PDA

View Full Version : Just Discovered New Forehand at 48!


vitas77remembered
10-10-2011, 10:46 AM
Having grown up on the traditional closed stance, flat forehand, I just could not get my head around the new forehand. Well went out this weekend hitting with my boy and tried out that extreme western forehand grip and all I can say is WOW!! It was like what an idiot I've been for not looking at it (like I felt in the 80's staying with my Snauwaert/Vitas while everyone went Prince). It is so much easier to generate spin while still hitting out, ball just dives in. Great for hitting aggressively.

rkelley
10-10-2011, 11:18 AM
Try a semi-western too. You can get about as much spin, though you'll have to pronate a bit more, and it's a bit easier to hit through the ball when you want to and to handle low balls.

sunof tennis
10-10-2011, 02:02 PM
I was 50 or so, when I completely changed my forehand from a continental grip to a semi-western or extreme eastern. Took me a while to get the hang of it, but now my forehand is a weapon.
I would agree that semi-western should be a little easier to get use to and also will make it easier to hit the low balls.

Frank Silbermann
10-10-2011, 02:17 PM
Having grown up on the traditional closed stance, flat forehand, I just could not get my head around the new forehand. Well went out this weekend hitting with my boy and tried out that extreme western forehand grip and all I can say is WOW!! It was like what an idiot I've been for not looking at it (like I felt in the 80's staying with my Snauwaert/Vitas while everyone went Prince). It is so much easier to generate spin while still hitting out, ball just dives in. Great for hitting aggressively.Traditionally, the most prestigious tournament in America is the U.S. Nationals at Forest Hills. The grass is fast, patchy, and yields low bounces. Because the grass is fast, you need a grip that will maximize your lateral reach. Because the bounces are low, you need a grip that makes it easy to open up the racket face and scoop up low balls. Because you get lots of bad bounces, you need to rush the net at every opportunity. Since you're going to be at the net at least 50% of the time, you can maximize your comfort and proficiency there by using your net grips when hitting ground strokes.

There are other styles and techniques that make it easier to play on concrete, but these will hold you back if you ever get good and want to join the prestigious grass court amateur circuit and be given expense money. (Don Budge had a semi-western grip as a junior champion, but he didn't win the big grass court championships and become the greatest player of all time until he corrected his grip.)

But those who limited their ambition to being good only on synthetic surfaces and clay could get _cheap_ topspin by using a "frying-pan grip" (instead of the proper "shake-hands" grip). With such a grip, it's almost impossible NOT to put topspin on the ball. Likewise with the baseball-style backhand. Tennis is a much more challenging game, however, if you play it correctly.

But nowadays, everyone and his brother is taking these shortcuts -- including everyone on the pro tour -- now that we have rackets that compensate for bad technique (while allowing you to benefit from its advantages), so there's no reason for you to feel guilty about taking the easy way out.

rkelley
10-10-2011, 02:27 PM
Traditionally, the most prestigious tournament in America is the U.S. Nationals at Forest Hills. The grass is fast, patchy, and yields low bounces. Because the grass is fast, you need a grip that will maximize your lateral reach. Because the bounces are low, you need a grip that makes it easy to open up the racket face and scoop up low balls. Because you get lots of bad bounces, you need to rush the net at every opportunity. Since you're going to be at the net at least 50% of the time, you can maximize your comfort and proficiency there by using your net grips when hitting ground strokes.

There are other styles and techniques that make it easier to play on concrete, but these will hold you back if you ever get good and want to join the prestigious grass court amateur circuit and be given expense money. (Don Budge had a semi-western grip as a junior champion, but he didn't win the big grass court championships and become the greatest player of all time until he corrected his grip.)

But those who limited their ambition to being good only on synthetic surfaces and clay could get _cheap_ topspin by using a "frying-pan grip" (instead of the proper "shake-hands" grip). With such a grip, it's almost impossible NOT to put topspin on the ball. Likewise with the baseball-style backhand. Tennis is a much more challenging game, however, if you play it correctly.

But nowadays, everyone and his brother is taking these shortcuts -- including everyone on the pro tour -- now that we have rackets that compensate for bad technique (while allowing you to benefit from its advantages), so there's no reason for you to feel guilty about taking the easy way out.

I'm dense, really. So I'll ask, with the greatest respect, is this a serious post or is it just for giggles? Seriously, I'm not trying to be a wise guy.

maggmaster
10-10-2011, 03:10 PM
This guy has some weird idea that the modern game is "wrong" and should be curbed by restricting technology. Personally I think he is wrong but each man is entitled to an opinion.

Timbo's hopeless slice
10-10-2011, 03:22 PM
Yeah, he is a bit odd. The irony is it is perfectly possible to play a modern forehand with an old wooden racquet, works just fine...

dozu
10-10-2011, 03:35 PM
what's up with these old guys finding extreme w grip FHs....

better watch out for that old back ! :shock:

papa
10-10-2011, 04:11 PM
I'm dense, really. So I'll ask, with the greatest respect, is this a serious post or is it just for giggles? Seriously, I'm not trying to be a wise guy.

Yeah, I don't get it either.

LeeD
10-10-2011, 04:19 PM
Yeah, the strong SW, or weak Western is working out just great so far.
For Dozu, no backproblems as of yet, but maybe it's because I avoid serious singles with my ankle so bad.
I switched to weak Western at 61 years and 11 months. Good move so far.

Frank Silbermann
10-10-2011, 07:12 PM
This guy has some weird idea that the modern game is "wrong" and should be curbed by restricting technology. Personally I think he is wrong but each man is entitled to an opinion. That the modern techniques are incorrect cannot be so weird an idea, when you consider that this is the consensus of the overwhelming majority of tennis books that have been published, not to mention the instruction columns in some 30 years of "World Tennis" magazine (published from 1953 until 1980-something).

Frank Silbermann
10-10-2011, 07:15 PM
The irony is it is perfectly possible to play a modern forehand with an old wooden racquet, works just fine... So you believe it's the court surfaces? It cannot be a coincidence that from WWI until recently the greatest players all used eastern or continental grips.

Timbo's hopeless slice
10-10-2011, 08:49 PM
I just believe the game has evolved. I am curious, however, as to where you draw the line on 'correct technique'? I was thinking of someone like John Bromwich and his BH for example. You won't be finding THAT shot in any of your books. (well, except for 'Lawn Tennis the Australian Way' which features a chapter on precisely that)

5263
10-10-2011, 09:19 PM
That the modern techniques are incorrect cannot be so weird an idea, when you consider that this is the consensus of the overwhelming majority of tennis books that have been published, not to mention the instruction columns in some 30 years of "World Tennis" magazine (published from 1953 until 1980-something).
More great stuff Frank,
Thank you for confirming that the majority of tennis books are full of that classic tennis mis-info. Several on here like to state that there is nothing modern about modern tennis and don't believe that anyone still teaches the old classic methods. Even though I think you are quite lost into the past with your ideas about tennis strokes, I'm very glad to have you here to represent the old ways that some want to doubt are even taught anymore and to vouch for the very real differences that exist between classic and modern tennis. I also like that you are willing to testify that the new ways amount to shortcuts, allowing you to learn and play better faster than traditional!
thanks!

5263
10-10-2011, 09:24 PM
Tennis is a much more challenging game, however, if you play it correctly.



This stuff is too good to make up. This is a guy who tells it like it is. The game is way more challenging if you want to stick with the traditional/classic instruction.

Limpinhitter
10-10-2011, 09:35 PM
Traditionally, the most prestigious tournament in America is the U.S. Nationals at Forest Hills. The grass is fast, patchy, and yields low bounces. Because the grass is fast, you need a grip that will maximize your lateral reach. Because the bounces are low, you need a grip that makes it easy to open up the racket face and scoop up low balls. Because you get lots of bad bounces, you need to rush the net at every opportunity. Since you're going to be at the net at least 50% of the time, you can maximize your comfort and proficiency there by using your net grips when hitting ground strokes.

There are other styles and techniques that make it easier to play on concrete, but these will hold you back if you ever get good and want to join the prestigious grass court amateur circuit and be given expense money. (Don Budge had a semi-western grip as a junior champion, but he didn't win the big grass court championships and become the greatest player of all time until he corrected his grip.)

But those who limited their ambition to being good only on synthetic surfaces and clay could get _cheap_ topspin by using a "frying-pan grip" (instead of the proper "shake-hands" grip). With such a grip, it's almost impossible NOT to put topspin on the ball. Likewise with the baseball-style backhand. Tennis is a much more challenging game, however, if you play it correctly.

But nowadays, everyone and his brother is taking these shortcuts -- including everyone on the pro tour -- now that we have rackets that compensate for bad technique (while allowing you to benefit from its advantages), so there's no reason for you to feel guilty about taking the easy way out.

Okay, Rip Van Winkle, time to wake up!

vitas77remembered
10-10-2011, 10:07 PM
This stuff is too good to make up. This is a guy who tells it like it is. The game is way more challenging if you want to stick with the traditional/classic instruction.

I finally understand what Frank was pointing out. Great stuff. Ah, history repeats itself yet again.

papa
10-11-2011, 04:37 AM
That the modern techniques are incorrect cannot be so weird an idea, when you consider that this is the consensus of the overwhelming majority of tennis books that have been published, not to mention the instruction columns in some 30 years of "World Tennis" magazine (published from 1953 until 1980-something).

Well, the big problem with this is that your not correct. The very high majority of tennis instruction over the past twenty years has used the open stance and what some refer to as modern techniques. The racquets and strings have changed dramatically in the past twenty years and methods used with older equipment just doesn't cut it anymore. The game has gotten much faster and recovery time, among other things has really changed.

papa
10-11-2011, 05:07 AM
More great stuff Frank,
Thank you for confirming that the majority of tennis books are full of that classic tennis mis-info. Several on here like to state that there is nothing modern about modern tennis and don't believe that anyone still teaches the old classic methods.

Well, I don't think this is very accurate. I'm sure there are examples of people still teaching outdated methods but the vast majority of professional teachers aren't teaching things/methods used twenty or thirty years ago - at least as far as stroke/footwork techniques are concerned.

The problem with some is that they believe everything should be hit from an open stance, as an example, and have convinced themselves that they have reinvented the wheel. Often, whats good enough to bring you to one level doesn't work at the next. Also, although its interesting and exciting to see pro shots, in many instances their methods aren't quite applicable at lower/recreational levels and can really be misleading to follow.

There was a recent article on this board involving "Revolutionary Tennis" thoughts about using a more closed/neutral stance for some shots. That series of articles, which I believe you dismissed with a one sentence response, actually addresses this subject. I believe their premise was that "everyone" teaches and writes about the so called modern game so we have differing opinions which I believe healthy.

Frank Silbermann
10-11-2011, 05:24 AM
Well, the big problem with this is that your not correct. The very high majority of tennis instruction over the past twenty years has used the open stance and what some refer to as modern techniques. The racquets and strings have changed dramatically in the past twenty years and methods used with older equipment just doesn't cut it anymore. The game has gotten much faster and recovery time, among other things has really changed. I think it's only in the last ten years; before that most coaches at the club level were still teaching the correct techniques. And there have really not been many tennis books published over the last ten or fifteen years, certainly not to compete with the dozens that were published in the 1970s, or the dozens that were published from 1907 through the 1960s. It doesn't even equal the number of books published since the 1970s before the incorrect methods gained prominence.
I just believe the game has evolved. I am curious, however, as to where you draw the line on 'correct technique'? I was thinking of someone like John Bromwich and his BH for example. You won't be finding THAT shot in any of your books. (well, except for 'Lawn Tennis the Australian Way' which features a chapter on precisely that)
Two-handed backhand is also not correct technique. I wouldn't say it was "incorrect" -- I believe the word used by the tennis books for that is "unorthodox." Although I was told forty years ago (never confirmed) that an Australian coach could lose his license to teach tennis if he taught a two-handed backhand. (The theory was that anyone could learn to hit it a proper one-handed slice if give a sufficiently light racket.) The long-term goal was to maximize your net play abilities so you could take advantage of most opponents' inability to do anything but slice their backhands.

Yes, you can use incorrect modern technique with wood rackets, but you'd likely end up being a clay- or synthetic-court specialist. That's why most of the modern (i.e. post-WWI) champions (Bill Tilden, Henri Cochet, Elsworth Vines, Fred Perry, Don Budge, Bobby Riggs, Jack Kramer, Pancho Gonzales, etc.) used eastern and continental grips.

Limpinhitter
10-11-2011, 08:05 AM
I think it's only in the last ten years; before that most coaches at the club level were still teaching the correct techniques. And there have really not been many tennis books published over the last ten or fifteen years, certainly not to compete with the dozens that were published in the 1970s, or the dozens that were published from 1907 through the 1960s. It doesn't even equal the number of books published since the 1970s before the incorrect methods gained prominence.

Two-handed backhand is also not correct technique. I wouldn't say it was "incorrect" -- I believe the word used by the tennis books for that is "unorthodox." Although I was told forty years ago (never confirmed) that an Australian coach could lose his license to teach tennis if he taught a two-handed backhand. (The theory was that anyone could learn to hit it a proper one-handed slice if give a sufficiently light racket.) The long-term goal was to maximize your net play abilities so you could take advantage of most opponents' inability to do anything but slice their backhands.

Yes, you can use incorrect modern technique with wood rackets, but you'd likely end up being a clay- or synthetic-court specialist. That's why most of the modern (i.e. post-WWI) champions (Bill Tilden, Henri Cochet, Elsworth Vines, Fred Perry, Don Budge, Bobby Riggs, Jack Kramer, Pancho Gonzales, etc.) used eastern and continental grips.

"Happy and I'm smiling,
walk a mile to drink your water.
You know I'd love to love you,
and above you there's no other.
We'll go walking out
while others shout of war's disaster.
Oh, we won't give in,
let's go living in the past.

"Once I used to join in
every boy and girl was my friend.
Now there's revolution, but they don't know
what they're fighting.
Let us close our eyes;
outside their lives, go on much faster.
Oh, we won't give in,
we'll keep living in the past."

Hahaha!

papa
10-11-2011, 10:19 AM
I think it's only in the last ten years; before that most coaches at the club level were still teaching the correct techniques. And there have really not been many tennis books published over the last ten or fifteen years, certainly not to compete with the dozens that were published in the 1970s, or the dozens that were published from 1907 through the 1960s. It doesn't even equal the number of books published since the 1970s before the incorrect methods gained prominence.



Well, its true that the game in constantly evolving and the driving force for much change is the equipment technological improvements. Although other sports are similarly effected, tennis racquets have undergone huge changes. So, the game has changed regardless of what some might think- it will continue to change into the future also.

As far as tennis books or publications regarding tennis, the information has magnified many times over compared to what was once available. For those that care to explore the tennis information available today, all one has to do is look at what's currently available on the web.

There are currently hundreds of web sites and scores of books dealing with every aspect of the game.

So, the bottom line is that I don't care if you or other don't care to change their methods. That's ok, its difficult to change methods that have worked and that doesn't, in itself, make them wrong or outdated.

maggmaster
10-11-2011, 10:47 AM
To me this is like saying that it is more correct to walk than to drive a car. Sure walking requires far more effort and you may have to travel for many additional days but in the end it is clearly the way that we are intended to travel. There were many books written about proper travel techniques that are now invalid. Oh and let me tell you about the sun and how it rotates around the earth. Patently ridiculous.

