PDA

View Full Version : Wegner vs Mark Papas


Pet
10-09-2011, 04:21 AM
Here are two good examples of tennis philosophy, totally opposite.

For you, who is more efective, or it doesnīt matter only the person counts.

Timbo's hopeless slice
10-09-2011, 04:36 AM
i refer you to Oscar at the Fair

sureshs
10-09-2011, 09:54 AM
The revolutionary tennis guy?

sureshs
10-09-2011, 10:40 AM
Read his serving sections again now. Brilliant. As I long suspected, pronation is not the only story. After turning outwards, the hand later moves inwards also, otherwise the ball would go flying to the side instead of the front.

sureshs
10-09-2011, 10:45 AM
The big difference is that all of Papa's stuff is free.

The other difference is the detailed technical explanations and finer points of disagreement explained logically and without far-fetched analogies. No simple buzz words and oversimplification.

Pet
10-09-2011, 11:21 AM
The big difference is that all of Papa's stuff is free.

The other difference is the detailed technical explanations and finer points of disagreement explained logically and without ridiculous analogies and spite. No simple buzz words and oversimplification.

Yes, Papas sound a lot more scientist, but its true that Federer, Nadal, Djockovic, etc hit like Wegner says.

Limpinhitter
10-09-2011, 12:17 PM
Yes, Papas sound a lot more scientist, but its true that Federer, Nadal, Djockovic, etc hit like Wegner says.

Ding, ding, ding!

sureshs
10-09-2011, 02:12 PM
Yes, Papas sound a lot more scientist, but its true that Federer, Nadal, Djockovic, etc hit like Wegner says.

And they would have hit like that even if he never said anything, as they don't know who he is.

sureshs
10-09-2011, 02:14 PM
I took a small tip from Papas this morning - look slightly north of horizon to the opposite court before beginning the ball toss on the serve. Played 1.5 hours of singles now, and a grand total of 1 double fault, and very decent serves overall. Really makes a difference. That is the kind of specific advice I like.

5263
10-09-2011, 08:24 PM
And they would have hit like that even if he never said anything, as they don't know who he is.

Of course this is totally irrelevant and has nothing to do with the OP.

5263
10-09-2011, 08:25 PM
Yes, Papas sound a lot more scientist, but its true that Federer, Nadal, Djockovic, etc hit like Wegner says.

Exactly,
and it works well at all levels as well.

Playnice
10-09-2011, 09:56 PM
I took a small tip from Papas this morning - look slightly north of horizon to the opposite court before beginning the ball toss on the serve. Played 1.5 hours of singles now, and a grand total of 1 double fault, and very decent serves overall. Really makes a difference. That is the kind of specific advice I like.

You and Mark Papas are a perfect fit. Perhaps he will invite you over to his house for lunch and some free lessons on his private court.

Timbo's hopeless slice
10-09-2011, 10:08 PM
If I was ever going to be banned from this forum, it would be because of the poster called 'Playnice'

OTMPut
10-10-2011, 03:22 AM
Yes, Papas sound a lot more scientist, but its true that Federer, Nadal, Djockovic, etc hit like Wegner says.

They also hit like Papas says: stepping into the ball, linear momentum, etc.

5263
10-10-2011, 04:16 AM
They also hit like Papas says: stepping into the ball, linear momentum, etc.

Rarely if ever.
When they step in it is usually to improve the contact point, but footwork is to control any forward momentum IMO, not produce it. They also usually lift to compensate to get hips to open and land in an open stance.

sureshs
10-10-2011, 06:35 AM
Papas has put his stuff out there for free and you can take what you want. He doesn't start with some oversimplified nonsense for beginners and then twist everything to fit that viewpoint. Where he differs from others, he explains how they may also be right in some cases and actually includes pros whose motions do not support his point of view. What you see is what you get. You don't have to spend more money in order to get more "secrets" or buy into some philosophical mumbo-jumbo.

sureshs
10-10-2011, 06:39 AM
They also hit like Papas says: stepping into the ball, linear momentum, etc.

They use both linear and rotational power, and step into the ball when appropriate or depending on their playing style and ability, or play off their back foot some other times. What they don't do is to follow some beginner-level simplified slogan to prove a point and to appear different.

TennisCJC
10-10-2011, 06:45 AM
I had not heard of Papas before this, and went to the revolution site. Basically good stuff but too complicated for me. I like Wegner's simplicity more.

Disagree with Papas on wrist movement. He talks about wrist pronation and implies there is movement during the contact zone. He then refers to a video with Fed hitting several forehands. The 1st 2-3 FHs show no wrist movement or extremely small wrist movement 6-12 inches before contact and 6-12 inches after contact. I like what Fuzzy Yellow Balls teaches. The wrist lays back as you start your forward swing and then the wrist is PASSIVE thru the contact zone. Pronation is after the ball is long gone at the end of you swing where you roll-over into a WW follow-thru.

Papas also had lots of "anti-rotation" verbage in his FH lesson impling hip and shoulder rotation could be over done. My experience is most rec players don't use enough hip and shoulder rotation. Given time, most pros end up with hitting shoulder rotated all the way thru where it is closest to net and chest points slightly toward L fence for R handed forehand. I think a smooth accelerating rotation is critical for power and consistency.

Vote for Wegner. Papas hurts my head with complexity and seems a bit off on a few key things. But, some probably respond well to Papas' scientific theory type approach. But, beware the active wrist as it is a killer for most of us in my experience and observations.

Xizel
10-10-2011, 07:21 AM
Papas. Somewhat of a long read sometimes, but still good.

Rubens
10-10-2011, 07:45 AM
I have found Papas to be very helpful in terms of how to position your feet relatively to the incoming ball, which is a key element of the game. Yet, at the same time, I disagree with his idea of STEPPING forward as a power component of the shot.

sureshs
10-10-2011, 08:05 AM
I have found Papas to be very helpful in terms of how to position your feet relatively to the incoming ball, which is a key element of the game.

Which section of the site is it in? Or is it scattered all over?

Rubens
10-10-2011, 08:22 AM
Which section of the site is it in? Or is it scattered all over?

It's mostly in the 3 first sections:

http://www.revolutionarytennis.com/step1.html
http://www.revolutionarytennis.com/step2.html
http://www.revolutionarytennis.com/step3.html

I took some and left some, but I can say I agree with most of it, in terms of positioning.

sureshs
10-10-2011, 08:22 AM
Here is an example which shows Papas understands the reality of the game instead of claiming that there is enough time, which holds only for fed beginner rallies with the ball in the comfort zone:

This extra distance costs you time, of which there's never enough

Anyone who has played with good players knows how they can shorten the time and cause your strokes to break.

I also notice he seems to prefer closed stance to open stance, which is not what the pros do on the forehand side these days. But they do perform the footwork of stepping in with the left foot (unless they are hitting late on deep blocks and are parallel to the baseline). The difference is that as they hit, they turn around into the shot with the right foot, instead of that foot staying put behind during contact. Step in, and rotate into the shot, instead of hitting with the right foot locked behind you. That is what I have been doing for years. Hardly anyone hits strict closed stance any more on the forehand side. I even use a semi-open-stance one-handed BH, which is a rare shot to see in the clubs and one I consider my invention.

Power Player
10-10-2011, 09:08 AM
Oh yes, this website. I love it.

The tip about the serve helped me out a lot. Basically saying that you are waving towards the side fence to start the racquet drop. That little tip helped me a lot with some things.

sureshs
10-10-2011, 09:26 AM
Oh yes, this website. I love it.

The tip about the serve helped me out a lot. Basically saying that you are waving towards the side fence to start the racquet drop. That little tip helped me a lot with some things.

Probably reinforces shoulder rotation

Pet
10-10-2011, 09:43 AM
They also hit like Papas says: stepping into the ball, linear momentum, etc.

They step to the left on forehands.

Pet
10-10-2011, 09:52 AM
Oh yes, this website. I love it.

The tip about the serve helped me out a lot. Basically saying that you are waving towards the side fence to start the racquet drop. That little tip helped me a lot with some things.

Yes, I think he has very good tips, but for example, Wegner says that pros hit the serve with a sudden change of raquet angle on impact, creating spin and control, Papas ignore this important tip.

Power Player
10-10-2011, 10:04 AM
Yes, I think he has very good tips, but for example, Wegner says that pros hit the serve with a sudden change of raquet angle on impact, creating spin and control, Papas ignore this important tip.

I don't compare coaches or care that much. I just go with what helps my game.

sureshs
10-10-2011, 10:07 AM
It's mostly in the 3 first sections:

http://www.revolutionarytennis.com/step1.html
http://www.revolutionarytennis.com/step2.html
http://www.revolutionarytennis.com/step3.html

I took some and left some, but I can say I agree with most of it, in terms of positioning.

What do you think of his "four steps" footwork? Do you think it makes sense?

Pet
10-10-2011, 10:16 AM
I don't compare coaches or care that much. I just go with what helps my game.

Yes, could be an other option, a mix of the two, who knows...

Rubens
10-10-2011, 10:16 AM
What do you think of his "four steps" footwork? Do you think it makes sense?

I do make small quick adjustment steps before contact, but I don't consciously count 4 steps, nor do I try to make them all linearly towards the target.. Still, adjustment steps are crucial.

I think his general idea is to start with larger steps to quickly get to the vicinity of the target area, then follow with small adjustment steps before contact. However, I think he gets overanalytical and rigid when he thinks of it as precisely 4 steps consisting of right-left-right-left, on a straight line.

sureshs
10-10-2011, 10:55 AM
Yes, I think he has very good tips, but for example, Wegner says that pros hit the serve with a sudden change of raquet angle on impact, creating spin and control.

Is it the pronation that he is referring to? If so, it is obvious that an edge-on swing with a continental grip will require a certain degree of racquet angle change before impact. Whether this qualifies as a "sudden change of racquet angle" or if this is any new insight beyond the well-known pronation, or just plain wrong, I don't know.

sureshs
10-10-2011, 10:58 AM
I do make small quick adjustment steps before contact, but I don't consciously count 4 steps, nor do I try to make them all linearly towards the target.. Still, adjustment steps are crucial.

I think his general idea is to start with larger steps to quickly get to the vicinity of the target area, then follow with small adjustment steps before contact. However, I think he gets overanalytical and rigid when he thinks of it as precisely 4 steps consisting of right-left-right-left, on a straight line.

Yes that is what I thought. Larger steps followed by smaller adjustment steps is done by all pros and shows the importance of footwork training. But it need not be as rigid as Papas illustrates.

At least he doesn't claim that footwork comes naturally like the way a child learns to walk.

Rui
10-10-2011, 11:23 AM
So, I'm trying to figure out Pappas' Recovery Step advice. In his diagram (2nd link of the three provided), he advises not to take one because it takes to long to perform. Then in the next paragraph he touts the benefits of a recovery step.

Rubens
10-10-2011, 11:37 AM
So, I'm trying to figure out Pappas' Recovery Step advice. In his diagram (2nd link of the three provided), he advises not to take one because it takes to long to perform. Then in the next paragraph he touts the benefits of a recovery step.

I think he means that you may need to make a recovery step in some cases, but never do it DURING contact.

sureshs
10-10-2011, 01:14 PM
I think he means that you may need to make a recovery step in some cases, but never do it DURING contact.

Yes, that is what I gathered too.

5263
10-10-2011, 01:31 PM
This extra distance costs you time, of which there's never enough

Anyone who has played with good players knows how they can shorten the time and cause your strokes to break.


Would make more sense if you said "played with good players that are way better than you", because that is the main time it would feel that way you mention to a player. Sure there are times in an evenly matched game where you feel pressed for time, but if it is a real big issue, you are likely way over your head. No need for coaches to focus on training for that situation so much.
Saying there is never enough time is way overstated and only adds to the advantage if it ever existed at all.
Very good competitors don't win and compete well by feeling overwhelmed like that. Why you want to put that out in the universe Ricky Bobby!

sureshs
10-10-2011, 01:44 PM
Found it interesting to read his background. Like Oscar, he hails from South America. Like Oscar, he mostly roamed around as an amateur - maybe the equivalent of a journeyman is today's terms. Like Oscar, he stopped playing after a leg injury. Like Oscar, he claims to have unique revolutionary viewpoints.

Remarkable coincidence, no?

Rui
10-10-2011, 02:09 PM
Papas also advocates keeping your feet still during the swing to eliminate body movement that may hinder your swing. I don't think this jives with stepping into the ball for more power.

Rubens
10-10-2011, 02:30 PM
Papas also advocates keeping your feet still during the swing to eliminate body movement that may hinder your swing. I don't think this jives with stepping into the ball for more power.

Well, his point is that the power comes mainly from the forward momentum that has been created before the contact, by taking those 4 forward steps. Btw, the forward momentum thing is where I tend to disagree with his view. Specifically, I disagree about the forward momentum being a huge power factor, (except maybe in running forehands). I think rotation plays a bigger role in generating power. I do agree with transferring weight from right to left foot for a fh (and left foot to right for a bh). It's just that I see the weight transfer as part of a rotational process, as opposed to a linear one. It's hard to explain in words, sorry.

Pet
10-10-2011, 02:47 PM
Is it the pronation that he is referring to? If so, it is obvious that an edge-on swing with a continental grip will require a certain degree of racquet angle change before impact. Whether this qualifies as a "sudden change of racquet angle" or if this is any new insight beyond the well-known pronation, or just plain wrong, I don't know.

Yes and no, the pronation that you says occur before impact naturally, if t you donīt wanna hit with the edge of course jeje. But the Wegner pronationīs happens on impact. When you feel the ball, turn your raquet to the right to give spin. Federer is a good example.

Rui
10-10-2011, 03:06 PM
Yeah, I still don't get how you can take four steps and stop and not yank back your forward momentum. I would advise hitting on one leg, open or closed stance. Specifically to allow your momentum thru your shot.

OTMPut
10-10-2011, 04:53 PM
They use both linear and rotational power, and step into the ball when appropriate or depending on their playing style and ability, or play off their back foot some other times. What they don't do is to follow some beginner-level simplified slogan to prove a point and to appear different.

exactly what i am trying to say. there is no algo.

chico9166
10-10-2011, 06:31 PM
Well, his point is that the power comes mainly from the forward momentum that has been created before the contact, by taking those 4 forward steps. Btw, the forward momentum thing is where I tend to disagree with his view. Specifically, I disagree about the forward momentum being a huge power factor, (except maybe in running forehands). I think rotation plays a bigger role in generating power. I do agree with transferring weight from right to left foot for a fh (and left foot to right for a bh). It's just that I see the weight transfer as part of a rotational process, as opposed to a linear one. It's hard to explain in words, sorry.
No, this is a pretty good explanation in my opinion. Yeah, Papas places WAY too much importance on forward, linear momentum.

