching pros play and such.

dennis10is
01-27-2009, 04:27 PM
Procedural knowledge is gained unconsciously right? It's also controlled by the cerebellum.

..from what I've learned in AP psychology.

Hey oneguy,

Looks like BB will be posting lots and lots of stuff so I'll leave the thread.

Enjoy AP psychology.

Short answer is yes procedural knowledge is unconscious in that the person will not be able to self-report or verbalize it. You can speak about it but it isn't accessing the same knowledge base. Here's an example.

People make wedding vows to remain faithful and loving each other thru good times and bad, until death. That's the verbal self-report of what they think their procedural knowledge is and will be. About fifty percent of the people end up getting a divorce.

Look up self-monitoring, meta-cognition, source monitoring error or ask your teacher and you will find that the degree to which a person can accurately assess their knowledge/behavior is an important factor of success in most domains.

You may ask you teacher if you can do a report or have class room discussion on this thread and see how much you or your classmates can apply what you've learn in explaining the behavioral patterns of people on say this thread.

If you wish you can email me but I'll be leaving this thread now.

Cheers,

jessey
01-27-2009, 04:41 PM
Hey oneguy,

Looks like BB will be posting lots and lots of stuff so I'll leave the thread.

Enjoy AP psychology.

Short answer is yes procedural knowledge is unconscious in that the person will not be able to self-report or verbalize it. You can speak about it but it isn't accessing the same knowledge base. Here's an example.

People make wedding vows to remain faithful and loving each other thru good times and bad, until death. That's the verbal self-report of what they think their procedural knowledge is and will be. About fifty percent of the people end up getting a divorce.

Look up self-monitoring, meta-cognition, source monitoring error or ask your teacher and you will find that the degree to which a person can accurately assess their knowledge/behavior is an important factor of success in most domains.

You may ask you teacher if you can do a report or have class room discussion on this thread and see how much you or your classmates can apply what you've learn in explaining the behavioral patterns of people on say this thread.

If you wish you can email me but I'll be leaving this thread now.

Cheers,

One of my friend studied child psychology, and wow, that is an interesting subject from what he tells me. The experiment they do are so very amusing and boarderline abusing :twisted:. Like telling children not to hit a teddy bear while providing opportunity for them to do so. Then, when they do, making them feel really bad by saying things like "don't you know you're hurting the bear" and recording their reactions.

Bungalo Bill
01-27-2009, 04:45 PM
So folks let's first define the two areas:

Declaritive Knowledge and Procedural Knowledge. I would even go as far as saying I would like to the further break out of processes (but I dont want to scare the weak) and they are:

1. Perceptual

2. Motor

3. Cognitive

Our PsychologycProfessor here dismissed declaritive knowledge as if it was worthless. Is it worthless? And is his hypothesis right?

We will examine what declaritive knowledge actually is and why it is important for tennis players.

Unfortunately for him, I have an instructional design background and have had to study learning theories which go deep enough into these areas. SO I will know what I am talking about.

However, before we proceed we need definitions.

Declarative knowledge is knowing "that" (e.g., that Washington D.C. is the capital of America), as opposed to procedural knowledge is knowing "how" (e.g., how to drive a car).

Declarative knowledge is further divided into:

Episodic knowledge: memory for "episodes" (eg., the context of where, when, who with etc); can you guess what this would be useful for in tennis?
Semantic knowledge: Memory for knowledge of the world, facts, meaning of words, etc. (eg., knowing that the first month of the year is April (alphabetically) but January (chronologically). How about this? Is this useful in tennis?The point I am going to try to make is we do both here on this site. We not only provide WHAT you need to know depending on the topic, but we also provide HOW you need to do it.

dennis10is
01-27-2009, 04:56 PM
One of my friend studied child psychology, and wow, that is an interesting subject from what he tells me. The experiment they do are so very amusing and boarderline abusing :twisted:. Like telling children not to hit a teddy bear while providing opportunity for them to do so. Then, when they do, making them feel really bad by saying things like "don't you know you're hurting the bear" and recording their reactions.

