PDA

View Full Version : The Modern Game: Fundamental or Preference?


Essential Tennis
10-19-2009, 08:53 AM
Greetings tennis enthusiasts!

I just finished recording a podcast that I think a lot of you will be interested in.

Should you really be copying what the pros do these days? Are you a good enough athlete to take advantage of the windshield wiper follow through, reverse follow through, or a full western grip?

Many players are looking for immediate results and figure that since the pros are using techniques such as these that they will benefit them as well. Many times this is a mistake that leads to unnecessary unforced errors or even physical injury.

Listen in as Andy Zodin and myself talk about these issues. Follow the link below and download Podcast #88.

http://www.essentialtennis.com/podcast/

Cheers

5263
10-19-2009, 10:04 AM
Greetings tennis enthusiasts!

I just finished recording a podcast that I think a lot of you will be interested in.

Should you really be copying what the pros do these days? Are you a good enough athlete to take advantage of the windshield wiper follow through, reverse follow through, or a full western grip?

Many players are looking for immediate results and figure that since the pros are using techniques such as these that they will benefit them as well. Many times this is a mistake that leads to unnecessary unforced errors or even physical injury.

Listen in as Andy Zodin and myself talk about these issues. Follow the link below and download Podcast #88.

http://www.essentialtennis.com/podcast/

Cheers

And the answer is Yes.
The Pros do it because they have to use the easiest and most efficient to ways to control the ball, due to the speed and power of the game. When taught well, it is the easy way to teach a beginner to rally well, in a short amount of time. The downsides of teaching this are more imagined than real.

Essential Tennis
10-19-2009, 10:17 AM
And the answer is Yes.
The Pros do it because they have to use the easiest and most efficient to ways to control the ball, due to the speed and power of the game. When taught well, it is the easy way to teach a beginner to rally well, in a short amount of time. The downsides of teaching this are more imagined than real.
Would you teach a 3.0 player with average athleticism to hit with a full western grip and windshield wiper follow through?

gzhpcu
10-19-2009, 10:20 AM
I tend to think yes as well. Old school was more of a circular swing, tougher to time, (seen from above) and very early takeback. New school, the swing is more linear, easier to time, and a last minute takeback. New school is also brushing the ball (up and across), which I find places less strain on the arm then head-on impact. I find new school is more swing (even though on the forehand, the arm doesn't move much, the body rotates and the forearm pronates), and old school tends to muscle the ball more...

Don't find that the grip need be full western. Can be eastern or inbetween eastern and western.

5263
10-19-2009, 10:26 AM
Would you teach a 3.0 player with average athleticism to hit with a full western grip and windshield wiper follow through?

I agreed with the podcast on the discussion of grips, as to letting players tend to go with what they find more comfortable, so no, I do not push or suggest full western at any time. It also has little or nothing to do with the windshield wiper shot or finish IMO.

I teach a beginner the over the shoulder finish, which is one of the WW finishes. More importantly, with Modern tennis, I have become more clear on the hazards of teaching to step and swing down the target line.

Do you still feel that swinging down the target line is "essential"?

xFullCourtTenniSx
10-19-2009, 01:44 PM
I feel you should start them out with the basic fundamentals, then evolve them into the modern game.

Sticking with the classic game doesn't go that far anymore (unless you've got a massive serve, big flat forehand, and incredible athleticism at net like Sampras). But if you're Sampras, by all means use the classical strokes! He REALLY made them work.

Learning the modern game without proper guidance though can lead to injury. If you're learning it from a coach who knows what he's doing and what he's talking about, then you're fine.

Also, you probably won't notice huge improvements right away unless you have a lot of racket head speed and great athleticism.

wihamilton
10-19-2009, 02:17 PM
My feeling is that the fundamentals haven't really changed much -- it's the stuff you add on top that makes the shot look different. So everybody should be starting in the same place / focusing on the same things as novices.