Frank Silbermann
10-11-2011, 11:06 AM
"...
Oh, we won't give in,
let's go living in the past.

Hahaha! A few months ago I drove my wife to a nearby town for CPR training, and I spent a few hours in the local public library. I went to the tennis book section and ALL of the tennis books demonstrated (using both traditional wood and also those new metal rackets) the "shake-hands" grip and the 180 degree back-fence-to-front-fence swing. We're talking about books that are in that library RIGHT AT THIS MOMENT -- not 35 years ago (when those books were printed). Not that 35 years was all that long ago; it's not as if we were talking about a time that was too early for me to remember.

I am justified in resenting the direction the game has taken. Back in 1973 when I had trouble hitting two shots in a row against the backboard I discovered I could hit it six times in a row merely by holding the racket in a semi-western grip, facing the wall, and keeping the string-bed facing forward throughout the entire motion. I showed it to a guy a year older than me, contrasting it to the way the teacher and the books demonstrated, and he told me that the books were right and my way was wrong. He then demonstrated some (to me) overpowering topspin forehands in textbook fashion. So I went back and struggled with the correct technique until I could do it a little better.

Years later, I wanted to hit topspin like Rod Laver, and every once in a while I found myself hitting unusually well, only to discover in horror that my grips were slipping around the handle. Certainly that would hold me back in the long run, as none of the pros (except for a few clay-court specialists) held the racket like that. No doubt a really good player would just keep the ball below my strike zone. (Especially on grass, if I ever got good enough to play on such a court.)

Even though the books taught Eastern grips, the best players tended more towards Continental. Back then, I could tell how good a person was just by looking at a photo of them hitting a forehand: Western grip -- completely ignorant novice. Eastern grips -- advanced beginner to intermediate. Semi-continental -- advanced.

If pros were going to use western grips, they should have done so back then so I would not have felt obligated to keep correcting my technique back to the more open-faced grips. Sure, the game changes, but I bet you would be disappointed if you get to my age people started saying that nowadays _MODERN_ tennis uses thin rackets and a birdie instead of a fuzzy ball (no matter how fine a game badminton might be in its own right).

And the pros certainly don't have to use _exaggerated_ western grips -- just to rub it in our faces!

Sure, this year I've also modified my forehands, after watching a Doug King DVD. (I think I justified that change in my initial post to this thread.) I now use a near-semiwestern grip and turn the racket over across my body in the follow-through instead of following the line of the shot, and I'm hitting better than ever. I just don't pretend that what I'm doing is correct form. It's just that, at my age, I've decided to say, "Who care if I never learn to play well with wooden rackets on grass? I'm probably never going to do that anyway!"

And I'm not one of those egotistical people who think that right and wrong must be re-defined to justify what they themselves do. Such people call family-values politicians hypocrites for being caught having affairs or gay sex. That's a silly as calling a politician who takes a bribe a hypocrite for not having first taken an official political position in favor of government corruption, or calling a police chief who murders his wife a hypocrite for having arrested murderers over the course of his career. (As you might imagine, I also have little patience for people who defend the notion of moral relativism.)

And effectiveness aside, I still think the continental style is better-looking.

Playnice
10-11-2011, 12:38 PM
Well, I don't think this is very accurate. I'm sure there are examples of people still teaching outdated methods but the vast majority of professional teachers aren't teaching things/methods used twenty or thirty years ago - at least as far as stroke/footwork techniques are concerned.

Unfortunately, in my experience this is very accurate. I witnessed a tennis instructor at a municipal facility (accessible only to certified tennis professionals) giving lessons last Saturday, directing the players to get sideways, take the racket back and finish the stroke in front toward the intended target. No open stance, no unit turn, no finish. The students obediently followed his instruction, shadowing his conventional example. I see this all too often, at private clubs, public parks, high schools, and even tennis teaching clinics.

Timbo's hopeless slice
10-11-2011, 04:33 PM
So, Frank, Bjorn Borg?

I await with interest your comments on his technique...

LeeD
10-11-2011, 05:08 PM
Well, if anyone is still consulting the library for the most current anything, they'd be about as dated as the written material they're looking through!
Did you know motocross suspension has gone from 3.75" in 1973 to 13" in 1985?
Did you know the basic modern surfboard right now is about 6' tall, multi finned, concave bottomed, single layed 6 oz glass with only a small knee patch (for paddling and standing up)?
Did you know that every golfer nowadaze uses a huge headed driver the size of a softball?
Did you know a modern, competitive IPSC Combat Pistol, fully ready to compete, costs in the neighborhood of $4,000?
Did you know nowadaze, we can use 10 meter windsurf sails in winds from 10-30mph?
Things change, except what's at the library.

Frank Silbermann
10-11-2011, 05:45 PM
So, Frank, Bjorn Borg?

I await with interest your comments on his technique... Borg didn't start winning Wimbledon until most of the great serve-and-volley players had aged out of the game. And even so, his forehand deviations from orthodoxy were rather minor compared with today's players. Nowadays people describe his forehand grip as eastern.

http://couturedecoates.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/borg.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_HJ8-8veOzLk/TBJ8AcKSoCI/AAAAAAAAA80/ONBjf8pTqVw/s1600/BORG_Bjorn_19750626_EL_T.jpg

I wouldn't complain if people today used Borg's grip. That's practically within the permitted range of variation.

Limpinhitter
10-11-2011, 05:51 PM
A few months ago I drove my wife to a nearby town for CPR training, and I spent a few hours in the local public library. I went to the tennis book section and ALL of the tennis books demonstrated (using both traditional wood and also those new metal rackets) the "shake-hands" grip and the 180 degree back-fence-to-front-fence swing. We're talking about books that are in that library RIGHT AT THIS MOMENT -- not 35 years ago (when those books were printed). Not that 35 years was all that long ago; it's not as if we were talking about a time that was too early for me to remember.

I am justified in resenting the direction the game has taken. Back in 1973 when I had trouble hitting two shots in a row against the backboard I discovered I could hit it six times in a row merely by holding the racket in a semi-western grip, facing the wall, and keeping the string-bed facing forward throughout the entire motion. I showed it to a guy a year older than me, contrasting it to the way the teacher and the books demonstrated, and he told me that the books were right and my way was wrong. He then demonstrated some (to me) overpowering topspin forehands in textbook fashion. So I went back and struggled with the correct technique until I could do it a little better.

Years later, I wanted to hit topspin like Rod Laver, and every once in a while I found myself hitting unusually well, only to discover in horror that my grips were slipping around the handle. Certainly that would hold me back in the long run, as none of the pros (except for a few clay-court specialists) held the racket like that. No doubt a really good player would just keep the ball below my strike zone. (Especially on grass, if I ever got good enough to play on such a court.)

Even though the books taught Eastern grips, the best players tended more towards Continental. Back then, I could tell how good a person was just by looking at a photo of them hitting a forehand: Western grip -- completely ignorant novice. Eastern grips -- advanced beginner to intermediate. Semi-continental -- advanced.

If pros were going to use western grips, they should have done so back then so I would not have felt obligated to keep correcting my technique back to the more open-faced grips. Sure, the game changes, but I bet you would be disappointed if you get to my age people started saying that nowadays _MODERN_ tennis uses thin rackets and a birdie instead of a fuzzy ball (no matter how fine a game badminton might be in its own right).
And the pros certainly don't have to use _exaggerated_ western grips -- just to rub it in our faces!

Sure, this year I've also modified my forehands, after watching a Doug King DVD. (I think I justified that change in my initial post to this thread.) I now use a near-semiwestern grip and turn the racket over across my body in the follow-through instead of following the line of the shot, and I'm hitting better than ever. I just don't pretend that what I'm doing is correct form. It's just that, at my age, I've decided to say, "Who care if I never learn to play well with wooden rackets on grass? I'm probably never going to do that anyway!"

And I'm not one of those egotistical people who think that right and wrong must be re-defined to justify what they themselves do. Such people call family-values politicians hypocrites for being caught having affairs or gay sex. That's a silly as calling a politician who takes a bribe a hypocrite for not having first taken an official political position in favor of government corruption, or calling a police chief who murders his wife a hypocrite for having arrested murderers over the course of his career. (As you might imagine, I also have little patience for people who defend the notion of moral relativism.)

And effectiveness aside, I still think the continental style is better-looking.

I don't know how old you are, but, I started playing tennis in earnest in 1969, with a Dunlop Fort, a continental grip and a closed stance forehand. When I got older, and switched to the larger Dunlop Max 200g, I also changed to an Eastern Drive. (Actually, since then, the definitions of the grips seem to have changed. The forehand grip that Don Budge hit with was an Eastern grip. But, by today's definitions, it would be considered to be about half way between a Continental and an Eastern forehand grip. But, that's another issue.). Now that I am using between 95-100 square inch racquets, I hit with something between the modern definiton of an Eastern and SW grip and an open stance.

Having said that, I dispute the notion that the old school, close stance, forehand was in any way "correct" compared to a modern, open stance forehand. If you remember correctly, in the 60's and 70's most of the top players' backhands were their stronger side. Players such as: Hoad, Rosewall, Emerson, Stolle, Laver, Roche, Ashe, even as recently as Edberg, (and many more), all had better backhands than forehands.

IMO, the cause of this was the mistaken believe that forehands and backhands were symmetrical mirror images of each other. They are not. When hitting a closed stance backhand, you are hitting with the leading shoulder and your arm is free to swing without hinderance from the upper body, and your upper body is free to rotate without interference from the lower body, therefore enabling you to better maintain your balance throughout the swing. But, when hitting with a closed stance forehand, you are hitting from the back shoulder - a wholly unnatural stroke in which the upper body interferes with and truncates the swing, and the lower body impairs rotation of the upper body which in turn impairs balance.

IMO, it is the abandonement of that flawed convention, and the evolution of the modern, open stance, semiwestern forehand, in which the hitting shoulder is no longer behind the upper body at contact, and the swing is no longer inhibited by the upper body which in turn impairs balance, that has given rise to a game in which the forehand is now the major weapon of virtually every player on the pro tour, men and woman.

Frank Silbermann
10-11-2011, 05:58 PM
Unfortunately, in my experience this is very accurate. I witnessed a tennis instructor at a municipal facility (accessible only to certified tennis professionals) giving lessons last Saturday, directing the players to get sideways, take the racket back and finish the stroke in front toward the intended target. No open stance, no unit turn, no finish. The students obediently followed his instruction, shadowing his conventional example. I see this all too often, at private clubs, public parks, high schools, and even tennis teaching clinics. Hey, it's not their fault that changes in rackets and court surfaces have given people with incorrect technique the advantage. They cannot do much about it without the help of the governing bodies, except to continue to train people and hope that one day a player with correct technique somehow again reaches the top.

Check out this video of two modern champions, both among the greatest players of all time (according to the video "Kings of the Court"), and I suspect these two were the very models of correctness upon which decades of tennis instruction was based:

http://www.thoughtequity.com/video/clip/1617568_024.do

LeeD
10-11-2011, 06:11 PM
I didn't know tennis was one design, that we all had to hit the same, use the same steps, the same swing, like ballroom dancing.'
I guess I don't really know much.

Timbo's hopeless slice
10-11-2011, 07:15 PM
Frank is a bit of a zealot, methinks. I started on grass with wood in the late 70s with an orthodox game, changed with the game and now play with a modern FH. My BH hasn't really changed a lot. I do have a 2HBH that I coach with and rally with a bit, but I generally use my one hander.

I am now in my 40s and a teaching pro. Still play a few open tournaments with steadily diminishing success. Wouldn't be able to do that with my old game!

I would never consider my original game as somehow 'correct', this is rank foolishness. I'm sorry Frank, but you're not talking sense. So much variation in technique among the greats over the last century, I really don't think you can pick a style and call it a standard. What about lefties? Is that 'incorrect' too?

papa
10-12-2011, 04:54 AM
I didn't know tennis was one design, that we all had to hit the same, use the same steps, the same swing, like ballroom dancing.'
I guess I don't really know much.

Unfortunately. some schools of tennis thought probably believe there is only one way and set about to preach the "one design" approach to everything.

Frank Silbermann
10-12-2011, 05:06 AM
I didn't know tennis was one design, that we all had to hit the same, use the same steps, the same swing, like ballroom dancing.'
I guess I don't really know much. Well, apparently you didn't read a lot of tennis books and instructional articles thirty-five or more years ago. Tennis was a game of form and style, and many people thought it was almost as important to "look good" while playing as to win. (Otherwise, everyone would have become pushers.)


..., I dispute the notion that the old school, close stance, forehand was in any way "correct" compared to a modern, open stance forehand. If you remember correctly, in the 60's and 70's most of the top players' backhands were their stronger side. Players such as: Hoad, Rosewall, Emerson, Stolle, Laver, Roche, Ashe, even as recently as Edberg, (and many more), all had better backhands than forehands.

IMO, the cause of this was the mistaken believe that forehands and backhands were symmetrical mirror images of each other. They are not. When hitting a closed stance backhand, you are hitting with the leading shoulder and your arm is free to swing without hinderance from the upper body, and your upper body is free to rotate without interference from the lower body, therefore enabling you to better maintain yoon paperur balance throughout the swing. But, when hitting with a closed stance forehand, you are hitting from the back shoulder - a wholly unnatural stroke in which the upper body interferes with and truncates the swing, and the lower body impairs rotation of the upper body which in turn impairs balance.

IMO, it is the abandonement of that flawed convention, and the evolution of the modern, open stance, semiwestern forehand, in which the hitting shoulder is no longer behind the upper body at contact, and the swing is no longer inhibited by the upper body which in turn impairs balance, that has given rise to a game in which the forehand is now the major weapon of virtually every player on the pro tour, men and woman. The forehand and backhand are symmetrical ON PAPER, because the books back then all showed a flat-overspin backhand drive which players in real life were rarely (if ever) able to hit. (Even Arthur Ashe, who had one of the great backhands of his day, called the slice his "bread-and-butter backhand.")

Also, I consider it a myth that these players had better backhands than forehands. Yes, they may have been steadier and more accurate, but that was only as long as they were slicing (which was almost all the time). They could have gotten more accuracy and steadiness on the forehand, too, by slicing, but they didn't. (Well, Arthur Ashe did do that towards the end of his career when the game moved to clay and the game was to out-steady your opponent. But he was the only one, IFAIK.)

For example, I saw Ken Rosewall play, He was said to have a weak forehand and one of the all-time greatest backhands. And yet, it seemed to me he hit his forehand every bit as hard as he hit his backhand. What is more telling is that his opponents directed their serves to his backhand AT LEAST as often as they served to his forehand. If you want to claim this is because they were used to hitting to that corner, well, they did the same to Laver (who was a lefthander). I didn't see anyone struggling to keep the ball on Laver's forehand side, and given the choice with a ball down the middle Laver chose to use his forehand.

Don Budge's backhand was so great, Jack Kramer said he was the only player he couldn't beat by serving to the backhand and following it in. He had a fine forehand, too, but no one raved about how great it was. And yet, Kramer mentioned that when he tried following in serves to Budge's forehand he was EVEN WORSE OFF. That would not have been the case if Budge's backhand really WAS better than his forehand.

papa
10-12-2011, 05:23 AM
Unfortunately, in my experience this is very accurate. I witnessed a tennis instructor at a municipal facility (accessible only to certified tennis professionals) giving lessons last Saturday, directing the players to get sideways, take the racket back and finish the stroke in front toward the intended target. No open stance, no unit turn, no finish. The students obediently followed his instruction, shadowing his conventional example. I see this all too often, at private clubs, public parks, high schools, and even tennis teaching clinics.