If you are correct in describing the study above, that would be very iffy. To conduct research on children, the researcher must have parental/guardian consent and in this case, the parents would have to know ahead of time what the experimenters will do with their children. If the study made the child feel bad about their actions, I would be surprised that the study would have been approved first by the ethics committe and second received signed consent from the parents. My colleagues in child psychology always have a difficult time getting consent from parents even if the study involves the children just playing and interacting with the experimenter. No crying nothing and the parents will be in the room or observing next door. Can't imagine parents would let them do this. If the study was published and now in a textbook, it would have been challenged by the reviewers?

Could you ask your friend if the study was looking at the child's acquistion of "theory of mind"?

stormholloway
01-27-2009, 04:59 PM
Tennis can't be compared to driving a car. A car is a complex set of working parts that are unseen and unfelt by sensory perception. A tennis racquet gives feedback. It's just a stick attached to a hoop with strings in it. Therefore, you don't need declarative knowledge to play tennis, but you do need it to drive a car.

Bungalo Bill
01-27-2009, 04:59 PM
bill, i'd still like to see a video of you explaining your points. with you demo'ing it. i'm not disagreeing with what you say. but if you had a video demo i can get a better picture.

LOL! Now why? Is it that important that I do it? You have plenty of examples. Is what I do going to make you a better tennis player? Or are you still sore that I made fun of your little guru. What is it?

Here is what I think. I think you are mad that I challenged your guru. You were rubbing its hair, stroking its face, and kissing it every chance you got. Then I came along and grabbed it from you and slapped it around.

Tell you what, you show us how to do it because like you said, compared to "oscar" I have no idea what I am talking about. After all, I am one of thse coaches that Oscar calles "ancient" or "old school". Since you are a "child of the tennis god" you tell me how to do it. Or can you?

Bungalo Bill
01-27-2009, 05:04 PM
Tennis can't be compared to driving a car. A car is a complex set of working parts that are unseen and unfelt by sensory perception. A tennis racquet gives feedback. It's just a stick attached to a hoop with strings in it. Therefore, you don't need declarative knowledge to play tennis, but you do need it to drive a car.

AWESOME!!!

So tennis has no declaritive knowledge involved? ;)

And getting back to a car, you are talking about a car vs. mental processes that are happening in the brain.

You do realize you just set yourself up right? I really dont want to make you look like a fool.

I will allow you time to change your post above.

jessey
01-27-2009, 05:05 PM
If you are correct in describing the study above, that would be very iffy. To conduct research on children, the researcher must have parental/guardian consent and in this case, the parents would have to know ahead of time what the experimenters will do with their children. If the study made the child feel bad about their actions, I would be surprised that the study would have been approved first by the ethics committe and second received signed consent from the parents. My colleagues in child psychology always have a difficult time getting consent from parents even if the study involves the children just playing and interacting with the experimenter. No crying nothing and the parents will be in the room or observing next door. Can't imagine parents would let them do this. If the study was published and now in a textbook, it would have been challenged by the reviewers?

Could you ask your friend if the study was looking at the child's acquistion of "theory of mind"?

He did tell me about feeling iffy about it, and something about the ethics committee. I think when they ask the children questions they ask them in a neutral and un-judgmental way and see how the children reacted. Anyway, I'll ask him about the details.

Bungalo Bill
01-27-2009, 05:20 PM
The beginning of our research and the first response from my library of information.

It is a little one but it gets the ball rolling. First let's put stormholloway to bed. Then we can put our psychology professor to bed with a more meaty response:

Learning and Memory by Robert W. Howard.

Skill Learning (page 117)

Much research has tackled the difficult question of how skills are actually acquired, how humans manage to learn the complex-ordinations of many perceptions and actions involved in complicated skills. Several issues concern the exact course of skill learning and whether it is broadly the same for all skills, the role of feedback, and when and to what extent transfer occurs.

Some similar learning processes seem to be involved with many skills. One is learning to attend to relevant cues, to sort out wheat from chaff. Chess players learn to see the few good moves on the board, novice car drivers to attend to the car's controls and the important objects ahead, such as traffic signs and lights, other cars, and road conditions.