OTMPut
10-10-2011, 07:18 PM
No, this is a pretty good explanation in my opinion. Yeah, Papas places WAY too much importance on forward, linear momentum.

most of others place way too much emphasis on angular momentum. with modern defensive game with top spin, directional and depth control is not that great a critical factor. so i guess people do not mind loss of control from relying too much on rotation. and hence the general acceptance of angular momentum as a dominant component.

5263
10-10-2011, 09:09 PM
Specifically, I disagree about the forward momentum being a huge power factor, (except maybe in running forehands). I think rotation plays a bigger role in generating power. I do agree with transferring weight from right to left foot for a fh (and left foot to right for a bh). It's just that I see the weight transfer as part of a rotational process, as opposed to a linear one. It's hard to explain in words, sorry.

Actually pretty well stated.

chico9166
10-11-2011, 02:47 AM
most of others place way too much emphasis on angular momentum. with modern defensive game with top spin, directional and depth control is not that great a critical factor. so i guess people do not mind loss of control from relying too much on rotation. and hence the general acceptance of angular momentum as a dominant component.
I guess I don't understand your point, and specifically how angular momentum causes loss of control. Actually the opposite is true. When the directive, or emphasis, is placed on stepping in, (forward linear momentum) control is compromised, as are recovery loops, and the ability to handle balls high in the strike zone.

OTMPut
10-11-2011, 03:25 AM
I guess I don't understand your point, and specifically how angular momentum causes loss of control.

if you rotate around an axis to send something forward with an intent to place it within a pretty narrow confine, there is less control.

chico9166
10-11-2011, 03:58 AM
if you rotate around an axis to send something forward with an intent to place it within a pretty narrow confine, there is less control.
Actually, control is more often times compromised when there is an emphasis on stepping into every shot. It can, and often times does, impede the ability to produce the racquet at impact, decrease spin/angular output, slow down recovery loops, and decrease the ability to handle high balls. Point is, forward linear momentum is so overstated in importance. The angular component, is what produces racquet head speed.

OTMPut
10-11-2011, 04:17 AM
Actually, control is more often times compromised when there is an emphasis on stepping into every shot. It can, and often times does, impede the ability to produce the racquet at impact, decrease spin/angular output, slow down recovery loops, and decrease the ability to handle high balls. Point is, forward linear momentum is so overstated in importance. The angular component, is what produces racquet head speed.

it perhaps produces higher racquet head speed; handles high balls better. no dispute there. control is the issue.
modern game is more about %s and margins, so i guess this is more favoured now.

my point is less rotation => more control.
stepping in, of course puts more premium on timing (footwork, "eye").
so you could argue that it is difficult to execute. but less control is not an intrinsic feature.

sureshs
10-11-2011, 06:38 AM
Yes and no, the pronation that you says occur before impact naturally, if t you donīt wanna hit with the edge of course jeje. But the Wegner pronationīs happens on impact. When you feel the ball, turn your raquet to the right to give spin. Federer is a good example.

Feel the ball in the entire 4 ms or so I have? No, the turning must have started before. Sounds like the usual "feel the ball" BS to me, which cannot be proved or disproved and therefore must be accepted as true.

sureshs
10-11-2011, 06:43 AM
if you rotate around an axis to send something forward with an intent to place it within a pretty narrow confine, there is less control.

You hit it on the head there. I have been saying this for a long time - hitting DTL with the massive racquet swing across the body that pros and juniors do is in fact quite difficult, and out of the reach of most adult club players. The ball must be precisely contacted, somewhat tangentially, at the same time with extension (for power). It is just common sense what you say. Try throwing a ball in front while waving your hand around your body.

When club players try it, they produce a weak loopy shot because they decrease their speed, knowing they don't have the control.

It is a bad thing to teach this to beginning adults. Linear momentum for DTL and rotational momentum for CC is much more realistic.

GuyClinch
10-11-2011, 07:02 AM
Call me crazy but I prefer say lock and roll to any of them. Visual learner...I guess.

Pet
10-11-2011, 07:54 AM
Feel the ball in the entire 4 ms or so I have? No, the turning must have started before. Sounds like the usual "feel the ball" BS to me, which cannot be proved or disproved and therefore must be accepted as true.

Ok, I undertand you suseshs, this tip no is a falacia. Is like brush the ball with the turn of the racquet (just in impact), instead the clasical low to high swing.

chico9166
10-11-2011, 08:26 AM
You hit it on the head there. I have been saying this for a long time - hitting DTL with the massive racquet swing across the body that pros and juniors do is in fact quite difficult, and out of the reach of most adult club players. The ball must be precisely contacted, somewhat tangentially, at the same time with extension (for power). It is just common sense what you say. Try throwing a ball in front while waving your hand around your body.

When club players try it, they produce a weak loopy shot because they decrease their speed, knowing they don't have the control.

It is a bad thing to teach this to beginning adults. Linear momentum for DTL and rotational momentum for CC is much more realistic.
Disagree, position of the racquet face at impact is what determines shot line. A player can swing on an arc, and hit the ball down the line. They need not swing in the direction of the shot with extension. In fact, trying to swing straight is very, very slow. Tennis is an off-line sport, which means arcs, and angular momentum.

5263
10-11-2011, 08:45 AM
Disagree, position of the racquet face at impact is what determines shot line. A player can swing on an arc, and hit the ball down the line. They need not swing in the direction of the shot with extension. In fact, trying to swing straight is very, very slow. Tennis is an off-line sport, which means arcs, and angular momentum.

Yep, you got it.
You have people here that don't learn to hit modern properly, then try to say you can't hit down the line modern. Some here want to argue that they know better about how hit modern and all that entails, but then wonder why they can't execute consistently with their methods. Of course if you can't hit or learn modern properly, you can't hit down the line with it properly.

sureshs
10-11-2011, 10:45 AM
Disagree, position of the racquet face at impact is what determines shot line. A player can swing on an arc, and hit the ball down the line.

Of course they can, and that is what all the pros are doing.

They also serve at 140 mph.

Considering that most club players do not even lift off the ground on both feet for an inch, insisting that they can serve at 140 mph doesn't serve any purpose.

Same here. Teaching has to be tempered with reality.

sureshs
10-11-2011, 10:48 AM
Ok, I undertand you suseshs, this tip no is a falacia. Is like brush the ball with the turn of the racquet (just in impact), instead the clasical low to high swing.

Feel is useful for the future. You gather feel now, and use it subconsciously the next time. You don't feel the ball during the fast swing impact time on a serve, and alter the racquet direction with that feedback during the contact. It is complete BS.

Playnice
10-11-2011, 11:24 AM
Feel is useful for the future. You gather feel now, and use it subconsciously the next time. You don't feel the ball during the fast swing impact time on a serve, and alter the racquet direction with that feedback during the contact. It is complete BS.

This statement is false as it is not "complete BS" but is true for many individuials. In Modern Tennis Methodology one does feel the ball during the fast swing impact time on a serve, and on the volley, and on the groundstrokes as well. This feel produces a marked improvement in players who use it. That the poster cannot or has not attempted to accomplish this does not make it universally untrue, simply untried or untrue for the poster.

Playnice
10-11-2011, 11:31 AM
Disagree, position of the racquet face at impact is what determines shot line.

This is a basic tenet of MTM. In fact, it is expressed as the angle of the HAND (and, therefore, the angle of the rackaet) which determines the direction of the shot. In this regard the ball does just what the player, with the angle of his hand, directs it to do. Simple mechanics which, when demonstrated to the player, is easily understood and used to make slight corrections as necessary by the player himself. Even little kids comprehend and use this data.

Playnice
10-11-2011, 12:01 PM
Feel the ball in the entire 4 ms or so I have? No, the turning must have started before. Sounds like the usual "feel the ball" BS to me, which cannot be proved or disproved and therefore must be accepted as true.

This statement indicates a lack of understanding of the MTM technique. Regardless of what it "sounds like" to the poster it works very well for those who employ it. Improvement is demonstrated by players who try it; they repeat it and decide for themselves that it works and incorporate it into their game. They prove it to themselves. It can be measured on video or by observation with the naked eye. But because he refuses to utilize the techniques himself and, therefore, cannot experience the benefits from them the poster falsely assumes that they cannot be proven.

Many of Oscar Wegner's techniques utilize an element of exaggeration to help the player experience a stroke component in a way that he can recognize and duplicate it. When the suggested technique is well integrated by consistent practice the exaggeration decreases and the ideal performance level is achieved.

The efficacy of such exaggeration is partially due to the speed with thich tennis movements are executed. It also has to do with the player's method of pereciving and measuring time, which is accomplished on various levels of efficiency. Some methods of perceiving and reacting are relatively slow. Others are fast beyond measure by physical instruments. In many instances the player is operating on these different levels unconsiously in contradictory ways. Modern Tennis Methodology helps the player decrease antagonistic elements in his physical and mental performance, which improves his physical execution and increases his enjoyment of playing tennis.

Playnice
10-11-2011, 12:19 PM
if you rotate around an axis to send something forward with an intent to place it within a pretty narrow confine, there is less control.

This statement shows a lack of understanding of MTM principles. In Tennis Into The Future Vol. 3 the effects of linear and angular momentum are demonstrated in detail and provide a deeper understanding of what is actually happening when the pros hit groundstrokes. There is actually a combination of linear and angular momentum at play.

Pet
10-11-2011, 02:19 PM
Feel is useful for the future. You gather feel now, and use it subconsciously the next time. You don't feel the ball during the fast swing impact time on a serve, and alter the racquet direction with that feedback during the contact. It is complete BS.

Forget the word feel. Watch this video:

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

Federer turn sudenly the raquet on impact, not before like natural pronation.

sureshs
10-11-2011, 04:30 PM
Forget the word feel. Watch this video:

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

Federer turn sudenly the raquet on impact, not before like natural pronation.

That is the effect of pronation and the impact of the ball on the racquet. In slow motion, the racquet can be seen to recoil a little, even on groundies. For example, groundies slow motion video will sometimes show the racquet face going backwards after impact and even wobbling off the axis. It is the effect, not the intended action of the player.

OTMPut
10-11-2011, 05:45 PM
This statement shows a lack of understanding of MTM principles. In Tennis Into The Future Vol. 3 the effects of linear and angular momentum are demonstrated in detail and provide a deeper understanding of what is actually happening when the pros hit groundstrokes. There is actually a combination of linear and angular momentum at play.

i do not know what MTM is. what i can intuitively see is that if you have to rotate to generate momentum to send the ball forward, there is inherent sacrifice of control.

of course you may place the ball exactly where you want, but with a lot more effort.

OTMPut
10-11-2011, 05:47 PM
do dart throwers wind up in open stance and rotate?

extreme example. but limiting cases are useful for thought experiments.

5263
10-11-2011, 08:38 PM
i do not know what MTM is. what i can intuitively see is that if you have to rotate to generate momentum to send the ball forward, there is inherent sacrifice of control.


Your intuition has failed you.

OTMPut
10-11-2011, 09:50 PM
Your intuition has failed you.

very informative, thanks.

one more q. i am always told that volley is a control stroke.
how do you volley in MTM? open stance, rotate and brush across?

Timbo's hopeless slice
10-11-2011, 09:59 PM
Apparently he knows what MTM is now...

Actually, there is something in what you say. I find modern strokes to be particularly focussed on areas of the court as targets, I especially find my 2HBH to be somewhat imprecise but able to hit an 'area' very consistently. I feel my 1HBH is more 'accurate' when on song but there is a much larger margin for error..

I much prefer my 'modern' FH to my old closed stance one, though, and I have pretty good control of that, so maybe my 2HBH is just a bit, well, crap...

chico9166
10-12-2011, 02:35 AM
do dart throwers wind up in open stance and rotate?

extreme example. but limiting cases are useful for thought experiments.
When throwing a dart, or shooting a free throw, you straddle the intended target line.(online sport) As such, it's best to create straight linear lines. Unfortunately, applying online principles to an off-line sport such as tennis, is a very bad idea. When you stand to the side of the intended target line, you must allow the body to work in curves, or arcs, to conserve angular momentum.

chico9166
10-12-2011, 02:45 AM
Of course they can, and that is what all the pros are doing.

They also serve at 140 mph.

Considering that most club players do not even lift off the ground on both feet for an inch, insisting that they can serve at 140 mph doesn't serve any purpose.

Same here. Teaching has to be tempered with reality.
And so should you Suresh. I can't even imagine trying to run around the court and shove, or push (and that's exactly what it is) the racquet in a straight line towards the target. It's slow, and labor intensive. When you stand to the side of your intended target line, the body needs to work in curves, and arcs. This principles applies to all levels.

5263
10-12-2011, 03:02 AM
very informative, thanks.

one more q. i am always told that volley is a control stroke.
how do you volley in MTM? open stance, rotate and brush across?

None of the modern strokes are stance dependent, but for the volley, (quick answer) you step to the ball, come to the ball leading with the hand from slightly above ball height, once ball is lined up for clean contact, bring the racket face into the ball down and across, shorter motion when ball is fast, longer closer to slice to speed up a slow ball.

Pet
10-12-2011, 04:00 AM
That is the effect of pronation and the impact of the ball on the racquet. In slow motion, the racquet can be seen to recoil a little, even on groundies. For example, groundies slow motion video will sometimes show the racquet face going backwards after impact and even wobbling off the axis. It is the effect, not the intended action of the player.

Ok sureshs, I donīt win nothing with this.

papa
10-12-2011, 05:25 AM
Mercy, I would hope TW realizes what is going on here - maybe they need to be advised.

sureshs
10-12-2011, 07:48 AM
I took a look at Fish-Tomic in China last nite with a focus on linear and rotational motion in CC and DTL shots. My preliminary findings:

Plenty of rotational motion on forehand CC and across the body finish.

Plenty of linear momentum and extension on forehand DTL and less across the body finish - sometimes the finish was more upward and till the forehead.

Rotational motion on the backhand CC and across the body or over the shoulder finishes of the 2 handers.

Plenty of linear momentum and extension on the backhand DTL, with limited across the body finishes and plenty of up to the forehead finishes, and some completely linear and then up finishes (surprising).


I need to investigate more, but so far it is as I suspected - DTL shots have much less rotational component than CC shots and much more linear component, in line with what others have commented from the control angle here. It is not the case that both are hit with the same rotational momentum with just a change in racquet face angle.

Again, it is only two pros, so I may revise my conclusions with more data.

sureshs
10-12-2011, 07:54 AM
And so should you Suresh. I can't even imagine trying to run around the court and shove, or push (and that's exactly what it is) the racquet in a straight line towards the target. It's slow, and labor intensive. When you stand to the side of your intended target line, the body needs to work in curves, and arcs. This principles applies to all levels.

And I don't. What makes you think I believe in closed stances and linear momentum? Heck, I can't even hit closed stance forehands as I always rotate my right foot into the ball. Because I happen to like Papas' serve tips and his analysis of stuff in general? I have nothing to do with him. He is just another guy providing tips. Read my other threads, and you will see that I have struggled for years to hit WITHOUT topspin even when I wanted to hit flat. I even hit open stance one-handed backhands.

