Nick Bollettieri never played as a junior?

[ramseszerg]

He had to send his wife to ask the other coaches what the different grips were? How good of a player did he become?

[Mahboob Khan]

According to my information he was a Drill Instructor in U.S. Marines. Back in 70s he got an idea to start a tennis academy. Even Nick admits that he started off from his own ignorance about the game of tennis and its teaching. However, he himself learned along the way and developed, evolved, and perfected a teaching system.

Some of the best coaches in the world were not the top players, and some of the best players in the world who resorted to coaching, turned out to be lousy coaches. You become best in the world after you fail in something. Obviously, a coach should have a reasonable playing level, good personal experience in coaching, and certification, etc.

Yes, Nick never played as a junior on the junior circuit, but turned out to be a world class coach. I have attended his system in 1995 and met him and his son. He is a very good person, and has the ability to inspire.

[ramseszerg]

What's a reasonable playing level?

[raiden031]

I've heard people say bollettieri is about as good as a 3.5 player. If he put in the time to develop his knowledge, I don't think his playing level should be an inhibiting factor in his ability to coach or run a tennis academy. I guess the question is how much of coaching comes from playing experience verses knowledge?

[120mphBodyServe]

I wouldn't go to his academy if you paid me.
The end.

[raiden031]

I wouldn't go to his academy if you paid me.
The end.

... Why not?

[120mphBodyServe]

The guy produces clones.

[acehole]

The guy produces clones.

i wouldnt mind being a clone with multi million dollar endorsement deals, or olympic gold medals, or brooke shields for a wife, a pay check that comes from tennis, or a room full of trophies, or the fairy tale life some of these players have.

[120mphBodyServe]

Pete Sampras or Roger Federer weren't NB students.

[acehole]

Pete Sampras or Roger Federer weren't NB students.

agassi was

[CoachingMastery]

The guy produces clones.

This is a myth...it is impossible to produce "clones"...every individual will evolve any specific training/hitting method. You can teach 1000 players the exact same way and no two will play the same.

Isn't it interesting that Agassi, Seles, Courier, Becker, Mary Pierce, Anna Kornikova, Mark Philippoussis, Haas, among others were trained to some degree by Nick...and yet, no two of these champions play alike?

That isn't to say that not all players are cut out to enjoy or get out of Nick the same inspiration or value. But, to say you would never attend his program because "he produces clones" is a very ignorant statement.

[goober]

I wouldn't go to his academy if you paid me.
The end.

I sure as heck would. First of all if you go you probably won't even be taught by him. You only get to be around him if you are top talent.

For most club players and juniors full time playing and world class teaching and at any academy is better than what they are doing now.

[plasma]

20 years ago the routine was wake up at 6am and hit till someone pukes. Now that you tell me he was a drill instructor it makes sense. He teaches this strange whippy loose arias/ krickstein forehand. he is very open minded when it comes to accepting new information and techniques (e.g. swing volley), he's a pioneer of technical advancement.

[Steady Eddy]

Pete Sampras or Roger Federer weren't NB students.

agassi was
Of course. Bollettieri produces players who play aggressively from the baseline. Remember Jimmy Arias? Or Aaron Krikstein? Bollettieri seems to neglect net play. Sampras played serve and volley, that's not the Academy's way. And Federer is a tennis player, he doesn't just blast away. But being a baseline blaster perfectly describes Agassi.

[Steady Eddy]

This is a myth...it is impossible to produce "clones"...every individual will evolve any specific training/hitting method. You can teach 1000 players the exact same way and no two will play the same.

Isn't it interesting that Agassi, Seles, Courier, Becker, Mary Pierce, Anna Kornikova, Mark Philippoussis, Haas, among others were trained to some degree by Nick...and yet, no two of these champions play alike?

That isn't to say that not all players are cut out to enjoy or get out of Nick the same inspiration or value. But, to say you would never attend his program because "he produces clones" is a very ignorant statement.
With the exception of Kornikova and possibly Haas, these all seem to be power players. Lendl would have liked it at Bollettieri's Academy. I can't see a McEnroe coming out of there. He'd go to the net and produce stop volleys off of Lendl's drives. Borg dropped out of tennis after Mac lobbed him for winners twice in a row at the U.S. Open. Harry Hopman handled McEnroe differently than he did other players. He felt that Mac was such a natural that he didn't want to ruin him. Once he said, "It'd be a shame to break his spirit." Good thing Mac never went to this Drill Sergeant, or we never would have been able to enjoy his talents.

No, Bollettieri's protegee's aren't clones. They're like snowflakes. No two are exactly alike, but you have to look very closely to see any difference.

[CoachingMastery]

With the exception of Kornikova and possibly Haas, these all seem to be power players. Lendl would have liked it at Bollettieri's Academy. I can't see a McEnroe coming out of there. He'd go to the net and produce stop volleys off of Lendl's drives. Borg dropped out of tennis after Mac lobbed him for winners twice in a row at the U.S. Open. Harry Hopman handled McEnroe differently than he did other players. He felt that Mac was such a natural that he didn't want to ruin him. Once he said, "It'd be a shame to break his spirit." Good thing Mac never went to this Drill Sergeant, or we never would have been able to enjoy his talents.

No, Bollettieri's protegee's aren't clones. They're like snowflakes. No two are exactly alike, but you have to look very closely to see any difference.

I agree that the overall style of play is similar among his players. However, it isn't hard to notice the drastic differences between Monica Seles and Pierce; Phillioppouses is as different from Haas or Jimmy Arias; Jim Courier hits nothing like Becker, etc.

The power game is essential to players on the pro tour, with but a few exceptions. Thus, rather than say that he is producing "clones" I would say he is training players to compete at the highest levels.

[goober]

I agree that the overall style of play is similar among his players. However, it isn't hard to notice the drastic differences between Monica Seles and Pierce; Phillioppouses is as different from Haas or Jimmy Arias; Jim Courier hits nothing like Becker, etc.

The power game is essential to players on the pro tour, with but a few exceptions. Thus, rather than say that he is producing "clones" I would say he is training players to compete at the highest levels.

I agree. You can say the vast majority of the pros, especially on the women's side, all look very similar regardless of whether they trained at Nick's academy or not.

[Nanshiki]

Bolletieri's production of all those champions is only partially about what he's taught them... from what I hear his actual instruction is pretty limited (from someone who actually went there). At least not without private lessons.

The BIGGEST thing I think, is the quality of competition that students have there. It's less about teaching kids how to play, and more about letting some of the best junior players in the country compete on a daily basis, combined with high-quality coaching, etc.

That said, if you're not their on scholarship, you're wasting your parents $65,000 a year.

[35ft6]

If Nick B had grown up playing tennis, he probably would have been too thoroughly indoctrinated in the ways of conventional tennis wisdom to become the revolutionary tennis coach he is. In some ways he's like tennis' Bruce Lee (except Bruce could practice what he preached) in that they both thought "use what works," don't get caught up in tradition if it doesn't work. From what I know, Nick and Lendl are the fathers of the modern game. Huge serve to set up not a volley, but a huge forehand. A huge forehand you hit at every opportunity to control the center of the court. Not sure how Nick B felt about diet in the early days, but today it seems IMG tries to get it down to a science, teaching young players how to answer questions from the press, assigning them psychologists, lots of off court work, closely monitoring food intake... It makes sense. Maybe not the best childhood I can imagine, but they have an incredible success rate. I think I read almost all their students get at least a college scholarship.

But what Nanshiki said might be the biggest advantage. Instead of world class juniors having to drive a hundred miles to find somebody who can test them, they get to train with some of the world's best juniors and pros on a daily basis. Just imagine what it must be like for a good junior to hit with a great pro and to see that yeah, the pro is way better, but they're just humans. They can become as good. It demystifies the pro game.

[WildVolley]

The above comments seem correct. No one goes to Bollettieri in order to hit with Nick! You go there to train and hit with aspiring pros and actual pros tuning up their games.

It worked for Agassi. He hated the experience so much that he was determined to get as good as he could and go pro at the first available opportunity! That's at least what he said on an interview I saw.

[nickynu]

i wouldnt mind being a clone with multi million dollar endorsement deals, or olympic gold medals, or brooke shields for a wife, a pay check that comes from tennis, or a room full of trophies, or the fairy tale life some of these players have.


Brooke Shields for a wife, did you fall asleep:):) , let me break it to you gently - steffi is taken now too- i know crazy huh? !! Seriously tho Im not sure that120mphbodyserve is going to have to worry about backing up his statements any time soon - yeah apparently only the spanish academies and lew Hoads and the LTA are chasing him for his signature to pay him millions for the pleasure of him gracing their courts. :twisted:

[dave333]

The guy produces clones.

You wish you could play as well as some of the clones he produces. And even though their specialty is bashing from the baseline, their net play is still many times better than the vast majority of people here and in the world.

[ronjohn]

Pete Sampras or Roger Federer weren't NB students.


Sampras was

[chess9]

This is a myth...it is impossible to produce "clones"...every individual will evolve any specific training/hitting method. You can teach 1000 players the exact same way and no two will play the same.

Isn't it interesting that Agassi, Seles, Courier, Becker, Mary Pierce, Anna Kornikova, Mark Philippoussis, Haas, among others were trained to some degree by Nick...and yet, no two of these champions play alike?

That isn't to say that not all players are cut out to enjoy or get out of Nick the same inspiration or value. But, to say you would never attend his program because "he produces clones" is a very ignorant statement.

Yes, I agree.

I've told this story before, but here it is again. My daughter attended an Ohio State University swim camp led by their coach. He showed up with 4 Olympic champions on deck. After giving a speech about swimming and what it takes to be a champion like the 4 Olympians he asked if anyone had any questions. A very bright 10 year old girl asked him this question:
"I see from your brochure that you do not have any Olympic medals. Why should we listen to a coach with no Olympic Medals?" Every parent's eyebrows shot up with that question. I'm thinking 'good grief, this girl has a pair'. :) Nonetheless, the coach said: "I swam in high school and never made my college swim team. I was always just a mediocre swimmer, but I loved swimming. I decided I wanted to stay in swimming so I became determined to learn everything I could about swimming, and I think I've almost succeeded, though I'm still learning." That was Coach Bill Wadley, a great guy and a great coach.

Let's face it, if NB didn't have anything to offer, no one would go there. It's that simple. He's one of the best out there.

-Robert

[drakulie]

For lack of a better word, NB doesn't "produce" anyone. They already come to his academy well taught, with a great foundation.

His "geinus" is that he gathered up the best of the best from all over the country, and had them competing with one another day in and day out. By the time they left, they end up being some of the very best players in the world. (couirer, agassi, arias, etc, etc, etc,. )

I don't know of anyone NB has taught from beginner to pro level. They are produced elsewhere, and he ends up with the credit.

[GuyClinch]

The guy I took private lessons from this year went to Nick's academy. He always pushes me to a serve and volley style. The idea that Nick doesn't teach people to volley is foolish.

First off Nick's school is a real academy. The guy is not a Robert Lansdorf - he is a guy who runs a large school. So it has alot of excellent instructors not just in tennis but with regards to sports instruction in general - as well as in things that help like Yoga and such..

This comprehensive approach is a huge advantage with regards to athletic development. Anyone who would pass up a scholarship to go there is pretty stupid, IMHO.

The fact that Nick personally isn't that good is like refusing to be taught by Rick Pitino because you can "take him" in a game of one on one..

Pete

[Nellie]

I think a lot of the criticism that Bollettieri receives about producing clones comes from him taking in top young juniors, who all play the exact same way (big groundstrokes) because that is how you win as a top 12 year old.