Well, just because some think that every shot doesn't need to be hit with an open stance doesn't make them wrong. Papas, as an example, who's qualifications are significant, has his followers along with others that might think differently. However, I would hope that readers of this forum realize the financial incentives involved that drive this ongoing push and come to their own conclusions.

Papas, for those that might not be familiar with his work thinks the "entire" tennis community teaches the so called "modern techniques". He makes good arguments on many issues and has been teaching tennis for years along with having his own web site. I know he's been very critical of my organization (USPTA - quite sure he's a member also) on several issues but that's ok. I would not consider Mark to be in the majority these days.

Are there others that subscribe to these "older" methods - probably, but lets be honest, they (no more than Mark does) represent the majority of tennis professionals. If you don't believe me, ask him.

Limpinhitter
10-12-2011, 10:30 AM
* * *

The forehand and backhand are symmetrical ON PAPER, because the books back then all showed a flat-overspin backhand drive which players in real life were rarely (if ever) able to hit. (Even Arthur Ashe, who had one of the great backhands of his day, called the slice his "bread-and-butter backhand.")

Also, I consider it a myth that these players had better backhands than forehands. Yes, they may have been steadier and more accurate, but that was only as long as they were slicing (which was almost all the time). They could have gotten more accuracy and steadiness on the forehand, too, by slicing, but they didn't. (Well, Arthur Ashe did do that towards the end of his career when the game moved to clay and the game was to out-steady your opponent. But he was the only one, IFAIK.)

For example, I saw Ken Rosewall play, He was said to have a weak forehand and one of the all-time greatest backhands. And yet, it seemed to me he hit his forehand every bit as hard as he hit his backhand. What is more telling is that his opponents directed their serves to his backhand AT LEAST as often as they served to his forehand. If you want to claim this is because they were used to hitting to that corner, well, they did the same to Laver (who was a lefthander). I didn't see anyone struggling to keep the ball on Laver's forehand side, and given the choice with a ball down the middle Laver chose to use his forehand.

Don Budge's backhand was so great, Jack Kramer said he was the only player he couldn't beat by serving to the backhand and following it in. He had a fine forehand, too, but no one raved about how great it was. And yet, Kramer mentioned that when he tried following in serves to Budge's forehand he was EVEN WORSE OFF. That would not have been the case if Budge's backhand really WAS better than his forehand.

Sorry, but, I disagree with every one of your premises! It seems that you haven't thought this issue through.

- The forehand and backhand are asymmetrical in reality for the reasons I previously explained in minute detail. If they are depicted as symmetrical "ON PAPER," then the depiction is in error.

- Sorry, but, if you considler it a myth that the pros of the 60's and 70's backhands were better than their forehand, then you are in error. It is indisputable for those who lived, played and followed pro tennis at that time, that most pros' backhands were their stronger side for the reasons I already explained in minute detail. Of the players I enumerated, only Rosewall did not hit a topspin backhand. The others all hit topspin and slice backhands.

- I know of no reliable source that has ever said that Rosewall had a weak forehand. I've seen Rosewall play live several times, and his forehand was a great shot, but, not quite as great as his backhand.

- Returns of serve are an exception to the general fact that the pros of the 60's and 70's backhands were better than their forehand. The reason for that is because, unlike most groundstrokes, returns of serve were generally hit with an open stance.

- I attended Don Budge's tennis camp when I was in juniors, took instruction from Don Budge and saw him play many times. You seem to have overlooked the fact that I did not include Budge on my list. Budge's forehand was his stronger side, in part, because he hit with an Eastern forehand grip and a neutral, sometimes slightly open stance. Kramer's forehand was also his stronger shot for similar reasons.

Frank Silbermann
10-12-2011, 03:41 PM
Sorry, but, I disagree with every one of your premises! It seems that you haven't thought this issue through.

- The forehand and backhand are asymmetrical in reality for the reasons I previously explained in minute detail. If they are depicted as symmetrical "ON PAPER," then the depiction is in error.

- Sorry, but, if you considler it a myth that the pros of the 60's and 70's backhands were better than their forehand, then you are in error. It is indisputable for those who lived, played and followed pro tennis at that time, that most pros' backhands were their stronger side for the reasons I already explained in minute detail. Of the players I enumerated, only Rosewall did not hit a topspin backhand. The others all hit topspin and slice backhands.

- I know of no reliable source that has ever said that Rosewall had a weak forehand. I've seen Rosewall play live several times, and his forehand was a great shot, but, not quite as great as his backhand.

- Returns of serve are an exception to the general fact that the pros of the 60's and 70's backhands were better than their forehand. The reason for that is because, unlike most groundstrokes, returns of serve were generally hit with an open stance.

- I attended Don Budge's tennis camp when I was in juniors, took instruction from Don Budge and saw him play many times. You seem to have overlooked the fact that I did not include Budge on my list. Budge's forehand was his stronger side, in part, because he hit with an Eastern forehand grip and a neutral, sometimes slightly open stance. Kramer's forehand was also his stronger shot for similar reasons. Don Budge's backhand and forehand were about as symmetrical as those shown in the textbooks. (He was one of the very few who drove their backhands routinely.) Obviously, they're not symmetrical when using today's so-effective incorrect technique.

What I said about serves was also true about approach shots. People did not try to avoid the backhand of any of the players you mention when hitting approach shots. I believe in all cases the majority of approach shots were also directed to the backhand -- even when the opponent was a left-hander.

Furthermore, all these players tended to take balls hit straight to them or down-the-middle using their forehands.

LeeD
10-12-2011, 03:52 PM
As in any sport, the written rules are already outdated before you get a chance to read about them.
The "rules" are suggestions, not laid down in stone, and we are to try their ideas first, get some experience, and if we find something better, it's up to us.
You quoted "35 year old tennis instruction" books. Well, skis were 200 cms for 160 lbs riders, motocross bikes had 4" of suspension, and the .38 Special was considered the "ideal" house defence weapon.
Things have changed.
My main sport, windsurfing, would have your riding a 12' board with a daggerboard, weighing around 36 lbs, if you were advanced. Guess what? My main board is an 11lbs, 7'5" long, 22" wide all around slalom board for most of my windsurfing.

pyrokid
10-12-2011, 04:14 PM
Frank has to be trolling. There's no way this isn't a joke. Ignore it.

LeeD
10-12-2011, 04:19 PM
You're right of course, but it's fun to reminesce about how things were 40 years ago, compared to today.
And if I was old enough, I"d add a few more years to the comparisons.
Imagine a computer that took up a whole building, while your current IPod does much more and much faster.
The times, they are a changing.

sundaypunch
10-12-2011, 06:13 PM
It's very simple. Professional athletes, by necessity, will use the method that gives the best results. There is no correct/incorrect - just what works. Try telling a high jumper or field goal kicker that they should be using the same technique as their counterparts from 1965.

papa
10-13-2011, 05:27 AM
It's very simple. Professional athletes, by necessity, will use the method that gives the best results. There is no correct/incorrect - just what works. Try telling a high jumper or field goal kicker that they should be using the same technique as their counterparts from 1965.

Well, a good coach or instructor has to use and attempt to improve what any athlete brings to the table. Often that involves off court conditioning and strength training, on-court footwork, stroke adjustments, placement adjustments, attitude, and so forth.

IMO, lower level teaches generally have a one-method approach. This helps the newer player get going but not the seasoned athlete who "might" need a few minor adjustments that most players would see as non-important.

LeeD
10-13-2011, 09:17 AM
Most coaches are the former rather than the later.
You gotta get them started and playing, before they can try more advanced technique which THEY have to understand.

Frank Silbermann
10-16-2011, 06:14 AM
Well, its true that the game in constantly evolving Not so. When Stan Smith was the greatest player in the world in 1973, his strokes were remarkably similar to those of Elsworth Vines forty years earlier. That's how we knew that tennis technique had attained its modern and final form by the early 1930s.

Don Budge won the boys 18s using a semi-western grip, when he reached the men's division and played on grass he was vulnerable to low, fast, deep shots into his forehand corner. He had to switch to an eastern grip to become #1; that's how coaches thereafter knew that use of the western grip was a bad idea.

and the driving force for much change is the equipment technological improvements. Although other sports are similarly effected, tennis racquets have undergone huge changes. Rackets, court surfaces, and rules (e.g. tie-breakers, permission to jump and cross over the baseline before contact while serving).


So, the game has changed regardless of what some might think- it will continue to change into the future also.
Which means that the work all you guys are doing to master your strokes will soon, too, be wasted (as tennis again morphs into yet some other game).

Look, I don't mind changes within reason, but I get disgusted by monstrosities such as this:

http://www.secsportsfan.com/images/tennis-forehand.jpg

While some may point out that she is hitting this forehand using a continental grip, I would note that SHE'S HOLDING THE RACKET UPSIDE DOWN!!! If people can play college tennis standing on their heads or holding the racket upside down, there is just SOMETHING wrong.

papa
10-16-2011, 08:16 AM
Not so. When Stan Smith was the greatest player in the world in 1973, his strokes were remarkably similar to those of Elsworth Vines forty years earlier. That's how we knew that tennis technique had attained its modern and final form by the early 1930s.

Don Budge won the boys 18s using a semi-western grip, when he reached the men's division and played on grass he was vulnerable to low, fast, deep shots into his forehand corner. He had to switch to an eastern grip to become #1; that's how coaches thereafter knew that use of the western grip was a bad idea.

Rackets, court surfaces, and rules (e.g. tie-breakers, permission to jump and cross over the baseline before contact while serving).

Which means that the work all you guys are doing to master your strokes will soon, too, be wasted (as tennis again morphs into yet some other game).

Look, I don't mind changes within reason, but I get disgusted by monstrosities such as this:

http://www.secsportsfan.com/images/tennis-forehand.jpg

While some may point out that she is hitting this forehand using a continental grip, I would note that SHE'S HOLDING THE RACKET UPSIDE DOWN!!! If people can play college tennis standing on their heads or holding the racket upside down, there is just SOMETHING wrong.

OK, lets take a look.

Stan Smith played in the 60's & 70's and used to be Bob Lutz's doubles partner played and won National NCAA titles - think with Lutz but not sure. He has been a Director of Tennis & coach at pretty high levels and has also authored articles and at least one book about doubles. Good guy, excellent player & coach - he knows his stuff.

So, if he were to say "tennis has changed quite a bit over the years due to equipment" and that players are now "bigger and and more accurate" then I guess you'd have to agree. Well, he has said those things several times.

Now if Stan were to acknowledge that most players (pros) use a semi-western or western grip for forehands today than his observations you would probably except to be true. I'm not aware that he has been critical of the SW grip although its use in doubles is rather limited and the more severe grips do in fact present difficulties on low balls.

I happen to know a guy who played the first tie breaker in pro tennis so yes, rules have changed. Not having to keep one foot grounded on the serve is another change which has altered the game. However, unlike equipment, the high majority of rules haven't changed much although they change, to a small degree" yearly it seems.

The bottom line is that as tennis professionals we are trying to help players with how the game is played today - not as it was played thirty years ago or thirty years from now. It will change and strokes will be modified as they have been in the past - we all realize that. All it would take is for the court dimensions, net or equipment to be altered/changed & we would have to modify our approach. Racquets and strings have become a tremendous variable under the current rules and could change the game overnight if some great new technology was unwrapped - and it will be.

Some of this is like the guy who hangs onto his old PC because his reasoning is that the industry is going to change and why get the latest thing/device because its just going to be outdated soon after he buys it. If you were to take a computer class, would you be satisfied with how the technology was taught years ago or would you rather learn how its used today?

Well, I know of some who feel their computers meet their needs just fine even though they are way outdated. That's ok with me but we can't pretend that there aren't are better ways or equipment today than there was twenty years ago. In many fields things don't change that much but in others there is constant change.

papa
10-16-2011, 08:25 AM
Most coaches are the former rather than the later.
You gotta get them started and playing, before they can try more advanced technique which THEY have to understand.

Yes, I would agree with this statement. However, sometimes its easy to get someone started using outdated equipment or methods that can become difficult obstaclea to change into the future. As a tennis teacher and coach, I can tell you that there is a huge difference between "advanced techniques" and outdated methods.

You've been around this game for a long time and offer quality tips/suggestions so I know you know the difference but others probably don't follow/have the interest in sports like you do and might not recognize the difference.

Frank Silbermann
10-16-2011, 10:49 AM
Yes, I would agree with this statement. However, sometimes its easy to get someone started using outdated equipment or methods that can become difficult obstaclea to change into the future. As a tennis teacher and coach, I can tell you that there is a huge difference between "advanced techniques" and outdated methods.

You've been around this game for a long time and offer quality tips/suggestions so I know you know the difference but others probably don't follow/have the interest in sports like you do and might not recognize the difference. When I see beginners taking lessons, I see the pro with a basket of a hundred balls or so standing at the net and feeding them to the student one after another until, _eventually_, they could frequently hit the ball over the net into the opponent's side of the court.

I learned to play on the free tennis courts at a local jr. college. Only the "rich" kids whose parents belonged to the country club had the luxury of private lessons. For most of us, you bought a can of three balls and went out with another beginner, and when those three balls were hit, you had to go and pick them up. So it was very important to learn as rapidly as possible by any means possible to hit the ball into the court. Otherwise, tennis would be mostly just picking up balls (i.e. no fun at all).

Those of us who took Tennis 101 learned the proper eastern grips, and spent a lot of time chasing errant balls. Ironically, those who had no instruction whatsoever, however, tended to reach a reasonable level of performance much more quickly. Not knowing any better, they would: (1) pick the racket up in a frying-pan grip; (2) stand facing the net; (3) hold the racket vertically in front of them, and practically looking through the string bed they would (4) bop the ball over the net with a bit of unconscious backspin in semi-lobs back and forth to one another. The entire swing was about twelve inches long.

If the ball was to the right, they'd tilt the racket somewhat to the right. If the ball was to the left, they'd tilt the racket somewhat to the left. (Internationally famed teacher Dennis Van Der Meer called it the "windshield wiper" style). If they got a low ball, they'd have to bend down low for it. (Sometimes they'd have no choice but to drop the racket head below the hand -- another huge technical no-no.) They could rally and play rather quickly, but they'd fall apart if someone could hit the ball hard, low and flat. So they'd stay at that advanced-beginner level until they grew tired of the game.

That's why I was so shocked when, ten years ago, I began seeing photos of pros holding the racket just like those untutored beginners, in many cases also using the same side of the racket without changing grips for forehand and backhand, and hearing people talking about windshield-wiper follow-throughs. The bad tennis players had taken over!

So I'm also kind of skeptical when someone tells me that "old school" tennis is easier to teach beginners. Yeah, I understand that you don't want to introduce a beginner to heavy topspin, but if that old frying pan grip is the way of the future then why not just toss the student semi-lobs and have him bop the ball back while facing the net with a vertical racket? Nothing could be easier! The pre-turn of the shoulders, the drop of the racket, and the brushing upwards could all be added later.