Don't get sucked into some false dichotomies created by people with commercial interests. Take what you want from Papas and whatever free stuff from Oscar is there. Liking something about one is not agreeing to everything else being said.

chico9166
10-12-2011, 08:10 AM
And I don't. What makes you think I believe in closed stances and linear momentum? Heck, I can't even hit closed stance forehands as I always rotate my right foot into the ball. Because I happen to like Papas' serve tips and his analysis of stuff in general? I have nothing to do with him. He is just another guy providing tips. Read my other threads, and you will see that I have struggled for years to hit WITHOUT topspin even when I wanted to hit flat. I even hit open stance one-handed backhands.

Don't get sucked into some false dichotomies created by people with commercial interests. Take what you want from Papas and whatever free stuff from Oscar is there. Liking something about one is not agreeing to everything else being said.
I can assure you, I draw my own conclusions based on my own teaching experience and from others I've learned from. If Oscar, (or any other) suggests the racquet should be swung on an arc, and directed with the racquet face/hand, then I agree with him. Okay? Your comments in regard to the necessity to swing the racquet down the line of the shot, I disagree with. No big deal.

sureshs
10-12-2011, 10:12 AM
I can assure you, I draw my own conclusions based on my own teaching experience and from others I've learned from. If Oscar, (or any other) suggests the racquet should be swung on an arc, and directed with the racquet face/hand, then I agree with him. Okay? Your comments in regard to the necessity to swing the racquet down the line of the shot, I disagree with. No big deal.

Can anyone even swing the racquet straight? Have you seen a pendulum swing straight? Of course it is an arc. It is how much forward, how much up, and when - the trajectory of the arc - that reflects the balance between linear and angular momentum.

I prefer to study pro motions - like those of Fish and Tomic - and do not necessarily go by low-level "coaches" and their theories. Not to say that pros don't have some bad habits, but observing them is, IMO, the real deal. When Papas or Oscar don't describe what the pros do, I have to discard them most of the time, except for some cases where the pro approach may be completely unsuitable to the recreational player.

papa
10-12-2011, 10:19 AM
I took a look at Fish-Tomic in China last nite with a focus on linear and rotational motion in CC and DTL shots. My preliminary findings:

Plenty of rotational motion on forehand CC and across the body finish.

Plenty of linear momentum and extension on forehand DTL and less across the body finish - sometimes the finish was more upward and till the forehead.

Rotational motion on the backhand CC and across the body or over the shoulder finishes of the 2 handers.

Plenty of linear momentum and extension on the backhand DTL, with limited across the body finishes and plenty of up to the forehead finishes, and some completely linear and then up finishes (surprising).


I need to investigate more, but so far it is as I suspected - DTL shots have much less rotational component than CC shots and much more linear component, in line with what others have commented from the control angle here. It is not the case that both are hit with the same rotational momentum with just a change in racquet face angle.

Again, it is only two pros, so I may revise my conclusions with more data.

Yes, your correct in your observations and conclusions. Although some might differ, I think you'll find most will concur with your findings although as with most things, this is not a one size fits all situation by any means.

papa
10-12-2011, 10:25 AM
.............................. except for some cases where the pro approach may be completely unsuitable to the recreational player.

Well, your right about this and a perfect example is a pros slice stroke on both sides. They are dealing with much greater rotation and speed than the average recreational player and as a result their slice strokes have to be much steeper.

sureshs
10-12-2011, 10:36 AM
Yes, your correct in your observations and conclusions. Although some might differ, I think you'll find most will concur with your findings although as with most things, this is not a one size fits all situation by any means.

I could even see differences between points. When Fish was well positioned and Tomic was also well-positioned, Fish hit the DTL backhand with a lesser ratio of linear/angular. It was sufficient to get the ball broadly to the forehand side of Tomic. But when Fish was in a do-or-die situation, and there was a narrow space DTL to avoid Tomic, he extended the racquet well-forward on the backhand swing and held it there, even finishing with only a slight across the body finish. He need complete control as well as power to place the DTL backhand in that narrow space and quickly, which means he could not rely on the angular momentum of a CC swing and just use the racquet face angle.

I think people get confused because the pros will almost always finish across the body, whether they extend their swing forward or not. It makes for a consistent style. You need to look at when the racquet starts moving across in a significant way, and the slight nuances of finish - completely around or more upwards - and then the distinctions between DTL and CC energy focusing becomes clear.

For those who cannot fine tune their ratio of linear to angular, it is not a bad idea to try to do each thing reasonably well at first, without spending endless hours trying to mimic the juniors. Not to say they should not slowly try to achieve the smooth ratio transition by more practice.

Limpinhitter
10-12-2011, 11:32 AM
I could even see differences between points. When Fish was well positioned and Tomic was also well-positioned, Fish hit the DTL backhand with a lesser ratio of linear/angular. It was sufficient to get the ball broadly to the forehand side of Tomic. But when Fish was in a do-or-die situation, and there was a narrow space DTL to avoid Tomic, he extended the racquet well-forward on the backhand swing and held it there, even finishing with only a slight across the body finish. He need complete control as well as power to place the DTL backhand in that narrow space and quickly, which means he could not rely on the angular momentum of a CC swing and just use the racquet face angle.

I think people get confused because the pros will almost always finish across the body, whether they extend their swing forward or not. It makes for a consistent style. You need to look at when the racquet starts moving across in a significant way, and the slight nuances of finish - completely around or more upwards - and then the distinctions between DTL and CC energy focusing becomes clear.

For those who cannot fine tune their ratio of linear to angular, it is not a bad idea to try to do each thing reasonably well at first, without spending endless hours trying to mimic the juniors. Not to say they should not slowly try to achieve the smooth ratio transition by more practice.

Hahaha! In other words, you can't get full upper body rotation, and, therefore, you can't finish "up and across," when hitting a 2hb on the run - one of the well known limitations of 2hb's. You're so clever!

sureshs
10-12-2011, 12:00 PM
Hahaha! In other words, you can't get full upper body rotation, and, therefore, you can't finish "up and across," when hitting a 2hb on the run - one of the well known limitations of 2hb's. You're so clever!

Fish was not on the run - in the sense, he was there and not running to the ball which was deep. But Tomic was moving to the right, and Fish had to squeeze in the ball before that. That is how practice fed beginner drills differ from real life, where you cannot count to 5 after the bounce before hitting the ball.

I am not clever - Fish is. And much more cleverer than the people who spin theories without seeing how the pros do it. Like those who kept claiming that hitting the ball short is good - even Nadal with his topspin was not doing it against Murray.

bhupaes
10-12-2011, 02:36 PM
None of the modern strokes are stance dependent, but for the volley, (quick answer) you step to the ball, come to the ball leading with the hand from slightly above ball height, once ball is lined up for clean contact, bring the racket face into the ball down and across, shorter motion when ball is fast, longer closer to slice to speed up a slow ball.

I like this video of Oscar providing volley instruction. I think it's unorthodox, even by today's standards, since he doesn't empasize footwork. But if one follows his instructions, the footwork just seems to happen as it should.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqqNWtKrd9s

Limpinhitter
10-12-2011, 02:59 PM
Fish was not on the run - in the sense, he was there and not running to the ball which was deep. But Tomic was moving to the right, and Fish had to squeeze in the ball before that. That is how practice fed beginner drills differ from real life, where you cannot count to 5 after the bounce before hitting the ball.

I am not clever - Fish is. And much more cleverer than the people who spin theories without seeing how the pros do it. Like those who kept claiming that hitting the ball short is good - even Nadal with his topspin was not doing it against Murray.

I don't think you got the point. If you are stepping across in a closed stance, you can't rotate your upper body enough to make a full finish.

As for counting to 5, as I explained in the Wegner at the Fair thread, I was able to count to 5 between the bounce and the contact, without much difficulty, on most shots during the Djoko/Nadal USO final. So, your premise that it can't be done during hard hitting is just wrong. The only time I couldn't do it was on very deep shots where the ball was taken on the rise shortly after the bounce or with half volleys which were the vast minority of shots during that match.

pushing_wins
10-12-2011, 04:22 PM
u guys still cant hit a forehand ?

sureshs
10-12-2011, 05:28 PM
I don't think you got the point. If you are stepping across in a closed stance, you can't rotate your upper body enough to make a full finish.

As for counting to 5, as I explained in the Wegner at the Fair thread, I was able to count to 5 between the bounce and the contact, without much difficulty, on most shots during the Djoko/Nadal USO final. So, your premise that it can't be done during hard hitting is just wrong. The only time I couldn't do it was on very deep shots where the ball was taken on the rise shortly after the bounce or with half volleys which were the vast minority of shots during that match.

I am sure Djoko and Nadal were not counting to 5, and that is what matters. You can probably count if you have nothing else to do lounging on your seat, or imagine you have counted. Reminds me how Eliza tried to count in 4 languages to find one which fit the theory and that was in her own game!

Also, your counting may have looked at the time from bounce to impact and you were all primed up for counting, but the player has to register the things happening which triggers his count. He has to move to the ball and be ready on the forward swing as the ball enters his strike zone. Those things will reduce the actual perception time, while you will enjoy the total time. That is why spectators go "Federer missed such an easy one" while not understanding what he is facing.

sureshs
10-12-2011, 05:31 PM
I don't think you got the point. If you are stepping across in a closed stance, you can't rotate your upper body enough to make a full finish.


Hmmmm OK. I was talking about the linear momentum and extension he had. Point is he did not rotate the way he did for crosscourt shots and simple change the racquet angle. What he could not do is not my concern.

5263
10-12-2011, 07:43 PM
He has to move to the ball and be ready on the forward swing as the ball enters his strike zone. Those things will reduce the actual perception time, while you will enjoy the total time.

No, it's just the opposite. His role in the process expands his perception time unless he has been overwhelmed.
Funny how these things go as you are rarely what you would think of is "keeping time" with these kinds of things.
Much like effort for landing big jets at busy airports like LA and ATL. Early on, you can be overwhelmed by the speed and busy aspect of it all, but later as you learn the ropes, you see it happen in sort of a slow motion of anticipation of most all that is to come. There doesn't seem to be that level where you are keeping time and keeping up without being overwhelmed.
IMO it is much the same with tennis matches. Big hitters may rush you at first, but you learn what is to be expected and adapt to the speed. Before you know it, things slow down and become nearly routine.

5263
10-12-2011, 07:54 PM
I like this video of Oscar providing volley instruction. I think it's unorthodox, even by today's standards, since he doesn't empasize footwork. But if one follows his instructions, the footwork just seems to happen as it should.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqqNWtKrd9s

Yes, this one is pretty good.

OTMPut
10-12-2011, 08:09 PM
I like this video of Oscar providing volley instruction. I think it's unorthodox, even by today's standards, since he doesn't empasize footwork. But if one follows his instructions, the footwork just seems to happen as it should.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqqNWtKrd9s

a lot similar to what peter burwash talks about in a book. i picked up this book in a roadside secondhand store since it was like super cheap, and amazingly i learnt quite a bit from it (cheap books are some times a lot more valuable than the so called "value stocks"!!).

PB emphasize contact. foot work, follow through, preparation - all of these are secondary. all these are invented only to aid proper contact. for some reason teaching focusses on these as "necessary" items. a lot of guys are so worried about bending legs, winding up and finishing that they fail to time or make proper contact.

intriguingly now i remember some great cricketing talents. guys had atrocious conventional footwork, swings etc but had the sweetest timing of all. these guys were classified as "exceptional talents". for example when a batsmen called "sehwag" in India came into the scene, the guy was heavily criticised for lack of foortwork and all. boy, he could murder the ball with little footwork!

onehandbh
10-12-2011, 08:24 PM
Yes, this one is pretty good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqqNWtKrd9s

This is almost exactly the same way instructor Roger Werksman teaches
the volley. He's a guy who played for UCLA in early 60's and plays/teaches
an old school game. Hand/racquet independent from the body/footwork
and short (stroke) punching volleys. Feet just used to get to the ball and
be balanced if possible.

papa
10-13-2011, 05:09 AM
Well, I don't care for this style of volley and wouldn't have players using it as a good example. It certainly seems very outdated and limited to fairly low tennis. Among other things, the oft arm stays glued to the body, the shot seems extremely stiff/jerky and doesn't seem to have any rhythm. I like most of what he says but his example is not a good one to follow, IMO. Maybe, the conditions were too wet and cold but it doesn't look good.

dozu
10-13-2011, 05:42 AM
Well, I don't care for this style of volley and wouldn't have players using it as a good example. It certainly seems very outdated and limited to fairly low tennis. Among other things, the oft arm stays glued to the body, the shot seems extremely stiff/jerky and doesn't seem to have any rhythm. I like most of what he says but his example is not a good one to follow, IMO. Maybe, the conditions were too wet and cold but it doesn't look good.

I agree.... the pros volley the way they do for a reason.

the hand-stab volleys are biomechanically flawed as any motion initiated by the arm will cause forearm rotation which changes the racket face.

this type of volley maybe ok to block an incoming ball with pace, but is useless in putting away floaters.

now what is the student gonna do? learn a different motion for the put-away volley?

the hand-stab volley also does not gel well with any ground strokes.

pros volley as if they are mini-versions of FH and BH slices. the stabs don't resemble any baseline shots.

arche3
10-13-2011, 05:56 AM
Yeah but your slice bh looks like a stab also but it gives a good ball...