I think of Bollettieri as Henry Ford - he did not make better things (i.e., players) - instead he came up with a better way of making those things.

Unfortunately, I believe that push for success at a young age kills development because it does not allow a player to struggle to learn new skills, because you will get dropped from the academy, either because the academy does not want a loser or by your parents refusing to pay thousands for a loser.

[teachestennis]

agassi was

Be careful. Agassi is on record as attacking Nick and considered his experience with Nick an overall negative experience despite the fact Agassi made a lot of money and even made videos with Nick. Even McEnroe claimed after hearing how Nick taught taht Nick didn't know anything about tennis and Nick proudly put the quote from JMac on the back cover of his book and admitted such but that he observed and learned after faking it for a few years.

As to whether Nick creates clones, actually, there is some validity to that given I am a tennis instruction historian and have found such. Nick has made great contributions to the game, but has never innovated any tennis techniques other than attack, attack and attack, and hit every ball within three feet of the baseline, and now the recent actions of Patrick McEnroe with Jose Higueras and moving to the Spanish style of play is an admission that our junior development suffered as a result. Pros hit more balls closer to the service line than the three feet within the baseline Nick claims, 5263 actually charts matches to discover Nick's claim is false and that Oscar Wegner's claim of the opposite in his 1989 book was true. Nick says it's necessary to hit deep to win every time, so his theories never stand the scientific observation test, meaning the reality is far different than what is claimed by the "experts."

[goober]

Be careful. Agassi is on record as attacking Nick and considered his experience with Nick an overall negative experience despite the fact Agassi made a lot of money and even made videos with Nick. Even McEnroe claimed after hearing how Nick taught taht Nick didn't know anything about tennis and Nick proudly put the quote from JMac on the back cover of his book and admitted such but that he observed and learned after faking it for a few years.

As to whether Nick creates clones, actually, there is some validity to that given I am a tennis instruction historian and have found such. Nick has made great contributions to the game, but has never innovated any tennis techniques other than attack, attack and attack, and hit every ball within three feet of the baseline, and now the recent actions of Patrick McEnroe with Jose Higueras and moving to the Spanish style of play is an admission that our junior development suffered as a result. Pros hit more balls closer to the service line than the three feet within the baseline Nick claims, 5263 actually charts matches to discover Nick's claim is false and that Oscar Wegner's claim of the opposite in his 1989 book was true. Nick says it's necessary to hit deep to win every time, so his theories never stand the scientific observation test, meaning the reality is far different than what is claimed by the "experts."

Hmm that is interesting- I have seen Agassi on record in interviews and in print multiple times claim that Nick's academy was necessary and what he needed to get to the next level.

BTW why do you keep spamming how great Oscar Wegner is on various threads ?

[GuyClinch]

On record where? Where is this record you speak of? I think your pulling it out of ***

[Mick]

nick bollettieri should have discouraged sharapova from shrieking. he failed.

[drakulie]

^^^ I agree. He probably encouraged it.

[teachestennis]

Hmm that is interesting- I have seen Agassi on record in interviews and in print multiple times claim that Nick's academy was necessary and what he needed to get to the next level.

BTW why do you keep spamming how great Oscar Wegner is on various threads ?

should have no trouble finding the quote, I just read it a few years ago while researching my book. Agassi mellowed in his older age and does admit Nick did a lot for him versus the quote I read from him a couple years after he left and won Wimbledon, but I remember him stating it and being surprised given I knew Nick had scholarshipped him and promoted him and worked with him heavily. I hear a lot of claims of coaches claiming to have developed players games. I spoke with Dr. Pete Fischer a lot about how he developed Sampras and Sampras went there for the competition, and has never credited Nick or Lansdorp, both who like to take credit for Sampras. Landsdorp didn't even want Sampras to convert to a one hander given he was convinced after Tracy Austin the two hander would be the wave of the future for all great players.

I just mention Oscar Wegner because most USA instructors, probably because the USPTA and PTR and TEnnis Magazine, and the USTA, never mention his theories in print by naming him or even contesting him in an honest debate, and I have found when it comes to truth in tennis, I find Oscar is usually correct, so when I hear claims like in the Oct '09 issue where Nick says to hit every ball within three feet of the baseline to win, I just shudder and realize that kind of teaching is likely what got us to a third rate tennis power, especially at the junior level.

I look at shotspot during the US Open and see the real evidence says Nick is wrong, I even went back and looked at a Tivo after I got the latest issue in which Nick made his claim, he was totally wrong, as 5263 discovered when he charted, though in theory Nick sounds correct, but as a teaching tool, I know it's a harmful instruction for the long haul, not that there aren't times you have to go for it and hit deep. I think people on this forum and in tennis in general deserve to know an alternative viewpoint and to know the evidence.

I just read Jack Groppel's Aug '09 article where he says some beginners learn best with open stance and some learn best with closed stance. I am attempting to have that question tested on court and in an honest debate for the world to see with their own eyes. I taught about 60 kids myself in clinics in June of 2004 with closed stance and then when I asked them to try open stance (after I converted to MTM), not a single kid thought closed stance was easier.

And when I think of clone's, I mean playing style. So many have gone to Nick's and many have broken through and all play differently with styles, but many of them had developed styles before they got there, after all, you have to be a well developed player to even be admitted, and Nick scholarshipped so many great players he was forced to sell his own academy to IMG but he wanted every great player there and did what he had to do to offer them the best deal. I have spoken with players who went there, one of our local St. Louis coaches Mac McDonald was part of the first NBTA class along with Jimmy Arias, so I have documented a few thing for my history and other players to learn what I can from Nick, but I find it interesting very few Americans break through, even though foreigners and Americans alike attend there. Nick essentially taught and tried to define an attack attack attack style, in order to put his own aggressive stamp on the game, yet the best players that have come out of there often don't just attack every time, because today's game requires as much defense as offense to break through, allowing for a Murray, who rarely takes the offensive, even Fed complains Murray won't slug it out. We hear about the success stories from NBTA but we don't hear about the many great potential athletes that didn't adapt to the teaching style. I praise Nick a lot in my History, even note that Tennis Magazine ignored him just like they did Oscar given they had their own agenda and coaches to promote during the early 1990s, and Nick was not on the "in" list for a few years although he is now with the new editors.

[Mike Cottrill]

^^^ I agree. He probably encouraged it.

Oh, I bet he did. The first of the screamers was Agassi. Lendl complained about it, and Agassi stopped it after awhile..

[ZhengJieisagoddess]

.

I just mention Oscar Wegner because most USA instructors, probably because the USPTA and PTR and TEnnis Magazine, and the USTA, never mention his theories in print by naming him or even contesting him in an honest debate, and I have found when it comes to truth in tennis, I find Oscar is usually correct, so when I hear claims like in the Oct '09 issue where Nick says to hit every ball within three feet of the baseline to win, I just shudder and realize that kind of teaching is likely what got us to a third rate tennis power, especially at the junior level.

.

Oscar is great. I am being taught by a teacher certified in the Wegner method, and within an hour in my very first lesson I was doing things with my racquet that I had never would have thought possible.
Oscar also cares about his students: I had a question pertaining to my game, emailed him, and got an answer back.
I heartily recommend tennisteacher.com, Oscar's site.

[GuyClinch]

Did Lansdorp play as a junior? He is another great coach of american prodigies.. He teaches power tennis too..

That's just how the game is played nowadays - big attacking groundstrokes.

Pete

[Mike Cottrill]

Forrest Gump plays a mean game. I think he can hold a candle to them all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1olCeUhUIg

[Mick]

Forrest Gump plays a mean game. I think he can hold a candle to them all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1olCeUhUIg

i saw the making of the movie. they asked tom hanks to swing the racquet and later on they drew in the ball.

[Mike Cottrill]

i saw the making of the movie. they asked tom hanks to swing the racquet and later on they drew in the ball.

Bingo :wink:

[jserve]

The guy produces clones.

Where do I sign up for this cloning process? I would love to play like Agassi.

[ahile02]

I'd rather train at Saddlebrook full time then Bollettieri's academy

[Falloutjr]

Those who can do. Those who can't teach! Generally in sports, the smarter players with the best technique aren't the most athletically gifted, so it's only natural that the guys who have better form, the tacticians and purists, would be better coaches.

[Mick]

haha. and those who can't do or can't teach would criticize everybody ! :D

[drakulie]

The best coaches in the world are right here on this forum. (Internet Coahes)

[ahile02]

The best coaches in the world are right here on this forum. (Internet Coahes)

There are some legit coaches on here; however, I wish they would all get together and make huge, technical-ridden aspects and how-tos threads of each fundmental/advanced stroke in tennis. There are a ton of "golden nuggets" of tips on this forum, however they are all spread out all over the place and you have to put in some serious hours searching and finding them.

[GuyClinch]

Most players would get more out of 1 month of Bolleteri Academy then ten years of this forum. Don't kid yourself... Nothing beats hands on coaching, IMHO. Also don't ignore the nutrition and fitness aspects they work on over there.

Not only that but the serve Doctor (one of his coaches) seems every bit as good as our two best coaches (Will from FYB) and Dave Smith..

Pete

[drakulie]

Most players would get more out of 1 month of Bolleteri Academy then ten years of this forum.

Yeah, but the same could be said about local pros.

Not only that but the serve Doctor (one of his coaches) seems every bit as good as our two best coaches (Will from FYB) and Dave Smith..

Pete

Again, when one goes to NB, do you actually work with "The Serve Doctor" or someone else.

Also, not to take anything away from Dave and Will, but I don't necessarily see them as "our best coaches". They aren't saying or doing anything that hasn't been covered here by other coaches or posters with no credentials.

PS: will is wrong about the FED fh, and I proved his eastern FH theory incorrect with pictures of Fed's FH I took this year at the Sony.

[5263]

Most players would get more out of 1 month of Bolleteri Academy then ten years of this forum. Don't kid yourself... Nothing beats hands on coaching, IMHO. Also don't ignore the nutrition and fitness aspects they work on over there.

Not only that but the serve Doctor (one of his coaches) seems every bit as good as our two best coaches (Will from FYB) and Dave Smith..

Pete

Really depends on how you learn and approach the game. If you need someone to plan out your day and take you thru the plan, sure the academies are great for that if you have the $$.

On the other hand, if you are willing to study to get it right, and put yourself thru the practice, then the internet route can take you far on much less money.

In the end, less dollars (than an academy), personal tennis study including internet, and a very good private coach is the best way IMO.

[teachestennis]

There are some legit coaches on here; however, I wish they would all get together and make huge, technical-ridden aspects and how-tos threads of each fundmental/advanced stroke in tennis. There are a ton of "golden nuggets" of tips on this forum, however they are all spread out all over the place and you have to put in some serious hours searching and finding them.

This is my one single goal left in tennis: to get the egos put aside long enough and get together to scientifically examine on court the best way to introduce tennis to beginners. Coaching Mastery is one of the few coaches at a high level who I've found willing to be open minded to such a test so maybe the tennis world will see what you just suggested: stay tuned. I am working on just such a proposal. It won't be about justifying any one's single way to teach but will actually involve a panel of grassroots and high level coaches who will be willing to present case evidence and look at the real evidence of how best to start beginners. The Russian Tennis Federation in 1990 decided to test the evidence on court and adopted open stance top spin and Dementieva and other top pros still play catch with a ball before hitting just like Oscar recommends in his 1989 book. It's the way they raise them at Spartak and I provide evidence of such in my Spartak Commentary on www.moderntenniscoaches.com/forum (not a forum like this one, just a collection of articles from coaches including the Real History of USA Tennis Instruction which if nothing else, just read the 1975 entry from Part 1 and it explains a lot of the frustration in your statement and why today we are a third rate tennis power who has hit bottom as admitted in a recent tennis.com article.)