Limpinhitter
10-16-2011, 10:49 AM
Don Budge's backhand and forehand were about as symmetrical as those shown in the textbooks. (He was one of the very few who drove their backhands routinely.) Obviously, they're not symmetrical when using today's so-effective incorrect technique.

What I said about serves was also true about approach shots. People did not try to avoid the backhand of any of the players you mention when hitting approach shots. I believe in all cases the majority of approach shots were also directed to the backhand -- even when the opponent was a left-hander.

Furthermore, all these players tended to take balls hit straight to them or down-the-middle using their forehands.

No, Budge's fh and bh were not symmetrical at all. Not that it needs repeating, but, groundstrokes are inherently asymmetrical as I explained previously. Nevertheless, they were traditionally (and erroneously), taught as if they were symmetrical. Looking at my copy of "The Game of Singles in Tennis" by W. Talbert and B. Old, all of Budge's strokes are depicted frame by frame, and the distinction between his groundstrokes, including his set up, are apparent.

papa
10-16-2011, 01:02 PM
Well, I hear you Frank.

Isn't it an old Amish saying "that more things change, the more they stay the same" - something like that anyway.

Limpinhitter
10-16-2011, 04:53 PM
When I see beginners taking lessons, I see the pro with a basket of a hundred balls or so standing at the net and feeding them to the student one after another until, _eventually_, they could frequently hit the ball over the net into the opponent's side of the court.

I learned to play on the free tennis courts at a local jr. college. Only the "rich" kids whose parents belonged to the country club had the luxury of private lessons. For most of us, you bought a can of three balls and went out with another beginner, and when those three balls were hit, you had to go and pick them up. So it was very important to learn as rapidly as possible by any means possible to hit the ball into the court. Otherwise, tennis would be mostly just picking up balls (i.e. no fun at all).

Those of us who took Tennis 101 learned the proper eastern grips, and spent a lot of time chasing errant balls. Ironically, those who had no instruction whatsoever, however, tended to reach a reasonable level of performance much more quickly. Not knowing any better, they would: (1) pick the racket up in a frying-pan grip; (2) stand facing the net; (3) hold the racket vertically in front of them, and practically looking through the string bed they would (4) bop the ball over the net with a bit of unconscious backspin in semi-lobs back and forth to one another. The entire swing was about twelve inches long.

If the ball was to the right, they'd tilt the racket somewhat to the right. If the ball was to the left, they'd tilt the racket somewhat to the left. (Internationally famed teacher Dennis Van Der Meer called it the "windshield wiper" style). If they got a low ball, they'd have to bend down low for it. (Sometimes they'd have no choice but to drop the racket head below the hand -- another huge technical no-no.) They could rally and play rather quickly, but they'd fall apart if someone could hit the ball hard, low and flat. So they'd stay at that advanced-beginner level until they grew tired of the game.

That's why I was so shocked when, ten years ago, I began seeing photos of pros holding the racket just like those untutored beginners, in many cases also using the same side of the racket without changing grips for forehand and backhand, and hearing people talking about windshield-wiper follow-throughs. The bad tennis players had taken over!

So I'm also kind of skeptical when someone tells me that "old school" tennis is easier to teach beginners. Yeah, I understand that you don't want to introduce a beginner to heavy topspin, but if that old frying pan grip is the way of the future then why not just toss the student semi-lobs and have him bop the ball back while facing the net with a vertical racket? Nothing could be easier! The pre-turn of the shoulders, the drop of the racket, and the brushing upwards could all be added later.

Frank,

I grew up having been taught everything your talking about, and I have since come to learn that much of it was wrong, and much is no longer applicable to modern tennis. Further, much of the traditional technique taught from the 20's-80's was actually not the prevailing technique among the pros.

Don Budge forehand:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bertmorganarchive/4417736026/
http://www.amazon.com/Don-Budge-Tennis-Memoir-BUDGE/dp/B000J3WLHS

Bill Tilden forehand:
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=bill+tilden&hl=en&gbv=2&biw=1002&bih=572&tbm=isch&tbnid=kNXr4NhGzgVsdM:&imgrefurl=http://philgreekstennisblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/advent-calendar-day-23-3-bill-tilden.html&docid=pxkQAa8sAbUYgM&imgurl=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ycrvywNtAi8/TRO0qkG7v-I/AAAAAAAAAIY/Pe6WcT8cGQg/s1600/bill%252Btilden.jpg&w=324&h=300&ei=5nSbTpOuOYi3tweop42GBA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=384&vpy=126&dur=1937&hovh=216&hovw=233&tx=148&ty=132&sig=104158996341568101862&page=1&tbnh=113&tbnw=120&start=0&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0

Timbo's hopeless slice
10-16-2011, 05:52 PM
No, no, Limpin, Don Budge was just 'incorrect', you fool, 'incorect'!

In fact, anyone who doesn anything Frank doesn't like requires 'correction'

hmmm...

Frank Silbermann
10-17-2011, 08:27 PM
Frank,

I grew up having been taught everything your talking about, and I have since come to learn that much of it was wrong, and much is no longer applicable to modern tennis. Further, much of the traditional technique taught from the 20's-80's was actually not the prevailing technique among the pros.

Don Budge forehand:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bertmorganarchive/4417736026/
http://www.amazon.com/Don-Budge-Tennis-Memoir-BUDGE/dp/B000J3WLHS

Bill Tilden forehand:
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=bill+tilden&hl=en&gbv=2&biw=1002&bih=572&tbm=isch&tbnid=kNXr4NhGzgVsdM:&imgrefurl=http://philgreekstennisblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/advent-calendar-day-23-3-bill-tilden.html&docid=pxkQAa8sAbUYgM&imgurl=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ycrvywNtAi8/TRO0qkG7v-I/AAAAAAAAAIY/Pe6WcT8cGQg/s1600/bill%252Btilden.jpg&w=324&h=300&ei=5nSbTpOuOYi3tweop42GBA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=384&vpy=126&dur=1937&hovh=216&hovw=233&tx=148&ty=132&sig=104158996341568101862&page=1&tbnh=113&tbnw=120&start=0&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0 The Bill Tilden photo and one of the Don Budge photos does indeed show that the racket head could drop below the wrist, despite what we were told. That was indeed one teaching principle that was wrong (except maybe for full-continental forehands). Interestingly, one photo of Don Budge shows him as a junior using the western grip (before men's grass-court play forced him to change it, thereby establishing the principle that the western grip should not be taught).

Another item of teaching that was wrong was the idea of stepping towards the net on the backhand. The top players actually pointed their front foot directly towards the sideline when hitting the backhand with power. (In this sense, you are right that the forehand and backhand were NOT symmetrical. The only way they were symmetrical was in the shape of the motion made by the racket head (when hitting flat or with top spin).

No, no, Limpin, Don Budge was just 'incorrect', you fool, 'incorrect'!

In fact, anyone who doesn anything Frank doesn't like requires 'correction'

hmmm... It wasn't me who wrote all those books declaring the "shake hands" grip to be the correct forehand grip. I merely read them.

papa
10-18-2011, 05:34 AM
It wasn't me who wrote all those books declaring the "shake hands" grip to be the correct forehand grip. I merely read them.

I think the important thing here is when were they written and in what context. The "shaking hands" context is still valid but certainly not when hitting a top spin FH groundstroke.

Limpinhitter
10-18-2011, 07:22 AM
The Bill Tilden photo and one of the Don Budge photos does indeed show that the racket head could drop below the wrist, despite what we were told. That was indeed one teaching principle that was wrong (except maybe for full-continental forehands). Interestingly, one photo of Don Budge shows him as a junior using the western grip (before men's grass-court play forced him to change it, thereby establishing the principle that the western grip should not be taught).

Another item of teaching that was wrong was the idea of stepping towards the net on the backhand. The top players actually pointed their front foot directly towards the sideline when hitting the backhand with power. (In this sense, you are right that the forehand and backhand were NOT symmetrical. The only way they were symmetrical was in the shape of the motion made by the racket head (when hitting flat or with top spin).

It wasn't me who wrote all those books declaring the "shake hands" grip to be the correct forehand grip. I merely read them.

Frank, you have referenced Budge using a Western grip as a junior on several occasions. I'm not sure where you got that from, or what photo you're talking about. But, according to Budge himself, as I recall, he noticed a lot of California cement court players using a Western grip (probably equivalent to a SW grip by modern definitions), and he tried it (he didn't say when, or for how long), but didn't stay with it because it didn't work for him as well as his Eastern grip.

The point I was trying to make about the asymmetry of forehands and backhands is that they were taught as if they were symmetrical mirror images of each other, especially the footwork and set up. IMO, that convention is what caused so many players to be stronger on their backhand sides than on their forehand sides, and served as an example of what you characterized as correct technique actually being flawed. To be clear, IMO, an open stance fh is, and has always been, the correct way to set up for a forehand because of the inherent difference of a forehand - hitting with the back shoulder and the necessity of getting the upper body out of the way of the swing and the maintanence of balance throughout.

Limpinhitter
10-18-2011, 07:29 AM
I think the important thing here is when were they written and in what context. The "shaking hands" context is still valid but certainly not when hitting a top spin FH groundstroke.

IMO, it's not just about producing topspin. Many players hit heavy topspin with a continental grip: Hoad, Laver, Okker, Nastase for example. Rather, the more neutral grips were the proper grip when playing on fast, soft, low bouncing grass which, to my knowledge, doesn't exist anywhere on the pro tour anymore. But, when taking balls near, or above, the shoulder, those grips are a disadvantage compared to a SW grip.

Frank Silbermann
10-18-2011, 06:56 PM
Frank, you have referenced Budge using a Western grip as a junior on several occasions. I'm not sure where you got that from, or what photo you're talking about. But, according to Budge himself, as I recall, he noticed a lot of California cement court players using a Western grip (probably equivalent to a SW grip by modern definitions), and he tried it (he didn't say when, or for how long), but didn't stay with it because it didn't work for him as well as his Eastern grip. You yourself provided the photo of Don Budge (I presume as a junior) using a western grip:

http://www.amazon.com/Don-Budge-Tenn.../dp/B000J3WLHS

If you click on the photo you get this larger version:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/B000J3WLHS/ref=dp_image_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

You can tell it's Western because even though the racket face is vertical and the racket staff is horizontal, his elbow is lower than his wrist. Contrast that to this picture you provided:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bertmorganarchive/4417736026/

Here, he is using an Eastern grip. Even if he raised his arm so that the racket would be horizontal, his elbow would still be slightly higher than his wrist.

In the continental style, with the racket staff horizontal and the racket face vertical, the elbow is almost directly above the wrist:

http://www.espn.co.uk/onthisday/sport/story/164.html
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01428/Rod_Laver_1428240c.jpg

Timbo's hopeless slice
10-18-2011, 07:08 PM
Frank, are you seriously suggesting the photo of Don Budge on teh cover of the green book entitled 'A Memoir' is of him as a junior?????

LOOK AT HIS FACE!!!!!!

NLBwell
10-18-2011, 11:10 PM
You've got them all running, Frank.
:-)

papa
10-19-2011, 05:20 AM
Frank, you should stay with what works for you. In most cases its rather difficult to change players strokes much as they get older. I've found that its frustrating for the teacher as well as the student and generally its very constructive for either. However, I've had many players who for one reason or another want to learn the "newer" strokes and do very well - they surprise themselves.

I've even had players (one in particular that I've quite inspired by) who has actually has had to learn the game all over using a different arm. His right shoulder is totally shot even after several operations. Quite a story and a great athlete and person.

Frank Silbermann
10-19-2011, 11:28 AM
Frank, are you seriously suggesting the photo of Don Budge on the cover of the green book entitled 'A Memoir' is of him as a junior?????

LOOK AT HIS FACE!!!!!! I never said he was a good-looking guy! He was probably 18 there. Hey, red-headed guys with freckles who spend all day out in the California sun don't always have the freshest complexions! And people with no visible chin or cheekbones can have flabby faces even at a young age!

Frank, you should stay with what works for you. In most cases its rather difficult to change players strokes much as they get older. I've found that its frustrating for the teacher as well as the student and generally its very constructive for either. However, I've had many players who for one reason or another want to learn the "newer" strokes and do very well - they surprise themselves. ... It might be easier for people like me, who were never any good to begin with. But if I had my way, I'd change the rules so that people with the newer techniques would have to learn the classic game -- if only so that the old tennis books would still be relevant. :-)

papa
10-19-2011, 12:25 PM
It might be easier for people like me, who were never any good to begin with. But if I had my way, I'd change the rules so that people with the newer techniques would have to learn the classic game -- if only so that the old tennis books would still be relevant. :-)

Well, will some exceptions rules haven't changed all that much over the years - serve, tie-breakers, racquet size, etc. Thing many don't realize is that there our rules (USTA) aren't used world wide and that High School and Colleges use modifications to these rules. For instance in College (Div 1 & 2) there are no longer any lets on the serve - too much cheating on the let calls.

I certainly get kids learning the volley, overhead, slice and other shots that were used long ago but the game has really changed primarily due to the racquets and strings.

5263
10-19-2011, 01:00 PM
Well, just because some think that every shot doesn't need to be hit with an open stance doesn't make them wrong.

Why can't you just admit that most tennis books and many tennis instructors are mostly traditional? Based on your statement above, I have to wonder how traditional you are, as modern instruction has nothing to do with hitting every shot from an open stance.

papa
10-19-2011, 05:30 PM
Why can't you just admit that most tennis books and many tennis instructors are mostly traditional? Based on your statement above, I have to wonder how traditional you are, as modern instruction has nothing to do with hitting every shot from an open stance.

Well 5263, I'm never quite sure what your talking about - I don't put labels on myself and never have. I want those that I coach/teach to learn how to volley, hit effective overheads, use the slice and so forth - sorry if you don't care for that but with all due respect, I don't care & think I'll keep doing what I do.

Regarding my tennis library and tennis instructors. Again with all due respect, I would suggest you not wander far off your tether because your going to get in trouble quickly. I think maybe you should re-check/re-read Oscar's material on open stances. It wouldn't be my place to quote him but I'm quite certain he sees the open stance as better in most forehand situations.

I know I have never advocated hitting everything from an open stance but again check your book and look at the pictures and read the captions before you start making crazy comments. I believe it has been Oscar who, although not the first, is a believer in the open stance but again, you check for yourself.
Let me know which pictures in his book show/advocate using a closed or even a neutral stance for the forehand. Excluding the step-in volley and backhand, I bet there isn't one picture or any words advising readers to use a neutral or closed stance on the forehand in the entire book but you'll have to check that for yourself.

I don't know or really care where your from or what types of clubs you visit or play at but you really should get your facts correct before you start questioning others. I'm not out pushing a product or service so I really don't care what style you attribute to me.

Incidentally from everything I know, Oscar is a gentleman and very knowledgeable regarding tennis. His contributions to the
game have been significant. I suppose most of us don't buy into a lot of the hype but that's another situation - he has a product to sell and I understand. Wish he wouldn't do it so much here but that's for TW to deal with.

Limpinhitter
10-19-2011, 06:31 PM
You yourself provided the photo of Don Budge (I presume as a junior) using a western grip:

http://www.amazon.com/Don-Budge-Tenn.../dp/B000J3WLHS

If you click on the photo you get this larger version:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/B000J3WLHS/ref=dp_image_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

You can tell it's Western because even though the racket face is vertical and the racket staff is horizontal, his elbow is lower than his wrist. Contrast that to this picture you provided:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bertmorganarchive/4417736026/

Here, he is using an Eastern grip. Even if he raised his arm so that the racket would be horizontal, his elbow would still be slightly higher than his wrist.