Tilden
10-19-2009, 04:03 PM
I completely agree with what was stated. It was very insightful in drawing the connection between culture and sport. The modern player must still attempt to get momentum moving toward their target with long fluid strokes like Mecir.

Essential Tennis
10-19-2009, 04:13 PM
Do you still feel that swinging down the target line is "essential"?
Still? Meaning I stated that at one point? Or are you simply referring to an older way of thinking?

No I don't believe that's the correct way of thinking about it, at least not in reality. A lot of things that I teach are rather "old school", but when I start off with a student for the first time I definitely steer them in the direction of a topspin ground stroke swing. This means that the feeling of the swing is definitely not predominantly towards the target for most people, but rather upwards and to the side as gzh said.

My one handed backhand has been a liability for years due to to a very lateral, forwards-based swing, I've never been able to hit a heavy topspin ball on that side. Recently I've been working hard and relaxing this side more and making it much more of an upwards attack at the ball, with my shoulder rotating out to the left at the same time (I'm left handed). This is what high level players do to create topspin, definitely not "down the target line".

It seems like you're waffling a little bit on your position btw, maybe you can clear that up. In your first post you said "Yes" to my question when I asked about using the full western grip and windshield wiper finish. You stated that they're the easiest way for a beginner to learn to rally.

In your next post you said "I do not push or suggest full western at any time." You then said that you teach beginners an over the shoulder finish, I've never heard it said that this was the same thing as a WW finish, or that it was a "type" of WW finish either.

I'd enjoy hearing you explain further!

Essential Tennis
10-19-2009, 04:21 PM
My feeling is that the fundamentals haven't really changed much
I agree, and I think that basically sums up my position on this Will.

Most tennis players in the world are below a 4.0 NTRP level. This tells me that most people still haven't mastered the fundamentals, maybe in one area or another they're pretty proficient, but as a whole they're still lacking in the basics.

It can be very attractive, exciting, and "cool" to head out on the court and immediately start working on flahsy technique and swing styles that we see on TV before being good at repeating the "essentials" over and over again. I think a lot of average level players fall into this trap and that's why I wanted to do this podcast topic.

Now, all of these more advanced techniques have their place, that's for sure. I'm a 5.0 player and use a reverse follow through and WW follow through when I hit at full speed. However I wasn't taught these early on, in fact, I can't remember even being taught them at all. Rather as I continued to advance in my tennis it was just simply something that developed, my game evolved out of necessity to keep up with better and better competition.

Which of these techniques is "fundamental" and which are "preference" can be a tough thing to figure out sometimes, other times I feel like it's pretty clear that people are attempting to do things well beyond their ability level.

ReopeningWed
10-19-2009, 05:13 PM
I've always thought that as long as you have the fundamentals (knee bend, shoulder rotation, swing low to high, etc.), you should swing however you want, as long as it feels natural and comfortable.

I remember reading the tennis.about.com website often when I was learning how to play tennis, and the site's owner said that it was difficult to hit flat balls with a western.

Guess how I was playing before I read the tennis.about website? I was hitting flat with a western. Sure, eventually I developed some spin and loopy shots for the sake of variety and consistency, but the point is, tennis should be played however YOU feel the most natural way is.

After all, didn't EssentialTennis' guest say that everyone's body works a little differently?

WildVolley
10-19-2009, 05:21 PM
Greetings tennis enthusiasts!

I just finished recording a podcast that I think a lot of you will be interested in.

Should you really be copying what the pros do these days? Are you a good enough athlete to take advantage of the windshield wiper follow through, reverse follow through, or a full western grip?


This is an interesting topic. I coach at a small high school and I see a fair number of players hitting with extreme western grips. Their grips are generally more extreme than the top pros. Most of the pros I follow hit the semi-western. After seeing Nadal hit in person, I might even classify his grip as a semi-western. Are juniors being taught the Western grip, or is it something that kids are picking up on their own these days? From my observation, it creates a loopy shot that's consistent but not powerful.