The learner must first acquire the ability to perform them and then to co-ordinate them. For instance, the novice driver learns to depress the clutch and the brake pedal to the right level, to shift the gears, to turn the steering wheel the right distance for a given turn, and so on, and then to co-ordinate these actions.

For very complex skills, many muscle units need to be co-ordinated. Chunking is ubiquitous in skill learning. Drivers learn to group actions into larger unit, chess players to group pieces into perceptual chunks, and satellite photo interpreters to group fragments into patterns.

Stormholloway was easy to put to bed and I won't go any further with him. Now, on to the professor and his declaritive knowledge statement. Believe me, you don't have to do much research to prove these clowns wrong.

dennis10is
01-27-2009, 05:23 PM
He did tell me about feeling iffy about it, and something about the ethics committee. I think when they ask the children questions they ask them in a neutral and un-judgmental way and see how the children reacted. Anyway, I'll ask him about the details.

Ok, thanks. I'll look forward to your response.

Social psychologist did some ground breaking work but it was so psychologically devasting to the subjects and to the readership that it provided the impetus for the ethics protocol we now adhere to.

If you are interested in psychology, I would recommend this book. It is a small and easy read book. I used this book when I was teaching.

Forty studies that changed psychology by Roger Hock.

Bungalo Bill
01-27-2009, 05:28 PM
Ok, thanks. I'll look forward to your response.

Social psychologist did some ground breaking work but it was so psychologically devasting to the subjects and to the readership that it provided the impetus for the ethics protocol we now adhere to.

If you are interested in psychology, I would recommend this book. It is a small and easy read book. I used this book when I was teaching.

Forty studies that changed psychology by Roger Hock.

LOL, you are back? I thought you left. Well, I guess now I post my evidence to send your little statement to bed.

You are a phoney.

David L
01-27-2009, 07:30 PM
Hey David no sweat on the late reply. You've got a lot of people vying for your attention, heh. And thanks for the kind words about the video.

My feeling is that the follow through isn't always the natural consequence of what's going on prior to and at contact. You need to teach someone how to slow down / decelerate their racket and body smoothly for pretty much every shot in tennis -- not just the windshield wiper.

While you're right that the windshield wiper follow through is the product of a more vertical swing plane, it's not the only option when following through. As I mentioned in the video, you could continue to extend your arm and the racket straight up into the air. In a way that's more intuitive than turning your arm / racket over to create the windshield wiper effect.
I guess it's debatable, but I feel the windshield wiper follow-through is the path of least resistance. It's what the arm seems to want to do if you do not try to control it after contact with the ball.

David L
01-27-2009, 07:42 PM
OK I love this! I'm sure I'm not the only one who noticed. David, as is his pattern, didn't respond to all the comments that pointed out the errors and contradictions in his posts, and certainly didn't apologize for his various mistatements of facts.

But the best part is now he agrees with Lansdorp about the three finishes. And of course what Robert calls the downward finish is the same finish everyone else calls the windshield wiper.

So I guess so long as you don't call it the wiper, the wiper finish is a key part of the modern game. But wait I thought it was the CONCEPT of the wiper that was bogus. Hmm... that doesn't really make sense does it? Just another contradiction that will of course be ignored.

Now as for that hard distinction between classical and modern, that won't really hold up either. There were western forehands in the 1920s. The rackets changed the preponderance of grips and shot types. But every shot in the game, including the wiper forehand, and the reverse forehand have always been part of the game.

You can see Tilden hit a wiper forehand on our site. Also Pancho Gonzales. And Fred Perry hitting a reverse forehand--with a continental grip.

The rackets allowed the players to (eventually) figure out the advantages of the more extreme grips and spins (the real benefit of the wiper at high levels), but great players in all eras intuitively new how to use the racket in the way that best facilitated what they were trying to do.