In the continental style, with the racket staff horizontal and the racket face vertical, the elbow is almost directly above the wrist:

http://www.espn.co.uk/onthisday/sport/story/164.html
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01428/Rod_Laver_1428240c.jpg

Frank,

After listening Don Budge give a lecture on proper grips, and why he did not advocate a Western grip, I asked him personally about the grip in that picture. I told him that it looked pretty close to a Western grip. He explained that it was an Eastern grip with his wrist laid back, not a Western grip. Also, that book came out in the 1960's. The cover may be Budge as an amature or a pro, but, he's definitely not a junior in that pic.

I would also tell you that it is very common for grips to shift a bit after contact. For example, I've seen several pictures of Federer's grip after contact in which it appears that his grip shifted from Eastern to SW. That may be what is depicted in that picture of Budge. But, as already stated, his explanation was that it just looks Western because his wrist is laid back.

PS: That picture of Laver is showing him in front of the service line, so, it's almost certainly a fh volley.

papa
10-20-2011, 05:10 AM
....................

I would also tell you that it is very common for grips to shift a bit after contact. .........................

Although this happens somewhat, I'd be interested in your opinion on why it happens. Are you saying that pros go into the shot with one grip and after contact, they are in another? Pros are constantly making minor adjustments throughout the stroke but it sounds like your talking about rather major adjustments.

We certainly have this with lower level players for a couple of reasons but I'd like to see your opinions on this subject.

Limpinhitter
10-20-2011, 05:36 AM
Although this happens somewhat, I'd be interested in your opinion on why it happens. Are you saying that pros go into the shot with one grip and after contact, they are in another? Pros are constantly making minor adjustments throughout the stroke but it sounds like your talking about rather major adjustments.

We certainly have this with lower level players for a couple of reasons but I'd like to see your opinions on this subject.

To be clear, I'm speaking strictly about the forehand. I'm not sure why it happens, but, I've seen many examples of Eastern grips morphing towards SW grips by pros. I can only speculate that they are making ball contact below the centerline of the racquet face, and that the impact, coupled with a very relaxed grip, is causing the racquet to slightly shift in their hands.

5263
10-20-2011, 03:42 PM
Well 5263, I'm never quite sure what your talking about - I don't put labels on myself and never have.

Regarding my tennis library and tennis instructors. Again with all due respect, I would suggest you not wander far off your tether because your going to get in trouble quickly.
Let me know which pictures in his book show/advocate using a closed or even a neutral stance for the forehand.

Incidentally from everything I know, Oscar is a gentleman and very knowledgeable regarding tennis. His contributions to the
game have been significant. .

You seem a little upset, and I did not intend that. I have much respect for your contributions on this site and we most often agree anyway.

In this case we have some cause for debate as you made some unfounded blanket statements much like deluxe does; not your usual style. I like that you said you don't know what I'm talking about, as that is quite true here. Oscar's instruction, MTM, is not stance dependent. Open stance is a big teaching tool for MTM, but I repeat, MTM is not stance dependent on any shot. You may be caught in many stances during a match and you must know how to execute from any position. So your smart remark about a tether was not needed and only served to highlight what you didn't know about Modern instruction when made the comment about "hitting every ball from an Open stance" as though it had something to do with anything. Sorry if there are no pics for you. My book is on loan, so I can't ck that for you, even though I'm quite sure that playnice and Oscar can confirm that no MTM shots are stance dependent.

I'm glad we agree that Oscar is a gentleman and has contributed greatly to the game!

papa
10-20-2011, 07:01 PM
To be clear, I'm speaking strictly about the forehand. I'm not sure why it happens, but, I've seen many examples of Eastern grips morphing towards SW grips by pros. I can only speculate that they are making ball contact below the centerline of the racquet face, and that the impact, coupled with a very relaxed grip, is causing the racquet to slightly shift in their hands.

OK. To me the centerline of the racquet runs the other way - from tip to handle, north to south. I think terms or our understanding of terms, often get in the way of any meaningful discussion. Maybe your talking about balls that strike "below" or "above" this line - toward the 3:00 & 9:00, or more to the sides of the racquet which "could" torque it a bit. Just trying to understand.

In higher level tennis the racquet does get accidentally turned/torqued very much - maybe some but I don't think enough to notice. I suppose it could happen so you might be right.

papa
10-20-2011, 07:43 PM
You seem a little upset, and I did not intend that. I have much respect for your contributions on this site and we most often agree anyway.

In this case we have some cause for debate as you made some unfounded blanket statements much like deluxe does; not your usual style. I like that you said you don't know what I'm talking about, as that is quite true here. Oscar's instruction, MTM, is not stance dependent. Open stance is a big teaching tool for MTM, but I repeat, MTM is not stance dependent on any shot. You may be caught in many stances during a match and you must know how to execute from any position. So your smart remark about a tether was not needed and only served to highlight what you didn't know about Modern instruction when made the comment about "hitting every ball from an Open stance" as though it had something to do with anything. Sorry if there are no pics for you. My book is on loan, so I can't ck that even though I'm quite sure that playnice and Oscar can confirm that no MTM shots are stance dependent.

I'm glad we agree that Oscar is a gentleman and has contributed greatly to the game!

Where did I say that all shots should be hit out of an open stance - I don't do it myself, don't teach or coach it. I happen to prefer an open stance in many/most situations especially on the forehand side but fully realize its not possible or prudent to use exclusively.

I'm not employed by, connected with or have ever claimed to know everything about the mtm material - I have read Oscar's book and believe I did a review about it years ago.

Its interesting that you make the statement that its not stance dependent - not sure Oscar would agree with that. I happened to look at his book a few minutes ago - there are about 25 pictures of forehands being hit/demonstrated by different players including himself. Guess what, every single picture shows the player in a open type stance and not one is of someone in a neutral or closed stance.

I didn't re-read very much of the book but couldn't help but notice a few rather key phrases like "The best pro players keep the racket to their front until the ball is close"; "Open stance forehands are more powerful and natural";"Top pros emphasize lifting, not stepping forward"; etc. So, although I admit I'm not an expert in Oscar's methods, it would appear that there is an emphasis on open-type stances.

Frank Silbermann
10-22-2011, 09:28 PM
Well, will some exceptions rules haven't changed all that much over the years - serve, tie-breakers, racquet size, etc. ...

I certainly get kids learning the volley, overhead, slice and other shots that were used long ago but the game has really changed primarily due to the racquets and strings. Indeed, the rackets must be much more powerful, if McEnroe is correct in saying that he now serves harder than he did thirty years ago. That, combined with the rule change allowing you to have both feet in the air and over the baseline at contact is what resulted in a boring Wimbledon final in which a huge number of points were service winners. To change that, I'm told, they switched to a slower, higher-bouncing grass. In my mind, they should have put the old service rule back; slowing the court resulted in Wimbledon winners who play like clay-court specialists. Also, in the days of 15 oz wood rackets and no tie-breakers, people who relied on windshield-wiper follow-throughs would poop out if faced with a set that went 15 games to 13 -- all the more so if they were base-liners.

Frank,

After listening Don Budge give a lecture on proper grips, and why he did not advocate a Western grip, I asked him personally about the grip in that picture. I told him that it looked pretty close to a Western grip. He explained that it was an Eastern grip with his wrist laid back, not a Western grip. Also, that book came out in the 1960's. The cover may be Budge as an amateur or a pro, but, he's definitely not a junior in that pic.

I would also tell you that it is very common for grips to shift a bit after contact. For example, I've seen several pictures of Federer's grip after contact in which it appears that his grip shifted from Eastern to SW. That may be what is depicted in that picture of Budge. But, as already stated, his explanation was that it just looks Western because his wrist is laid back.

PS: That picture of Laver is showing him in front of the service line, so, it's almost certainly a fh volley. Perhaps Budge's grip did shift on contact in that photo; he would have to be double-jointed to lay his wrist back that far with an eastern grip.

As for the picture of Laver, well, like most Australians he used the same grip for ground strokes as for volleys, right?

5263
10-23-2011, 08:43 PM
Its interesting that you make the statement that its not stance dependent - not sure Oscar would agree with that.

So, although I admit I'm not an expert in Oscar's methods, it would appear that there is an emphasis on open-type stances.

Those are words right out of Oscar's mouth, as I've been on court with him many times. Modern tennis is not stance dependent.

But you are right; there is a emphasis on open stance.

Limpinhitter
10-23-2011, 08:56 PM
Indeed, the rackets must be much more powerful, if McEnroe is correct in saying that he now serves harder than he did thirty years ago. That, combined with the rule change allowing you to have both feet in the air and over the baseline at contact is what resulted in a boring Wimbledon final in which a huge number of points were service winners. To change that, I'm told, they switched to a slower, higher-bouncing grass. In my mind, they should have put the old service rule back; slowing the court resulted in Wimbledon winners who play like clay-court specialists. Also, in the days of 15 oz wood rackets and no tie-breakers, people who relied on windshield-wiper follow-throughs would poop out if faced with a set that went 15 games to 13 -- all the more so if they were base-liners.

* * *

FYI, the tennis establishment has been concerned about the domination of mens' tennis by the serve, and by the serve and volley game, as far back as 50 years ago. They wanted to bring back longer rallies similar to the pre Jack Kramer era for the benefit of public interest. Jimmy Van Alen (founder of the Int'l Tennis Hall of Fame and inventor of the tie breaker), proposed eliminating one serve, or alternatively, adding a line behind the baseline from which men had to serve. As of yet, neither of these ideas has been adopted.

Limpinhitter
10-23-2011, 08:57 PM
Those are words right out of Oscar's mouth, as I've been on court with him many times. Modern tennis is not stance dependent.

But you are right; there is a emphasis on open stance.

IMO, an open stance promotes a modern forehand swing and finish. It can be done with a neutral stance, but, it's more automatic with an open stance.

Limpinhitter
10-24-2011, 06:55 AM
OK. To me the centerline of the racquet runs the other way - from tip to handle, north to south. I think terms or our understanding of terms, often get in the way of any meaningful discussion. Maybe your talking about balls that strike "below" or "above" this line - toward the 3:00 & 9:00, or more to the sides of the racquet which "could" torque it a bit. Just trying to understand.

In higher level tennis the racquet does get accidentally turned/torqued very much - maybe some but I don't think enough to notice. I suppose it could happen so you might be right.

That's the same centerline I'm talking about. Hitting above or below the 9-3 O'Clock centerline that bisects the top and bottom of the racquet wouldn't cause tortional rotation in your hand. Anyway, here's a slo-mo video of Federer showing the racquet turning in his hand at contact causing his grip to shift from Eastern to SW. The exact grips before and after may be debatable, but, the shift is pretty clear. Ignore the cheesy music.

Federer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkDIFP4SK9Q&feature=related

'Nando Gonzalez: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hA28Wqp0Fg (Note that on the second forehand contact is above the centerline causing the racquet face to open a bit).

PS: Even clearer, Federer at :10 seconds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydMHJGpypQE&feature=related

5263
10-24-2011, 07:49 AM
IMO, an open stance promotes a modern forehand swing and finish. It can be done with a neutral stance, but, it's more automatic with an open stance.

Exactly, but
there are compensations the pros use when caught in less than optimal stances.

sureshs
10-24-2011, 08:46 AM
Indeed, the rackets must be much more powerful, if McEnroe is correct in saying that he now serves harder than he did thirty years ago

That may be correct, but don't underestimate the amount of physical training he puts in now, compared to what he used to do in his playing years.

sureshs
10-24-2011, 08:51 AM
IMO, an open stance promotes a modern forehand swing and finish. It can be done with a neutral stance, but, it's more automatic with an open stance.

Pure open stance (feet parallel to the baseline throughout the shot) is a bad idea and used by pros only for deep balls which catch them by surprise.

The inconsistency here that those who bash closed stance refer to the pure closed stance in which the back foot stays put through impact, not acknowledging that pros hit closed stance by stepping in with the front foot and then rotating the back foot through on impact - while using the term open stance to include semi open and semi closed stances and not the strict meaning. That is why most of these pseudo-arguments go on.

Limpinhitter
10-24-2011, 09:47 AM
Pure open stance (feet parallel to the baseline throughout the shot) is a bad idea and used by pros only for deep balls which catch them by surprise.

The inconsistency here that those who bash closed stance refer to the pure closed stance in which the back foot stays put through impact, not acknowledging that pros hit closed stance by stepping in with the front foot and then rotating the back foot through on impact - while using the term open stance to include semi open and semi closed stances and not the strict meaning. That is why most of these pseudo-arguments go on.

I don't know what the addition of the word "pure" to the words "open stance" means in your mind. But, as I have explained in detail in this and other threads, an open stance forehand, where the right foot (for a right hander) is closer to the side fence than the left foot, is, and always has been, the correct stance for a forehand. As I have also exhaustively explained, a closed stance forehand where the left foot is closer to the side fence than the right foot, long taught as the correct method, is a technical flaw that should be avoided if possible under the circumstances. There is nothing pseudo about my arguments. That's a cop-out resulting from having no rational argument to the contrary. Not only is my explanation unassailable on its face, it is proven correct by history. The bottom line is that the stance that promotes the hitting shoulder to be even with, or in front of, the not hitting shoulder at contact is the optimal stance.

Perhaps if you reviewed the entire thread, it would be easier for you to understand the factors that support the correct conclusion.

sureshs
10-24-2011, 09:51 AM
I don't know what the addition of the word "pure" to the words "open stance" means in your mind. But, as I have explained in detail in this and other threads, an open stance forehand, where the right foot (for a right hander) is closer to the side fence than the left foot, is, and always has been, the correct stance for a forehand. As I have also exhaustively explained, a closed stance forehand where the left foot is closer to the side fence than the right foot, long taught as the correct method, is a technical flaw that should be avoided if possible under the circumstances. There is nothing pseudo about my arguments. That's a cop-out resulting from having no rational argument to the contrary. Not only is my explanation unassailable on its face, it is proven correct by history. The bottom line is that the stance that promotes the hitting shoulder to be even with, or in front of, the not hitting shoulder at contact is the optimal stance.

You cannot use the literal meaning of one and the liberal meaning of the other in a selective manner.

If the right foot is closer to the fence than the left foot, it includes semi open or semi closed stances as well, and including them under open stance is not correct. It doesn't matter whether you stated your definition before or not - that doesn't make it correct.

Limpinhitter
10-24-2011, 09:58 AM
You cannot use the literal meaning of one and the liberal meaning of the other in a selective manner.

If the right foot is closer to the fence than the left foot, it includes semi open or semi closed stances as well, and including them under open stance is not correct. It doesn't matter whether you stated your definition before or not - that doesn't make it correct.

That's a non sequitur and a false premise in one, Suresh. I have only used the literal meaning and I have defined what it is. The bottom line is that the stance that best promotes the hitting shoulder being even with, or in front of, the non-hitting shoulder at contact, is the optimal stance. A closed stance is a flaw that should be avoided if possible. Those premises are correct, whether you agree or not!

dozu
10-24-2011, 10:17 AM
The bottom line is that the stance that best promotes the hitting shoulder being even with, or in front of, the non-hitting shoulder at contact, is the optimal stance.

what a bunch of bull crap.

if that were true, pro golfers will all hit their T shots square to the target... so will all the baseball hitters, and all the hockey players.