I've taught a few adults to play and they had no problem with a semi-western grip. I didn't emphasize the windshield wiper, which I think just confuses beginners, but all the basic stuff the pros do, including the full unit turn and closing the racket face (patting the dog) seemed to help them quickly learn topspin. I also find teaching open stance fhs doesn't create any problems.

If a beginner wants to learn the modern shots, I don't think it is wrong to start with a semi-western grip and topspin swing pattern from the beginning, rather than the eastern grip, neutral stance, and flat drive I learned as a kid. Though, I'll admit I lean toward starting with a flatter shot and adding more topspin once the basics are being followed.

Essential Tennis
10-19-2009, 05:27 PM
Are juniors being taught the Western grip, or is it something that kids are picking up on their own these days? From my observation, it creates a loopy shot that's consistent but not powerful.
When going to junior tournaments I see this quite a lot as well, I believe that often times they're being taught to turn the grip over that far.

I've instructed kids to use a semi-western grip on the forehand side several times, but never full, imo full western is too far for just about anybody. If you're still unable to keep the racket face closed with a semi-western there's definitely other technical things going on that need to be addressed, turning it even farther over than that is often times just a band-aide.

chico9166
10-19-2009, 05:30 PM
This is an interesting topic. I coach at a small high school and I see a fair number of players hitting with extreme western grips. Their grips are generally more extreme than the top pros. Most of the pros I follow hit the semi-western. After seeing Nadal hit in person, I might even classify his grip as a semi-western. Are juniors being taught the Western grip, or is it something that kids are picking up on their own these days? From my observation, it creates a loopy shot that's consistent but not powerful.

I've taught a few adults to play and they had no problem with a semi-western grip. I didn't emphasize the windshield wiper, which I think just confuses beginners, but all the basic stuff the pros do, including the full unit turn and closing the racket face (patting the dog) seemed to help them quickly learn topspin. I also find teaching open stance fhs doesn't create any problems.

If a beginner wants to learn the modern shots, I don't think it is wrong to start with a semi-western grip and topspin swing pattern from the beginning, rather than the eastern grip, neutral stance, and flat drive I learned as a kid. Though, I'll admit I lean toward starting with a flatter shot and adding more topspin once the basics are being followed.

Can't say I've ever seen a decent pro teach/advocate a full western grip, in early development.

Blake0
10-19-2009, 07:07 PM
I really like your podcasts, some are really interesting. I'll listen to this 1 soon :)

5263
10-19-2009, 08:34 PM
It seems like you're waffling a little bit on your position btw, maybe you can clear that up. In your first post you said "Yes" to my question when I asked about using the full western grip and windshield wiper finish. You stated that they're the easiest way for a beginner to learn to rally.

In your next post you said "I do not push or suggest full western at any time." You then said that you teach beginners an over the shoulder finish, I've never heard it said that this was the same thing as a WW finish, or that it was a "type" of WW finish either.

I'd enjoy hearing you explain further!

I think waffling is strong for what you are trying to say, and the western grip aspect was the last thing in the second question. Not exactly the main issue in your question. I sort of let the western grip aspect of your statement go, as it is a common misconception that it goes hand in hand with the modern game, just like hitting up and across the ball and open stance actually do go with the modern swing. I've learned not to try to take on every issue raised, as some will be cleared up along the way as the main points are handled. I thought that the intent of your comment was more focused on new players learning the modern game and swinging much like the pros do. I don't think that full western is the most used grip in that arena. On the other hand if someone comes to me with an interest in using the full western, there is no problem there.
Does that explain it well enough?

Where does this measurement of athleticism you mention come in? Do you think you can spot it as it relates to tennis? Is it the same for tennis as say, basketball?

5263
10-19-2009, 08:37 PM
Still? Meaning I stated that at one point? Or are you simply referring to an older way of thinking?



I won't accuse you of waffling, but it seemed pretty clear on your podcast on this subject, that you were in complete agreement with your guest who spoke about the importance of hitting down the target line, more than once in the discussion. Maybe you were just being polite to your guest.