Anyway this has been a fun exercise as a compliment to watching the AO. Love the Dokic thing and we have some amazing high speed footage of her forehand I'll put up now that she's back. And yes, to stay on the topic of the thread, she hits an amazing wiper as one of her forehand variations, one of the first women to do that routinely going back to when she was in the top 10 as a teenager. And have to say it's the opposite of bogus.
I think my posts have been consistent and yes, I still do think the concept of the windshield wiper is bogus, principally because it is a perception which confuses many about the actual.

As for classical and modern technique, regardless of which preceded which, the important point is that we are playing in the modern world with modern technology, so how players struck the ball with wooden rackets is of little importance when playing the game today.

David L
01-27-2009, 07:48 PM
Okay, I can start buying your information. You do know, you came off a bit strong which threw everyone out of whack. Lots of passionate players and coaches here.

So, with that said, I am a process person. Some people here are an end result type people. However, I love the process and can buy into what you are saying above. You are not dishing the WW pattern or finish, what it seems like is you are dishing is those that ONLY focus on or glorify the finish as if it is the Holy Grail to improve your ability to hit topspin, consistently, on time, and cleanly. In this case, I am with you.

So, if this is true. the point is we both know, no matter how you slice the swing, need to understand that the most important aspect of the swing is your racquet making contact with the ball on time and hitting it cleanly.

People like John Yandell know that the contact with the ball is very important or he wouldnt have come out with the book Visual Tennis. However, there are some coaches out there that ignore the process and just emphasize a certain finish. With these people, I am in disagreement.

What happens in the backswing, drop, forward swing, contact, extention, followthough, and finish are all important elements that provide feedback to the various stages of the swing. For example, if a player breaks off into the finish too soon, this might shed light that he is not accelerating to and through the ball in the stages prior to the finish. Or he might not be extending very well through the ball.

So if my explanation is aligned with your original objectives for this thread, I am fully with you. I am not a finish person as well, I am a process person. I place more emphasis in the swing path portion that leads up and goes into the extension of the stoke more than anything. I rarely concentrate on the finish because I will get the finish I want by concentrating on what happens before the finish. However, for coaches and players that understand the process is important as well, getting players to think of the finish can work as well.

I wish you would have said it this way to begin with!!!
Yes, you pretty much captured the point of my post.

JohnYandell
01-27-2009, 09:39 PM
David,

No. Not consistent. And on the modern versus clasical game, sliding and reframing as expected, and as usual.
Convince yourself as needed.

stormholloway
01-28-2009, 02:05 AM
AWESOME!!!

So tennis has no declaritive knowledge involved? ;)

And getting back to a car, you are talking about a car vs. mental processes that are happening in the brain.

You do realize you just set yourself up right? I really dont want to make you look like a fool.

I will allow you time to change your post above.

First, are you a grown man? If so, I feel sorry for you. As a guy who parades around this forum acting like a mentor, you sure are childish in your posts.

It's obvious you're barely even grasping what you're writing because, after cutting and pasting about declarative and procedural knowledge, you misspelled "declarative". You're also childish in that you act as if you've made some point, but nothing above contains any pertinent information other than that you believe you're right and that I'm wrong.

As for the car, it was obviously over your head. In order to drive a car you must have specific knowledge of how it works. Intuition cannot tell a driver which pedal does what, or what the gears mean, or what the lights on the streets mean. The driver can't see the gears, wires, and fluids. On the other hand, a person can instantly recognize how a tennis racquet works. It's a stick with a broad surface on the end.

If you have any trouble with this, send me an email. I'd be glad to help you out.

Bungalo Bill
01-28-2009, 07:22 AM
First, are you a grown man? If so, I feel sorry for you. As a guy who parades around this forum acting like a mentor, you sure are childish in your posts.

And yours aren't childish? I mean come on, you continue to take the road of posting information that is ridiculous. How many times do the people around here need to point out you are constantly off? I mean we post something true and you always have to spur things on with an opposite ridiculous view.

A clear example was you telling us that driving a car has no declarative knowledge. Can that get anymore childish? This of course is in light of course that it clearly does and I provided information indicating so from much more knowledgable people in this area than I and certainly you.

It's obvious you're barely even grasping what you're writing because, after cutting and pasting about declarative and procedural knowledge, you misspelled "declarative". You're also childish in that you act as if you've made some point, but nothing above contains any pertinent information other than that you believe you're right and that I'm wrong.