I agree.... the pros volley the way they do for a reason.

the hand-stab volleys are biomechanically flawed as any motion initiated by the arm will cause forearm rotation which changes the racket face.

this type of volley maybe ok to block an incoming ball with pace, but is useless in putting away floaters.

now what is the student gonna do? learn a different motion for the put-away volley?

the hand-stab volley also does not gel well with any ground strokes.

pros volley as if they are mini-versions of FH and BH slices. the stabs don't resemble any baseline shots.

dozu
10-13-2011, 06:12 AM
Yeah but your slice bh looks like a stab also but it gives a good ball...

motion still starts from the ground up though.

arche3
10-13-2011, 06:16 AM
Yeah but neither side are you hitting text book. But I think your bh is very very good just by watching the way the ball leaves the racket. So basically there are a lot of variation of tennis. Whatever works. Especially on volley where it is mostly redirection.

motion still starts from the ground up though.

dozu
10-13-2011, 06:33 AM
Yeah but neither side are you hitting text book. But I think your bh is very very good just by watching the way the ball leaves the racket. So basically there are a lot of variation of tennis. Whatever works. Especially on volley where it is mostly redirection.

thx.... so you aint gonna tie your shoes waiting for my slice to arrive. :twisted:

anywho - so like I said the stab volley is good for the block back (aka redirection)..

but .... more often than not (in singles at least), 75% of the time the volley doesn't feel like a redirection.

the first volley sure is not, as it's hit so far from the net, it feels like a baseline slice drive.

the 2nd volley depends, if the pass comes loaded, yes it feels like a block/redirection, but if the reply comes floaty/semi floaty, it feels like a baseline slice again.

arche3
10-13-2011, 07:08 AM
thx.... so you aint gonna tie your shoes waiting for my slice to arrive. :twisted:



that's on your FH. :) I might have time to go to my car and get a towel and drink.

arche3
10-13-2011, 07:13 AM
so imo your BH is all about the contact and NOT really about any specific technique. It proves that there is something to the efforts of Oscar talking about contacting the ball properly. And then letting the feel dictate the rest of the game with proper mechanics.

thx.... so you aint gonna tie your shoes waiting for my slice to arrive. :twisted:

anywho - so like I said the stab volley is good for the block back (aka redirection)..

but .... more often than not (in singles at least), 75% of the time the volley doesn't feel like a redirection.

the first volley sure is not, as it's hit so far from the net, it feels like a baseline slice drive.

the 2nd volley depends, if the pass comes loaded, yes it feels like a block/redirection, but if the reply comes floaty/semi floaty, it feels like a baseline slice again.

chico9166
10-13-2011, 07:42 AM
I could even see differences between points. When Fish was well positioned and Tomic was also well-positioned, Fish hit the DTL backhand with a lesser ratio of linear/angular. It was sufficient to get the ball broadly to the forehand side of Tomic. But when Fish was in a do-or-die situation, and there was a narrow space DTL to avoid Tomic, he extended the racquet well-forward on the backhand swing and held it there, even finishing with only a slight across the body finish. He need complete control as well as power to place the DTL backhand in that narrow space and quickly, which means he could not rely on the angular momentum of a CC swing and just use the racquet face angle.

I think people get confused because the pros will almost always finish across the body, whether they extend their swing forward or not. It makes for a consistent style. You need to look at when the racquet starts moving across in a significant way, and the slight nuances of finish - completely around or more upwards - and then the distinctions between DTL and CC energy focusing becomes clear.

For those who cannot fine tune their ratio of linear to angular, it is not a bad idea to try to do each thing reasonably well at first, without spending endless hours trying to mimic the juniors. Not to say they should not slowly try to achieve the smooth ratio transition by more practice.
I see now you are drawing conclusions that are simply untrue. The degree to which a player rotates, or extends, has no bearing on the direction of shot. The racquet face at impact dictates that. A player can extend, or not, rotate more, or less, and hit the ball to any quadrant.

To suggest a good player is purposely trying to limit rotation, to hit the ball down the line makes no sense. In fact, an important skill acquisition, is trying to, whenever possible, "get through" a full rotational cycle while deflecting the ball to different quadrants. Of course, that's not always possible.

There is an interesting video on Tennisone this month on this very subject. Whereby down the line and crosscourt clips were superimposed. There was literally, no difference the backswing, swing shape, and follow through on each of these very different directional shots. The only thing of note, was that the racquet head lagged behind the hand at impact a bit for the DTL, and was a bit in front of the hand on the CC. Makes sense.

I'll stick with what i said originally, which was, that a player should swing the racquet in it's natural arc;, and learn to direct the ball with the hand/racquet face. They need not shove the racquet down the target line, or limit rotation to accomplish this shot.

arche3
10-13-2011, 08:18 AM
The only thing of note, was that the racquet head lagged behind the hand at impact a bit for the DTL, and was a bit in front of the hand on the CC. Makes sense.

I'll stick with what i said originally, which was, that a player should swing the racquet in it's natural arc;, and learn to direct the ball with the hand/racquet face. They need not shove the racquet down the target line, or limit rotation to accomplish this shot.

I also think this is another point that suggests that the feel and or timing or a shot is very important. Even though the ball is on your strings very short the intent of feeling for the shot builds into proper timing. On DTL shots your body adjusts the direction subtly by delaying contact of the racket face. The rest of the swing is the same. But you contact the ball a split second later. I do this pretty much on instinct at this point. (Same with the inside out FH. My angle of contact is more pronounced with the butt cap leading much more and wrist more laid back to get the proper direction.) I happen to agree with a lot of Oscars methods because what he says makes you hit a better ball without a lot of technical analysis. It suggests the right visual mentally for you to learn the proper feel of a shot.

I think it is important to see the value of a system where a player is directed to find the right feel of the ball on the racket for a specific stroke. And let the players work towards proper form and technique with the least amount of technical jargon as possible from the coach. Learn the feel and everything else follows.

It is almost impossible to rip a 90mph TS FH with improper form consistently. So the player must feel the right way his body hits the shot and the coach must point out when the player has done it properly and have the player reproduce that feel of the stroke repeatedly until its glued into the muscle memory.

sureshs
10-13-2011, 08:51 AM
I see now you are drawing conclusions that are simply untrue. The degree to which a player rotates, or extends, has no bearing on the direction of shot. The racquet face at impact dictates that. A player can extend, or not, rotate more, or less, and hit the ball to any quadrant.

To suggest a good player is purposely trying to limit rotation, to hit the ball down the line makes no sense. In fact, an important skill acquisition, is trying to, whenever possible, "get through" a full rotational cycle while deflecting the ball to different quadrants. Of course, that's not always possible.

There is an interesting video on Tennisone this month on this very subject. Whereby down the line and crosscourt clips were superimposed. There was literally, no difference the backswing, swing shape, and follow through on each of these very different directional shots. The only thing of note, was that the racquet head lagged behind the hand at impact a bit for the DTL, and was a bit in front of the hand on the CC. Makes sense.

I'll stick with what i said originally, which was, that a player should swing the racquet in it's natural arc;, and learn to direct the ball with the hand/racquet face. They need not shove the racquet down the target line, or limit rotation to accomplish this shot.

I already said that I was looking for these things specifically in only one match so far, and that I will change my opinion with time as I look deeper.

In some shots, the DTL and the CC swings and follow throughs were quite similar, in others, the DTL had much extension towards the target and linear momentum.

I agree that optimally the swings should be identical as the more the variables, the more things can go wrong. I don't know for sure yet whether this happens in reality or achieves the intended effect.

It is interesting that a tennis instruction site has something on this at the time of this discussion.

Limpinhitter
10-13-2011, 09:22 AM
I agree.... the pros volley the way they do for a reason.

the hand-stab volleys are biomechanically flawed as any motion initiated by the arm will cause forearm rotation which changes the racket face.

this type of volley maybe ok to block an incoming ball with pace, but is useless in putting away floaters.

Useless? Not really. Not optimal, but, not useless.

now what is the student gonna do? learn a different motion for the put-away volley?

Yes! It's a different shot requiring a different skill. Do you use the same technique to hit a topspin cross-court forehand that you use to hit an underspin forehand lob? They're both forehands. They're both groundstrokes.

the hand-stab volley also does not gel well with any ground strokes.

pros volley as if they are mini-versions of FH and BH slices. the stabs don't resemble any baseline shots.

Wrong! Volleys are no more groundstrokes than they are serves or smashes. They require a different skill. If you want to be able to execute all of the shots, then you have to learn the skills needed to execute all of the shots.

dozu
10-13-2011, 10:29 AM
Useless? Not really. Not optimal, but, not useless.



Yes! It's a different shot requiring a different skill. Do you use the same technique to hit a topspin cross-court forehand that you use to hit an underspin forehand lob? They're both forehands. They're both groundstrokes.



Wrong! Volleys are no more groundstrokes than they are serves or smashes. They require a different skill. If you want to be able to execute all of the shots, then you have to learn the skills needed to execute all of the shots.

ok, not optimal... semantics imo

the idea is to keep it simple, if one shot is a mini version of another, it's easier to learn and there will be less maintenance.

volleys ARE mini slices - just look at Fed.

5263
10-13-2011, 10:37 AM
ok, not optimal... semantics imo

the idea is to keep it simple, if one shot is a mini version of another, it's easier to learn and there will be less maintenance.

volleys ARE mini slices - just look at Fed.

yep, and good stab volleys are often mini volleys.

Playnice
10-13-2011, 10:56 AM
I agree.... the pros volley the way they do for a reason.

the hand-stab volleys are biomechanically flawed as any motion initiated by the arm will cause forearm rotation which changes the racket face.

this type of volley maybe ok to block an incoming ball with pace, but is useless in putting away floaters.

now what is the student gonna do? learn a different motion for the put-away volley?

the hand-stab volley also does not gel well with any ground strokes.

pros volley as if they are mini-versions of FH and BH slices. the stabs don't resemble any baseline shots.

I disagree with Dozu and Papa that the MTM volley is not correct. In my exerience it is a superior stroke for players at all levels. In the MTM video posted above the discussion is footwork and the volley. This video does not demonstrate the details of the racket position for the volley. The position of the hand and the racket is illustrated in detail in Tennis Into The Future Volume 4; in that video the position of the hand, the racket and the mechanics of the abbreviated stroke are outlined in full. It is not a "hand-stab" motion, but more of a coming across with the racket face in front of the body, showing the strings to the opponent. There is actually a slight open-to-closed angle on the racket, not closed-to-open, forward or scooping motion. The racket stays behind the hand. As always, it is all about the ball and the hand. On the FH the elbow is drawn in front of the body toward the midline, and on the BH the elbow moves outward (as if shoving someone standing at your right side out of the way), and the shoulder blades squeeze together (as in the 1HBH). The tip about pointing the butt of the racket at the incoming ball on the BH volley is in both the old video and the new one. This is a key concept. Pointing the butt at a high volley is especially helpful to players who struggle with that seemingly difficult shot.

This is the way the pros volley and is super effective, not only in blocking but in imparting tremendous force and pace on the volley. I have seen remarkable improvement in players at all levels using this volley, and it makes the volley an easy stroke for beginners to execute from the start (as young as 6 years in my personal experience). These stroke mechanics together with the de-emphasis on the feet and using the body to fall or lean in the direction of the ball first THEN step across if necessary give the player much greater reach and produce great results.

dozu
10-13-2011, 11:03 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqqNWtKrd9s

I watched this 1 more time - actually a few volleys the white shirt hit well, he WAS using the feet to add energy.

the few where he stood flat footed and just used the hand, those were TERRIBLE volleys.

what am I missing here?

dozu
10-13-2011, 11:07 AM
I think the white shirt was saying 1 thing and doing another.

and he was mis-interpreting the 'conventional teaching' by drawing a triangle on the ground.

the idea is to use the feet to initiate weight shift that drags the arm/racket unit to the ball.... but in fast exchanges, the foot opposite of the hitting side can be just barely off the ground by half an inch, and that is enough to initiate the weight shift.

there is no absolute requirement that the lead foot has to get to the top of the triangle.

just watch what he is doing.... he was doing that in the good volleys he hit... and those flat footed, 'pure hand' volleys are popped up 'nothing' balls.

Limpinhitter
10-13-2011, 11:13 AM
ok, not optimal... semantics imo

the idea is to keep it simple, if one shot is a mini version of another, it's easier to learn and there will be less maintenance.

volleys ARE mini slices - just look at Fed.

Ah! Now I see the source of your confusion. You are looking at Fed's defective volley technique as a model. Makes perfect sense now. And, as much as I agree that simplicity enhances execution, you can't turn a chicken in to a duck. A volley is not a slice, nor a serve, nor a smash, nor a lob. It's a volley with its own technique that has to be learned apart from every other shot in the game.

dozu
10-13-2011, 11:16 AM
Ah! Now I see the source of your confusion. You are looking at Fed's defective volley technique as a model. Makes perfect sense now. And, as much as I agree that simplicity enhances execution, you can't turn a chicken in to a duck. A volley is not a slice, nor a serve, nor a smash, nor a lob. It's a volley with its own technique that has to be learned apart from every other shot in the game.

ding ding ding ! we have a winner.

papa
10-13-2011, 11:20 AM
I disagree with Dozu and Papa that the MTM volley is not correct. In my exerience it is a superior stroke for players at all levels. In the MTM video posted above the discussion is footwork and the volley. This video does not demonstrate the details of the racket position for the volley. The position of the hand and the racket is illustrated in detail in Tennis Into The Future Volume 4; in that video the position of the hand, the racket and the mechanics of the abbreviated stroke are outlined in full. It is not a "hand-stab" motion, but more of a coming across with the racket face in front of the body, showing the strings to the opponent. There is actually a slight open-to-closed angle on the racket, not closed-to-open, forward or scooping motion. The racket stays behind the hand. As always, it is all about the ball and the hand. On the FH the elbow is drawn in front of the body toward the midline, and on the BH the elbow moves outward (as if shoving someone standing at your right side out of the way), and the shoulder blades squeeze together (as in the 1HBH). The tip about pointing the butt of the racket at the incoming ball on the BH volley is in both the old video and the new one. This is a key concept. Pointing the butt at a high volley is especially helpful to players who struggle with that seemingly difficult shot.

This is the way the pros volley and is super effective, not only in blocking but in imparting tremendous force and pace on the volley. I have seen remarkable improvement in players at all levels using this volley, and it makes the volley an easy stroke for beginners to execute from the start (as young as 6 years in my personal experience). These stroke mechanics together with the de-emphasis on the feet and using the body to fall or lean in the direction of the ball first THEN step across if necessary give the player much greater reach and produce great results.

I was commenting on the volley stroke that was presented as being a good example of how to volley - that volley is NOT VERY GOOD by any standard and certainly not one you would see in very high level tennis anywhere. I already said that the words were ok but the demo was not. If the demonstration was for footwork, why doesn't it show your feet?

5263
10-13-2011, 11:22 AM
ding ding ding ! we have a winner.

are you agreeing Fed's volleys is defective?

dozu
10-13-2011, 11:26 AM
are you agreeing Fed's volleys is defective?

no... I think the source of Limp's confusion is that he thinks Fed's volleys are defective.

5263
10-13-2011, 11:38 AM
I was commenting on the volley stroke that was presented as being a good example of how to volley - that volley is NOT VERY GOOD by any standard and certainly not one you would see in very high level tennis anywhere. I already said that the words were ok but the demo was not. If the demonstration was for footwork, why doesn't it show your feet?

I didn't take it that anyone was saying Oscar's volley was wrong or bad, but figured this was more of a discussion on what can be good or bad.

Oscar teaches to volley much like you would catch. When you catch, you lead with your eyes and hands, thus the good term, "hand/eye coordination". People considered to have good hand/eye coord, are folks who's body can get them in position to be stable with eyes to operate hands.
As a receiver in football, you locate the ball and go to get it with the intent to get your hands to it. You don't think about footwork, but just do what it takes to get your hands in good position to take control of the ball. Footwork happens when the intent is right. Also good receivers/players nearly always steady their head when their hands get close to the ball. With steady head, the eyes can perceive the path of the ball for the hands to intercept that path in a meaningful technique.