5263
10-19-2009, 08:56 PM
I agree, and I think that basically sums up my position on this Will.

Most tennis players in the world are below a 4.0 NTRP level. This tells me that most people still haven't mastered the fundamentals, maybe in one area or another they're pretty proficient, but as a whole they're still lacking in the basics.

It can be very attractive, exciting, and "cool" to head out on the court and immediately start working on flahsy technique and swing styles that we see on TV before being good at repeating the "essentials" over and over again. I think a lot of average level players fall into this trap and that's why I wanted to do this podcast topic.

Now, all of these more advanced techniques have their place, that's for sure. I'm a 5.0 player and use a reverse follow through and WW follow through when I hit at full speed. However I wasn't taught these early on, in fact, I can't remember even being taught them at all. Rather as I continued to advance in my tennis it was just simply something that developed, my game evolved out of necessity to keep up with better and better competition.

Which of these techniques is "fundamental" and which are "preference" can be a tough thing to figure out sometimes, other times I feel like it's pretty clear that people are attempting to do things well beyond their ability level.

Yes, what are these fundamentals you advocate? Could it be that the reason there are so many stuck at 4.0 is that what is taught as fundamental, is not really proper fundamental at all. Sounds like those very fundamentals of stepping and swinging down the target line, were a big part of what was holding back your backhand, based on what you said.

It is great to converse with you, as I think you are completely on the right track in trying to seeking out what is good fundamental and what is just style. My expectation is that as you get the best answers, you find that most players are much more talented or "athletic" than you previously thought. Much of the conventional teaching can tie an athlete up in knots!
It is amazing how clear much of this becomes when it is realized that the Pros do things the easy way, and it doesn't take special timing or skills at all. The "way" they play is the special timing elements and skills.

5263
10-19-2009, 09:34 PM
You then said that you teach beginners an over the shoulder finish, I've never heard it said that this was the same thing as a WW finish, or that it was a "type" of WW finish either.

I'd enjoy hearing you explain further!

First, WW is a reasonably new term in tennis history, and there are quite a lot of ideas what it means. I'm a big Fan of the FYB idea, but I differ with much of what Will says about the WW. He shows it and describes it as very conventional except for part of the swing, with a neutral stance, stepping down the target line, and a pushing type arm movement out to contact from that momentum. It is not clear if anything WW is happening prior to contact (maybe just a little). For my money what he is doing is hitting a pretty normal TS forehand with a WW type Finish.

I think there is little conventional about a true WW. It should be from more of an open stance and the racket should approach the ball from beneath and slightly outside, so as to be pulled up and across the ball into contact. The body should be moving to the side and possibly back away from the contact while lifting with the legs. The finish can vary from a lasso finish, to down near the opposite elbow. The over the shoulder is the more central and where I start from when teaching.

So, I feel the key to an actual WW shot is actually wiping "up and across" the ball at contact and is best done from open stance. Stepping into your TS shot, hitting the ball, then adding a wiper type finish is just that- a conventional TS with a WW finish.

gzhpcu
10-19-2009, 11:40 PM
Here is a fun video on the subject....

http://videos.espn.com/m/video/23893772/technically-speaking-old-school-v-new.htm?q=OR+%22Grand+slam+event%22+OR+%22Grand+sl am+tennis%22+OR+tennis+OR+%22Grand+Slam+Events%22

Essential Tennis
10-20-2009, 02:39 AM
Does that explain it well enough?
Yup!

Where does this measurement of athleticism you mention come in? Do you think you can spot it as it relates to tennis? Is it the same for tennis as say, basketball?
Well I believe it comes in when I decide exactly what to work on with a student. If they're not particularly coordinated we'll spend most of our time working on extremely simple things: making good contact, maintaining a rally from the service line, directing the ball either right or left from the baseline, etc. If they're obviously a good athlete we'll move on from the above in the first 5-10 minutes of the lesson to move advanced things, so as a teacher the athleticism of my student kind of has everything to do with it, it will dictate how far along the continuum of skills we'll be able to move within any given hour.