There are hundreds of ways to teach tennis, yet the "golden nuggets" and threads that develop tennis strokes must be put into a single systematic biomechanically methodology that results in players instantly achieving success at rallying back and forth and believing tennis is a simple game to play. Only one methodology that I know of has ever made that claim and then proven it time and time again on court despite an entire tennis industry that badmouthed it or ignored it without giving it a real public hearing. AS of this day, the USTA, the USPTA, and the PTR has never asked Oscar to work with them (though Oscar was a guest speaker at the US Open Coaches Conference for several years) by testing his claims on court that there is one optimal biomechanical technique despite the fact Russian coaches all teach essentially one technique and we wonder why they have close to 20 of the top 100 players in the world (35 if you count former Soviet satellites). In the Bollettieri thread on this forum on page 3, a student just opined that she took a lesson from an MTM coach in Virginia and in one lesson discovered she could do things she did not think possible with the racket. That happens to me and other MTM coaches all the time. I don't like the fact (my ego does, however, lol) that every long time tennis student I come across that has attended Macci's or Nick's or Braden or Burwash's clinics or taken private lessons from them (and the first four year old ever admitted to Macci's was my student) take lessons from me and when I show them how to play using MTM fundamentals of find it, feel it, finish it; how to use the edge of their racket and the butt as sources of power, how to "see the ball slow," how to discover they have more time than they ever thought to prepare at the last second, how to move naturally and efficiently without having to think about their feet.....they are amazed. Taught a 7 year old girl and 10 year old boy yesterday who after one year are both looking like pros and neither one was very athletic (the boy has great hands, though) but they are turning into top athletes because they feel what it's like to do something well and so they push themselves harder than they could ever imagine given they can taste what it means to play like a pro. An unknown coach like me should not have to clean up a player who has paid $600 an hour from a famous coach and spent $5,000 at least in lessons. I have coaches take lessons from me to learn MTM. Robinson Clubs in Europe just hired one of our MTM coaches in Germany and now they are so amazed by his teaching they are looking at MTM and the possibility of instituting it in their club and we are asking them to do what David Llloyd clubs did in England and train all their coaches in MTM. This forced the LTA (Lawn Tennis Association) that runs Wimbledon to grant certification points to MTM coaches. So we are fast becoming a force to be reckoned with. We will soon have about 700 coaches trained and cerified in MTM in England alone. What is MTM and why is it popular with those who incorporate it purely (you can't mix it with conventional and get pure results)? We tie the best teaching threads together and don't introduce false data points, the plague of tennis instruction. Telling someone like I see on here all the time to stay down through the shot is a proven stroke killer regarding students, not that it doesn't happen incidentally, like a closed stance forehand at the top pro level.

What this says about our tennis instruction is that much of it is contradictory and just ineffective. The game of tennis will not grow in my opinion unless we stop teaching contradictory data and as you mentioned, "all get together and make huge, technical-ridden aspects and how-tos threads of each fundmental/advanced stroke in tennis."

What you just asked for explains the worldwide popularity of Oscar Wegner's Modern Tennis Methodology which has without doubt if one looks at the truth and evidence been the single most demonstrable tennis methodology that has resulted in the popularity of tennis. The three countries that once dominated tennis: England, the USA, and Australia, just happen to not only be the only three countries that taught in opposition to MTM but never mentioned Oscar by name in any of their tennis media but also the three countries that have fallen the hardest as tennis powers.

It that the reason or is it a coincidence? Is the fact that the USPTA announced a five year phase out of "conventional teaching" proof that Oscar was correct? Or that I witnessed Dennis Van der Meer make amends to Oscar at the US Open and essentially tell Oscar we should have listened to you a long time ago proof and Dennis even admitting he adopted much of Oscar's techniques. Why is Oscar either hated or loved, but almost not in between, as one former top ten player observed watching me discuss MTM with Greg Moran at the US Open one year? All Oscar did was create MTM, which put all the great teaching threads that existed from all the great coaches, many discovered before he was even born, he put them all together in a simple, teachable, and sensible form that can be used by anyone, student, parent, coach, grandparents, and anyone that is humble enough to test the data, which is what Richard Williams did rather than listen to the tennis powers that be. Someone has to draw the line in the sand to protect the integrity of tennis instruction. That role has apparently fallen to Oscar Wegner and now his MTM Coaching Academy which is about to go public.

P.S. When we organize a true forum on what is the best way to grow the game and if someone shows evidence that there is a better way than MTM, I will be the first to promote that methodology ahead of Oscar Wegner's claims. Of course, it would also be incorporated into the MTM toolbox. We promote anything that gets proven results on court, not because it sounds good in theory. Hitting the ball three feet every time near the baseline, as a famous coach claims in Oct '09 issue of Tennis magazine claims sounds great in theory but is demonstrably false, especially at the pro level. Proof, look at any Spotshot anaysis as I just did on a taped match or read Redefining Depth by Chuck Tomlin in the MTM Library on www.moderntenniscoaches.com/forum. It's time for everyone to test the data themselves objectively, including coaches.

[5263]

What this says about our tennis instruction is that much of it is contradictory and just ineffective. The game of tennis will not grow in my opinion unless we stop teaching contradictory data and as you mentioned, "all get together and make huge, technical-ridden aspects and how-tos threads of each fundmental/advanced stroke in tennis."

Is the fact that the USPTA announced a five year phase out of "conventional teaching" proof that Oscar was correct?

Some real good points. Can't say enough about removing false data. Everyone knows a bunch of ways to do things, but do they know what not to do?

So they have announced that they will include less and less false data over the next 5 years? lol

[drakulie]

Taught a 7 year old girl and 10 year old boy yesterday who after one year are both looking like pros

You know, this "MTM" sounds great. What ATP ranking do this 7 and 10 year old have? Can't recall seeing them in any slam this year. :roll:

[teachestennis]

You know, this "MTM" sounds great. What ATO ranking do this 7 and 10 year old have? Can't recall seeing them in any slam this year. :roll:

A six year old girl who can rally 79 balls in a row with topspin off both sides (that was our record right before she turned seven) is on the right track. They have only taken about 30 lessons each from me. I don't put students into tournaments in most cases until their strokes are developed. The Russians don't let their players play tournaments for three years until the correct muscle memory is ingrained. They claim technique is everything. They all only teach one technique which you will discover if you read Daniel Coyle's article on my website, originally published in the NY Times but I add some new pics and evidence not in the original article.

My point is that the seven year old was hitting next to a high school varsity player and my seven year old looked very efficient and very pro like, though not in speed, or course. She even served from the baseline (that is the exception at that age) successfully several times with topspin and side spin. Every student from the first strokes should be taught only positions and techniques that will build to their emulating the techniques of the pros, and every pro player finishes either their forehands or their 2HBHs in an open stance with their toes facing the net and the racket butt having gone thorugh the target line.

I focus on rallying balls and looking pro like on the strokes, hitting efficiently and smoothly, learning to wait and hit up and across the ball. The entire lesson with the 10 year old focused on ball rotation; his job was to make sure every all had severe spin, and I didn't even allow him to hit first serves because we focused on shaping shots with his hands. He will soon be thrown into tournaments, however, and he will be told to not worry about winning as much as his technique, to just work on his technique and the wins will come. I cast my lot at the grassroots; I could be coaching at a large academy or with high level players like I did with Lin Di, a national coach for the Chinese Tennis Federation, but I have a 12 year old son here, so I work at the grassroots, proving my point one student at a time.

[drakulie]

A six year old girl who can rally 79 balls in a row with topspin off both sides (that was our record right before she turned seven) is on the right track.

What is her WTA rank?

Thnaks in advance.

[5263]

What is her WTA rank?

Thnaks in advance.

you normally make very sharp post on here.
I'm interested in what you are trying to say here. Are you suggesting that a 7 yr old with strokes that are based on the pro model should have a WTA ranking? Surely not, so what is it you intend to convey?
Are you suggesting that she can't beat women in the top 500? That's obvious too, so what is it that you want to say?
Are you suggesting that strokes should not be modeled to be like the pros?

[drakulie]

you normally make very sharp post on here.
I'm interested in what you are trying to say here. Are you suggesting that a 7 yr old with strokes that are based on the pro model should have a WTA ranking? Surely not, so what is it you intend to convey?
Are you suggesting that she can't beat women in the top 500? That's obvious too, so what is it that you want to say?
Are you suggesting that strokes should not be modeled to be like the pros?


My point is, he is touting the MTM method by saying a 7 and 10 year old look like pros. he is also inflating his own ego. I could care less how many balls they could rally. THEY ARE NO WHERE NEAR PROS. There are thousands of other kids in the world who could do the same thing, and don't use the MTM method. He is obviously talking doo-doo.

[5263]

My point is, he is touting the MTM method by saying a 7 and 10 year old look like pros. he is also inflating his own ego. I could care less how many balls they could rally. THEY ARE NO WHERE NEAR PROS. There are thousands of other kids in the world who could do the same thing, and don't use the MTM method. He is obviously talking doo-doo.

Not exactly. He is saying their strokes are like those of the pros, not that they are near pro level play. I can see how this can be confusing.
If other kids are doing this, hitting with pro styled strokes, then the are by definition doing MTM strokes, regardless of where it was learned.

[drakulie]

^^OK. :roll:

IMO, he is tooting his own horn, and MTA.

I'm not saying it's bad, but he is going a bit overbaord with it.

[chico9166]

This is my one single goal left in tennis: to get the egos put aside long enough and get together to scientifically examine on court the best way to introduce tennis to beginners. Coaching Mastery is one of the few coaches at a high level who I've found willing to be open minded to such a test so maybe the tennis world will see what you just suggested: stay tuned. I am working on just such a proposal. It won't be about justifying any one's single way to teach but will actually involve a panel of grassroots and high level coaches who will be willing to present case evidence and look at the real evidence of how best to start beginners. The Russian Tennis Federation in 1990 decided to test the evidence on court and adopted open stance top spin and Dementieva and other top pros still play catch with a ball before hitting just like Oscar recommends in his 1989 book. It's the way they raise them at Spartak and I provide evidence of such in my Spartak Commentary on www.moderntenniscoaches.com/forum (not a forum like this one, just a collection of articles from coaches including the Real History of USA Tennis Instruction which if nothing else, just read the 1975 entry from Part 1 and it explains a lot of the frustration in your statement and why today we are a third rate tennis power who has hit bottom as admitted in a recent tennis.com article.)