There are players that need some help at times with footwork necessary to get the hands where they need to be and players that need help with getting their head steady at the important time. They are not usually the ones that distinguish themselves as being athletic, but there are all kinds of exceptions to any rule.

onehandbh
10-13-2011, 11:43 AM
Compared to most of the current pros, Fed's volleys are good and effective,
but, IMO, his backhand volley technique could be improved. At times, he tends
to hit too much slice and either pops it up too much or doesn't hit it flat
enough to make the volley penetrate more. Edberg probably had one of the
better BH volleys.

dozu
10-13-2011, 11:49 AM
Compared to most of the current pros, Fed's volleys are good and effective,
but, IMO, his backhand volley technique could be improved. At times, he tends
to hit too much slice and either pops it up too much or doesn't hit it flat
enough to make the volley penetrate more. Edberg probably had one of the
better BH volleys.

fair assessment.

and i think the reason is Fed's bh slice has a much bigger 'cut' element than Edberg's bh slice... also anatomically, BH slices are suppose to have more high to low than the FH volley.

combine these 2 elements together, Fed's bh volley does give the slight impression that he doesn't hit thru enough... but that is all made up by the fact that he can swing more aggressively into the ball due to the total racket face control he has from the cutty motion.

16-slam goat with 6 wimbies.. that's good enough to model my volleys after.

Limpinhitter
10-13-2011, 12:09 PM
no... I think the source of Limp's confusion is that he thinks Fed's volleys are defective.

Hahaha! I guess I've been spoiled by mediocre volleyers like Laver, Rosewall, Emerson, Roche and Newcombe!

Limpinhitter
10-13-2011, 12:11 PM
Compared to most of the current pros, Fed's volleys are good and effective,
but, IMO, his backhand volley technique could be improved. At times, he tends
to hit too much slice and either pops it up too much or doesn't hit it flat
enough to make the volley penetrate more. Edberg probably had one of the
better BH volleys.

Fed swings and chops at the ball too much on both sides. If his volleys, and more importantly, his net game, were "good and effective" he would attack the net much more often than he does, especially on grass.

PS: IMO, the best volley technique and net game of the past 5-6 years belongs to Nalbandian. He has better volley technique than Federer, and he is more comfortable at the net and knows how to cover the net and cut off angles better than Federer. His movement isn't nearly as good as Feds, but, at net, it doesn't have to be because he knows how to cover the net with the greatest efficiency.

dozu
10-13-2011, 12:12 PM
Hahaha! I guess I've been spoiled by mediocre volleyers like Laver, Rosewall, Emerson, Roche and Newcombe!

this argument can be categorized as a fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

Limpinhitter
10-13-2011, 12:12 PM
this argument can be categorized as a fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

Only by those who don't know what great volleying looks like.

Limpinhitter
10-13-2011, 12:14 PM
For those who wouldn't know, this is an example of great volleying and great net playing, especially by Roche, but also the blistering power of Laver's volleys in the second half of the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHaN2h21ANs

dozu
10-13-2011, 12:32 PM
that's all good limp.

but nobody plays like them anymore..

like I said - Fed's volleys are part of his complete package, and he has arguably the best bh slice in the tour.. he slices this way, hence he volleys this way.

again - a volley is a mini slice.

Limpinhitter
10-13-2011, 12:42 PM
that's all good limp.

but nobody plays like them anymore..

like I said - Fed's volleys are part of his complete package, and he has arguably the best bh slice in the tour.. he slices this way, hence he volleys this way.

again - a volley is a mini slice.

You are implying false premises. No one plays like that because the racquets are so big that groundstrokes are too powerful to attack as a primary game plan. Which is why most pros today are not great volleyers and not great net players. Djokovic is a glaring example of that.

In addition, Federer's volley technique is unique to him, and not representative of what most pros do today, or any other day. I agree that Fed's volleys are like mini slices (more accurately, chops). So what? Because Fed does it, that makes it right? That's a slippery slope, brother. Rather, that's the reason his volley technique is not a good model to follow.

As for Fed's backhand, I've written about it extensively. Fed doesn't really hit a slice at all, he hits a chop, and a one dimensional shot, the indescriminate use of which causes him more problems than it solves.

PS: I forgot to add that, IMO, modern racquets haven't changed serve or volley technique the way they have groundstroke technique.

Logan71
10-13-2011, 12:44 PM
I can't confess to knowing much about Wegner and his metholodgy,but I have read Papas regulary.

I have to say I have mailed Mark on several occasions and found him open and friendly.I think his site is superb,whether you agree with his teachings or not.

The volley section is amazing and has improved mine by miles.I didn't have a serve to speak of before reading his site so again major thumbs ups.

Although his advice on groundies is the problem for me.It is all dependent on following his footwork pattern.I struggled to get back before moving forward again.Sometimes there just isn't the time to move at an angle backwards and then forwards between shots.

I prefer to let natural instinct take over when moving between shots.However you can train yourself to move forward before striking the ball.Easier on a backhand where on a forehand a more extreme grip lends itself to open stances.That's why pro's going across court use more rotational energy.

Papas's whole argument about groundies lies in the position of your body in relation to your intended target before hitting.On a DTL forehand you would be facing more side ways to go DTL,on a cross court shot you would be facing the net more,all on the front foot,same shot,same position,just a different target,it's all in understanding the geometry.

It's your body changing in relation to that geometry,he is simplifying your strokes by getting you to hit the exact same shot every time but understanding how turned your stance needs to be in realation to the target.

I think that is doable but it would depend on how you could intergrate that footwork pattern which seems far to mechanical to me.

dozu
10-13-2011, 12:48 PM
You are implying false premises. No one plays like that because the racquets are so big that groundstrokes are too powerful to attack as a primary game plan. Which is why most pros today are not great volleyers and not great net players. Djokovic is a glaring example of that.

In addition, Federer's volley technique is unique to him, and not representative of what most pros do today, or any other day.

As for Fed's backhand, I've written about it extensively. Fed doesn't really hit a slice at all, he hits a chop, and a one dimensional shot, the indescriminate use of which causes him more problems than it solves.

I look at it differently - I'd say the past champions are not great baseliners or all court players because they are 1 dimentional in getting to the net.

Fed technique only looks unique in that he throws the wrist down in his slice, but the principles of racket face control is the same.

slice / chop - again, just semantics.... causes 'more problems'? I think the results speak for themselves.

Limpinhitter
10-13-2011, 12:51 PM
I look at it differently - I'd say the past champions are not great baseliners or all court players.

Fed technique only looks unique in that he throws the wrist down in his slice, but the principles of racket face control is the same.

slice / chop - again, just semantics.... causes 'more problems'? I think the results speak for themselves.

Another implied false premise. Fed is not an all court player. Further, you can't compare baseliners with 66si 16 oz wood racquets to baseliners with 100si 12 oz racquets. Give players from different eras the same equipment, and you will see that they are very similar in ability and approach.

dozu
10-13-2011, 12:55 PM
Further, you can't compare baseliners with 66si 16 oz wood racquets to baseliners with 100si 12 oz racquets. Give players from different eras the same equipment, and you will see that they are very similar in ability and approach.

do you see my point yet?

you can't compare baseline games, just as you can't compare volleys.

therefore it's pointless to bring up how great volleyers the past generations are, just as pointless to say how modern baseliners will blow the oldies off the court.

with the 100si racket, slices are supposed to be hit differently, and therefore the mini-slices (aka volleys) are supposed to be hit differently.

pushing_wins
10-13-2011, 01:02 PM
this argument can be categorized as a fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

please be more specific

dozu
10-13-2011, 01:04 PM
please be more specific

Irrelevant conclusion
Irrelevant conclusion: diverts attention away from a fact in dispute rather than addressing it directly.

dozu
10-13-2011, 01:06 PM
Limp and I can argue till the cow comes home... I'd just say that you can't argue against success.

to say that a 16-slam goat has defective technique, that is clearly contradicting the facts and is another classic fallacy.

papa
10-13-2011, 01:18 PM
I didn't take it that anyone was saying Oscar's volley was wrong or bad, but figured this was more of a discussion on what can be good or bad.

Oscar teaches to volley much like you would catch. When you catch, you lead with your eyes and hands, thus the good term, "hand/eye coordination". People considered to have good hand/eye coord, are folks who's body can get them in position to be stable with eyes to operate hands.
As a receiver in football, you locate the ball and go to get it with the intent to get your hands to it. You don't think about footwork, but just do what it takes to get your hands in good position to take control of the ball. Footwork happens when the intent is right. Also good receivers/players nearly always steady their head when their hands get close to the ball. With steady head, the eyes can perceive the path of the ball for the hands to intercept that path in a meaningful technique.

There are players that need some help at times with footwork necessary to get the hands where they need to be and players that need help with getting their head steady at the important time. They are not usually the ones that distinguish themselves as being athletic, but there are all kinds of exceptions to any rule.

OK, fair enough.

Eye/hand coordination probably has different meaning in various sports but they all involve using the eyes and hands to work together - eye/leg coordination or eye/hand/leg coordination is also important. I would certainly not characterize those that need help with keeping their heads steady at times as being non-athletic. Head movement is a major issue, although probably slight to most, even at the highest level of sports that I'm familiar with.

Limpinhitter
10-13-2011, 01:42 PM
do you see my point yet?

you can't compare baseline games, just as you can't compare volleys.

therefore it's pointless to bring up how great volleyers the past generations are, just as pointless to say how modern baseliners will blow the oldies off the court.

with the 100si racket, slices are supposed to be hit differently, and therefore the mini-slices (aka volleys) are supposed to be hit differently.

Of course I see your point. And, I'm telling you, once again, that it is incorrect. As I've already stated (although you cut it out of your quote of my post without indicating such), modern equipment has had its largest impact on groundstroke technique, but, virtually no impact on serve or volley technique. Federer may be the greatest player ever. But, it isn't because of his volley technique or his backhand slice. The fact that Federer does something doesn't make it the optimal way to do it, certainly not the way he chops his volleys and his backhand.

papa
10-13-2011, 01:42 PM
I already said that I was looking for these things specifically in only one match so far, and that I will change my opinion with time as I look deeper.

In some shots, the DTL and the CC swings and follow throughs were quite similar, in others, the DTL had much extension towards the target and linear momentum.

I agree that optimally the swings should be identical as the more the variables, the more things can go wrong. I don't know for sure yet whether this happens in reality or achieves the intended effect.

It is interesting that a tennis instruction site has something on this at the time of this discussion.

Well, we have to look at the "stance" used here for both the DTL and CC shots. If they are both hit from an open stance, I would expect similarities but often the DTL shot is executed from more of a neutral stance than open and there is much less rotation involved.

Limpinhitter
10-13-2011, 01:42 PM
Limp and I can argue till the cow comes home... I'd just say that you can't argue against success.

to say that a 16-slam goat has defective technique, that is clearly contradicting the facts and is another classic fallacy.

Once again! Federer has succeeded in spite of his volley and backhand technique, not because of it!

papa
10-13-2011, 01:45 PM
yep, and good stab volleys are often mini volleys.

Well, to me they aren't. I see them more of a "last ditch" effort to react to the ball - all you trying to do is get the racquet in front of the ball to stay in the point.

papa
10-13-2011, 01:48 PM
Only by those who don't know what great volleying looks like.

good stuff.

dozu
10-13-2011, 01:52 PM
Once again! Federer has succeeded in spite of his volley and backhand technique, not because of it!

again.. not "in spite" nor 'because of'.

think 'total package'.

also - it's not a chop... it may look like a chop to you, perhaps you have never hit a slice this way and don't know how the shot feels like.

wrist throws down, but I can assure you that Fed is not thinking 'chop', he is still thinking 'drive'..

I can hit slices both the 'chop' way or the 'drive' way, but they are essentially the SAME shot !

Limpinhitter
10-13-2011, 01:55 PM
again.. not "in spite" nor 'because of'.

think 'total package'.

also - it's not a chop... it may look like a chop to you, perhaps you have never hit a slice this way and don't know how the shot feels like.

wrist throws down, but I can assure you that Fed is not thinking 'chop', he is still thinking 'drive'..

I can hit slices both the 'chop' way or the 'drive' way, but they are essentially the SAME shot !

There are three reasons that Federer has won 16 majors:

(1) Forehand
(2) Footwork/court coverage
(3) Serve

In that order. The rest of his game is good, even very good. But, not great and not necessarily advisable to imitate!

gregor.b
10-13-2011, 02:02 PM
Once again! Federer has succeeded in spite of his volley and backhand technique, not because of it!

Got to agree with this one.Interesting thread too guys.Still,everything is subjective and some might think part of Fed's success is because he gives a consistently different look at the b/h and consequently,by the time the opponent gets grooved it's too late.Fed has an unassailable lead and he is full of confidence.His volleys are so-so but he is as capable as anyone on the tour(a couple of exceptions possibly,but not in the top 10).

dozu
10-13-2011, 02:33 PM
Limp you are still living in yesterday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=II7Wo0y6fC8

the fundamentals are basically the same among all the top pros. so in your eyes they are all hitting "chops".

if you keep an open mind, I will explain why this shot has evolved to the way it is.

we all know in tennis it's risky to 'change directions'. this applies not only to the 'directionals', but also in stroke production... i.e. it's risky to flatten out a loopy ball, to loop a flat ball etc.

today's game, crazy spin, balls hop UP after bounce.. the exaggerated high to low swing path, matches up with the incoming trajectory better, and therefore gives better margin for error.

in the old days, all flat balls, therefore flat swing path on slices... matter of fact, take any of your past greats and let them bring the flattish slice to face today's spin game, their slices will BREAK DOWN.

there is a reason pros hit the way they do today, and the truth lies in the success, the trophies and prize money and their livelihood.

to keep going back a few decades and say how the slices/volleys were great back then, is simply ignoring the facts today, and is showing a lack of understanding of the game today.

I, as the king of the community court, have to face all kinds of hacks, some hit flat, some hit crazy spin.... instinctively I'd use the flattish slice against flat hitters, and the 'chop' slice against incoming topspin... it all boils down to winning with the maximum margin for error.

but the essence of the shot is the same, regardless of the seemingly different swing path.

Limpinhitter
10-13-2011, 02:59 PM
Limp you are still living in yesterday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=II7Wo0y6fC8

the fundamentals are basically the same among all the top pros. so in your eyes they are all hitting "chops".

if you keep an open mind, I will explain why this shot has evolved to the way it is.

we all know in tennis it's risky to 'change directions'. this applies not only to the 'directionals', but also in stroke production... i.e. it's risky to flatten out a loopy ball, to loop a flat ball etc.

today's game, crazy spin, balls hop UP after bounce.. the exaggerated high to low swing path, matches up with the incoming trajectory better, and therefore gives better margin for error.

in the old days, all flat balls, therefore flat swing path on slices... matter of fact, take any of your past greats and let them bring the flattish slice to face today's spin game, their slices will BREAK DOWN.

there is a reason pros hit the way they do today, and the truth lies in the success, the trophies and prize money and their livelihood.

to keep going back a few decades and say how the slices/volleys were great back then, is simply ignoring the facts today, and is showing a lack of understanding of the game today.