Yes I believe that I can spot it.

Um, I'm not really sure if it's the same for basketball. I've never played basketball at a higher level than recreational, and I've never taught it. However I feel like I'm a pretty good judge of athletic ability in general since I watch people play a sport at least 8 hours a day. Granted it's usually only one sport.....

Essential Tennis
10-20-2009, 02:44 AM
I won't accuse you of waffling, but it seemed pretty clear on your podcast on this subject, that you were in complete agreement with your guest who spoke about the importance of hitting down the target line, more than once in the discussion. Maybe you were just being polite to your guest.
haha, good observation. Yes, I remember him making that statement during our conversation very clearly, I didn't respond to that statement for two reasons:

1. He did most of the talking. Each time he responded to one of my questions he probably made 4-5 points on average, in a 30 minute show I just can't respond to everything he says or flush out every point made.

2. That topic, while something I'd be happy to discuss with him specifically, wasn't the main topic of the show and I wanted to try to keep things moving. Even as it was we only got to two of the four topics I wanted to discuss.

Essential Tennis
10-20-2009, 02:59 AM
Yes, what are these fundamentals you advocate? Could it be that the reason there are so many stuck at 4.0 is that what is taught as fundamental, is not really proper fundamental at all. Sounds like those very fundamentals of stepping and swinging down the target line, were a big part of what was holding back your backhand, based on what you said.
That's a good point, "fundamental" can certainly be a subjective term. Every teaching pro and coach has their own set of skills that they feel are most important, and 20 years ago the average list of these things was very different than what the average teaching pro is talking about now.

It's true that more "old school" teaching is what held my backhand back, although the same person who taught me how to hit a backhand also taught me the rest of my game which is much more competent relatively speaking. As with most people my non dominant side is a weakness for me. That being said, I feel like I only really understood my technical problems on that side a few years ago, after my playing career was already over which is a shame.

Definitely a big topic!

It is great to converse with you, as I think you are completely on the right track in trying to seeking out what is good fundamental and what is just style. My expectation is that as you get the best answers, you find that most players are much more talented or "athletic" than you previously thought. Much of the conventional teaching can tie an athlete up in knots!
It is amazing how clear much of this becomes when it is realized that the Pros do things the easy way, and it doesn't take special timing or skills at all. The "way" they play is the special timing elements and skills.
I definitely agree that "conventional teaching" can make things more difficult.

I'm not sure that you can really separate "the way" pros play from the technique and style of how they swing the racket. Sure, in theory and on paper tennis isn't difficult, just ask anybody who's watching a pro tennis match but hasn't ever played before: "All you have to do is hit it over the net!".

This is like saying that there's really no difference between driving to the store and being in an F1 race: their cars are just faster! I think the way you phrased it takes away from whats being done in the pro game. I believe that the biggest reason more people aren't over a 4.0 level is that being good at tennis is quite difficult, not that most instruction available is too old fashioned.

Essential Tennis
10-20-2009, 03:02 AM
First, WW is a reasonably new term in tennis history, and there are quite a lot of ideas what it means. I'm a big Fan of the FYB idea, but I differ with much of what Will says about the WW. He shows it and describes it as very conventional except for part of the swing, with a neutral stance, stepping down the target line, and a pushing type arm movement out to contact from that momentum. It is not clear if anything WW is happening prior to contact (maybe just a little). For my money what he is doing is hitting a pretty normal TS forehand with a WW type Finish.

I think there is little conventional about a true WW. It should be from more of an open stance and the racket should approach the ball from beneath and slightly outside, so as to be pulled up and across the ball into contact. The body should be moving to the side and possibly back away from the contact while lifting with the legs. The finish can vary from a lasso finish, to down near the opposite elbow. The over the shoulder is the more central and where I start from when teaching.