There are hundreds of ways to teach tennis, yet the "golden nuggets" and threads that develop tennis strokes must be put into a single systematic biomechanically methodology that results in players instantly achieving success at rallying back and forth and believing tennis is a simple game to play. Only one methodology that I know of has ever made that claim and then proven it time and time again on court despite an entire tennis industry that badmouthed it or ignored it without giving it a real public hearing. AS of this day, the USTA, the USPTA, and the PTR has never asked Oscar to work with them (though Oscar was a guest speaker at the US Open Coaches Conference for several years) by testing his claims on court that there is one optimal biomechanical technique despite the fact Russian coaches all teach essentially one technique and we wonder why they have close to 20 of the top 100 players in the world (35 if you count former Soviet satellites). In the Bollettieri thread on this forum on page 3, a student just opined that she took a lesson from an MTM coach in Virginia and in one lesson discovered she could do things she did not think possible with the racket. That happens to me and other MTM coaches all the time. I don't like the fact (my ego does, however, lol) that every long time tennis student I come across that has attended Macci's or Nick's or Braden or Burwash's clinics or taken private lessons from them (and the first four year old ever admitted to Macci's was my student) take lessons from me and when I show them how to play using MTM fundamentals of find it, feel it, finish it; how to use the edge of their racket and the butt as sources of power, how to "see the ball slow," how to discover they have more time than they ever thought to prepare at the last second, how to move naturally and efficiently without having to think about their feet.....they are amazed. Taught a 7 year old girl and 10 year old boy yesterday who after one year are both looking like pros and neither one was very athletic (the boy has great hands, though) but they are turning into top athletes because they feel what it's like to do something well and so they push themselves harder than they could ever imagine given they can taste what it means to play like a pro. An unknown coach like me should not have to clean up a player who has paid $600 an hour from a famous coach and spent $5,000 at least in lessons. I have coaches take lessons from me to learn MTM. Robinson Clubs in Europe just hired one of our MTM coaches in Germany and now they are so amazed by his teaching they are looking at MTM and the possibility of instituting it in their club and we are asking them to do what David Llloyd clubs did in England and train all their coaches in MTM. This forced the LTA (Lawn Tennis Association) that runs Wimbledon to grant certification points to MTM coaches. So we are fast becoming a force to be reckoned with. We will soon have about 700 coaches trained and cerified in MTM in England alone. What is MTM and why is it popular with those who incorporate it purely (you can't mix it with conventional and get pure results)? We tie the best teaching threads together and don't introduce false data points, the plague of tennis instruction. Telling someone like I see on here all the time to stay down through the shot is a proven stroke killer regarding students, not that it doesn't happen incidentally, like a closed stance forehand at the top pro level.

What this says about our tennis instruction is that much of it is contradictory and just ineffective. The game of tennis will not grow in my opinion unless we stop teaching contradictory data and as you mentioned, "all get together and make huge, technical-ridden aspects and how-tos threads of each fundmental/advanced stroke in tennis."

What you just asked for explains the worldwide popularity of Oscar Wegner's Modern Tennis Methodology which has without doubt if one looks at the truth and evidence been the single most demonstrable tennis methodology that has resulted in the popularity of tennis. The three countries that once dominated tennis: England, the USA, and Australia, just happen to not only be the only three countries that taught in opposition to MTM but never mentioned Oscar by name in any of their tennis media but also the three countries that have fallen the hardest as tennis powers.

It that the reason or is it a coincidence? Is the fact that the USPTA announced a five year phase out of "conventional teaching" proof that Oscar was correct? Or that I witnessed Dennis Van der Meer make amends to Oscar at the US Open and essentially tell Oscar we should have listened to you a long time ago proof and Dennis even admitting he adopted much of Oscar's techniques. Why is Oscar either hated or loved, but almost not in between, as one former top ten player observed watching me discuss MTM with Greg Moran at the US Open one year? All Oscar did was create MTM, which put all the great teaching threads that existed from all the great coaches, many discovered before he was even born, he put them all together in a simple, teachable, and sensible form that can be used by anyone, student, parent, coach, grandparents, and anyone that is humble enough to test the data, which is what Richard Williams did rather than listen to the tennis powers that be. Someone has to draw the line in the sand to protect the integrity of tennis instruction. That role has apparently fallen to Oscar Wegner and now his MTM Coaching Academy which is about to go public.

P.S. When we organize a true forum on what is the best way to grow the game and if someone shows evidence that there is a better way than MTM, I will be the first to promote that methodology ahead of Oscar Wegner's claims. Of course, it would also be incorporated into the MTM toolbox. We promote anything that gets proven results on court, not because it sounds good in theory. Hitting the ball three feet every time near the baseline, as a famous coach claims in Oct '09 issue of Tennis magazine claims sounds great in theory but is demonstrably false, especially at the pro level. Proof, look at any Spotshot anaysis as I just did on a taped match or read Redefining Depth by Chuck Tomlin in the MTM Library on www.moderntenniscoaches.com/forum. It's time for everyone to test the data themselves objectively, including coaches.

Love this. You implore everyone to set aside there egos,(for the good of American tennis) and then precede into you customary two paragraph brag-fest, and then basically trash every recognized pro in America. These men have contributed greatly to tennis and deserve respect in this regard. Your agenda is clear! And it has been, from your very first post.


I actually agree, that Oscar has been black-balled, dismissed, discounted, and dissed, to a certain degree. It is unfortunate. But you are no better than the Wegner oppressor's, as you turn around and do the exact same thing.

[Mike Cottrill]

Not exactly. He is saying their strokes are like those of the pros, not that they are near pro level play. I can see how this can be confusing.
If other kids are doing this, hitting with pro styled strokes, then the are by definition doing MTM strokes, regardless of where it was learned.


This guy is one step from spam.
Pro strokes came way before MTM. You worded this wisely but you also imply Oscar invented something at the same time. Have you been drinking the Kool-Aid?

http://www.glennbeck.com/images/news/2008/11/111908kool-2.jpg

[5263]

^^OK. :roll:

IMO, he is tooting his own horn, and MTA.

I'm not saying it's bad, but he is going a bit overbaord with it.

Got it, but I must say,
it gets pretty exciting when you start to work with MTM and see some of the major results that it gets with players. It is so hard for me not to get on here every week with some of the breakthru strokes I get to see, like a DI college girl that went over some MTM technique with me this weekend and she returned to do so well on Monday that she called from her cell leaving the courts so excited with how well that college practice went.

[5263]

This guy is one step from spam.
[COLOR=black]Pro strokes came way before MTM. You worded this wisely but you also imply Oscar invented something at the same time.

Thank you, I try to word things wisely, but don't imply anything. Oscar states clearly that MTM was modeled on these Pro strokes you cite that were before MTM, so of course they had to come before!

But sure, he did invent something. He invented or developed the system to teach stokes like the Pros.

[julian]

You know, this "MTM" sounds great. What ATP ranking do this 7 and 10 year old have? Can't recall seeing them in any slam this year. :roll:
Please see that that responses to your posts by TEACHESTENNIS are very long,sometimes
7 times longer than your original posts.It is getting very time consuming.

[drakulie]

^^^^uhmmm are you trying to say something??? Not sure what you are asking or commenting on.

[sureshs]

I like these fights here. I suspect a lot of money is at stake.

[teachestennis]

This guy is one step from spam.
Pro strokes came way before MTM. You worded this wisely but you also imply Oscar invented something at the same time. Have you been drinking the Kool-Aid?

http://www.glennbeck.com/images/news/2008/11/111908kool-2.jpg

I do say Oscar invented a simple tennis methodology with a step by step biomechanically progression that teaches to hit up and across the ball and associate the butt of the racket at the finish with the target line. He also has stated that coaches and pros figured out much of this even before he was born, but that he (Oscar) was the guy who put all the great teaching threads together in a simplistic way that made sense and allowed the student to create their own tennis style IAW with the laws of physics.

In my History of Tennis Instruction, I also defend and pay tribute to Nick Bollettieri for his contributions. I only stated the one fact about if you want to win, try to hit every ball in the last three feet of the court is not an effective instruction given even the best pros who win don't so that, as confirmed by ShotSpot and charting, which 5263 has confirmed time and time again and he was surprised when he read that pros don't do that in Oscar's first book written twenty years ago. They still don't most of the time, not if they want to win, but we remember the great baseline shots more than the other shots because of their daring and awe they provoke.

I have invited everyone to read the facts and contribute if I have misrepresented anyone's teaching in the Real History of USA Tennis Instruction I posted at

http://www.moderntenniscoaches.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=13

I'm writing it as part of a book but this is just the timeline. If you don't want to read all the facts, at least read 1973 (when Oscar became famous as a junior Davis Cup coach for Spain...but he didn't coach good players, they just gave a foreigner what is probably the most prominent coaching position in any country...as Junior Davis Cup Captain,you develop their future pros....because he spoke Spanish, I presume) through 1989 when Oscar's book came out and then tell me you don't believe he invented a new revolutionary tennis methodology. If you read one entry, read the 1975 entry and see how the powers that be were essentially telling USA coaches and students if you hit like Federer (see the frame by frame analysis by Jack Kramer) you were all WRONG!

There is a saying that those who do not know their history are condemned to repeat it. I have to teach tennis the rest of the day but I look forward to someone pointing out if I have anything wrong, for I only come here knowing skeptics abound, but debate is how we arrive at the truth. Debate about the facts, at least.

[Mike Cottrill]

^^
Are you sure this is a book on tennis history or a book on Oscar?

[Mike Cottrill]

Thank you, I try to word things wisely, but don't imply anything. Oscar states clearly that MTM was modeled on these Pro strokes you cite that were before MTM, so of course they had to come before!

But sure, he did invent something. He invented or developed the system to teach stokes like the Pros.

Is there any tennis coach that would develop something that does not?

[drakulie]

Is there any tennis coach that would develop something that does not?

see, this is one of the issues I have here. They are passing this off as if they (the MTM) are "inventing" this concept, which they aren't.

Perhaps the manner in which they implement their program is superior in putting "theory into practice", however, I don't see them saying this.

[julian]

^^^^uhmmm are you trying to say something??? Not sure what you are asking or commenting on.

I was trying to be sarcastic about MTM.
Did NOT work out

[5263]

Is there any tennis coach that would develop something that does not?

Is this a serious question?
Sure they do. Essential tennis has a thread on here to a pod cast, where it is discussed how the pro athleticism and timing are soo good that they use strokes that beginners can't. Oscar explains how it is easier for beginners to learn with pro style strokes. I've experienced that truth.

Racket back early, get sideways, swing thru the ball to the target line.... all that is still the staple of conventional instruction today and it's clearly not how the pros play.
Can you not see the difference?

[Mike Cottrill]

Is this a serious question?
Sure they do. Essential tennis has a thread on here to a pod cast, where it is discussed how the pro athleticism and timing are soo good that they use strokes that beginners can't. Oscar explains how it is easier for beginners to learn with pro style strokes. I've experienced that truth.

Racket back early, get sideways, swing thru the ball to the target line.... all that is still the staple of conventional instruction today and it's clearly not how the pros play.
Can you not see the difference?

I bet that was taken out of context:rolleyes:

[5263]

see, this is one of the issues I have here. They are passing this off as if they (the MTM) are "inventing" this concept, which they aren't.

Perhaps the manner in which they implement their program is superior in putting "theory into practice", however, I don't see them saying this.

The first part of this is just not factual. Oscar always gives the credit to having observing the pros play this way, not inventing the strokes. Maybe you get this idea because Nick B. and others have operated this way at times, so you have just come to expect it.

Drak, you look at things today with internet and info available everywhere, and don't realize that before you were born, Oscar was saying these same things, and almost no one was. There was no FYB out there showing ways to hit the WW. Hats off to Will, but there is still much false data in his info. He is clearly headed on the right track in many ways.

MTM does give credit that many are starting to get aspect of this now, but the real problem now is all the mixing of good with the false and how to pick it out. USPTA has announced phasing in Modern tennis over the next 5 years, but which of the false data is going to remain over the next 2-4 as they phase. This is a clear admission that they need to get back on track.

[5263]

I bet that was taken out of context:rolleyes:

No, not at all. Not to nice of you to suggest that without knowing, especially since it is clearly not true.

Listen for yourself. Yes, I was more to the point, but the discussion is can beginners handle certain stances, grips and such, modeled from the pro game. His answer was clearly that he didn't feel this was the best. Yes, he waffled from a solid answer, but is that on me or him?

[Mike Cottrill]

I guess Oscar's method is the only way to teach a baby to hit like a pro :roll:
http://bahamaderek.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/baby.jpg

I don’t know who you guys are, but I sure hope Oscar knows your peddling him. Because, it not necessarily shining a good light on him.