I, as the king of the community court, have to face all kinds of hacks, some hit flat, some hit crazy spin.... instinctively I'd use the flattish slice against flat hitters, and the 'chop' slice against incoming topspin... it all boils down to winning with the maximum margin for error.

but the essence of the shot is the same, regardless of the seemingly different swing path.

Sorry Dozu, but, I live very much in the here and now! I also have the benefit of having lived, and played in a bygone era, and I've been privileged to have seen almost all of the greatest players of the past 40+ years play live!

Most, but not all, of the pros today are chopping, not slicing their backhands. I don't know with certainty why they're doing this, but, I suspect it is because most pros hit 2hb's and have never learned to hit a proper slice which they use strictly as a defensive shot when they are too stretched out to set up properly to hit 2hb. And, so they should. IMO, a 2hb is generally a superior option to a drive slice except on balls taken above shoulder height, and when a player is too stretched out to hit a good 2hb.

Further, I'm very familiar with, and support, modern tennis methods. But, the fact remains that it's really only groundstroke technique that has been affected by modern equipment. Moreover, I know for a fact that, if you know how to hit one, a traditional slice backhand is very effective against hard hit, high bouncing, heavy topspin groundstrokes. If you set up properly, it's actually pretty easy and effective to use the incoming pace against the opponent. In fact, players who use SW grips and severe upward swing paths have difficulty making clean contact against hard, penetrating, low bouncing, backhand slices.

dozu
10-13-2011, 03:44 PM
notice all the guys in that video are 1hbh players... it's got nothing to do with players growing up hitting 2hbhs!

game has evolved... that is why they slice the way they do today.. it's dog eat dog out there, only the fittest can survive, both physically and technically.

the only modern player who has a classic style slice is Gonzo.. but is he is an exception, not the rule.

now, you could argue that the classic style volleys are still effective in today's game... but like I said, it's easier for players to use a mini-slice to volley, without having to learn a different stroke.

maybe it's ok for you to use a classic style slice against the topspin balls YOU face, but neither you nor I have faced ATP balls... and apparently the tour pros have decided that the way THEY slice give them the best results.

dozu
10-13-2011, 03:59 PM
Limp, I am not sure it was you... but somebody posted a few times on 'how to hit a high bh slice', with a few decade old clip of Billie Jean King...

I can't find the the clip now, but that stroke, against today's spin game, will BREAK DOWN for sure, because there is a flip of the racket face into the ball.

but if you look at the modern players, Fed, Haas, Youzh, etc, there racket face basically look in the same direction from the top of the back swing to the end of the follow thru, and that is key to survive against today's pace and spin.

combine this constant racket face requirement, with the high to low swing path to match the incoming ball trajectory, you get todays slice motion which is high to low and cross, with the racket face finish below the hand.

Playnice
10-13-2011, 04:01 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqqNWtKrd9s

I watched this 1 more time - actually a few volleys the white shirt hit well, he WAS using the feet to add energy.

the few where he stood flat footed and just used the hand, those were TERRIBLE volleys.

what am I missing here?

What you are missing is that the guy in the white shirt is playing devil's advocate, deliberately demonstrating poor technique. This video was made 20 years ago, and the most recent MTM video on the volley illustrates more up-to-date data in depth. The "classic" MTM videos were produced 20 years after much of the material was developed by Oscar Wegner, making the fundamentals of the methodology 40+ years old, yet they are still relevant. Many of the concepts continue to be considered unorthodox while others have been generally adopted. Some are still hotly debated, as this forum often demonstrates.

Cross-stepping into the volley is still being taught today; there are examples of it on YouTube, and I see instructors teaching it on court. Many of my students have been taught by other coaches to step across very deliberately on every volley; I was originally taught this way myself by a USPTA Pro 1. It wasn't until I gave up the emphasis on the feet and refocused my attention on my hand and the ball that my own volleys improved dramatically. For many players learning MTM, just a small technical adjustment or re-emphasis is all that is needed to improve the stroke; for others a more substantial modification is suggested.

dozu
10-13-2011, 04:11 PM
What you are missing is that the guy in the white shirt is playing devil's advocate, deliberately demonstrating poor technique. This video was made 20 years ago, and the most recent MTM video on the volley illustrates more up-to-date data in depth. The "classic" MTM videos were produced 20 years after much of the material was developed by Oscar Wegner, making the fundamentals of the methodology 40+ years old, yet they are still relevant. Many of the concepts continue to be considered unorthodox while others have been generally adopted. Some are still hotly debated, as this forum often demonstrates.

Cross-stepping into the volley is still being taught today; there are examples of it on YouTube, and I see instructors teaching it on court. Many of my students have been taught by other coaches to step across very deliberately on every volley; I was originally taught this way myself by a USPTA Pro 1. It wasn't until I gave up the emphasis on the feet and refocused my attention on my hand and the ball that my own volleys improved dramatically. For many players learning MTM, just a small technical adjustment or re-emphasis is all that is needed to improve the stroke; for others a more substantial modification is suggested.

lol - the white shirt, when moving the feet properly, was hitting better volleys than oscar did.

although I do agree that stepping across deliberately isn't a good idea, as that seems to go AWAY from the true purpose of the foot work.

the focus obviously should be on the hand, as that is involved in the impact after all.

It's just the way that they were explaining it, as if the hand initiates the motion.

the focus can be on the hand, but the energy comes from the ground.

papa
10-13-2011, 04:18 PM
...................

Most, but not all, of the pros today are chopping, not slicing their backhands. I don't know with certainty why they're doing this, but, I suspect it is because most pros hit 2hb's and have never learned to hit a proper slice which they use strictly as a defensive shot when they are too stretched out to set up properly to hit 2hb. .................................

They do this because of the tremendous amount of spin (rpm's) on incoming shots that they are dealing with - trying to neutralize. Most recreational players don't face these types of shots so the stroke can go out more to the target instead of downward. This is one of the areas, there are others, where the recreational player should NOT copy the pros.

dozu
10-13-2011, 04:26 PM
agreed.... if I had to teach an old dog how to slice so they can play in social doubles, then the classic flattish drive-ish slice is still better.

however for juniors, who have to face other juniors hitting with APD and RPM blast, the modern slice is the way to go.

Playnice
10-13-2011, 04:33 PM
lol - the white shirt, when moving the feet properly, was hitting better volleys than oscar did.

Please explain what you mean by "moving the feet properly".

dozu
10-13-2011, 04:40 PM
Please explain what you mean by "moving the feet properly".

when he uses the lead foot to initiate the weight shift.

5263
10-13-2011, 05:48 PM
agreed.... if I had to teach an old dog how to slice so they can play in social doubles, then the classic flattish drive-ish slice is still better.

however for juniors, who have to face other juniors hitting with APD and RPM blast, the modern slice is the way to go.

You guys are discussing this like they are 2 dif kind of volleys. IMO changing the plane angle is just an adjustment to what you are facing; not 2 different volleys. dozu, I think you see it this way as well for the most part.

dozu
10-13-2011, 06:06 PM
You guys are discussing this like they are 2 dif kind of volleys. IMO changing the plane angle is just an adjustment to what you are facing; not 2 different volleys. dozu, I think you see it this way as well for the most part.

if we compare the modern players vs. the old time greats, there are some visible differences. a tell-tale sign is that the modern guys finish with the racket face below the hand, while the classic style usually finish with the racket face above.

but I agree that in essence although the 2 motions look different, and the modern one looking 'choppy' to some, they are basically the same thing.... the slice is basically an open-face push to the target, and the high to low motion is just an anatomic requirement to keep the hitting unit stable... and the modern motion has more high to low to match the incoming ball trajectory, or explained another way, to diffuse the incoming spin.

so in that sense, considering the volley being a mini slice, motions can be different, but they are basically the same thing.

Limpinhitter
10-13-2011, 06:27 PM
Limp, I am not sure it was you... but somebody posted a few times on 'how to hit a high bh slice', with a few decade old clip of Billie Jean King...

I can't find the the clip now, but that stroke, against today's spin game, will BREAK DOWN for sure, because there is a flip of the racket face into the ball.

but if you look at the modern players, Fed, Haas, Youzh, etc, there racket face basically look in the same direction from the top of the back swing to the end of the follow thru, and that is key to survive against today's pace and spin.

combine this constant racket face requirement, with the high to low swing path to match the incoming ball trajectory, you get todays slice motion which is high to low and cross, with the racket face finish below the hand.

That was me, and I am 100% certain that a traditional slice backhand would be MORE successful today than the chop that is so prevalent, but, not as successful as a 2hb, except on balls taken above the shoulder, or on the stretch.

Limpinhitter
10-13-2011, 06:30 PM
agreed.... if I had to teach an old dog how to slice so they can play in social doubles, then the classic flattish drive-ish slice is still better.

however for juniors, who have to face other juniors hitting with APD and RPM blast, the modern slice is the way to go.

The modern slice is a chop and is less effective than a true slice!

dozu
10-13-2011, 07:05 PM
I am 100% certain

you can be certain all you want Limp - honestly this would put a huge dent in your credibility, because basically you are saying that you know better than the touring pros.

Now we need Sennoc back, and you guys can debate.

I quit.

Limpinhitter
10-13-2011, 09:13 PM
you can be certain all you want Limp - honestly this would put a huge dent in your credibility, because basically you are saying that you know better than the touring pros.

Now we need Sennoc back, and you guys can debate.

I quit.

It wouldn't be a dent in my credibility to others who have seen them all play.

Having said that, I'm not giving up on you yet Dozu. Let's see if this helps. Do you think that pros today hit groundstrokes with more pace and spin than pros of the 60's and 70's hit there serves? Do you think that traditional slice backhands of the 60's and 70's "broke down" under the weight of the serves they were faced with? I think you know the answer.

Further, I don't think any of the pros backhand slices today would hold up as well against those serves as the more traditional slices did. Of course, it wouldn't actually happen because most pros today return with 2hb's. But, IMO, even though the ground game is superior overall than it was, pro slices today are of a lesser calibre than traditional slices of the past.

NLBwell
10-13-2011, 10:26 PM
Very few people slice well today because the shot was rarely taught for a number of years when "modern" tennis was all the rage and only 2-handed topspin backhands were taught. Federer and a few others brought slice back to the game, just as volleying is starting to occur more often in the last couple of years. In a number of years the new players coming up will have learned to hit decent slices (off of any type of ball) if they are taught well.

papa
10-14-2011, 04:43 AM
You guys are discussing this like they are 2 dif kind of volleys. IMO changing the plane angle is just an adjustment to what you are facing; not 2 different volleys. dozu, I think you see it this way as well for the most part.

Very different shots and not just the plane angle.

papa
10-14-2011, 04:47 AM
That was me, and I am 100% certain that a traditional slice backhand would be MORE successful today than the chop that is so prevalent, but, not as successful as a 2hb, except on balls taken above the shoulder, or on the stretch.

At the top levels of play, the traditional slice backhand doesn't work well - the ball is spinning too much.

papa
10-14-2011, 04:59 AM
Very few people slice well today because the shot was rarely taught for a number of years when "modern" tennis was all the rage and only 2-handed topspin backhands were taught. Federer and a few others brought slice back to the game, just as volleying is starting to occur more often in the last couple of years. In a number of years the new players coming up will have learned to hit decent slices (off of any type of ball) if they are taught well.

Well, I think this a correct statement but it had a lot to do with the increased speed the game is played at these days.

Whether the volley makes a meaningful come-back will be interesting to follow - I have my doubts. Its effective as a "surprise" type element but using it on a regular basis IMO won't work - you get passed too easily.

dozu
10-14-2011, 05:23 AM
Limp I am quitting..

you have better slice than Fed, Sennoc has better volley than Rafa.

you guys can battle.

Limpinhitter
10-14-2011, 05:30 AM
Limp I am quitting..

you have better slice than Fed, Sennoc has better volley than Rafa.

you guys can battle.

That's a non sequitur. It's not about me, or Sennoc. I don't have to have a better slice than Federer to know that there were numerous all time great players who had a better slice than Federer. I can't speak for Sennoc.

Limpinhitter
10-14-2011, 05:35 AM
At the top levels of play, the traditional slice backhand doesn't work well - the ball is spinning too much.

I don't agree. In fact, it's just the opposite. As I previously posted in respose to Dozu:



* * *

Do you think that pros today hit groundstrokes with more pace and spin than pros of the 60's and 70's hit there serves? Do you think that traditional slice backhands of the 60's and 70's "broke down" under the weight of the serves they were faced with? I think you know the answer.

Further, I don't think any of the pros backhand slices today would hold up as well against those serves as the more traditional slices did. Of course, it wouldn't actually happen because most pros today return with 2hb's. But, IMO, even though the ground game is superior overall than it was, pro slices today are of a lesser calibre than traditional slices of the past.

To conclude, a traditional slice backhand is a much more useful, more versatile shot than the modern chop prevalent today. It's not as effective as a 2hb where the player can set up for a 2hb. But, for other than drop shots or defensive shots where a player is out of position and trying to buy time, a traditional slice will hold up better than a chop in any era.

dozu
10-14-2011, 05:55 AM
Limp - in the past your postings have always come across as a bit dodgy to me.... but I have given the benefit of the doubt.... until yesterday when all doubts were removed.

It's beyond ridiculous to suggest that today's pros have inferior strokes when there are more 'superior' ones that can make them more money.

other than the 40 years of watching tennis as you claimed, I seriously doubt your playing/coaching ability, as this sort of comments can only come from someone like Sennoc, who think he knows it all, but can't past the 1st round of a rec tournament.

a reality check is needed here, before heading further down the road of becoming a laughing stock.

papa
10-14-2011, 06:12 AM
I don't agree. In fact, it's just the opposite. As I previously posted in respose to Dozu:



To conclude, a traditional slice backhand is a much more useful, more versatile shot than the modern chop prevalent today. It's not as effective as a 2hb where the player can set up for a 2hb. But, for other than drop shots or defensive shots where a player is out of position and trying to buy time, a traditional slice will hold up better than a chop in any era.

Well, the basic problem is dealing with the spin of the incoming ball. If we were dealing with ball with moderate spin, then the traditional slice is adequate but in today's game, the rpm's are much higher than they were years ago. If the spin isn't neutralized, the ball just pops up way too high.

A good example of this would be when you see a slice rally (both players using slice), and yes, it occasionally happens. You'll see the players are able to flatten out the swing in these situations because the ball doesn't have the topspin rpm's.

As dosu has mentioned here, today's players use whatever strokes are necessary to be effective - they aren't trying to re-invent the wheel. Sometimes, following what the pros do, or what they did years ago, is misunderstood by recreational players.

dozu
10-14-2011, 06:18 AM
papa is such a nice guy :)

good point on the swing path during slice rallies.

the other point, is that in the ages of 65si rackets, players can NOT chop even if they wanted to... they'd be shanking too many balls.... that's why BJK was forced to flip that racket face into a high bh slice.

it's not a superior stroke, it was an INFERIOR one out of necessity!