LOL! Barely grasp? I think what you meant is I proved you wrong.

As for the car, it was obviously over your head. In order to drive a car you must have specific knowledge of how it works. Intuition cannot tell a driver which pedal does what, or what the gears mean, or what the lights on the streets mean. The driver can't see the gears, wires, and fluids. On the other hand, a person can instantly recognize how a tennis racquet works. It's a stick with a broad surface on the end.

We are talking about DRIVING A CAR which means the car is moving. Which means something or someone has to press on the gas. Which means there are interactions going on mechanically, mentally, and physically. LOL!!!! We already know an engine has gears, etc... Einstein! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

If you have any trouble with this, send me an email. I'd be glad to help you out.

No thanks, I would rather handle it here and spare me on the spelling/grammar check professor.

Bungalo Bill
01-28-2009, 07:29 AM
Yes, you pretty much captured the point of my post.

Perfect! Thanks!

stormholloway
01-28-2009, 11:30 AM
And yours aren't childish? I mean come on, you continue to take the road of posting information that is ridiculous. How many times do the people around here need to point out you are constantly off? I mean we post something true and you always have to spur things on with an opposite ridiculous view.

People around here? I see you. It's amazing the way you speak. The whole point is that not everyone believes what you say is true, therefore the burden is on you to prove it. I'm simply disagreeing. I disagree but I don't conduct myself like a child with these ridiculous insults and "LOLLLLS!!!! exclamations.

Two words: grow up.

A clear example was you telling us that driving a car has no declarative knowledge. Can that get anymore childish? This of course is in light of course that it clearly does and I provided information indicating so from much more knowledgable people in this area than I and certainly you.

Excuse me? I NEVER said such a thing. Quote it.

We are talking about DRIVING A CAR which means the car is moving. Which means something or someone has to press on the gas. Which means there are interactions going on mechanically, mentally, and physically. LOL!!!! We already know an engine has gears, etc... Einstein! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

The car isn't moving until you make it move professor. In fact, without any prior knowledge, one wouldn't have a clue what a car was. It would just look like a "thing". If we "already know an engine has gears" then we have some declarative knowledge already. You're assuming that the person knows these things.

Before I simply thought you weren't qualified. I'm beginning to think that you lack general intelligence altogether.

Bungalo Bill
01-28-2009, 12:23 PM
People around here? I see you. It's amazing the way you speak. The whole point is that not everyone believes what you say is true, therefore the burden is on you to prove it. I'm simply disagreeing. I disagree but I don't conduct myself like a child with these ridiculous insults and "LOLLLLS!!!! exclamations.

Two words: grow up.

LOL!

Two words: YOU FIRST.

LOL!

Excuse me? I NEVER said such a thing. Quote it.

LOL!

Let's bring it into context Einstein. You said: "Tennis can't be compared to driving a car."

LOL!

Then you went on to talk about the mechanical nature of the car and that which was completely out of context. You further took it out of context and brought up the following:

A tennis racquet gives feedback. It's just a stick attached to a hoop with strings in it. Therefore, you don't need declarative knowledge to play tennis. A car is a complex set of working parts that are unseen and unfelt by sensory perception.

LOL!!!

Well Einstein? How do you go from DRIVING A CAR to A CAR IS A COMPLEX SET OF WORKING PARTS THAT ARE UNSEEN AND UNFELT BY SENSORY PERCEPTION?

We are talking about DRIVING A CAR. That means a human is behind the wheel DRIVING THE CAR!

LOL!!!!

As we just found out, you do need declarative knowledge to play tennis AND to drive a car.

The car isn't moving until you make it move professor. In fact, without any prior knowledge, one wouldn't have a clue what a car was.

LOL!!!!

and how do you make it move? YOU DRIVE THE FRICKING CAR!!!

LOL!!!!!

It would just look like a "thing". If we "already know an engine has gears" then we have some declarative knowledge already. You're assuming that the person knows these things.