So, I feel the key to an actual WW shot is actually wiping "up and across" the ball at contact and is best done from open stance. Stepping into your TS shot, hitting the ball, then adding a wiper type finish is just that- a conventional TS with a WW finish.
I understand where you're coming from. Thanks for explaining!

5263
10-20-2009, 05:05 AM
haha, good observation. Yes, I remember him making that statement during our conversation very clearly, I didn't respond to that statement for two reasons:

1. He did most of the talking. Each time he responded to one of my questions he probably made 4-5 points on average, in a 30 minute show I just can't respond to everything he says or flush out every point made.

2. That topic, while something I'd be happy to discuss with him specifically, wasn't the main topic of the show and I wanted to try to keep things moving. Even as it was we only got to two of the four topics I wanted to discuss.

I can understand this, as it is essentially (excuse the pun) the same as how I was dealing with the western grip comments.

5263
10-20-2009, 05:31 AM
I definitely agree that "conventional teaching" can make things more difficult.

I'm not sure that you can really separate "the way" pros play from the technique and style of how they swing the racket. Sure, in theory and on paper tennis isn't difficult, just ask anybody who's watching a pro tennis match but hasn't ever played before: "All you have to do is hit it over the net!".

This is like saying that there's really no difference between driving to the store and being in an F1 race: their cars are just faster! I think the way you phrased it takes away from whats being done in the pro game. I believe that the biggest reason more people aren't over a 4.0 level is that being good at tennis is quite difficult, not that most instruction available is too old fashioned.

Here is the heart of were we see it differently. No problem, but we just dont have the same perspective on it.

I don't think the F1 car analogy holds up, but can't say for sure as I've never driven one. But the point is that the car in this case is providing the power and speed, so handling it may be tough, especially since it is designed to be on a track.

In tennis, our technique is what you are comparing to the car, but modern technique makes the tennis ball way easier to handle. It's the opponent who may or may not be tough. This actually gives MORE credit to what the Pros are doing. That even though they have more efficient and easier strokes, they can still put each other in peril with their power and placement.

A much better analogy IMO would be the F-18 Super Hornet. In many respects it is soo easy to fly! HUD, incredible auto pilot that will do the carrier landing for you, and power to do most of what you can dream up. Much easier than a Cessna 150 with old steam gauges and limited power, but it is the Aviator that creates the challenge of being the victor in the air to air combat.
This jet while being very easy to handle (like modern strokes) takes the fight to new heights when you push it's limits and also need to employ it's weapon system, all the while, facing another pilot in a similar jet that is so capable. I can speak to this on a sort of rare level, as my first flight as a pilot was in a high performance, 300mph plane and this is where I learned to fly. Starting on the good stuff, even though it has high speed capabilities, can still be the easiest way.

So we in Modern tennis believe the game of tennis itself is easy to learn and play, but it is the opponent that provides the Big challenge. (or not as the case may be, lol)

5263
10-20-2009, 05:47 AM
Here is a fun video on the subject....

http://videos.espn.com/m/video/23893772/technically-speaking-old-school-v-new.htm?q=OR+%22Grand+slam+event%22+OR+%22Grand+sl am+tennis%22+OR+tennis+OR+%22Grand+Slam+Events%22

Yes, well done and fun vid.

wihamilton
10-20-2009, 07:13 AM
Here is a fun video on the subject....

http://videos.espn.com/m/video/23893772/technically-speaking-old-school-v-new.htm?q=OR+%22Grand+slam+event%22+OR+%22Grand+sl am+tennis%22+OR+tennis+OR+%22Grand+Slam+Events%22

Nice video but their definitions of the grips is wrong. Your grip isn't determined by the "V" created by your thumb and index finger. It's defined by where your heel pad and index knuckle rest on the handle.

chess9
10-20-2009, 07:34 AM
My feeling is that the fundamentals haven't really changed much -- it's the stuff you add on top that makes the shot look different. So everybody should be starting in the same place / focusing on the same things as novices.

Brilliant!