[5263]

Is there any tennis coach that would develop something that does not?

Mike, you are reasonable guy. What do think about us handling this in a little more organized way? (if folks can agree)

Right now we are discussing this on 2 opposing fronts.
One is where MTM is actually different or not.
The other is -Can the MTM way be correct.

These are odd bedfellows for obvious reasons, as they are somewhat contradictory, because if MTM is not different, but also not good form; well then we really have a problem. It's hard to have it both ways. One side saying MTM is not valid, and one saying it is not different.

How about when someone asks for advice,
we allow for an MTM view point along with one anyone else with something else to suggest.
If the MTM way is different from conventional, then few should be surprised.
If the MTM suggestion is in line with conventional, then good, we have found a common ground in that area.
Some don't, but many like to know where info comes from, so it is just a reference at times.
Either way, it eliminates all the howling about the mention of it as a valid approach to learning strokes. It's just another perspective available, that many have found as a superior alternative to the conventional way. There is no money involved, as this is all just free coaching advice from many sources.

[5263]

I guess Oscar's method is the only way to teach a baby to hit like a pro :roll:
http://bahamaderek.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/baby.jpg

I don’t know who you guys are, but I sure hope Oscar knows your peddling him. Because, it not necessarily shining a good light on him.

Not MTM, cause that kid is stepping down the target line, LoL.

[Mike Cottrill]

Mike, you are reasonable guy. What do think about us handling this in a little more organized way? (if folks can agree)

How about when someone asks for advice,
we allow for an MTM view point along with one anyone else with something else to suggest.
If the MTM way is different from conventional, then few should be surprised.
If the MTM suggestion is in line with conventional, then good, we have found a common ground in that area.
Some don't, but many like to know where info comes from, so it is just a reference at times.
Either way, it eliminates all the howling about the mention of it as a valid approach to learning strokes. It's just another perspective available, that many have found as a superior alternative to the conventional way. There is no money involved, as this is all just free coaching advice from many sources.

Fine, as long as you leave out the propaganda and sales pitch.

[sureshs]

see, this is one of the issues I have here. They are passing this off as if they (the MTM) are "inventing" this concept, which they aren't.

Perhaps the manner in which they implement their program is superior in putting "theory into practice", however, I don't see them saying this.

Actually I find that advanced juniors resemble the pros more and more as they progress. I have observed this with a wide cross section of males and females hailing from different clubs and different coaches. Perhaps that is the reason that pros the world over also resemble each other to a large extent, specially the women. So I find that it happens quite naturally with all kinds of backgrounds.

Now adult players - they are problematic hehehe. They grow into the opposite of pros.

[Mike Cottrill]

Is there any tennis coach that would develop something that does not?

Is this a serious question?
Sure they do. Essential tennis has a thread on here to a pod cast, where it is discussed how the pro athleticism and timing are soo good that they use strokes that beginners can't. Oscar explains how it is easier for beginners to learn with pro style strokes. I've experienced that truth.

Racket back early, get sideways, swing thru the ball to the target line.... all that is still the staple of conventional instruction today and it's clearly not how the pros play.
Can you not see the difference?

I just listen to most of the podcast. I do think you took it out of context.
For example,
This guy posted his serve. It looks like he tried to copy a pro. However, he does not understand the fundamentals and if you ask me he is going to hurt himself.
http://vimeo.com/7155004 (http://vimeo.com/7155004)

A difference don’t you think?

[SystemicAnomaly]

This is my one single goal left in tennis: to get the egos put aside long enough and get together to scientifically examine on court the best way to introduce tennis to beginners. Coaching Mastery is one of the few coaches at a high level who I've found willing to be open minded to such a test so maybe the tennis world will see what you just suggested: stay tuned. I am working on just such a proposal. It won't be about justifying any one's single way to teach but will actually involve a panel of grassroots and high level coaches who will be willing to present case evidence and look at the real evidence of how best to start beginners. The Russian Tennis Federation in 1990 decided to test the evidence on court and adopted open stance top spin and Dementieva and other top pros still play catch with a ball before hitting just like Oscar recommends in his 1989 book. It's the way they raise them at Spartak and I provide evidence of such in my Spartak Commentary on www.moderntenniscoaches.com/forum (http://www.moderntenniscoaches.com/forum) (not a forum like this one, just a collection of articles from coaches including the Real History of USA Tennis Instruction which if nothing else, just read the 1975 entry from Part 1 and it explains a lot of the frustration in your statement and why today we are a third rate tennis power who has hit bottom as admitted in a recent tennis.com article.)

There are hundreds of ways to teach tennis, yet the "golden nuggets" and threads that develop tennis strokes must be put into a single systematic biomechanically methodology that results in players instantly achieving success at rallying back and forth and believing tennis is a simple game to play. Only one methodology that I know of has ever made that claim and then proven it time and time again on court despite an entire tennis industry that badmouthed it or ignored it without giving it a real public hearing. AS of this day, the USTA, the USPTA, and the PTR has never asked Oscar to work with them (though Oscar was a guest speaker at the US Open Coaches Conference for several years) by testing his claims on court that there is one optimal biomechanical technique despite the fact Russian coaches all teach essentially one technique and we wonder why they have close to 20 of the top 100 players in the world (35 if you count former Soviet satellites). In the Bollettieri thread on this forum on page 3, a student just opined that she took a lesson from an MTM coach in Virginia and in one lesson discovered she could do things she did not think possible with the racket. That happens to me and other MTM coaches all the time. I don't like the fact (my ego does, however, lol) that every long time tennis student I come across that has attended Macci's or Nick's or Braden or Burwash's clinics or taken private lessons from them (and the first four year old ever admitted to Macci's was my student) take lessons from me and when I show them how to play using MTM fundamentals of find it, feel it, finish it; how to use the edge of their racket and the butt as sources of power, how to "see the ball slow," how to discover they have more time than they ever thought to prepare at the last second, how to move naturally and efficiently without having to think about their feet.....they are amazed. Taught a 7 year old girl and 10 year old boy yesterday who after one year are both looking like pros and neither one was very athletic (the boy has great hands, though) but they are turning into top athletes because they feel what it's like to do something well and so they push themselves harder than they could ever imagine given they can taste what it means to play like a pro. An unknown coach like me should not have to clean up a player who has paid $600 an hour from a famous coach and spent $5,000 at least in lessons. I have coaches take lessons from me to learn MTM. Robinson Clubs in Europe just hired one of our MTM coaches in Germany and now they are so amazed by his teaching they are looking at MTM and the possibility of instituting it in their club and we are asking them to do what David Llloyd clubs did in England and train all their coaches in MTM. This forced the LTA (Lawn Tennis Association) that runs Wimbledon to grant certification points to MTM coaches. So we are fast becoming a force to be reckoned with. We will soon have about 700 coaches trained and cerified in MTM in England alone. What is MTM and why is it popular with those who incorporate it purely (you can't mix it with conventional and get pure results)? We tie the best teaching threads together and don't introduce false data points, the plague of tennis instruction. Telling someone like I see on here all the time to stay down through the shot is a proven stroke killer regarding students, not that it doesn't happen incidentally, like a closed stance forehand at the top pro level.

What this says about our tennis instruction is that much of it is contradictory and just ineffective. The game of tennis will not grow in my opinion unless we stop teaching contradictory data and as you mentioned, "all get together and make huge, technical-ridden aspects and how-tos threads of each fundmental/advanced stroke in tennis."

What you just asked for explains the worldwide popularity of Oscar Wegner's Modern Tennis Methodology which has without doubt if one looks at the truth and evidence been the single most demonstrable tennis methodology that has resulted in the popularity of tennis. The three countries that once dominated tennis: England, the USA, and Australia, just happen to not only be the only three countries that taught in opposition to MTM but never mentioned Oscar by name in any of their tennis media but also the three countries that have fallen the hardest as tennis powers.

It that the reason or is it a coincidence? Is the fact that the USPTA announced a five year phase out of "conventional teaching" proof that Oscar was correct? Or that I witnessed Dennis Van der Meer make amends to Oscar at the US Open and essentially tell Oscar we should have listened to you a long time ago proof and Dennis even admitting he adopted much of Oscar's techniques. Why is Oscar either hated or loved, but almost not in between, as one former top ten player observed watching me discuss MTM with Greg Moran at the US Open one year? All Oscar did was create MTM, which put all the great teaching threads that existed from all the great coaches, many discovered before he was even born, he put them all together in a simple, teachable, and sensible form that can be used by anyone, student, parent, coach, grandparents, and anyone that is humble enough to test the data, which is what Richard Williams did rather than listen to the tennis powers that be. Someone has to draw the line in the sand to protect the integrity of tennis instruction. That role has apparently fallen to Oscar Wegner and now his MTM Coaching Academy which is about to go public.

P.S. When we organize a true forum on what is the best way to grow the game and if someone shows evidence that there is a better way than MTM, I will be the first to promote that methodology ahead of Oscar Wegner's claims. Of course, it would also be incorporated into the MTM toolbox. We promote anything that gets proven results on court, not because it sounds good in theory. Hitting the ball three feet every time near the baseline, as a famous coach claims in Oct '09 issue of Tennis magazine claims sounds great in theory but is demonstrably false, especially at the pro level. Proof, look at any Spotshot anaysis as I just did on a taped match or read Redefining Depth by Chuck Tomlin in the MTM Library on www.moderntenniscoaches.com/forum (http://www.moderntenniscoaches.com/forum). It's time for everyone to test the data themselves objectively, including coaches.

Jeez, come up for air a little more often. I've made some pretty long posts myself, but I believe that I make it a lot more readable by not being afraid to use the Enter key periodically. These large block of text of yours literally fatigues my aging eyes. The constant pushing of Oscar & MTM doesn't help the readability of your posts either.
.

[5263]

I just listen to most of the podcast. I do think you took it out of context.
For example,
This guy posted his serve. It looks like he tried to copy a pro. However, he does not understand the fundamentals and if you ask me he is going to hurt himself.
http://vimeo.com/7155004 (http://vimeo.com/7155004)

A difference don’t you think?

Actually no. The context if you had listened to more of it was about pros teaching modern game and ads about strokes the pros, not so much some guy you think may have copied a pro stroke on his own. At least that is how i felt it was presented in the cast.

[teachestennis]

Is there any tennis coach that would develop something that does not?

Every tennis coach has the best of intentions, don't take my word, take a man who was top 10, a coach with a great track record, and the only player to take out the four existing Grand Slam holders in a single tournament (great trivia question..he also beat all four four in consecutive matches, an incredible feat) but to quote Allen Fox from his 1979 book:

Page 136: "Unfortunately, tennis is still something of a black art. The game abounds with charlatans and people peddling their own pet theories. In many cases, advice from two tennis pros will be directly contradictory. It is a nasty position to find yourself after approaching both in a state of ignorance. If you knew enough to decide which was right, you probably wouldn't be taking lessons in the first place. Although it might not be much consolation, it should be known that the problem is not resticted to beginners. Many of the top players in the world are equally confused by a myriad of conflicting advice when they they suddenly develop trouble with their serve swing or backhand. I wish there was an easy answer, but there isn't."

This is quoted from The Real History of USA Tennis Instruction. It quotes books from the 19th century until the 21st century as to what people were teaching and it does compare them to what the top USA pros were teaching. I also show how a rundown tennis center with one indoor court in Moscow has produced more top twenty players than the entire USA the last seven years and I show pics of these Russian tiny tots with western grips and open stances and finishing with their rackets down their back, exactly as Oscar advocates and I compare that to what the USTA Quickstart manual advocates as of 2009. Coincidence that the Russians dominate the women's rankings when they start all their players with the same technique? I even quote Nicky B. word for word teaching kids the same year as Oscar's book came out so people can at least see the facts.