Before I simply thought you weren't qualified. I'm beginning to think that you lack general intelligence altogether.

LOL!!!

Yeah, I lack general intelligence even though I just provided evidence pointing out you have no clue what you are talking about. It is me, not you.

LOL!!!!

sureshs
01-28-2009, 12:34 PM
Tennis can't be compared to driving a car. A car is a complex set of working parts that are unseen and unfelt by sensory perception. A tennis racquet gives feedback. It's just a stick attached to a hoop with strings in it. Therefore, you don't need declarative knowledge to play tennis, but you do need it to drive a car.

A car does provide feedback. In some tests, replacing the steering by a joystick displeased the user because the feedback from turning the wheel was found to be more satisfying than the feedback from a joystick. When the angular movement of the steering has a linear relationship with the actual turn of the car, it was more satisfying. A small displacement of the joystick resulting in a big turn was not intuitive. Also the engine sound was found to provide reinforcement and there were even proposals to simulate that in electric cars (like the impact sound in tennis).

And even in cars found today, there are those who prefer a closer to road feel, like in beemers, and dislike the cushioned feel of transmissions in American cars. They like the road feedback that they get. It is very critical for race car drivers.

Djokovicfan4life
01-28-2009, 12:42 PM
I may have to pop myself some popcorn for this one. :)

junbug
01-28-2009, 12:43 PM
bill, i'm trying to be open to your ideas, but just because i'm oscar's protege doesn't mean i'll be 100% pro oscar. i'm sure there are other things in this forum that i would like to get some insights. now if you are in the business of bashing other teaching pros who try to make the sport easier and fun and even offering a helping hand to other teaching pros, then i won't bother you especially considering you are now a "FORMER" . makes me wonder if you got kicked out of the USPTA because of the grudges you have in your baggage.

Bungalo Bill
01-28-2009, 12:44 PM
A car does provide feedback. In some tests, replacing the steering by a joystick displeased the user because the feedback from turning the wheel was found to be more satisfying than the feedback from a joystick. When the angular movement of the steering has a linear relationship with the actual turn of the car, it was more satisfying. A small displacement of the joystick resulting in a big turn was not intuitive. Also the engine sound was found to provide reinforcement and there were even proposals to simulate that in electric cars (like the impact sound in tennis).

And even in cars found today, there are those who prefer a closer to road feel, like in beemers, and dislike the cushioned feel of transmissions in American cars. They like the road feedback that they get. It is very critical for race car drivers.

:) Hey sureshs, we really dont need to give this guy any more rope to hang himself with. It is obvious he stepped in his own sh...t.

I even provided an article on showing him how "smelly" he became. Now, he is just back peddling and changing what he "meant" or was "trying to say". Even his pal Dennis10ns left because he knew he was wrong.

I guess you can continue toying with this guy but in all fairness, this argument is over.

oneguy21
01-28-2009, 01:36 PM
I'm only 16 and I can already see that grown people can be quite childish too. I guess it's human to retaliate when one is attacked.

stormholloway
01-28-2009, 01:37 PM
A car does provide feedback. In some tests, replacing the steering by a joystick displeased the user because the feedback from turning the wheel was found to be more satisfying than the feedback from a joystick. When the angular movement of the steering has a linear relationship with the actual turn of the car, it was more satisfying. A small displacement of the joystick resulting in a big turn was not intuitive. Also the engine sound was found to provide reinforcement and there were even proposals to simulate that in electric cars (like the impact sound in tennis).

And even in cars found today, there are those who prefer a closer to road feel, like in beemers, and dislike the cushioned feel of transmissions in American cars. They like the road feedback that they get. It is very critical for race car drivers.

My point wasn't about feedback. It was about the prior knowledge needed to work the machine. There is nothing intuitively understood by the human mind about a car's controls. The controls may have stemmed from logic, e.g. put the steering controls near the hands, but a person who grew up in the woods would not instantly understand how to use this machine. It requires prior knowledge.

You're talking about feedback to the extent that while driving (meaning, you can already drive) there is "feel". Two different subjects.

stormholloway
01-28-2009, 01:38 PM
I'm only 16 and I can already see that grown people can be quite childish too. I guess it's human to retaliate when one is attacked.