Also, everyone brings their own style to the game. You can teach an elephant to dance but he will always be an elephant dancing. :) Some guys have lots of athleticism, some have great hand-eye coordination, and some have neither. Give them the basics and move from there. Unit turn, grip, swing plane, footwork.

-Robert

tricky
10-20-2009, 03:24 PM
I think the classical vs. modern discussions are fun on the Internet, though honestly 80% of it is focused just on the FH. If it's 2HBH, 1HBH, serves, volleying, etc., I don't really see a lot of change in basic instruction.

However I think there is disagreement here about how (i.e. learning progressions) people should be taught.

5263
10-20-2009, 06:46 PM
I think the classical vs. modern discussions are fun on the Internet, though honestly 80% of it is focused just on the FH. If it's 2HBH, 1HBH, serves, volleying, etc., I don't really see a lot of change in basic instruction.

However I think there is disagreement here about how (i.e. learning progressions) people should be taught.

I agree that most of the talk is on the Fh, but the 2hBh has nearly all the same issues in play; not to turn too early, use the modified open stance, find the ball from below and accelerate up and across the ball to an over the shoulder finish.

You really hit the nail on the head about the learning progressions.
I'm wondering how long it will take before more players accept that stepping and swinging out thru the target line on groundstrokes is as ineffective as it for serving. Most players realize how you need to attack the ball with the racket edge leading and hit up and across the ball on serve,

and that to come at the ball with the strings open to the ball, extend out to the target will just tend to push serves long with less power. The same is true on groundstrokes.

wihamilton
10-20-2009, 07:07 PM
Brilliant!

Also, everyone brings their own style to the game. You can teach an elephant to dance but he will always be an elephant dancing. :) Some guys have lots of athleticism, some have great hand-eye coordination, and some have neither. Give them the basics and move from there. Unit turn, grip, swing plane, footwork.

-Robert


Thx! I agree -- get the fundamentals down and then develop your game around your strengths.


However I think there is disagreement here about how (i.e. learning progressions) people should be taught.

My view on differing approaches is that that's a good thing assuming people put their thinking caps on. A myopic approach to teaching / learning tends to be a long-term limitation.

However, I think we can all agree that Eli Manning -- and the Giants in general -- are a bunch of bums =) Redskins FTW... in about ten years.

crystal_clear
10-20-2009, 07:43 PM
Brilliant!

Also, everyone brings their own style to the game. You can teach an elephant to dance but he will always be an elephant dancing. :) Some guys have lots of athleticism, some have great hand-eye coordination, and some have neither. Give them the basics and move from there. Unit turn, grip, swing plane, footwork.

-Robert
:D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He7Ge7Sogrk

gzhpcu
10-21-2009, 03:18 AM
I think the classical vs. modern discussions are fun on the Internet, though honestly 80% of it is focused just on the FH. If it's 2HBH, 1HBH, serves, volleying, etc., I don't really see a lot of change in basic instruction.



Agree. It is mostly on the topspin WW forehand. I have seen some mention of the WW one handed backhand, but does not seem to be generally accepted. In general, it seems to me the idea associated with modern tennis is to hit up and across on most strokes, including the serve. But Lew Hoad used to do this...

5263
10-21-2009, 06:18 AM
Agree. It is mostly on the topspin WW forehand. I have seen some mention of the WW one handed backhand, but does not seem to be generally accepted. In general, it seems to me the idea associated with modern tennis is to hit up and across on most strokes, including the serve. But Lew Hoad used to do this...

Agree as well. But doesn't that make a lot of sense that Hoad and others do this? Modern Tennis Methods is based on the idea of- this how the good players hit; not as a new way of hitting.
But it is a Modern way of teaching tennis.

5263
10-21-2009, 10:30 AM
Here is the thread with the pod cast.
Decide for yourself on the context Mike.

chess9
10-21-2009, 12:29 PM
:D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He7Ge7Sogrk

That pachyderm paints better than I do! LOL! Talk about NO TALENT. :)

-Robert