Tennis in the USA is the only sport we don't advocate starting beginners like the pros though due to MTM, that is changing. The facts and evidence show that a country that loses 20 million players and goes from 69 top 100 players to a dozen must have been teaching something that was not exactly working, especially when you consider we spend a hundred times what Russia and Serbia spend on tennis junior development. Lots of excuses as to why our top athletes don't trend towards tennis, but what top athlete would think being taught a beginner method that looks nothing like the heros of the sport play with want to be drawn when they then have to unlearn all that stuff. I know I repeated word for word what the USA masters told me to teach to my students and I was a lousy coach for 25 years.

The USA coaches taught something that did not get great results or the game would not likely be in the sad state it's in. When Oscar showed up in Spain after the USPTA rejected him in 1971, by 1973, he was made one of three National Coaches and Spain has dominated tennis every since using his open stance topspin techniques, as did later South America and Russia and now entire countries all teach one singe biomechanical technique, yet there are threads on this forum attacking Oscar based on false information (one big coach on here claimed he didn't coach Guga or was the primary influence) until I sent him a quote from Guga which must have surprised him.

I find that Alan Fox was very right on. Even Nick faked it his first few years and admits such. But we now have an easy answer, something Fox didn't know in 1979, and I claim the easiest is MTM. I therefore want people to know the MTM viewpoint given Will Hamilton, Heath Waters and many other coaches teach the modern game fairly well. I teach whatever works, not all of it is entirely from MTM, but MTM is my foundation to remind me not to introduce false data to students and to obey the laws of physics, such as not telling students to push their hand through the target line on groundstrokes.

Now you know I'm not the only one who thinks the USA conventional teaching was flawed. You should see Kelly Jones Top Ten Overrated Teaching Methods. He is shocked at what he sees still being taught and hindering junior development. Let's see, Kelly is now coaching Blake after having coached Fish to #17, Alex O'Brien to #35, and Xavier Mallise to just name a few players he's had success with. I predicted right away he will help Blake break through because I have corresponded with Kelly extensively over MTM and I know he is a master teacher of the modern game. Seems to me if the USTA was doing a good job teaching tennis, we would be doing better in the rankings. All I do on here I do for free, including my free MTM library. Keep up the good debate. Truth withstands any attack.

[wihamilton]

Drak, you look at things today with internet and info available everywhere, and don't realize that before you were born, Oscar was saying these same things, and almost no one was. There was no FYB out there showing ways to hit the WW. Hats off to Will, but there is still much false data in his info. He is clearly headed on the right track in many ways.

Hey 5263. Where do you think we've got it wrong?

[teachestennis]

Hey 5263. Where do you think we've got it wrong?

Hi Will, Since you asked, I will speak up since I'm the guy most under fire these days for offering an alternative viewpoint even though Oscar Wegner's Modern Tennis Methodology has never gotten a fair hearing on this site though heavily criticized until this year. It can be argued MTM is the one teaching method that is evidenced by history as being proven over time to be effective given every pro now plays the way Oscar advocates though his Spanish players had been doing it since the early '70s. As a student of the game, I admire your website I have even learned a few things you have pointed out to me I needed to be aware of, and that is tough to do for a guy like me who has been studying tennis theory since 1980 when I first read Alan Fox's quote that tennis was full of teaching charlatans.
I don't know if you have ever seen Oscar Wegner's DVDs; he now has eight, Modern Footwork DVD just came out, 100 minutes and very thought provoking. I know you know of him, however, given you are also a student of the game as much as I am, though when I was young we had no internet outlet for our passions. You play like he teaches. But your forehand video for starting out beginners violates several laws in educational theory (I just finished a Masters Degree in Education given if I break a leg, i have a 12 year old son I need to have a backup career for since I'm in my fifties).

Law of Primacy: Primacy, the state of being first, creates a strong almost unshakeable impression. For the instructor, this means that what is taught must be right the first time. For the student, it means learning must be right. “Unteaching” is more difficult than teaching. Every student should be started right. The first experience should be positive and functional and lay the groundwork for all that is to follow. Based on the law of primacy, students retain information they learn for the first time longer than they retain information they must relearn. Unlearning incorrect procedures (or bad habits) is always more difficult than learning the correct procedures in the beginning. Make sure you teach the correct information and procedures the first time; proceed from the simple to the complex, from the known to the unknown. Clarify misunderstandings and errors before moving on.

I'll speak up first but I have discussed this with 5263 in correspondence. He's raised two children from their first strokes to D1 college scholarships, one who might be hardest server in college tennis, and he's been to Macci's, Nicky B's and seen a lot of great coaches up close and is someone I learn from. Though I recommend your site for certain reasons because it's good, the Modern Tennis Methodology Oscar Wegner invented and I advocate and train coaches with would never teach a closed stance forehand to beginners (we later allow it to happen only naturally in the course of moving to the side of the ball and make sure they finish open stance when they have to turn to find the ball such as when moving forward). Your forehand video begins with turning to the side and then when you finish, your weight is on your front foot which is on the ground and you do not emphasize the finish with the racket butt associated with the target line. This is a position that would have to be unlearned. No pro would ever hit and finish with their weight moving forward onto the front foot, and to teach that to beginners is a proven disaster. Even Jack Groppel admits in Aug 09 USPTA issue that the open stance FH for beginners works better for some students but he will soon be challenged in open debate on his claim that the closed stance works just as well for other students. The turn, step and hit method has been proven to be only accessible to a small percentage of the tennis population which means you have to be a pretty good athlete to time all those movements and find the correct contact point. Let's oppose this to how the Russians teach their beginners tennis at the famous Spartak Academy. How different than the forehand which is traditionally taught in the USA Quickstart program that is very much like the one you teach.

http://www.moderntenniscoaches.com/images/spartaktinytotweb.jpg

Notice in this pic how the racket finish of this little girl is very much like the pros, she finishes like Venus or Serena or Ana or Jelena or Maria on her FH and her feet finish open like the pros, which happens even from a neutral 2hBH shot on all pro shots. The girl on far right is in a very pro like grip with the V on the #3 bevel. So when I send people to your site, I tell them to ignore your FH video on your home page because it teaches a position that incorporates false muscle memorty that will have to be "unlearned." That is known as conventional and though you teach a windshield wiper, when you mix conventional and modern, that is trouble, because from a neutral (closed stance) FH, you can't fully pull across the ball. You do teach the concept of the WW very well, and I enjoy your BH and Slice and serve explanations, but students in my experience respond to tennis by feel. But then, at Spartak, they shout words like "feel" and "finish more thoroughly" at the kids, not exactly what you are advocating in your FH video. But then again, those are two of the key fundamentals of MTM. The NY Times also reported that all Russian coaches teach the same technique, they are even quoted "technique is everything." Sorry Will, I don't see them teaching anything to beginners that looks like your FH on your site. I'm the one that pointed it out to 5263 when I told him I thought on everything else, you were very modern.

I'm not hear to criticize you, Will, but you are young. You were taught the same traditional stuff most of us were. That forehand with the catch the racket in your hand without a full wrap finish is not a complete finish and in MTM, as in the famous Spartak Academy that produces one top pro after another, the finish is the key because it teaches the student to hit across the ball and begin to connect the kinetic chain but even more important it clears the mind, the enemy of "being in the zone." You are one of the few USA coaches I hear emphasize the swing begins with the contact point. Your teaching is better than 80 to 90% of the pros I've seen in my five years of being known as a very fine teacher and in my travels to both coasts and as Head Pro os a 19 court facility. I have to know my theory and my facts because I certify tennis coaches all over in MTM. I hope you have read the NY times Article on why building correct muscle memory and the role myelin may play in building great talent is important. Two articles are in my MTM library under the Spartak heading. They provide good info all coaches need to be aware of.

Here is how MTM works. I worked with the top two girls in the 12 and unders in Tennesse who traveled to a Florida Academy in Orlando I was teaching at this past summer because they use MTM. Oscar and I worked with them for a week about six hours a day. One was barely 11 and hit a 1HBH at 68 pounds and is seen on Oscar's new Footwork video hitting all out taking the ball on the rise even against a college player hitting hard. Her FH was inconsistent because her coach kept telling her to hit throughthe target line after her mom had raised her on Oscar's videos and she suddenly shot up the rankings (for those who want to look it up it's Deana Grandes but I'd like to hear from someone who has seen her on the new DVD). We simply told her to pull the racket from right to left and finishin more thoroughly with the butt associated with where the ball just went. Then all we had to do was teach her to lift up and aways from the 1HBH and suddenly we let her figure out the rest and create on her own and she actually reminded everyone (there was a group of coaches who watched her demolish a top twenty ranked Florida boy her same age who could only win one game off her) of Gabriela Sabatini. We just cleaned up the false data that she had to hit through the target line on her BH. We taught her to "feel" and utilize the change of direction torque that is the true force behind the modern tennis swing. That is how MTM works. Very simple. Force (the ball) comes in one way, you change the direction of the force by hitting left to right, right to left, top to bottom (a slice) or bottom to top (a reverse FH, for example). You wait as long as possible to being your swing, allowing the large muscles to contract and then release providing added energy to the swing, a la martial arts.

We just find positions in teaching that are consistent with the laws of physics and how the human body works biomechanically. The day the closed stance FH is not taught to beginners is the day that I believe tennis will boom like never before in this country. It works for other countries. If you really want to be openminded, Will, call or email Oscar. I told a coach to contact Oscar. This coach runs the largest tennis program in Orlando with 45 courts and is acquiring more courts as we speak. He thought I was full of it until he met with Oscar and realized like so many who actually test the data, he had to stay the same or change to be the best coach he could be. Marcelo Gouts is asking me to work for him this winter and is converting totally to teaching MTM after 30 years of acclaimed coaching working with many fine players. It was funny to see this skeptical coach watch Oscar and I teach and then ask to take a lesson from Oscar. Very humble man. Tennis coaches need to be open minded truly be good. I'll be headed back to Florida to teach soon for the winter after first meeting with 5263.

[TheLama]

I do say Oscar invented a simple tennis methodology with a step by step biomechanically progression that teaches to hit up and across the ball and associate the butt of the racket at the finish with the target line. He also has stated that coaches and pros figured out much of this even before he was born, but that he (Oscar) was the guy who put all the great teaching threads together in a simplistic way that made sense and allowed the student to create their own tennis style IAW with the laws of physics.

In my History of Tennis Instruction, I also defend and pay tribute to Nick Bollettieri for his contributions. I only stated the one fact about if you want to win, try to hit every ball in the last three feet of the court is not an effective instruction given even the best pros who win don't so that, as confirmed by ShotSpot and charting, which 5263 has confirmed time and time again and he was surprised when he read that pros don't do that in Oscar's first book written twenty years ago. They still don't most of the time, not if they want to win, but we remember the great baseline shots more than the other shots because of their daring and awe they provoke.

I have invited everyone to read the facts and contribute if I have misrepresented anyone's teaching in the Real History of USA Tennis Instruction I posted at

http://www.moderntenniscoaches.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=13

I'm writing it as part of a book but this is just the timeline. If you don't want to read all the facts, at least read 1973 (when Oscar became famous as a junior Davis Cup coach for Spain...but he didn't coach good players, they just gave a foreigner what is probably the most prominent coaching position in any country...as Junior Davis Cup Captain,you develop their future pros....because he spoke Spanish, I presume) through 1989 when Oscar's book came out and then tell me you don't believe he invented a new revolutionary tennis methodology. If you read one entry, read the 1975 entry and see how the powers that be were essentially telling USA coaches and students if you hit like Federer (see the frame by frame analysis by Jack Kramer) you were all WRONG!