This is a grown man who calls himself a "coach".

stormholloway
01-28-2009, 01:47 PM
:) Hey sureshs, we really dont need to give this guy any more rope to hang himself with. It is obvious he stepped in his own sh...t.

I even provided an article on showing him how "smelly" he became. Now, he is just back peddling and changing what he "meant" or was "trying to say". Even his pal Dennis10ns left because he knew he was wrong.

I guess you can continue toying with this guy but in all fairness, this argument is over.

All of this talk above is based on the flat out lie below:

A clear example was you telling us that driving a car has no declarative knowledge. Can that get anymore childish? This of course is in light of course that it clearly does and I provided information indicating so from much more knowledgable people in this area than I and certainly you.

Except I never once said that driving a car required no declarative knowledge. In fact, I implied just the opposite by stating that tennis didn't require declarative knowledge, and that driving a car was different.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is what is referred to as a manipulative poster. He used what is called a "straw man," that is he misrepresented my argument (lied) then used that misrepresentation as ammunition.

I challenged you to quote where I said what you claimed above and you haven't. Why not?

Bungalo Bill
01-28-2009, 03:27 PM
All of this talk above is based on the flat out lie below:

Except I never once said that driving a car required no declarative knowledge. In fact, I implied just the opposite by stating that tennis didn't require declarative knowledge, and that driving a car was different.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is what is referred to as a manipulative poster. He used what is called a "straw man," that is he misrepresented my argument (lied) then used that misrepresentation as ammunition.

I challenged you to quote where I said what you claimed above and you haven't. Why not?

But that is the context. We are talking about DRIVING A CAR. That means a human is DRIVING THE CAR.

We are talking about DECLARATIVE KNOWLEDGE FOR A HUMAN BEING NOT FOR A FRICKING ENGINE!!!! LOL!

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HUMAN LEARNING AS IN PROCEDURAL KNOWLEDGE, DECLARATIVE KNOWLEDGE, ETC...NOT AN ENGINE OF MOVING PARTS!!!!!

LOL!

Come on Einstein, answer the questions.

Is declarative knowledge useful and meanginful to a player learning the game of tennis?
Do you understand how declarative knowledge works in sports?
Do you understand how the different stages of learning works? If not, read above, I provided it for you!!HERE IS WHAT YOU SAID:


Let's bring it into context Einstein. You said: "Tennis can't be compared to driving a car."

A tennis racquet gives feedback. It's just a stick attached to a hoop with strings in it. Therefore, you don't need declarative knowledge to play tennis.

A car is a complex set of working parts that are unseen and unfelt by sensory perception.


Your response doesnt even make sense!!! You are talking about a tennis racquet and declarative knowledge with an engine of moving parts thrown in. What? That is why I said "awesome" because it showed how ignorant you are.

We are not talking about a car or a tennis racquet. We are talking about a human being playing tennis or driving a car.

Declarative knowledge doesnt apply to engines parts or tennis racquets Einstein. Unless you are talking about the human being needing to know about these things.

We are talking about LEARNING THEORIES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH HUMAN BEINGS!!!!! Therefore, your response is not only inapproriate but it sheds light that you have no clue what you are talking about.

Here is an LOL!!!!! for ya. LOL!!!!

tailofdog
01-28-2009, 06:44 PM
Well DENNIS101 i do not know how you feel about Oscar. I will say i enjoy his teachings and have bought his dvds. I think that anybody who read your last post will see the truth shinning out and, some darkness in some of the other
posts will also reflect on other writers. :confused:

Djokovicfan4life
01-28-2009, 09:30 PM
This is a grown man who calls himself a "coach".

You just love to take the high road, don't you?

mawashi
01-28-2009, 10:00 PM
What's so difficult to understand at the dynamics of the windshield wiper motion?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtuTHsFlfGg&fmt=22

mawashi

stormholloway
01-29-2009, 02:07 AM
You just love to take the high road, don't you?

You read through the posts and make up your own mind. You obviously care enough to comment about it.