Martina N - the woman goat, once commented that Fed throws his wrist out on the slice because he can with today's racket.

also Limp - I bet $5 that you have no college/pro level competition experience in anything, and therefore do not realize the HUGE gap between pros and armchair hacks like you and me.... anybody who has played college/pro sports should have an idea of that gap, and know that we hacks have zero rights in criticizing the pros.

arche3
10-14-2011, 08:37 AM
fwiw... imo. Dozu and Papa are right on about the way Fed and the current pros hit a slice.

Also, consider Fed and the current pros were and are coached by coaches (and former players) from the era of the old school standard slice. Why are they still hitting the chop slice? There can be only one reasonable explanation. The chop is the best way to deal with the pace and spin of the inside out FH.

Rubens
10-14-2011, 09:46 AM
Guys,
I am sorry to interrupt the playful banter here, but I just wanted to point you to a video that might be relevant to the topic of this thread (Wegner vs Pappas, linear vs rotational, remember?). There is a part in the following video, in which Wegner talks about a linear component in the strokes of Federer and Nadal. (The specific part starts at 0:49):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYYc-bn5vz4

So, maybe we should be careful not to see Wegner's approach as necessarily AGAINST any form of linear movement. It's just that, overall, he does emphasize more on the angular/rotational finish, as he believes it is more crucial to the stroke in modern tennis. So, if you absolutely want to combine linear and angular, you can think of your swing as more linear before contact, and more rotational (pull across) after contact.

Sorry about the interruption.

sureshs
10-14-2011, 09:49 AM
Guys,
I am sorry to interrupt the playful banter here, but I just wanted to point you to a video that might be relevant to the topic of this thread (Wegner vs Pappas, linear vs rotational, remember?). There is a part in the following video, in which Wegner talks about a linear component in the strokes of Federer and Nadal. (The specific part starts at 0:49):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYYc-bn5vz4

So, maybe we should be careful not to see Wegner's approach as necessarily AGAINST any form of linear movement. It's just that, overall, he does emphasize more on the angular/rotational finish, as he believes it is more crucial to the stroke in modern tennis. So, if you absolutely want to combine linear and angular, you can think of your swing as more linear before contact, and more rotational (pull across) after contact.

Sorry about the interruption.

Yes, one should be careful to separate what Oscar says from what others want to say on his behalf. This has always been an issue here.

5263
10-14-2011, 11:35 AM
Very different shots and not just the plane angle.

Of course I don't agree at this point and dozo has confirmed he sees them the same except plane angle as well, but...

what do you see as the differences?

papa
10-14-2011, 12:50 PM
Of course I don't agree at this point and dozo has confirmed he sees them the same except plane angle as well, but...

what do you see as the differences?

Assuming your referring to the difference between a pro slice and what is advisable to a recreational player.

The downward movement of the pro shot is much more severe because they are dealing with significant spin on the incoming ball. Generally, the stroke finishes down and there is very little, if any, movement into the flight of the outgoing ball. On a slice to slice rally, the path of the racquet is quite different and does flatten out somewhat.

Recreational players should not follow their example because they are dealing with much less spin - maybe 1/4 to a 1/2 as much and in many cases, even less than that. So the recreational/club player can flatten out the stroke without the ball popping up. In other words, the end of the racquet traces/draws a smiley face - down and then up as it moves through the stroke.

bhupaes
10-14-2011, 01:57 PM
[...]

The downward movement of the pro shot is much more severe because they are dealing with significant spin on the incoming ball. Generally, the stroke finishes down and there is very little, if any, movement into the flight of the outgoing ball. On a slice to slice rally, the path of the racquet is quite different and does flatten out somewhat.

[...]

Forgive me for "slicing" off the portions I am not responding to.

I think your spin argument is not quite right, because slicing will only reenforce the spin, if we assume that the incoming ball is a topspin shot. The appropriate counter spin should also be topspin, should it not, if one wants to counter the incoming spin?

IMO, the type of stroke used depends on the pace of the incoming ball. If the incoming pace is too high, the linear classical slice will be harder to hit and more unreliable - probability of UEs will be too high. The severe across motion of the chop is enough to impart the pace needed, and it will also add a heck of a lot of spin for more control.

When the incoming pace is lower, as in a series of slice backhand exchanges, the classical stroke would work much better. Pros likely use both depending on the incoming ball.

One more thing to consider is the modern racquet and its inherently higher power. The lightning fast chops of pros with their modern racquets probably impart enough pace, and any more pace would simply be counter productive and cause UEs. Again, just IMO.

Edit: Just want to point out there's really no big disagreement with you, I'm just splitting some hairs since it's a slow Friday afternoon... :)

Ash_Smith
10-14-2011, 03:15 PM
Would anybody care to summarize this thread for me, just landed back from 8 days in Spain and I'm not sure I can be bothered to read through another 9 pages of The World vs Oscar Wenger vs The World again! Was there anything that might be considered useful contained within - or should I just move along quietly minding my own business!

chees

dozu
10-14-2011, 03:36 PM
Would anybody care to summarize this thread for me, just landed back from 8 days in Spain and I'm not sure I can be bothered to read through another 9 pages of The World vs Oscar Wenger vs The World again! Was there anything that might be considered useful contained within - or should I just move along quietly minding my own business!

chees

Ash are you still in euroland? we need you to locate Sennoc.

arche3
10-14-2011, 03:52 PM
Ash are you still in euroland? we need you to locate Sennoc.

lol! I second this!:)

summary for Ash...

papa is technical,
Oscar isn't.

we moved on to chop slice (federer) vs. Laver slice (old school).
which one is better and why its chop now. Limp hitter seems to think its because the pros suck at slice now. others (pap, dozu) believe its because the chop slice works better against the higher pace and rpms of the new game.

papa
10-14-2011, 03:52 PM
Forgive me for "slicing" off the portions I am not responding to.

I think your spin argument is not quite right, because slicing will only reenforce the spin, if we assume that the incoming ball is a topspin shot. The appropriate counter spin should also be topspin, should it not, if one wants to counter the incoming spin?

IMO, the type of stroke used depends on the pace of the incoming ball. If the incoming pace is too high, the linear classical slice will be harder to hit and more unreliable - probability of UEs will be too high. The severe across motion of the chop is enough to impart the pace needed, and it will also add a heck of a lot of spin for more control.

When the incoming pace is lower, as in a series of slice backhand exchanges, the classical stroke would work much better. Pros likely use both depending on the incoming ball.

One more thing to consider is the modern racquet and its inherently higher power. The lightning fast chops of pros with their modern racquets probably impart enough pace, and any more pace would simply be counter productive and cause UEs. Again, just IMO.

Edit: Just want to point out there's really no big disagreement with you, I'm just splitting some hairs since it's a slow Friday afternoon... :)

Yes, slice actually increases/maintains whatever topspin there is on an incoming ball whereas topspin stroke reverses the spin. Using the term/word "neutralize" was not a good choice on my part - sorry. Keep in mind that the ball now is heading in a different direction.

arche3
10-14-2011, 03:56 PM
Yes, slice actually increases/maintains whatever topspin there is on an incoming ball whereas topspin stroke reverses the spin. Using the term/word "neutralize" was not a good choice on my part - sorry. Keep in mind that the ball now is heading in a different direction.

so in essense when FEd chops its actually having a higher spin (slice) component than the (slice stroke extending into the ball) as it heads back towards the opponent.

pushing_wins
10-14-2011, 04:32 PM
Here are two good examples of tennis philosophy, totally opposite.

For you, who is more efective, or it doesnīt matter only the person counts.

what is the main difference?

5263
10-14-2011, 05:18 PM
and I'm not sure I can be bothered to read through another 9 pages of The World vs Oscar Wenger vs The World again! Was there anything that might be considered useful contained within - or should I just move along quietly minding my own business!

chees

I think if you can't be bothered, then that may be a good route for you; don't be bothered.
cheers

papa
10-14-2011, 05:25 PM
so in essense when FEd chops its actually having a higher spin (slice) component than the (slice stroke extending into the ball) as it heads back towards the opponent.

Yes, that would be my opinion keeping in mind that extreme slice (chop) really reduces the pace of the outgoing shot (compared to a more flat stroke) but adds to the spin that's on already on the ball as its hit. When you encounter a slice rally, the stroke is more extended - flatter & the ball is generally driven deeper.

I'm wandering out of my comfortable mode on the science end of this subject and into an area where the physics guys should take over.

dozu
10-14-2011, 05:43 PM
http://www.tenniscruz.com/content/view/27/9/

this article has been out there for a while... nobody seen it?

both actions are thing of beauty, but I like Fed's more because it just oozes with centrifugal force.... I can feel the tautness in my arm just by looking at him doing it.

papa
10-14-2011, 07:13 PM
http://www.tenniscruz.com/content/view/27/9/

this article has been out there for a while... nobody seen it?

both actions are thing of beauty, but I like Fed's more because it just oozes with centrifugal force.... I can feel the tautness in my arm just by looking at him doing it.

dozu, haven't seen it before but it looks rather interesting, thanks - bookmarked the page and hope I'll be able to get back to it.
Wish I had more time to spend going over this stuff because I really enjoy studying the sport. However, I get involved in so many things that seem to take most of my time - most are tennis related and I enjoy them but ....................

Ash_Smith
10-15-2011, 03:19 AM
I think if you can't be bothered, then that may be a good route for you; don't be bothered.
cheers

That's probably true - but amongst the *****ing,backbiting and paraphrasing there might just be a useful nugget of information!

As for Sennoc - was he not in Greece (or am I thinking of someone else?!). If he is Greece based then things have not been easy over there for a month or so, riots, political instability and the financial crisis around the Euro cannot be making things easy.

Cheers

papa
10-15-2011, 05:27 AM
That's probably true - but amongst the *****ing,backbiting and paraphrasing there might just be a useful nugget of information!

As for Sennoc - was he not in Greece (or am I thinking of someone else?!). If he is Greece based then things have not been easy over there for a month or so, riots, political instability and the financial crisis around the Euro cannot be making things easy.

Cheers

Stick around Ash, always enjoy your comments and views of the game.

tennis_balla
10-15-2011, 05:36 AM
Wasn't Sennoc Polish? Was he the guy with the supposed same perfect strokes like Federer? Boasting how he hits a technically perfect forehand yet loses 1st round in tournaments?

Limpinhitter
10-15-2011, 11:31 AM
Limp - in the past your postings have always come across as a bit dodgy to me.... but I have given the benefit of the doubt.... until yesterday when all doubts were removed.

It's beyond ridiculous to suggest that today's pros have inferior strokes when there are more 'superior' ones that can make them more money.

other than the 40 years of watching tennis as you claimed, I seriously doubt your playing/coaching ability, as this sort of comments can only come from someone like Sennoc, who think he knows it all, but can't past the 1st round of a rec tournament.

a reality check is needed here, before heading further down the road of becoming a laughing stock.

Oh well! You can lead a horse to water . . . . Dozu, most of what you write is "dodgy." I don't pay too much attention to it. You are within your rights to think whatever you like. But, if you say something that I know to be false, and I think it's important to correct your premises for the benefit of the other readers, then I'm going to do so. Laugh all you like. Sometimes the laugher is the laughing stock.

dozu
10-15-2011, 12:22 PM
Limp - how about you post a video of your slices and volleys, and let people decide for themselves who they wonna rather believe on this topic.

please don't tell me you don't need to be able to hit one to have an understanding of it.

Limpinhitter
10-15-2011, 02:59 PM
Well, the basic problem is dealing with the spin of the incoming ball. If we were dealing with ball with moderate spin, then the traditional slice is adequate but in today's game, the rpm's are much higher than they were years ago. If the spin isn't neutralized, the ball just pops up way too high.

A good example of this would be when you see a slice rally (both players using slice), and yes, it occasionally happens. You'll see the players are able to flatten out the swing in these situations because the ball doesn't have the topspin rpm's.

As dosu has mentioned here, today's players use whatever strokes are necessary to be effective - they aren't trying to re-invent the wheel. Sometimes, following what the pros do, or what they did years ago, is misunderstood by recreational players.

What's the point of responding to your point when you ignore my response and repeat the same post. As I've already explained to you and Dozu, groundstrokes today don't have the pace and spin that serves of the 60's and 70's had.

tennis_balla
10-15-2011, 03:04 PM
What's the point of responding to your point when you ignore my response and repeat the same post. As I've already explained to you and Dozu, groundstrokes today don't have the pace and spin that serves of the 60's and 70's had.

Just to clear things up, you are saying groundstrokes in the 60's and 70's had more pace and spin? or had less pace and spin back in the 60's and 70's?

Limpinhitter
10-15-2011, 03:05 PM
Limp - how about you post a video of your slices and volleys, and let people decide for themselves who they wonna rather believe on this topic.

please don't tell me you don't need to be able to hit one to have an understanding of it.

Yet another non sequitur, even more ridiculous than the last! My slices (and your slices) are irrelevant, Dozu. We're talking about world class championship level tennis.

Limpinhitter
10-15-2011, 03:06 PM
Just to clear things up, you are saying groundstrokes in the 60's and 70's had more pace and spin? or had less pace and spin back in the 60's and 70's?

What? The answer is in the very post you responded to, and a few more posts as well.

PS:

What's the point of responding to your point when you ignore my response and repeat the same post. As I've already explained to you and Dozu, groundstrokes today don't have the pace and spin than serves of the 60's and 70's had.

tennis_balla
10-15-2011, 03:13 PM
BAAAAHHHH!! Nevermind, I misread your post. Thought you were losing your mind, turns out I was losing mine :mrgreen:

tennis_balla
10-15-2011, 03:17 PM
However, pace no but spin could be debated....

Limpinhitter
10-15-2011, 03:33 PM
However, pace no but spin could be debated....

Not debatable with me. Sure, Nadal hits forehands with more topspin than some of the pros serves with wood racquets. But, I've seen them both, and IMO, on average, serves with wood racquets had more pace and spin than groundies do today.

Having said that, one distinction from wood serves and modern groundies is that modern groundies generally land deeper in the court than the service box (although modern groundies land shorter on average than wood racquet groundies). Nevertheless, the notion that a chop, with its lower margin for error, will hold up better than a more traditional slice backhand, just doesn't fly. I've proven it to myself, at my own level of play. I have no doubt that the same would hold true at the world class level.

tennis_balla
10-15-2011, 03:44 PM
I see, so because it didn't work for you at your level means it won't work for someone else at the pro level. Makes perfect sense...

Limpinhitter
10-15-2011, 03:52 PM
I see, so because it didn't work for you at your level means it won't work for someone else at the pro level. Makes perfect sense...