5263
10-24-2011, 10:39 AM
If the right foot is closer to the fence than the left foot, it includes semi open or semi closed stances as well, and including them under open stance is not correct.

Can't agree with this above.
They semi- open is an Open stance and the idea of semi-open is just a hedge for neutral stance advocates to try to be closer to what is actually happening in high level strokes.
So it does not even require him to define ahead of time.

Semi-open does not really exits as used and is just an Open stance, but can be useful to be more descriptive of the open stance adjustments. Semi-open is not a neutral stance adjustment.
You could make a better case that neutral stance is part of closed stances IMO.

5263
10-24-2011, 10:43 AM
if that were true, pro golfers will all hit their T shots square to the target... so will all the baseball hitters, and all the hockey players.

Why in the world would you make this leap of assumption?

Not sure whether I agree with Limpin or not at this point, but
yours and sureshs counter points do not hold water.

dozu
10-24-2011, 11:14 AM
Why in the world would you make this leap of assumption?

Not sure whether I agree with Limpin or not at this point, but
yours and sureshs counter points do not hold water.

stance preference should have nothing to do with shoulder alignment at impact.... it's more about recovery time, which is not an issue in golf, baseball or hockey. (all of these use a closed stance, which means that stance gives the maximum power, but for tennis this marginal gain of power doesn't justify for the extra recovery time it requires)

tennismonkey
10-24-2011, 11:20 AM
that's an interesting notion -- closed stance has the potential to hit with more power than an open stance?

most ATP pros hit with open stance forehands. i think most WTA pros hit with closed stance forehands. obviously they both work but the open stance generates more RPM's on the ball which is arguably more important than sheer MPH's.

dozu
10-24-2011, 12:34 PM
that's an interesting notion -- closed stance has the potential to hit with more power than an open stance?

most ATP pros hit with open stance forehands. i think most WTA pros hit with closed stance forehands. obviously they both work but the open stance generates more RPM's on the ball which is arguably more important than sheer MPH's.

say you want to hit a tennis ball as FAR as possible... what stance do you take? i think most people will use closed. I know I would.

ATP is about spin, about moving guys around, so open stance, more spin, less time needed for recovery.

WTA is about first strike to take the other girl out of position, flat balls rule there.

Limpinhitter
10-24-2011, 12:36 PM
what a bunch of bull crap.

if that were true, pro golfers will all hit their T shots square to the target... so will all the baseball hitters, and all the hockey players.

Hahaha! How would you know, you've never played a tennis match in your life. And, I'm sure you are equally accomplished at golf.

dozu
10-24-2011, 12:44 PM
Hahaha! How would you know, you've never played a tennis match in your life. And, I'm sure you are equally accomplished at golf.

Limp you sound so desperate. so what I have never played USTA... like I said, my understanding of tennis is at the 'community park king' level, while yours is at the 'community park slave level'.

I have shown how I play, anybody wants to dispute my 'park king' status can step up and dispute.

and if you have anything to show you are not a 'park slave', show it.

either we put up a $3k bet, or you put up a video, and I will sign up for a tournament.

now put up or shut up.

dozu
10-24-2011, 12:49 PM
^^^ now guys, just watch how the faceless coward weasel out of such challenge, because the faceless coward has got NOTHING.

5263
10-24-2011, 12:50 PM
say you want to hit a tennis ball as FAR as possible... what stance do you take? i think most people will use closed. I know I would.



No,
you would swing it more like a discus is throw.

5263
10-24-2011, 12:58 PM
^^^ now guys, just watch how the faceless coward weasel out of such challenge, because the faceless coward has got NOTHING.

It would be good to realize that everyone does not prove their point thru a dare or bet.

HunterST
10-24-2011, 01:03 PM
No,
you would swing it more like a discus is throw.

Yeah, I agree. That's the method most people would naturally use.

Just for the record,Darren Cahill answered a question about closed stance/step in style stroke on twitter. He said "tough to get the hand speed necessary for the game today that way. 45 degree stance and let the stroke fly"

May have not got the quote exactly verbatim, but that's the gist of it.

dozu
10-24-2011, 01:11 PM
for tennis, sure, 45 degree is perfect.

but go out and hit a few balls to an open grassy field, see which way you hit the furthest..... I know my longest ball would be hit with my feet line parallel to the target line, similar to golfing.

but doing this in tennis would often lock myself into poor position after the shot is made, hence not optimal in tennis.

sureshs
10-24-2011, 01:21 PM
I use 45 degrees myself, but I don't claim it is open stance - that would be 0 degrees.

Limpinhitter
10-24-2011, 02:45 PM
Why in the world would you make this leap of assumption?

Not sure whether I agree with Limpin or not at this point, but
yours and sureshs counter points do not hold water.

Dozu has never played a real tennis match in his life, and he thinks a forehand is the same thing as a golf swing (which means he knows as much about golf as he does about tennis). Nevertheless, not only does he feel free to give tennis lesson online and criticize the advice of others, he actually assigns playing levels to himself and others as if he had any idea of what he was talking about. What a clown!

Limpinhitter
10-24-2011, 02:47 PM
I use 45 degrees myself, but I don't claim it is open stance - that would be 0 degrees.

No, zero degress would be with your feet in line with the target. If you are saying that your left foot is 45 degrees to the left of the target line from your right foot, then you are describing an "open stance."

5263
10-24-2011, 02:53 PM
No, zero degress would be with your feet in line with the target. If you are saying that your left foot is 45 degrees to the left of the target line from your right foot, then you are describing an "open stance."

Good point, but wasted effort. He knows that any amount of Open is Open stance. He will try to say he is 45 from the baseline and that neutral is 90 from the baseline, even though baseline is irrelevant. Things are from line of shot. He is just trying to twist the terms to fit his developing ideas on the Fh.
He wants to hit it his way, but wonders why he can't execute the result he should be able to expect from proper technique.

5263
10-24-2011, 02:56 PM
but go out and hit a few balls to an open grassy field, see which way you hit the furthest..... I know my longest ball would be hit with my feet line parallel to the target line, similar to golfing.


It might be your longest balls, but others swinging like throwing a discus would out distance you if they have similar ability, due to technical advantage.

Our advantage in tennis, like discus, is that we can be in motion when hitting, not stuck in a stance like baseball and golf.
And yes, there are reasons they are stuck in those stances.

dozu
10-24-2011, 03:04 PM
It might be your longest balls, but others swinging like throwing a discus would out distance you if they have similar ability, due to technical advantage.



doubtful.

maybe we need to get a bunch of guys go out on the grassy field and hit some.

5263
10-24-2011, 03:05 PM
Yeah, I agree. That's the method most people would naturally use.

Just for the record,Darren Cahill answered a question about closed stance/step in style stroke on twitter. He said "tough to get the hand speed necessary for the game today that way. 45 degree stance and let the stroke fly"

May have not got the quote exactly verbatim, but that's the gist of it.

good points.

jmnk
10-24-2011, 03:28 PM
well, i'm not sure who is right here, but hitting in golf or hockey from open stance is a bit challenging, even if one wanted, since you have to use both hands to hold the club or the stick. Not quite the same as tennis forehand......

sureshs
10-24-2011, 03:31 PM
Dozu has never played a real tennis match in his life, and he thinks a forehand is the same thing as a golf swing (which means he knows as much about golf as he does about tennis). Nevertheless, not only does he feel free to give tennis lesson online and criticize the advice of others, he actually assigns playing levels to himself and others as if he had any idea of what he was talking about. What a clown!

Golf is for men with small balls

eliza
10-24-2011, 04:01 PM
Having grown up on the traditional closed stance, flat forehand, I just could not get my head around the new forehand. Well went out this weekend hitting with my boy and tried out that extreme western forehand grip and all I can say is WOW!! It was like what an idiot I've been for not looking at it (like I felt in the 80's staying with my Snauwaert/Vitas while everyone went Prince). It is so much easier to generate spin while still hitting out, ball just dives in. Great for hitting aggressively.

I am so glad you tried! I hope you will now keep seeking development in all your strokes!!

vitas77remembered
10-24-2011, 04:03 PM
Got to say, do not criticize golf until you have actually tried to master it.

Out of all the (ball) sports I've played, baseball, tennis, basketball, football, volleyball, there has been nothing harder to master than golf. Its not a reaction sport, so the mental aspect of it is so much greater. That does not make golfers more of an "athlete" than others.

vitas77remembered
10-24-2011, 04:04 PM
I am so glad you tried! I hope you will now keep seeking development in all your strokes!!

Thanks for the encouragement. Yes, its led to further experimentation and unbelievably I think I hit cleaner groundies than I've ever hit (sadly, I wish I had the drive and court coverage I had 25 years ago!).

sureshs
10-24-2011, 04:41 PM
Got to say, do not criticize golf until you have actually tried to master it.

Out of all the (ball) sports I've played, baseball, tennis, basketball, football, volleyball, there has been nothing harder to master than golf. Its not a reaction sport, so the mental aspect of it is so much greater. That does not make golfers more of an "athlete" than others.

Golf is much more difficult than tennis.

5263
10-24-2011, 05:45 PM
Golf is much more difficult than tennis.

Wouldn't it always depend on the opponents?

Limpinhitter
10-24-2011, 06:47 PM
Got to say, do not criticize golf until you have actually tried to master it.

Out of all the (ball) sports I've played, baseball, tennis, basketball, football, volleyball, there has been nothing harder to master than golf. Its not a reaction sport, so the mental aspect of it is so much greater. That does not make golfers more of an "athlete" than others.

Agreed! Golf is the only sport I've played that required a higher level of skill than tennis. The athleticism required to play golf is a combination of balance, timing, eye-hand coordination and acute proprioception which most humans just don't have.

Limpinhitter
10-24-2011, 06:47 PM
Golf is much more difficult than tennis.

A little more difficult in terms of the skill needed to play.

LeeD
10-27-2011, 03:25 PM
I think Dozu hit the nail on the head when he compared 4.5 tennis to under 90's golf.
Both are hard, one more athletic, the other more technical, but technical includes more mind games, frustration, and no way to blow off steam.
But both mentioned don't approach the level of professional's at the sport, so we can't really say for them.

user92626
10-27-2011, 03:35 PM
There's NO sport that is harder than another sport. They're all freaking hard. The truism of this in every sport is that man always tries to best himself. It's the same player, same opponent and same process.

sureshs
10-27-2011, 03:42 PM
Wouldn't it always depend on the opponents?

No. Golf is inherently more difficult.

sureshs
10-27-2011, 03:44 PM
There's NO sport that is harder than another sport. They're all freaking hard. The truism of this in every sport is that man always tries to best himself. It's the same player, same opponent and same process.

C'mon man, let us talk common sense here and not pro level play. Table tennis is definitely easier than ice hockey.

LeeD
10-27-2011, 03:53 PM
Problem here becomes ..... FOR WHOM?
A neanderdahl of a hulking giant, totally no hand coordination, would do well in RUGBY, but struggle to sustain a rally in table tennis.
A skinny skill athlete would get pummelled in rugby and football, but excell in table tennis and badminton.
The BIG SHOW, at 6'10" and 460lbs., would be OK in pro wrestling, but underachieve as a jockey or a tunnel rat.

user92626
10-27-2011, 04:11 PM
C'mon man, let us talk common sense here and not pro level play. Table tennis is definitely easier than ice hockey.

I'm using common sense. :) You think only pros have it hard (or easy, not sure what you mean anyway :)?

Ice hockey is easier than marbles. So frustrating with those little glass balls.

sureshs
10-27-2011, 04:12 PM
Problem here becomes ..... FOR WHOM?
A neanderdahl of a hulking giant, totally no hand coordination, would do well in RUGBY, but struggle to sustain a rally in table tennis.
A skinny skill athlete would get pummelled in rugby and football, but excell in table tennis and badminton.
The BIG SHOW, at 6'10" and 460lbs., would be OK in pro wrestling, but underachieve as a jockey or a tunnel rat.

For the "average" guy

eliza
10-27-2011, 04:17 PM
Thanks for the encouragement. Yes, its led to further experimentation and unbelievably I think I hit cleaner groundies than I've ever hit (sadly, I wish I had the drive and court coverage I had 25 years ago!).

welcome to the adult players group! Consolation is the opponents are your age, too. And like LeeD or Dozu wrote to me long time ago: the alternative is not fun at all :)
JUST DO IT....

5263
10-27-2011, 05:14 PM
I'm using common sense. :) You think only pros have it hard (or easy, not sure what you mean anyway :)?

Ice hockey is easier than marbles. So frustrating with those little glass balls.

I think what sureshs means that in some sports it's easier to "think" you are good or avg and can play, but in reality, if a task seems easier, then it will be easier for others too. So to be at a certain level at any of them would be about the challenge.

Even though he may feel his tennis strokes are better than his golf strokes, they are prob about the same for effort given.

sureshs
10-28-2011, 06:51 AM
I think what sureshs means that in some sports it's easier to "think" you are good or avg and can play, but in reality, if a task seems easier, then it will be easier for others too. So to be at a certain level at any of them would be about the challenge.

Even though he may feel his tennis strokes are better than his golf strokes, they are prob about the same for effort given.

I have played golf for a grand total of about 3 hours. So almost zero effort. But I can just feel that it is going to be impossible for me to be any good at all.

I have very good support for what I am saying. Read the latest issue of RSI magazine. There is Peter Burwash talking about tennis opportunities in the Caribbean. He says that he foresees in the future there to be more money in tennis than in golf, and the reason he gives is that it takes years to be any good in golf (the other reason was about tennis favoring the family) while tennis is much easier.

What exactly does he mean? If you don't go for the extreme arguments like is it easier to be like Wood than Federer, it is common sense that, for the average guy, tennis is easier. Or that table tennis is easier than boxing.

DjokovicForTheWin
10-28-2011, 08:11 AM
Golf is also a lot more expensive just to play recreationally.

5263
10-28-2011, 08:34 AM
I have played golf for a grand total of about 3 hours. So almost zero effort. But I can just feel that it is going to be impossible for me to be any good at all.

I have very good support for what I am saying. Read the latest issue of RSI magazine. There is Peter Burwash talking about tennis opportunities in the Caribbean. He says that he foresees in the future there to be more money in tennis than in golf, and the reason he gives is that it takes years to be any good in golf (the other reason was about tennis favoring the family) while tennis is much easier.

What exactly does he mean? If you don't go for the extreme arguments like is it easier to be like Wood than Federer, it is common sense that, for the average guy, tennis is easier. Or that table tennis is easier than boxing.
It may be easier to reach a level of fun or level where you think you can play (I don't think so), but in the end, being a 5.0 golfer so to speak is going to be about the same difficulty as a 5.0 tennis player, because the playing field to compete is level within the sport.

as beginners, if golf is harder for you, then it is harder for me,
then we are judged against each other. So if we are each 9 over on each hole, it's like us both being 2.5 players who can't keep the ball in play. Shooting par is probably like being a 6.5 in tennis. Even as a beginner I can par some holes, but I can never play a 6.5 level set or game. Most can't even play a 5 ball rally at 6.5 level, and I may be in that group as well.

