PDA

View Full Version : classic form or modern form?


luthertn
07-20-2009, 09:54 PM
I seen many classic form and modern form but which one are you??

Im a classic forehand and 1 hander ...my prep are very short . is it better or bad or just how you play?
I seen people with modern forehand , which i think is very unnecessary just to look cool..i consider classic which one you think?

chris
07-20-2009, 09:58 PM
well around where i play the people with the modern forehand have way more pace and spin than the players with the classical form but could be different where you play

plasma
07-20-2009, 10:04 PM
I modify may game slightly to suit the opponent but I have more sampras/ fed strokes than Nadal style, if that's what you mean...

luthertn
07-20-2009, 10:23 PM
I modify may game slightly to suit the opponent but I have more sampras/ fed strokes than Nadal style, if that's what you mean...
yeah that what I mean its more smooth ..nadal style is too wild for me haha

GuyClinch
07-21-2009, 03:18 AM
Federer's form isn't even close to classic.. Well it might be a "new classic" but he hits alot of WW forehands.

Power Player
07-21-2009, 04:48 AM
I seen people with modern forehand , which i think is very unnecessary just to look cool..

????

I get a lot more topspin the way I hit. I always hit the same way too. I never thought about looking cool, but I am always told I have modern strokes.

luthertn
07-21-2009, 10:09 AM
????

I get a lot more topspin the way I hit. I always hit the same way too. I never thought about looking cool, but I am always told I have modern strokes.
I ask couple of my friends that have modern form i ask why they do that they say to look cool and more spin ...its kind of intresting ....and old people at my city they have ugly formsss but they are very consistant but very disrespectfull

VaBeachTennis
07-21-2009, 10:21 AM
I seen many classic form and modern form but which one are you??

Im a classic forehand and 1 hander ...my prep are very short . is it better or bad or just how you play?
I seen people with modern forehand , which i think is very unnecessary just to look cool..i consider classic which one you think?

I don't think that any style is "better" for the most part. In my opinion it depends on the player. In short, there are plenty of people who use the "classic style" who can beat people who use the "modern style" and vice versa.

user92626
07-21-2009, 10:31 AM
I dont' know what constitutes classic and modern. Can anyone care to explain?

I just know that I learn Fed's foundation points which are for power and consistent.

There are plenty older folks at the park whose strokes look way off from Fed's and they evitably hit without power and consistent. That's all i know.

LuckyR
07-21-2009, 10:34 AM
I don't think that any style is "better" for the most part. In my opinion it depends on the player. In short, there are plenty of people who use the "classic style" who can beat people who use the "modern style" and vice versa.

I humbly disagree. The reason the modern style is the modern style is that given the new strings it is superior to the classic style with new or old equipment, all other things being equal.

However, many times other things are not equal. A 5.0 classic player will beat a 4.0 modern stroker. That doesn't mean anything, of course.

The only reason to play the classic game (which is my reason for doing so) is if you learned the classic style already and either don't have the time to devote to switching or you have arm concerns with the new style.

Power Player
07-21-2009, 10:56 AM
I ask couple of my friends that have modern form i ask why they do that they say to look cool and more spin ...its kind of intresting ....and old people at my city they have ugly formsss but they are very consistant but very disrespectfull

Thats not why. It's because I can hit heavy balls with a lot of spin that stay in the court. I don't care about looking cool. I play music professionally, if I want to look cool, I can book a show...lol.

VaBeachTennis
07-21-2009, 11:28 AM
I humbly disagree. The reason the modern style is the modern style is that given the new strings it is superior to the classic style with new or old equipment, all other things being equal.

However, many times other things are not equal. A 5.0 classic player will beat a 4.0 modern stroker. That doesn't mean anything, of course.

The only reason to play the classic game (which is my reason for doing so) is if you learned the classic style already and either don't have the time to devote to switching or you have arm concerns with the new style.

Good points. Though I'd venture o say that a 5.0 classic player can beat a 5.0 modern player and vice versa. It depends on the athlete, and who can implement their strategy and tactics more effectively.

Now what do you and other people here consider to be the "classic" style and what do you consider to be the "modern style"?
Do you consider the "classic" style to be exclusively "eastern grip/continental grip, a closed or neutral stance, follow through toward the target and a flatter ball" and "modern style to be open/neutral stance, semi-western/western WW stroke with lots of top spin?

My style is kind of a hybrid between the two styles.

LuckyR
07-21-2009, 05:21 PM
Good points. Though I'd venture o say that a 5.0 classic player can beat a 5.0 modern player and vice versa. It depends on the athlete, and who can implement their strategy and tactics more effectively.

Now what do you and other people here consider to be the "classic" style and what do you consider to be the "modern style"?
Do you consider the "classic" style to be exclusively "eastern grip/continental grip, a closed or neutral stance, follow through toward the target and a flatter ball" and "modern style to be open/neutral stance, semi-western/western WW stroke with lots of top spin?

My style is kind of a hybrid between the two styles.