There is a saying that those who do not know their history are condemned to repeat it. I have to teach tennis the rest of the day but I look forward to someone pointing out if I have anything wrong, for I only come here knowing skeptics abound, but debate is how we arrive at the truth. Debate about the facts, at least.

Oscar deserves a lot of kudos for structuring a specific coaching methodology based on how players hit a tennis ball--I am not associated with MTM--but he was certainly not unique. He just marketed his method, which was unique. There were more than a few high level coaches who were not stuck in the traditional mentality and taught players to hit the ball the way top players did, and also taught unseen future techniques to combat what was currently successful at the time.

Just as he did in the UK, he presented his methodology to the USTA and the NYJTL in the early Nineties. The USTA passed; NYJTL incorporated his methodology with their competitive juniors, while maintaining the USPTR methodology with their lower level juniors. Either way, with an average of 50,000 kids, Oscar's method received a lot of exposure.

[teachestennis]

Oscar deserves a lot of kudos for structuring a specific coaching methodology based on how players hit a tennis ball--I am not associated with MTM--but he was certainly not unique. He just marketed his method, which was unique. There were more than a few high level coaches who were not stuck in the traditional mentality and taught players to hit the ball the way top players did, and also taught unseen future techniques to combat what was currently successful at the time.

Just as he did in the UK, he presented his methodology to the USTA and the NYJTL in the early Nineties. The USTA passed; NYJTL incorporated his methodology with their competitive juniors, while maintaining the USPTR methodology with their lower level juniors. Either way, with an average of 50,000 kids, Oscar's method received a lot of exposure.

I've wondered about the marketing part, because you are correct, I discovered coaches like Tom Stow, long before Oscar, suggested emulating the best shots of the pros, and Oscar got his model from watching players who hit across the ball and just happened to choose Manuel Santana as the model for the forehand and he got that one right as to the future of the tennis swing. Dick Bradlee figured out and wrote in 1962 that it was the back foot and open stance that provided power, however he taught the wrong technique as he believed in going down the target line with the swing. Oscar assumed when he came back from Spain and became one of the highest paid coaches in the USA in 1975 he would be accepted for his results, but he was not. He even had his own club he bought in Florida in the late 1970s which obviously spread his ideas but by the end of the 1970s, he had gotten rejected again by the USPTA and in 1982 he went to Germany where he coached top German juniors and subsequently to Brazil for much of the 1980s until he decided to take on the USA establishment for good. However, by osmosis, great athletes copy other great athletes, and when Jimmy Arias showed up at NBTA in late 1970s with the same FH Oscar was promoting (taught by his father, an engineer), American juniors now had a model that players like Courier admitted gave him persmission to hit open stance and windshield wiper.
I know someone must have been teaching to hit across the ball because players have been doing it since the 19th century, but it's interesting not one coach can be found in print teaching a WW before Oscar, though Tom Stow in 1948 actually taught "pausing" which is the same as "waiting", which triggers a built in instinctual timing mechanism in the student. Besides, I find Oscar's play by "feel" method original, unique, and extremely incredibly effective. I don't even know why these simplistic phrases work sometimes other than they trigger parts of the student's sensory mechanisms that other tennis tips would be more effective if they could reach the student in a non thinking manner, which is part of MTM's incredible magic. It does somehow put the student in the zone a large part of the time. I watch them get almost hypnotized, not that other methods don't do the same when the student gets in a rhythm, but MTM sure is strangly powerful. I take ugly ducklings who can't tie their shoes and somehow I get them to hit a ball well at some point even if they aren't always graceful.

[darthpwner]

Pete Sampras or Roger Federer weren't NB students.

Sampras did spend time at Bolletieri's academy

[pondus]

Pete Sampras or Roger Federer weren't NB students.

Just finished reading the Sampras biography, and he did spend time training under one of NBs staff coaches, which he says was an important step in his progress.

It's tough to argue with success, but now that you've chosen to do so, you got a big hole to dig yourself out of. Have fun.

[teachestennis]

Just finished reading the Sampras biography, and he did spend time training under one of NBs staff coaches, which he says was an important step in his progress.

It's tough to argue with success, but now that you've chosen to do so, you got a big hole to dig yourself out of. Have fun.

I don't think that there is necessarily one coach that should be for a person all the time through their development. In my experience, students can learn in almost every tennis environment, and playing with the best juniors and with some very great coaches, (and I have mentioned that Red Aymes is a great coach I could learn a few tricks from) given Nick did bring in people he considered the best player/coaches he could find, though obviously, they would have to take a secondary role to Nick. One of my students who I converted to MTM in ten weeks of coaching one summer later went to the Higueras Academy where I talked with him weekly and he enjoyed it a lot, even mentioned it was right in tune with what I had taught him. I send all my advanced players to other coaches, such as Mike Miller of Lake Forest Club in St. Louis, who I think has better facilities and training environment than I do currently since I am working on my website and just developing grassroots juniors as much as possible to help grow tennis. There are now enough good modern coaches around not to try and change them back to the closed stance FH once I get them hitting like pros in form and efficiency. I always tell my students, and I'm leaving for Florida shortly, that when they hear other coaches contradictory data, to just test the data and choose what gets best results. That's how we got Blake Strode to convert to open stance FH volleys. We let him hit closed stance conventional ones (as he had been taught) and then we had him hit open stance one inch FH volleys per MTM and then he and his fellow top juniors voted as to which volleys got better results. His personal coach was smart enough to trust the results and I always wonder would his pro career in the futures tour right now be as successful if we had not given him the option of testing other viewpoints.

Obviously, Nick had the toughest playground in the world, which used to be his slogan. Nick was an innovator in a lot of ways, and all innovators get attacked, usually by those who don't innovate. When people think of tennis academies in the future, NBTA will be the model they think of first as setting the standard. Pete Fischer told me Pete enjoyed playing the best there and almost had to go there to find enough competition, and obviously in any great top level environment there is much to learn and test and grow from just having more experience.

[Bungalo Bill]

He had to send his wife to ask the other coaches what the different grips were? How good of a player did he become?

He is first and foremost a businessman and marketer. I wouldn't be surprised if he has forgotten a lot due to him running a tennis academy and more on the business promotion end.

When it comes to all of us, if we don't use it, we lose it. The most important thing to know is the coach that is teaching tennis. He is the one that needs to know the grips.

If Bolletteri was teaching the lesson, I would question is the students were mezmorized by the name more than anything.

I actually would not expect him to teach a good lesson, remember all the little thing a coach needs to stay on top of, except generalization and some pet things that have stayed with him and that he is adamant about.

[sureshs]

From the segments I have seen on Tennis channel, he still does hands on work for a few hours in the morning, but not in the sense of dedicated coaching. What I saw in those segments was some other coach actually feeding balls, or the student hitting with another partner, while the coach watched. Nick's role was to provide expert comments, and then move on to the next student. There was one segment where supposedly he walked in and saw Jankovic hitting, and a few minutes later told her what the problem was with her forehand, and she seemed to love his suggestions. I don't recall the details, but I remember that I was impressed with how someone could find a problem with a top player so quickly. I also think his energy and supportiveness helps a lot, even if he leaves the technical work to others.

[wihamilton]

Hey tt. Thanks for your input. I'm not very familiar with Oscar's methodology. I have, however, watched some of his videos on the tubes and liked what I saw.

Maybe we have some differences in terminology. Per our definition, the neutral stance is where a line drawn between the feet is perpendicular with the baseline. A closed stance is where the front foot has stepped across the back foot.

We don't teach people to hit out of a closed stance. The following video shows that and we specifically tell people to stay away from it --

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpt_2rSvSS8

We teach people to hit in a neutral stance (our definition) in our forehand videos. During the forward swing, we tell students to transfer their weight from their back foot to their front foot. IMO, it's easier to learn balance and how to hit through the ball with this way. Hitting like this is something every pro does.

No pro would ever hit and finish with their weight moving forward onto the front foot, and to teach that to beginners is a proven disaster.

Here are some examples of pros transferring their weight from the back foot to the front foot during the forward swing --

Federer (approx. 43 seconds) -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_yWePjInF8

Safina (approx. 55 seconds and 1:01 minutes) -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWY5Fc_62mc

Del Potro (approx. 20 seconds) -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzTvN_v1g4Q

Ivanovic (approx. 28 seconds) -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCTuzoSX7xg

Given your quote and these videos, can you please clarify what you mean? Perhaps I'm interpreting what you said incorrectly?

The open stance is certainly the preferred choice for most pros. However, pros need to be able to hit out of a variety of stances, as the videos above prove. Regarding which stance should be taught to begin with, I think there are arguments for both sides.

That forehand with the catch the racket in your hand without a full wrap finish is not a complete finish

Having a beginner / novice catch the racket out in front (which we have them do in our "Forehand Progressions" series of videos) forces them to swing through the ball and extend into the court. Once you're able to hit through the ball, learning the WW forehand becomes easier because it just requires a few tweaks in the swing direction.

Keep in mind that these videos are progressions -- segmented drills that allow someone to isolate a particular part of the stroke and work on it independently. We've never recommended that you catch the racket in front of your body / abbreviate for follow through during a "normal swing."

One of the main problems I see is players pulling off the line of the shot too early in an effort to get the racket across their bodies. I get emails all the time to this effect -- "Hi Will, I've been trying to learn the WW forehand and I'm hitting with lots of spin but no pace. Help?"

What we're trying to do is create a foundation on which more advanced techniques can be applied. If you can't swing through the ball consistently, it doesn't matter if you're swinging across the ball / bring it to the other side of your body.

Looking forward to your thoughts. Thanks again for the kind words.

Will

[Bungalo Bill]

As stated before, the modern stroke is not modern. Players have hit balls using what is now called a modern stroke for decades.

What has changed is our awareness of it, our instruction for it, and the technology that supports it for the masses.

No longer is a windshield wiper motion limited to a few talented and skillful players. Racquet technology has allowed us to be able to use the so-called modern stroke without increasing our chance to error, mistime, or not hit the ball cleanly.

Also, because the game has gotten faster and faster with the help of technology, players utlize more often open stances and are more keanly aware of the importance of conditioning and training.

Oscar Wegner did not invent the strokes he aims to teach. However, he did invent his instruction that teaches those strokes. He has his own way of teaching it and that is what needs to be credited to him.

When players or instructors begin going past that, you enter a realm of misleading comments and are misguiding the tennis public giving credit where it is not due.

Many coaches past and present have contributed to today's tennis.

The strokes that a player can use today do not have to involve a Windshield Wiper Western grip forehand that only uses the open stance.

Players today have the freedom to build their game around many different teaching styles, methods, techniques, and preferences.

I for one can hit a topspin ball using either a WW stroke, an in-between stroke, or the classic "Nike" swoosh type stroke. For me it depends on what I am trying to do. I can also hit a reverse forehand, hit open, semi-open, and neutral stance.

Using a classic style in tennis is not wrong or right. It is simply another way of hitting the ball just like a windshield wiper technique is.

[Bungalo Bill]

Always go through the ball no matter what swing type you are using. The back shoulder and your rotation needs to go through the ball and you need extension within the parameters of the stroke chosen.

One of the main issues with the "wrap-around-the-neck" or "point-the-butt-cap to the opponent" way of hitting is if the prerequisites to the finish are not properly understood or taught it leads to a swing that is performed mainly from the elbow. This will result in a lot of short balls and a shot that lacks penetration. This can eventually lead to overhitting or frustration.