If anything golf would be easier, cause anyone can walk up and hit the ball till it goes in the hole. Tennis requires someone to be able to get the ball in court at least once to be playing the game at all.

sureshs
10-28-2011, 08:57 AM
It may be easier to reach a level of fun or level where you think you can play (I don't think so), but in the end, being a 5.0 golfer so to speak is going to be about the same difficulty as a 5.0 tennis player, because the playing field to compete is level within the sport.

as beginners, if golf is harder for you, then it is harder for me,
then we are judged against each other. So if we are each 9 over on each hole, it's like us both being 2.5 players who can't keep the ball in play. Shooting par is probably like being a 6.5 in tennis. Even as a beginner I can par some holes, but I can never play a 6.5 level set or game. Most can't even play a 5 ball rally at 6.5 level, and I may be in that group as well.

If anything golf would be easier, cause anyone can walk up and hit the ball till it goes in the hole. Even in grade school with no lessons I could hit 150 yds pretty straight and have fun at it. Tennis requires someone to be able to get the ball in court at least once to be playing the game at all.

Golf uses small balls. And the club head is also small. And both are hard. You are hitting a small hard thing with another small hard thing, and though one of them is stationary, the other one is being swung over a much larger arc than tennis, and is also flexing in its path. When I started tennis 8 years ago, I never missed a ball if I could get anywhere close to it. In my 45 minutes or so of total driving range practice, I hit the ground and not the ball about 50% of the time, and it felt painful. So did the shots which hit the ball but not in the sweetspot.

In the short game, aim and control are paramount. You are putting a small ball into a small hole from many yards away. In tennis, your aiming requirements are to put a bigger ball into a 39 by 27 feet area. Which one is more difficult? And if you miss the sweetspot with one of the newer comfortable racquets, you hardly feel anything, they are so well designed for absorption and cushioning.

Another fact is that technique is everything in golf. When I took the lesson, if I tried to chip on my own, the ball went nowhere. When the pro positioned me and guided my weight transfer into the left foot and the upper body position, it was a winner. It was a matter of no chip with bad form vs good chip with good form. In tennis, there is a continuum of levels with proportional gains and people don't get frustrated. There was a famous saying from a CEO that he would never make a deal with another CEO without playing golf with him. The key is how much frustrating the game can get. People miss puts from 3 feet away and end up putting the ball 4 feet away, just due to a small miscalculation of applied force. How irritating is that?

You are correct about relative level. But that is not the whole story. If it is difficult for you and also for me, it doesn't do anything for my satisfaction as a recreational player. I have to do what I should do reasonably well, and feel good about it, before worrying about how you do.

In any case, you need not go by my words, but Peter Burwash, who was a former touring pro and is one of the most successful tennis businessmen.

I also have a close friend, paranoid about his diet and fitness, who played both tennis and golf, and he said the same thing.

DjokovicForTheWin
10-28-2011, 09:23 AM
Golf takes a lot less athleticism, especially at the more advanced stages.

sureshs
10-28-2011, 09:27 AM
Golf takes a lot less athleticism, especially at the more advanced stages.

Athleticism can be cultivated, by diet and exercise. Fine aiming skills and body weight distribution adjustments during shots are difficult to learn.

5263
10-28-2011, 09:30 AM
You are correct about relative level. But that is not the whole story. If it is difficult for you and also for me, it doesn't do anything for my satisfaction as a recreational player. I have to do what I should do reasonably well, and feel good about it, before worrying about how you do.

In any case, you need not go by my words, but Peter Burwash, who was a former touring pro and is one of the most successful tennis businessmen.

I also have a close friend, paranoid about his diet and fitness, who played both tennis and golf, and he said the same thing.

Ok, so we agree, that maybe golf is a harder game to get satisfaction, and
we agree that on a relative basis, it all equals out. If you hit the ground 50% of the time, I see why you feel it is so hard. Burwash seems to be a fine fellow, but his opinion as a tennis pro carries little sway, as I expect he thinks tennis is easier for him.

5263
10-28-2011, 09:34 AM
Athleticism can be cultivated, by diet and exercise. Fine aiming skills and body weight distribution adjustments during shots are difficult to learn.

IMO this would be reversed in order of which is more difficult to upgrade.
A person who is not very athletic will likely never be so, but
many unathletic folks can learn golf, bowling, billiards, and such to a reasonable degree.

Maybe CEOs do choose to play golf, but less of them could even go out to play tennis most likely.

sureshs
10-28-2011, 09:46 AM
Ok, so we agree, that maybe golf is a harder game to get satisfaction, and
we agree that on a relative basis, it all equals out. If you hit the ground 50% of the time, I see why you feel it is so hard. Burwash seems to be a fine fellow, but his opinion as a tennis pro carries little sway, as I expect he thinks tennis is easier for him.

Wouldn't say that. He is a teacher, and probably taught thousands of people. I am also pretty sure he would be playing golf himself and be pretty close to the golf scene - it is pretty much a part of the lifestyle to which he caters.

dozu
10-28-2011, 10:15 AM
this one is going down the all hats no cattle route.

so who's gonna post a golf swing video?

DjokovicForTheWin
10-28-2011, 10:15 AM
Athleticism can be cultivated, by diet and exercise. Fine aiming skills and body weight distribution adjustments during shots are difficult to learn.

Actually diet and exercise are vastly overrated in becoming athletic. It's mainly genetics. The misinterpretation lies in the causality. Eating right and exercising doesn't really make you athletic, although it can help. Rather it's inherently athletic people that tend to eat right and exercise more.

In actual fact it's something like aiming that can be cultivated more easily in a random person.

sureshs
10-28-2011, 10:28 AM
In actual fact it's something like aiming that can be cultivated more easily in a random person.

Which is again much easier in tennis than in golf!!

DjokovicForTheWin
10-28-2011, 10:30 AM
Which is again much easier in tennis than in golf!!

Yes I agree with that. But that doesn't change the fact that tennis requires more athleticism. Just compare the elite tennis players with the 'elite' fat asss golfers.

DjokovicForTheWin
10-28-2011, 10:35 AM
Here's how I would put it.

For the average joe it would be easier to play tennis than golf just for recreational purposes.

But if the average joe wanted to become professional, I would say golf would be easier to become pro than tennis. Not to say either is easy, but golf would just be easier.

dozu
10-28-2011, 10:46 AM
Here's how I would put it.

For the average joe it would be easier to play tennis than golf just for recreational purposes.

But if the average joe wanted to become professional, I would say golf would be easier to become pro than tennis. Not to say either is easy, but golf would just be easier.

for recreation, neither is easy..... joe hack prolly hates it when he has to pick up that damn ball like a dog without having a rally more than 2 shots... and digging into the ground 50% is prolly equally frustrating and more embarassing...... ping pong is much more fun.

to become a pro - to get to the same ranking, say top 100, 500, 1000 whatever, by definition it's equally difficult between the too.

but considering the money pie is about 10 X bigger in golf, yes, it's easier to make a living in golf..... top guys on nationwide tour can still make a living... the same cannot be said for the guys on top of the challenger circuit.

not to mention there are european tours, japan tours etc to give the 2nd tier guys more opportunities to make a living.

DjokovicForTheWin
10-28-2011, 10:55 AM
for recreation, neither is easy..... joe hack prolly hates it when he has to pick up that damn ball like a dog without having a rally more than 2 shots... and digging into the ground 50% is prolly equally frustrating and more embarassing...... ping pong is much more fun.

to become a pro - to get to the same ranking, say top 100, 500, 1000 whatever, by definition it's equally difficult between the too.

but considering the money pie is about 10 X bigger in golf, yes, it's easier to make a living in golf..... top guys on nationwide tour can still make a living... the same cannot be said for the guys on top of the challenger circuit.

not to mention there are european tours, japan tours etc to give the 2nd tier guys more opportunities to make a living.

Tennis is way easier recreationally than golf. It's also more accessible to many people.

Ever see John Daly? You think he had golf in his genes? He's just a fat guy that started early, practiced a lot and had the opportunity. For godsakes he played pro golf while being an alcoholic. If that doesn't make pro golf more access to the average joe than pro tennis, I don't know what does.

dozu
10-28-2011, 11:01 AM
Tennis is way easier recreationally than golf. It's also more accessible to many people.

Ever see John Daly? You think he had golf in his genes? He's just a fat guy that practiced a lot and had the opportunity.

'way easier' is unfounded.

the 'more accessible' thing, I am not sure it's part of being recreationally easier.... even if it was, it maybe a different story for different people.... ask the Scotts who live on the coast line with wind blowing 40mph everyday, they'll prolly tell you why they invented golf, instead of playing tennis.

Daly - the 'genes' part is only your opinion.

DjokovicForTheWin
10-28-2011, 11:03 AM
'way easier' is unfounded.

the 'more accessible' thing, I am not sure it's part of being recreationally easier.... even if it was, it maybe a different story for different people.... ask the Scotts who live on the coast line with wind blowing 40mph everyday, they'll prolly tell you why they invented golf, instead of playing tennis.

Daly - the 'genes' part is only your opinion.

Way easier is founded on my personal experience. Genes may be my opinion, but his blubber isn't. Along with many other pro golfers. That in and of itself reveals how relatively 'unathletic' you can be to play pro golf. Impossible in pro tennis. Hence the easier component for most average joes.

dozu
10-28-2011, 11:07 AM
Way easier is founded on my personal experience. Genes may be my opinion, but his blubber isn't. Along with many other pro golfers. That in and of itself reveals how relatively 'unathletic' you can be to play pro golf. Impossible in pro tennis. Hence the easier component for most average joes.

either you or I am confused.... i thought you said tennis is easier?

DjokovicForTheWin
10-28-2011, 11:08 AM
either you or I am confused.... i thought you said tennis is easier?

Tennis is easier recreationally. But for going pro golf would be easier. Perhaps you should read my previous posts before concluding confusion?

DjokovicForTheWin
10-28-2011, 11:09 AM
Toughest sports at pro level.

Key
ENDURANCE: The ability to continue to perform a skill or action for long periods of time. Example: Lance Armstrong
STRENGTH: The ability to produce force. Example: NFL linebackers.
POWER: The ability to produce strength in the shortest possible time. Example: Barry Bonds.
SPEED: The ability to move quickly. Example: Marion Jones, Maurice Green.
AGILITY: The ability to change direction quickly. Example: Derek Jeter, Mia Hamm.
FLEXIBILITY: The ability to stretch the joints across a large range of motion. Example: Gymnasts, divers.
NERVE: The ability to overcome fear. Example: High-board divers, race-car drivers, ski jumpers.
DURABILITY: The ability to withstand physical punishment over a long period of time. Example: NBA/NHL players.
HAND-EYE COORDINATION: The ability to react quickly to sensory perception. Example: A hitter reacting to a breaking pitch; a drag racer timing acceleration to the green light.
ANALYTIC APTITUDE: The ability to evaluate and react appropriately to strategic situations. Example: Joe Montana reading a defense; basketball point guard on a fast break.

Degree of Difficulty: Sport Rankings
SPORT END STR PWR SPD AGI FLX NER DUR HAN ANA TOTAL RANK
Boxing 8.63 8.13 8.63 6.38 6.25 4.38 8.88 8.50 7.00 5.63 72.375 1
Ice Hockey 7.25 7.13 7.88 7.75 7.63 4.88 6.00 8.25 7.50 7.50 71.750 2
Football 5.38 8.63 8.13 7.13 6.38 4.38 7.25 8.50 5.50 7.13 68.375 3
Basketball 7.38 6.25 6.50 7.25 8.13 5.63 4.13 7.75 7.50 7.38 67.875 4
Wrestling 6.63 8.38 7.13 5.13 6.38 7.50 5.00 6.75 4.25 6.38 63.500 5
Martial Arts 5.00 5.88 7.75 6.38 6.00 7.00 6.63 5.88 6.00 6.88 63.375 6
Tennis 7.25 5.13 7.13 6.75 7.75 5.63 3.00 5.00 8.38 6.75 62.750 7
Gymnastics 5.38 6.13 6.63 5.00 6.38 10.00 7.50 6.88 4.50 4.13 62.500 8
Baseball/Softball 4.63 5.75 7.63 6.50 6.75 4.75 5.13 5.63 9.25 6.25 62.250 9
Soccer 7.75 4.50 5.13 7.25 8.25 4.75 3.63 6.25 6.50 7.50 61.500 10
Skiing: Alpine 5.13 5.25 6.00 7.38 6.13 5.63 8.38 6.00 5.13 5.63 60.625 11
Water Polo 7.88 6.63 6.88 5.38 6.38 5.00 4.25 6.38 6.25 5.63 60.625 11
Rugby 6.75 7.00 6.38 5.88 6.00 4.13 6.50 7.88 4.38 5.63 60.500 13
Lacrosse 6.63 5.13 5.75 7.00 6.63 4.75 4.38 6.13 7.13 6.88 60.375 14
Rodeo: Steer Wrestling 4.00 7.00 7.88 3.88 4.88 5.00 7.88 6.88 5.13 4.00 56.500 15
Track and Field: Pole Vault 3.38 6.88 7.25 6.13 5.38 7.00 6.63 4.25 5.25 3.75 55.875 16
Field Hockey 6.75 4.50 5.38 6.00 5.75 4.63 3.75 5.00 6.63 6.50 54.875 17
Speed Skating 7.63 7.25 7.38 8.88 4.00 4.25 4.50 4.63 2.88 3.50 54.875 17
Figure Skating 6.38 5.25 6.63 5.13 6.88 8.25 4.88 4.00 3.13 4.25 54.750 19
Cycling: Distance 9.63 6.38 6.25 5.13 3.75 2.63 5.88 6.88 3.00 4.88 54.375 20
Volleyball 5.13 4.88 6.63 5.00 7.00 5.13 2.88 4.63 7.25 5.88 54.375 20
Racquetball/Squash 6.13 3.75 5.00 5.50 7.25 5.88 2.38 2.88 8.38 6.50 53.625 22
Surfing 4.63 5.00 4.13 4.25 6.63 5.50 8.25 5.50 4.38 4.88 53.125 23
Fencing 4.63 3.75 4.25 5.13 6.13 5.63 4.88 4.25 7.25 6.88 52.750 24
Skiing: Freestyle 4.13 5.13 4.88 5.13 6.63 6.88 6.63 5.13 4.13 3.88 52.500 25
Team Handball 4.88 3.88 5.38 5.50 6.00 4.50 3.00 3.88 7.88 5.88 50.750 26
Cycling: Sprints 4.25 6.13 7.88 7.50 4.00 2.88 4.75 4.50 3.63 4.50 50.000 27
Bobsledding/Luge 3.50 5.50 6.50 6.75 4.13 3.25 7.75 3.50 4.13 4.25 49.250 28
Ski Jumping 3.50 4.50 5.75 4.63 4.00 5.00 9.00 4.63 4.38 3.50 48.875 29
Badminton 5.25 3.25 4.00 5.63 7.38 5.25 1.25 2.63 7.25 6.13 48.000 30
Skiing: Nordic 9.00 5.75 4.38 5.13 4.00 4.00 2.75 5.50 3.63 3.88 48.000 30
Auto Racing 5.88 3.50 2.63 1.63 2.75 1.75 9.88 4.38 8.00 7.50 47.875 32
Track and Field: High Jump 3.00 6.00 7.00 6.13 5.63 6.63 3.50 3.50 3.50 2.88 47.750 33
Track and Field: Long, Triple jumps 4.00 5.63 7.13 6.75 5.00 5.75 2.75 3.25 4.00 3.13 47.375 34
Diving 2.88 5.13 4.63 3.00 3.50 8.50 8.38 5.00 3.00 3.00 47.000 35
Swimming (all strokes): Distance 9.25 5.25 4.63 5.50 3.63 5.50 2.63 4.63 2.88 3.00 46.875 36
Skateboarding 4.13 3.75 3.75 4.13 6.13 5.13 6.50 5.25 4.88 3.13 46.750 37
Track and Field: Sprints 3.50 5.13 7.25 9.88 4.63 5.13 2.00 4.13 2.63 2.38 46.625 38
Rowing 8.13 7.75 7.13 4.00 2.50 4.00 1.75 4.38 2.88 3.63 46.125 39
Rodeo: Calf Roping 3.13 5.38 5.00 4.25 5.63 3.88 4.88 3.75 6.38 3.75 46.000 40
Track and Field: Distance 9.63 5.25 3.75 6.00 3.25 4.38 2.00 5.75 1.88 4.13 46.000 40
Rodeo: Bull/Bareback/Bronc Riding 3.25 5.38 4.00 1.75 3.63 4.25 9.50 7.38 3.63 3.13 45.875 42
Track and Field: Middle Distance 6.00 5.13 5.13 7.75 4.00 4.88 2.00 4.75 2.13 3.75 45.500 43
Weight-Lifting 4.13 9.25 9.75 2.63 2.50 3.38 4.00 4.75 2.25 2.38 45.000 44
Swimming (all strokes): Sprints 4.13 5.25 6.25 7.88 3.63 5.50 2.50 3.25 2.75 3.00 44.125 45
SPORT END STR PWR SPD AGI FLX NER DUR HAN ANA TOTAL RANK
Water Skiing 4.63 5.00 4.50 3.00 4.25 4.75 5.88 4.63 4.13 3.25 44.000 46
Table Tennis 3.50 2.50 4.63 4.13 5.88 4.25 1.38 1.88 8.88 6.00 43.000 47
Track and Field: Weights 3.25 7.88 9.13 3.00 3.13 3.00 2.25 3.63 4.00 2.88 42.125 48
Canoe/Kayak 6.75 5.25 5.63 3.50 2.75 3.88 3.63 3.25 3.13 4.25 42.000 49
Horse Racing 4.00 3.88 2.88 1.38 2.88 3.75 8.00 4.50 3.88 6.50 41.625 50
Golf 3.25 3.88 6.13 1.63 1.75 4.00 2.50 2.38 6.00 6.38 37.875 51
Cheerleading 3.63 3.63 3.38 2.25 4.13 7.50 3.63 3.38 2.50 2.25 36.250 52
Roller Skating 4.75 3.38 4.00 5.13 4.00 3.50 2.63 3.38 2.88 2.63 36.250 52
Equestrian 3.38 3.25 1.75 1.25 2.50 2.88 6.00 2.75 2.88 5.13 31.750 54
Archery 2.88 4.50 3.13 1.13 1.63 2.63 2.75 2.13 6.63 3.25 30.625 55
Curling 2.25 2.63 2.50 1.50 2.25 2.63 1.75 1.50 4.88 5.63 27.500 56
Bowling 2.25 2.75 3.38 1.00 1.88 2.38 1.63 1.25 4.75 4.13 25.375 57
Shooting 2.25 2.50 1.38 0.88 1.13 1.75 2.38 1.88 6.75 4.00 24.875 58
Billiards 1.00 1.00 1.75 0.75 1.00 2.63 1.63 0.75 5.25 5.75 21.500 59
Fishing 1.38 1.63 1.25 0.63 1.50 1.13 0.88 0.88 2.38 2.88 14.500 60