Essentially, yes. More emphasis on the grip and topspin and less on the stance, but yes.

ms87
07-21-2009, 05:44 PM
There is a reason why "Modern" form is used by an overwhelming majority of pros and high level tennis players: it is superior. To be sure, if you were using a 30 year old wooden Dunlop Maxply, "classic" form would be optimal because such equipment is incompatible with modern strokes, but assuming you are NOT hitting with a 65sq wooden racquet, modern technique is objectively superior.

pvaudio
07-21-2009, 06:52 PM
This thread is a misnomer. Modern form, classic form, who cares. The point is, a good player doesn't have a "form", they do what they need to do depending on the situation. When you're near the net hitting an offensive shot, you'll close up your shoulders more and flatten out the ball more. That's what you're saying is "classic" form, but in fact all it is is technique applied to win the point.

luthertn
07-21-2009, 07:52 PM
This thread is a misnomer. Modern form, classic form, who cares. The point is, a good player doesn't have a "form", they do what they need to do depending on the situation. When you're near the net hitting an offensive shot, you'll close up your shoulders more and flatten out the ball more. That's what you're saying is "classic" form, but in fact all it is is technique applied to win the point.

First of all this thread was to ask what kind of form you people use not disagree or agree on them it just a question to ask and curiosity . Good player do have form too but also depend on the shots but how they hit is different .Nadal have different form than Roger , Roger have different form than Blake.. This was to ask what form style you hit

GuyClinch
07-21-2009, 07:56 PM
This thread is a misnomer. Modern form, classic form, who cares. The point is, a good player doesn't have a "form", they do what they need to do depending on the situation. When you're near the net hitting an offensive shot, you'll close up your shoulders more and flatten out the ball more. That's what you're saying is "classic" form, but in fact all it is is technique applied to win the point.

Nonsense. Your trying to sound smart but its just not true. Johnny Mac doesn't use the same strokes as Roddick at all even when trying to do similiar things.

Its just alot different nowadays. There are some articles on tennisone that point this out.. With the different grips and racquets radically different strokes can be used to similiar effects.

Pete

luthertn
07-21-2009, 09:14 PM
Nonsense. Your trying to sound smart but its just not true. Johnny Mac doesn't use the same strokes as Roddick at all even when trying to do similiar things.

Its just alot different nowadays. There are some articles on tennisone that point this out.. With the different grips and racquets radically different strokes can be used to similiar effects.

Pete

Thank you someone understand me ..high five partner :)

NLBwell
07-21-2009, 09:47 PM
Continental grip, one-hand backhand, closed stance - classic old style.

lawlitssoo1n
07-21-2009, 09:52 PM
my stroke is very similar to fed's, well only the forehand side and my backhand is similar to safin's. i use a "modern" stroke once in awhile when neccessary

ms87
07-21-2009, 10:17 PM
my stroke is very similar to fed's, well only the forehand side and my backhand is similar to safin's. i use a "modern" stroke once in awhile when neccessary

the fact that you categorize federer's stroke mechanics as 'classical' tells me you don't have his forehand :lol:

lenderbender
07-22-2009, 03:34 AM
I dont' know what constitutes classic and modern. Can anyone care to explain?

I just know that I learn Fed's foundation points which are for power and consistent.

There are plenty older folks at the park whose strokes look way off from Fed's and they evitably hit without power and consistent. That's all i know.

somebody correct me if i'm wrong...

i think classic is the more over the shoulder finish driving through the ball whilst modern is a whippier technique finish at your elbow or under i.e. windshield wiper-y forehand. not sure what constitutes a classic or modern backhand though.

GuyClinch
07-22-2009, 03:44 AM
I'd say the major difference with the modern forehand is the open stance footwork and the loading of the outside leg. I am a believer in what Chuck Kriese as well as many others have said about this. Coach Kriese calls this the "load and explode".

In the old days everyone would step in (or use the arm to generate power in a pinch.) They would swing straight through the ball with long straight line strokes. Now you use alot more 'circular" power. You can still hit some pretty great balls hitting this way (the classic) if your good.

The big difference of course is that the pros really have this down and generate tremendous power using their torso and leg drive. Whereas most rec players arm the ball more and generate only modest power with the core and leg drive (if any).

Even worse I have found coaching to be uneven. Because you can still outplay alot of people with the "classic" hands apart and then together style I think alot of coaches don't teach the new style.

Chuck Kriese explains this very well in his little product demo on youtube. That was an eye opener for me because previously I would get such conflicting advice from various coaches. Now I understand the different approaches better.

Anyway if you look past some of the grip differences - all the modern players load up on their outside leg and use power from their core and leg to drive the ball. People that think the Fed forehand is 'classical' and the Nadal forehand is 'radical' are getting confused by grip differences and playing style differences. Both forehands are very modern.

Connors though epitomizes the "old school" style and he could still hang with guys in the early 90's though. So clearly both styles can work.

Pete

pvaudio
07-22-2009, 06:35 AM
Nonsense. Your trying to sound smart but its just not true. Johnny Mac doesn't use the same strokes as Roddick at all even when trying to do similiar things.

Its just alot different nowadays. There are some articles on tennisone that point this out.. With the different grips and racquets radically different strokes can be used to similiar effects.

Pete
Read what I said again, I didnt' say that. What I said is that modern form and classic form both have their places in the modern game. You will end up using aspects of both, so focusing on modern form because it looks cool is ********. That's all I said brah.

wihamilton
07-22-2009, 06:42 AM
IMO, learn classic form first. Then "upgrade" to modern. Much of modern technique, such as the WW forehand, is built off of the classic foundation.