Always, always go through the ball and that requires extension. Never sacrafice that for a WW type swing and just trying to look good. You might look good but then on your short ball your opponent will end up looking better.

[Bungalo Bill]

Just finished reading the Sampras biography, and he did spend time training under one of NBs staff coaches, which he says was an important step in his progress.

It's tough to argue with success, but now that you've chosen to do so, you got a big hole to dig yourself out of. Have fun.

You are exactly right. Williams sisters used Braden's technuques in their early years. Some used Bolletterri's and what was taught there. Others used Lansdorp, and so on. Many of these coaches contributed a lot of good information regarding tennis with some things still in use and others forgotten.

The so-called "modern" tennis has been built up through progression not sudden invention.

[wihamilton]

Nice last few posts BB. Well said.

[VaBeachTennis]

So, is this an aspect of MTM?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWnx-WXq0T8

My forehand is pretty similar to his, maybe I am a little confused about the terminology, but it sure seems like he's "catching his racquet" with his "off hand". Check out the video from 40 seconds to 50 or seconds.

I think a good way to advance MTM would be to post some more clips of Oscar's teachings. To date, I think I have only seen maybe three at the most, and they were pretty basic. Nothing really revolutionary or riveting.

If there are more,please point them out, I'd be happy to see them. I think that other people here may like what they see as well. Thus far, the descriptions seem to be pretty long, filled with generalities and aesthetics for lack of a better term.

Wil, has numerous clips of his instructional videos posted on "youtube". I think that they are very good, especially the fact that he's a lefty (so am I).

Teachestennis, I don't doubt that you love the sport, studied the sport, and admire and follow Oscar's MTM. I think what may turn some people off, is that your responses tend to go off on a long rant about MTM and seem to put other teaching methods down.

I think that people need to have more of a visual (video) of these techniques, instead of a bunch of very well written words. This is not meant to be a "put down", it's meant to try to be a bridge of understanding and cordiality. If you don't want to post Oscar's videos, maybe you can post videos of your teachings in action or demos/instruction, like Wil did/does.

In closing, I do like the "three F's" (find, feel, finish), as I stated before, it made a lot of sense to me, I also employ the above method.

[5263]

So, is this an aspect of MTM?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWnx-WXq0T8

My forehand is pretty similar to his, maybe I am a little confused about the terminology, but it sure seems like he's "catching his racquet" with his "off hand". Check out the video from 40 seconds to 50 or seconds.

Teachestennis, I don't doubt that you love the sport, studied the sport, and admire and follow Oscar's MTM. I think what may turn some people off, is that your responses tend to go off on a long rant about MTM and seem to put other teaching methods down.

In closing, I do like the "three F's" (find, feel, finish), as I stated before, it made a lot of sense to me, I also employ the above method.

I think part of the problem is that MTM gets caught in a crossfire.
On one hand, some want to say that it isn't correct,
then on the other, some say that it isn't different.
Oddly enough, these claims are often both made by the same people,
even though they have conflicting points of view to a large extent.

When you try and explain why you think it is best, the ones who teach another way are offended.
When you explain how it's different, those who claim to be the same cause they recognize the effectiveness, are
offended as their differences are pointed out.
It's sort of a catch 22 on two different fronts.
I'm not sure of the answer except to keep sharing how well it works, and watch the users get better fast at all levels, at a much quicker rate than what has been conventional in the US. In clubs and areas where good MTM coaches are teaching, everyone wants to know how Sally or Joe went from being a lifer 3.5 to 4.5 in 6 months.
And beginners who learn with MTM are out there having 25 ball rallys in 2-5 lessons, so they will be able to enjoy the game for life.

[GuyClinch]

Dave Sammel says a top player needs to be hit out of all stances. On a running forehand you can be caught in a closed stance from time to time.. This is the shot to look for if you want to see pro hitting without the open stance..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNMcHvqRiJE&feature=PlayList&p=F0492581B4CDF784&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=54

This might be an open to closed footwork pattern - but you get the idea. Your not going to be able to always time your footwork on a dead run such that you end up in the open stance..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMQKjhEpTiA

Looks closed to me there as well..

Flexibility is what the top level players do. He even demonstrated how top players will hit open stance one handed backhands. Again this isn't strictly what is the preferred shot for a one hander. But on say a return of serve its effective..

I don't know where Wegner and his followers get off like he is teaching something so special. People have been hitting with the open stance forever..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PF1kfJSia4&feature=related

OMG open stance forehands! Not taught by Wegner. <g>

Pete

[5263]

Dave Sammel says a top player needs to be hit out of all stances. On a running forehand you can be caught in a closed stance from time to time.. This is the shot to look for if you want to see pro hitting without the open stance..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNMcHvqRiJE&feature=PlayList&p=F0492581B4CDF784&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=54

This might be an open to closed footwork pattern - but you get the idea. Your not going to be able to always time your footwork on a dead run such that you end up in the open stance..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMQKjhEpTiA

Looks closed to me there as well..

Flexibility is what the top level players do. He even demonstrated how top players will hit open stance one handed backhands. Again this isn't strictly what is the preferred shot for a one hander. But on say a return of serve its effective..

I don't know where Wegner and his followers get off like he is teaching something so special. People have been hitting with the open stance forever..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PF1kfJSia4&feature=related

OMG open stance forehands! Not taught by Wegner. <g>

Pete

You don't know where Wegner's teaching is special, and there is a good chance you won't ever get it based on you post. The whole thing is so convoluted I won't bother with each misunderstanding, but just speak to one that makes it clear that you are not interested in getting it or not capable.
Quote from above-
"OMG open stance forehands! Not taught by Wegner"

Never mind the teenage girl OMG part, it is clear that NO one ever said Oscar was the first OR only, to see, use, teach, invent, or anything with the open stance. Every sentence in your post is a red herring comment like this, just to detract from any real issue that may be discussed.

[drakulie]

5263, the issue here is Oscar's teaching is being passed on as if he did invent some new technique in relation to stroke/footwork, etc, which clearly isn't the case.

IMO, teachtennis is doing more harm than good to Oscar's vision/philosophy.

[MakeSenseNotBabies]

those who can't do, teach. it's VERY true and simple. some are great teachers, others are great marketers. when it comes to coaching in tennis, there is very little to be taught. most is just marketing. if federer is doing x, coaches will start "specializing" in doing that. cha ching.

[teachestennis]

Always go through the ball no matter what swing type you are using. The back shoulder and your rotation needs to go through the ball and you need extension within the parameters of the stroke chosen.

One of the main issues with the "wrap-around-the-neck" or "point-the-butt-cap to the opponent" way of hitting is if the prerequisites to the finish are not properly understood or taught it leads to a swing that is performed mainly from the elbow. This will result in a lot of short balls and a shot that lacks penetration. This can eventually lead to overhitting or frustration.

Always, always go through the ball and that requires extension. Never sacrafice that for a WW type swing and just trying to look good. You might look good but then on your short ball your opponent will end up looking better.

Will, I'll be answering your email later today when I get more time. Have to teach today until afternoon. Only online for a sec. This is a healthy debate which is all I want.

BB just made a very valid point, that if the prerequisites to the finish are not properly understood or taught it leads to an elbow swing. BB is exactly right, and it's one of the first issues we sought to deal with by coaches who claim to represent Wegner. One of our ten MTM newsletters we send to our new coaches has a commentary addressing exactly what BB talks about and is actually titled Kelly Jone's Top Ten Overrated Teaching Methods (Kelly does not advocate going through the target line) and the Flying Elbow. I still see coaches all over in St. Louis now claiming to teach open stance but they have jumped the learning gradient or trying to do it from a closed stance, or finishing to close their hip, which negates important role of the bicep in beginning strokes, and thus which really leads to a flying elbow, which is why MTM does not advocated a closed stance FH in early progressions until the student learns the bending of the arm to lift the ball up using the bicep and then feeling how to pull across.

There are a hundred ways to learn to hit a tennis ball, and many different progressions that get you there. I have never claimed otherwise. But open stance taught from the beginning should have a prominent role in teaching because of the Laws of Primacy, Laws of Intensity, pure biomechanics, and how muscle memory works. I posted the two articles on the role of myelin in forming muscle memory to make people think that to realize that biomechanically students must ingrain positions of the pros.

I taught the closed stance FH progression per the USTA and USPTA and PTR progressions for many years (I'm still PTR Pro certified, I could never pass the P1 full playing requirements for USPTA though I could easy do it now if I wanted to). Thousands of coaches have used these closed stance progressions for years. But the sport as of 2005 was not growing in the USA despite millions of players introduced to the game every year through these very progressions you talk about.

We will soon be publishing some articles addressing these issues in open debate. I don't want to half respond to Will's reply until I can sit down and be concise since so often I just get on hear and I apologize for ranting sometimes, but now we are having a reasonable discussion, which is all I have ever sought so that players on this forum can have an alternative viewpoint given MTM does have a proven record of working for an awful lot of players and there are a lot of highly ranked juniors such as Strong Kirchheimer (#2 in 12s..his father is MTM certified even), Morgan Mays (top ten USTA 14 and I think he's top 20 in 16's already after turning 15) (coachced by Randy Ardenfriend, who made two DVD with Oscar), Deana Grandes, Paradorn Scrichiphan (#10 in world) and so many more that credit Oscar as a primary influence even if they have not met him. There are many people who used to be afraid to mention Oscar's name on this forum and at least today, we can talk openly. I thank you BB for corresponding and asking Oscar himself what was his motivation: simply to help grow the game. Even Vince Spadea said his father was under attack for following Oscar (Oscar got the Spadea kids started and then worked with them right before Vince turned pro) and stated coaches were surprised Oscar's 92 book sold so well.

Have to go teach until this afternoon but I will present a clear and concise reply to Will's excellent presenation for his case and maybe we all will learn from looking at new viewpoints. After all, in my experience, if you have truth, it withstands any attack. Great discussion and now we can get to the real meat of honest debate on how we might want to look at starting beginners or should we just continue to teach them as we have been which i proven not to grow the game. I do see the game growing the last couple years because of adoption of more open stance and natural footwork which is trickling into grassroots coaching. I could be wrong, and Oscar could be wrong about importance of the open stance to beginners except my own experience says otherwise in every conceivable test I have done or watched. I take people who have hard times hitting with that very progression and let them try MTM and they are instantly hooked, which is why MTM, if presented professionally and properly, seems to have a magic effect on people and produces a rabid passion, and after being such a mediocre coach for so many years, I love the fact I can step onto the court and not offend any student of any level, and help them discover a misconception that might be inhibiting their game, and offer a valid solution that feels right to them.

USPTA CEO Tim Heckler just got the DVDs from Oscar personally a couple weeks ago and Oscar told him to review them and if Oscar got anything wrong that should be changed, for Tim to let him know. Oscar is more open minded than you think. He just wants the USA to look at althernatives and observe the results rather than to just justify what has always been done (closed stance progressions) which has not grown the game and seen us drop to a third rate tennis power. The scientific method tells us if a theory has any efficacy, then when other coaches use the same theory, they get the same results. All Oscar has ever claimed is that the results on court in the USA by the "popular" and "most promoted" tennis theories have not produced good results when tested because the results are: millions of players discouraged and leaving the game, no sense of progression in improvement, drop in world rankings, contradictory data, and constant unreasonable fighting from egos being hurt that their might be a better answer. The downfall of man is too often trying to justify they are right. All I have ever wanted from my coming on here and starting www.moderntenniscoaches.com was to get an honest debate publicly. I've heard in my research Peter Burwash in the late 1970s tried to get a discussion of open stance looked at and was rebuffed. Now we have made real progress. Let's continue this debate. Keep up your great questions.