You're starting to worry me, Balla. Are you drunk again? I said it DID work for me at my level.

papa
10-15-2011, 04:01 PM
What's the point of responding to your point when you ignore my response and repeat the same post. As I've already explained to you and Dozu, groundstrokes today don't have the pace and spin that serves of the 60's and 70's had.

Well, I don't care if you respond to my posts - that's ok. Don't quite get the relevance of your statement - so what if groundstrokes today don't have the pace and spin of serves 40 or 50 years ago. Why not provide a current reliable reference to support your statements? Do you actually know what the speed and spin of the serves in that era were and how they compare to current groundstrokes?

papa
10-15-2011, 04:05 PM
Not debatable with me. Sure, Nadal hits forehands with more topspin than some of the pros serves with wood racquets. But, I've seen them both, and IMO, on average, serves with wood racquets had more pace and spin than groundies do today.

Having said that, one distinction from wood serves and modern groundies is that modern groundies generally land deeper in the court than the service box (although modern groundies land shorter on average than wood racquet groundies). Nevertheless, the notion that a chop, with its lower margin for error, will hold up better than a more traditional slice backhand, just doesn't fly. I've proven it to myself, at my own level of play. I have no doubt that the same would hold true at the world class level.

Lampinhitter, are these your personnel observations or are they supported by hard data? To me there is a big difference but maybe it doesn't matter to most.

dozu
10-15-2011, 04:11 PM
Limp you are self contradicting... first you said your own level was not relevant, then you state that some stroke works at your level.

anyway - on a forum like this, our own levels are plenty relevant, in the sense of how much face value others can take from your arguments.

by the way, the 'irrelevancy' argument is very common among those who choose to hide... and they usually hide for the same reason - they are not good players.

every time a debate going in circles like this, I feel like dejavu all over again, because the entity on the other end could very well be a family cat who has learned how to type, but has never touched a tennis racket.

Limpinhitter
10-15-2011, 04:13 PM
Lampinhitter, are these your personnel observations or are they supported by hard data? To me there is a big difference but maybe it doesn't matter to most.

My personal observations. If you want "hard data" you'll have to find it. Although, I doubt any exists.

dozu
10-15-2011, 04:14 PM
My personal observations. If you want "hard data" you'll have to find it. Although, I doubt any exists.

typical cop out. the proof of burden, by default, is on the party who made the claim, not on the party who made the challenge.

Limpinhitter
10-15-2011, 04:18 PM
Limp you are self contradicting... first you said your own level was not relevant, then you state that some stroke works at your level.

anyway - on a forum like this, our own levels are plenty relevant, in the sense of how much face value others can take from your arguments.

by the way, the 'irrelevancy' argument is very common among those who choose to hide... and they usually hide for the same reason - they are not good players.

The "irrelevancy" argument? Hahaha! I use the relevancy argument when it is apropos. If the majority of your posts merited a respons, that would be quite often. In any event, I've supported my arguments with rationality, and I think it's pretty obvious to any experienced players that I have a clue what I'm talking about.

Limpinhitter
10-15-2011, 04:19 PM
typical cop out. the proof of burden, by default, is on the party who made the claim, not on the party who made the challenge.

Apparently, you don't know what proof is!

dozu
10-15-2011, 04:20 PM
stop dancing around.

usually - these debates end up going circular, full of diversions and cop-outs, are usually coming from a faceless party.... the same thing happened a few months ago between me and a few other faceless guys.

nothing new - people choose to hide behind the anonimity of the internet, do because they have something to hide.

Limpinhitter
10-15-2011, 04:25 PM
stop dancing around.

Dozu, you don't know what proof is, or you're being disingenuous!

dozu
10-15-2011, 04:27 PM
Dozu, you don't know what proof is, or you're being disingenuous!

another faceless, baseless claim.

Limpinhitter
10-15-2011, 04:32 PM
another faceless, baseless claim.

Dozu, have you ever heard the expression "when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging?"

dozu
10-15-2011, 04:34 PM
pretty obvious to any experienced players that I have a clue what I'm talking about.

so far - I have seen no 'experienced players' here supporting your stuff yet.

your arguments have been so far, baseless... no hard data, not supported by your own playing level, nada.

Limpinhitter
10-15-2011, 05:28 PM
so far - I have seen no 'experienced players' here supporting your stuff yet.

your arguments have been so far, baseless... no hard data, not supported by your own playing level, nada.

Hahahahaha! I guess you're not an experienced player, Dozu, because you actually do support some of my "stuff," and I yours. I think you need to take a step back and look around. You're still digging that hole.

onehandbh
10-15-2011, 05:42 PM
The way most current pros hit their backhand slices is actually not new
at all. It's similar to the table tennis backhand chop:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgUTnMh0FV8

The backhand volley has also become similar to it.
IMO, one of the weaknesses of this is that on volleys at or above the net,
you don't have to hit as much slice and a flatter volley will be more
effective as a means of redirecting the energy of the incoming groundstroke.

Limpinhitter
10-15-2011, 05:45 PM
The way most current pros hit their backhand slices is actually not new
at all. It's similar to the table tennis backhand chop:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgUTnMh0FV8

The backhand volley has also become similar to it.
IMO, one of the weaknesses of this is that on volleys at or above the net,
you don't have to hit as much slice and a flatter volley will be more
effective as a means of redirecting the energy of the incoming groundstroke.

Cool video. It does look a bit like Fed's ball flight, doesn't it! The chop has been around in tennis for a long time too. Tilden used to mix chop and topspin forehands to confuse opponents. And it still has it's place (drop shots, sharp angles, change up). I just think it has too little margin for error to be a bread and butter shot.

PS: Only a Brit would call a ping pong paddle a "bat." Haha!

dozu
10-15-2011, 06:20 PM
it's interesting that yesterday i wanted to post a pingpong clip just to make the point of countering the incoming spin, as the pp ball has even higher rpm than today's topspin tennis ball... but i thought why bother to keep trying to convince some people who don't even know what the shot feels like.

actually years ago I myself had a flatter swing path... but if one has felt that shot himself, he'd not make the comments Limp has made.

the chop motion looks like it's taking energy away from producing the forward momentum... but, the centrifugal force from this chop down motion makes the racket face super stable and therefore player can aggressively swing into the ball.

especially on the bh side, FYB also has some explanation why the bh side is more high to low than the fh side.

imo this constant face motion (racket face always looking at target) is far superior than the old way where player flip the face into contact (prolly due to neccesity with the 65si racket).

froggie you have a face, so that makes it worthwhile.... but I am not gonna waste my breath trying to convince some faceless people who apparently has no idea how the shot is hit and how it feels.

http://www.tenniscruz.com/content/view/27/9/

in this article the author also point out the 'flipping' aspect of the old motion.

again, for hacks to criticize the pros who have to make a living doing this stuff... I mean so far I have seen 2 guys here doing it... Sennoc and Limp.

guys can see in my own play, lots of slices, some of them have severe high to low chop... but even the shot may look chopping, 75% of my mental focus is actually on pushing the 'swing plane', aka the windshield, FORWARD... only 25% is on the high to low... that's the only way to produce penetration on the shot.

look at another guy who's making a living out of this shot... Dolgopolov... his has even more 'chop' than fed, and that shot is making money for him.

so apparently these guys are all using 'inferior' techniques.

onehandbh
10-15-2011, 06:44 PM
This guy might have the best backhand slice in the world:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYuxz6uPjLM

If i was 40 feet tall, and there was a giant trough/ditch at the baseline, I
would consider playing an all slice game.

dozu
10-15-2011, 06:57 PM
yeah I like to watch Joo play also.

speaking of Sennoc, back then I was questioning his profession, on the basis that any1 who has held a highly specialized professional job, (even without college/pro sports experience) can realize the huge gap between the pros and the hacks.

low and behold, Sennoc was a 'scientific journalist' (whatever that means), who apparently had nothing published.

the same challenge can be made to Limp... as only people who do not have a specialized professional background, can possibly have the perception that they actually know more than the pros.

Off The Wall
10-15-2011, 08:07 PM
guys can see in my own play, lots of slices, some of them have severe high to low chop... but even the shot may look chopping, 75% of my mental focus is actually on pushing the 'swing plane', aka the windshield, FORWARD... only 25% is on the high to low... that's the only way to produce penetration on the shot.



IMO, Fed produces his slice to make his opponent have to step into the court to hit a ball that's ankle high.

dominikk1985
10-16-2011, 02:01 AM
I like papas site (especially the FH description) but what are his tennis credentials? Isn't he more of an "internet guru" rather then an elite tennis coach?

sureshs
10-16-2011, 07:24 AM
This guy might have the best backhand slice in the world:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYuxz6uPjLM

If i was 40 feet tall, and there was a giant trough/ditch at the baseline, I
would consider playing an all slice game.

The Doctor does do that, yes.

Limpinhitter
10-16-2011, 08:54 AM
it's interesting that yesterday i wanted to post a pingpong clip just to make the point of countering the incoming spin, as the pp ball has even higher rpm than today's topspin tennis ball... but i thought why bother to keep trying to convince some people who don't even know what the shot feels like.

actually years ago I myself had a flatter swing path... but if one has felt that shot himself, he'd not make the comments Limp has made.

the chop motion looks like it's taking energy away from producing the forward momentum... but, the centrifugal force from this chop down motion makes the racket face super stable and therefore player can aggressively swing into the ball.

especially on the bh side, FYB also has some explanation why the bh side is more high to low than the fh side.

imo this constant face motion (racket face always looking at target) is far superior than the old way where player flip the face into contact (prolly due to neccesity with the 65si racket).

froggie you have a face, so that makes it worthwhile.... but I am not gonna waste my breath trying to convince some faceless people who apparently has no idea how the shot is hit and how it feels.

http://www.tenniscruz.com/content/view/27/9/

in this article the author also point out the 'flipping' aspect of the old motion.

again, for hacks to criticize the pros who have to make a living doing this stuff... I mean so far I have seen 2 guys here doing it... Sennoc and Limp.

guys can see in my own play, lots of slices, some of them have severe high to low chop... but even the shot may look chopping, 75% of my mental focus is actually on pushing the 'swing plane', aka the windshield, FORWARD... only 25% is on the high to low... that's the only way to produce penetration on the shot.

look at another guy who's making a living out of this shot... Dolgopolov... his has even more 'chop' than fed, and that shot is making money for him.

so apparently these guys are all using 'inferior' techniques.

Sorry Dozu, that's a false analogy. The spin of a ping pong ball has a huge effect on how the ball comes off of a soft rubber paddle. The spin of a tennis ball has little if any such effect coming off of a tennis racquet.

Further, in addition to your childish pejoratives, you continue to rely on unfounded, false premises to support your arguments. You have no idea what I know, or how I hit the ball, other than what I've told you. And, I have never said that I haven't hit a chop or know what it feels like. I've been hitting both slices and chops, on both sides, probably since before you were born. Now, don't you feel foolish?

Ash_Smith
10-16-2011, 09:07 AM
The spin of a tennis ball has little if any such effect coming off of a tennis racquet.


Well that's not true! It may not be as pronounced as in elite level table tennis (I have never hit with elite level tt players so I wouldn't know) but it certainly has an effect in elite level tennis.

Cheers

sureshs
10-16-2011, 09:18 AM
Sorry Dozu, that's a false analogy. The spin of a ping pong ball has a huge effect on how the ball comes off of a soft rubber paddle. The spin of a tennis ball has little if any such effect coming off of a tennis racquet.


That is true to a large extent. In table tennis, there is an inherent trade-off between offense and defense. An offensive rubber is more susceptible to incoming spin than a defensive rubber. In the extreme, long pips or completely defensive rubbers deaden the incoming spin, but also produce less spin on their own.

In tennis, the incoming spin can be squashed by power and a heavy frame. That is why players like James Blake can smother spin when they are on their game. The trajectory and bounce due to the spin cause more problems. But the downward push of a topspin ball on string contact is also real, and that is why the racquet face angle is so important. Get it wrong, and the ball can go down towards the net. But it is nowhere as uncontrollable as in table tennis.

dozu
10-16-2011, 09:21 AM
Well that's not true! It may not be as pronounced as in elite level table tennis (I have never hit with elite level tt players so I wouldn't know) but it certainly has an effect in elite level tennis.

Cheers

debates like this is only possible, when absurd stuff keeps coming from a faceless party.

like I said, Limp is an old hack who plays social doubles at the 3.5 level at the highest... his statement can only come from a low level player who has never felt a ball loaded with spin, either topspin or underspin.

if his true playing levels are revealed, nobody will give a rats *** about what he says.

Limpinhitter
10-16-2011, 09:21 AM
Well that's not true! It may not be as pronounced as in elite level table tennis (I have never hit with elite level tt players so I wouldn't know) but it certainly has an effect in elite level tennis.

Cheers

I just want to make sure that we are talking apples and apples. IMO, the effect of an opponents spin on the direction that the ball comes off of your racquet is insignificant compared to the effect the spin of a ping pong ball has on the direction it comes off of a foam paddle.

Applying this premise to the backhand slice, I dispute the argument that a chop is more effective in handling modern topspin groundies than a traditional slice in any event, certainly not because heavy topspin would otherwise cause the ball coming off of the racquet to fly over the baseline the way heavy topspin in ping pong would cause a ball not struck with a chop to fly over the table.

dozu
10-16-2011, 09:24 AM
Limp - you are in the 'you don't know what you don't know' trap.

you have never faced balls loaded with spin, because 3.0-3.5 players don't produce that kind of balls.

Limpinhitter
10-16-2011, 09:26 AM
debates like this is only possible, when absurd stuff keeps coming from a faceless party.

like I said, Limp is an old hack who plays social doubles at the 3.5 level at the highest... his statement can only come from a low level player who has never felt a ball loaded with spin, either topspin or underspin.

if his true playing levels are revealed, nobody will give a rats *** about what he says.

Bahahahaha! Your anger and frustration are causing the false premises and pejoratives flow from you like a waterfall, Dozu. In fact, I don't play socially, and I rarely play doubles. I don't like doubles, and I admit, I'm not that good at it.

Having said that, explain why a 3.5 level player like you would characterize someone else as a 3.5 level player as a pejoriative. That's really funny, Doze!

Limpinhitter
10-16-2011, 09:28 AM
Limp - you are in the 'you don't know what you don't know' trap.

you have never faced balls loaded with spin, because 3.0-3.5 players don't produce that kind of balls.

Hahaha! Actually, I have. But, you being the park champ, have not. Watching Federer on youtube is no substitute for actually facing a big, topspin forehand.

dozu
10-16-2011, 09:32 AM
you are starting to get it Limp... so basically I am saying that my understanding of the game is at the 'community park king' level... and yours is at the 'community park slave' level.

Limpinhitter
10-16-2011, 10:16 AM
you are starting to get it Limp... so basically I am saying that my understanding of the game is at the 'community park king' level... and yours is at the 'community park slave' level.

Hahaha! If it makes you feel better to think that, then I'm happy for you.