DjokovicForTheWin
10-28-2011, 11:13 AM
LOL, pro golf is right above cheerleading!

dozu
10-28-2011, 11:16 AM
Tennis is easier recreationally. But for going pro golf would be easier. Perhaps you should read my previous posts before concluding confusion?

who has all that time.

by the way, your avatar's freaky laugh prolly made me confused.

DjokovicForTheWin
10-28-2011, 11:17 AM
who has all that time.

by the way, your avatar's freaky laugh prolly made me confused.

Go so it's having its intended effect :)

sureshs
10-28-2011, 12:27 PM
Yes I agree with that. But that doesn't change the fact that tennis requires more athleticism. Just compare the elite tennis players with the 'elite' fat asss golfers.

I already said that I am not going to compare pros.

sureshs
10-28-2011, 12:29 PM
Tennis is way easier recreationally than golf. It's also more accessible to many people.

Ever see John Daly? You think he had golf in his genes? He's just a fat guy that started early, practiced a lot and had the opportunity. For godsakes he played pro golf while being an alcoholic. If that doesn't make pro golf more access to the average joe than pro tennis, I don't know what does.

I have seen John Daly. Is he the fat guy whose son also plays?

You are probably underestimating how much upper body strength and fine control he has.

DjokovicForTheWin
10-28-2011, 01:12 PM
I have seen John Daly. Is he the fat guy whose son also plays?

You are probably underestimating how much upper body strength and fine control he has.

I have no doubt he has a lot of upper body strength. So do a lot of fat guys and yahoos.

Limpinhitter
10-28-2011, 04:31 PM
No. Golf is inherently more difficult.

The "opponent" in golf is the course.

Limpinhitter
10-28-2011, 04:35 PM
Tennis is way easier recreationally than golf. It's also more accessible to many people.

Ever see John Daly? You think he had golf in his genes? He's just a fat guy that started early, practiced a lot and had the opportunity. For godsakes he played pro golf while being an alcoholic. If that doesn't make pro golf more access to the average joe than pro tennis, I don't know what does.

Or maybe John Daly was a rare, gifted golfer who all but squandered his talent. I think Daly had golf in his genes. He was a natural. In addition to his unmached long game from the tee and the fairway, his touch around the green and his putting were amazing, when he was sober.

DjokovicForTheWin
10-28-2011, 04:42 PM
Or maybe John Daly was a rare, gifted golfer who all but squandered his talent. I think Daly had golf in his genes. He was a natural. In addition to his unmached long game from the tee and the fairway, his touch around the green and his putting were amazing, when he was sober.

Daly was but one example. There are many other overweight out of shape players on the PGA. The point remains golf is one of the least athletically stringent 'sports', if it can even be called a sport.

LeeD
10-28-2011, 04:45 PM
I watched JohnDaly, Tiger, and the crowd at the AMEX in SanFrancisco.
No doubt, Daly had that special magic that only a handful of other players had, even thos his actual scores and consistency wanders up the tube and down the drain.
The crowds followed him almost as much as Tiger, and much more than Mick, Watson, Freddy, or any of the other players
And on the 11th, only he and Tiger could clear 350 yards doglegged left without dropping into bunkers right at the 330 mark. Those two guys had drives AngelCabrera and Singh could; only dream about, and both those guys drove 330 off a few tees.
Daly is special in golf like Bode is in skiing, Machaco in surfing, maybe Safin in tennis, McGrath in supercross, and Naish in kitesurfing and windsurfing.

LeeD
10-28-2011, 04:49 PM
One thing we have to consider is the playing field is the same for everyone, and to SUCCEED in golf is just as hard as to succeed in any other sport.
Sure, they're not huffing and puffing in golf. But they stay out on the course often over 7 hours, walk the talk, play multiple rounds each week, and still have to keep it together. The last 3 words say it all. KEEP IT TOGETHER.
Remember, sport encompasses more than just running and jumping.

eliza
10-28-2011, 05:12 PM
trolling a Friday night: you can play mini-golf. You cannot play mini-tennis...................TG!!!!

How can you even compare golf with tennis? Tennis is so much better, period.

Limpinhitter
10-28-2011, 05:23 PM
trolling a Friday night: you can play mini-golf. You cannot play mini-tennis...................TG!!!!

How can you even compare golf with tennis? Tennis is so much better, period.

They're both great, challenging, frustrating, addicting. I think it was Harry Truman who said that: "the greatest gift a man could have is a hobby that he loves, and the greatest curse is for that hobby to be golf." Only a golfer can truly appreciate the wisdom of that truth.

DjokovicForTheWin
10-28-2011, 05:31 PM
One thing we have to consider is the playing field is the same for everyone, and to SUCCEED in golf is just as hard as to succeed in any other sport.
Sure, they're not huffing and puffing in golf. But they stay out on the course often over 7 hours, walk the talk, play multiple rounds each week, and still have to keep it together. The last 3 words say it all. KEEP IT TOGETHER.
Remember, sport encompasses more than just running and jumping.

Check the list I posted on the previous page. Golf is just above Cheerleading in terms of how difficult it is.

LeeD
10-28-2011, 06:09 PM
Yes, any of you can stand on a shoulder of some giant, get tossed 20' upwards, do a double back with a single twist, and land on that guy's shoulders. And of course, we all can somersault at will, cartwheel, and smile at the same time.

DjokovicForTheWin
10-28-2011, 06:30 PM
Yes, any of you can stand on a shoulder of some giant, get tossed 20' upwards, do a double back with a single twist, and land on that guy's shoulders. And of course, we all can somersault at will, cartwheel, and smile at the same time.

You're missing the point. No one is questioning the absolute difficulty of any sport on that list, even billiards! The point is the relative difference. Look at where tennis is relative to golf. There's the rub.

dozu
10-28-2011, 06:34 PM
You're missing the point. No one is questioning the absolute difficulty of any sport on that list, even billiards! The point is the relative difference. Look at where tennis is relative to golf. There's the rub.

problem is the measuring standards are quite artificial.

I can easily come up with 'dozu's difficulty scale' and put cheer leading on top.

DjokovicForTheWin
10-28-2011, 06:35 PM
problem is the measuring standards are quite artificial.

I can easily come up with 'dozu's difficulty scale' and put cheer leading on top.

You can, but you're a nobody. The list was compiled by ESPN and actual sports professionals. Therein lies the difference.

dozu
10-28-2011, 06:41 PM
You can, but you're a nobody. The list was compiled by ESPN and actual sports professionals. Therein lies the difference.

I am the community court king.

seriously though - ESPN? actual sports professionals? lol... like the ones who vote for the athlete of the year?

don't take this the wrong way, but this is typical 'sheeple' mentality.

DjokovicForTheWin
10-28-2011, 06:43 PM
I am the community court king.

seriously though - ESPN? actual sports professionals? lol... like the ones who vote for the athlete of the year?

don't take this the wrong way, but this is typical 'sheeple' mentality.

You're probably someone who would have LOL'd at Newton or Galileo too. There is such a thing as common sense and it can be quite rewarding to use it once in a while. One of them by the way was Brian Jordan.

dozu
10-28-2011, 06:48 PM
You're probably someone who would have LOL'd at Newton or Galileo too. There is such a thing as common sense and it can be quite rewarding to use it once in a while. One of them by the way was Brian Jordan.

perhaps - it's my professional habit not to give too much weight to what is fed to the public.

DjokovicForTheWin
10-28-2011, 06:51 PM
perhaps - it's my professional habit not to give too much weight to what is fed to the public.

You are the public. And you likely eat up whatever you are biased towards as well, just like the rest of the sheep. Many pro tennis players transition into golf after they stop playing tennis. Watch Nadal do it soon. The reverse does not occur. Forget your feelings, just examine the data ;)

Golf would not even be considered a sport next to tennis.

dozu
10-28-2011, 06:53 PM
we r going in circles.

got a golf swing to post? :)

DjokovicForTheWin
10-28-2011, 06:55 PM
we r going in circles.

got a golf swing to post? :)

No, but the first time I ever did play golf, it was one of those small 54 par things. I finished with something like 10 over par. Golf is not difficult at least for me, I just don't enjoy playing it. Doesn't mean I can become pro. But I can see how it would be easier to become a golf pro RELATIVE to tennis. Tennis is orders more difficult to become really good.

DjokovicForTheWin
10-28-2011, 06:58 PM
That being said, tennis is easier to play recreationally simply due to what suresh was saying before.

sureshs
10-29-2011, 10:35 AM
trolling a Friday night: you can play mini-golf. You cannot play mini-tennis...................TG!!!!

How can you even compare golf with tennis? Tennis is so much better, period.

Of course you can play mini tennis. That is what Quickstart is.

Limpinhitter
10-29-2011, 12:07 PM
Of course you can play mini tennis. That is what Quickstart is.

So, how's that working out for you? :p

dozu
10-29-2011, 12:17 PM
No, but the first time I ever did play golf, it was one of those small 54 par things. I finished with something like 10 over par. Golf is not difficult at least for me, I just don't enjoy playing it. Doesn't mean I can become pro. But I can see how it would be easier to become a golf pro RELATIVE to tennis. Tennis is orders more difficult to become really good.

so you shot 10+ and golf is easy lol.

interestingly enough, my first round of golf, I shot 10+ also, in my local par54 course.... but here is the problem - you tee off from those plastic mats that don't punish poor contacts... you tee off from real grass, that 10+ quickly becomes 20+, then you go on a regulation course where you have to drive the ball and hit long woods and irons, where things can go really wrong, much more wrong than teeing off from 60 yards away... that's another 10-15 strokes extra.... so you are now just another beginner hack who can't break 100.

so you go to the range a bunch, play on the course a bunch, and finally you get under 100.... you practice some more and now you shoot 90, you think hey, I will be scratch golfer in another couple years.... wrong!

the reduction in handi becomes exponentially more difficult the closer you get to even par.

my point is 10+ from a par54 means almost NOTHING.

assuming there are 1 million players trying to get to top 1000, then by definition it's EQUALLY difficult between anything... tennis, golf, cheer leading, poker, billiards.

now they may require different degrees of athleticism, but that is a separate topic.

5263
10-29-2011, 12:21 PM
Many pro tennis players transition into golf after they stop playing tennis. Watch Nadal do it soon. The reverse does not occur. Forget your feelings, just examine the data ;)

Golf would not even be considered a sport next to tennis.

So you agree that tennis is more challenging.

DjokovicForTheWin
10-29-2011, 08:10 PM
So you agree that tennis is more challenging.

At the professional level yes. Golf is not even a sport compared to professional tennis. Recreationally however, I think tennis can be easier for the average joe to pickup.

DjokovicForTheWin
10-29-2011, 08:14 PM
so you shot 10+ and golf is easy lol.

interestingly enough, my first round of golf, I shot 10+ also, in my local par54 course.... but here is the problem - you tee off from those plastic mats that don't punish poor contacts... you tee off from real grass, that 10+ quickly becomes 20+, then you go on a regulation course where you have to drive the ball and hit long woods and irons, where things can go really wrong, much more wrong than teeing off from 60 yards away... that's another 10-15 strokes extra.... so you are now just another beginner hack who can't break 100.

so you go to the range a bunch, play on the course a bunch, and finally you get under 100.... you practice some more and now you shoot 90, you think hey, I will be scratch golfer in another couple years.... wrong!

the reduction in handi becomes exponentially more difficult the closer you get to even par.

my point is 10+ from a par54 means almost NOTHING.

assuming there are 1 million players trying to get to top 1000, then by definition it's EQUALLY difficult between anything... tennis, golf, cheer leading, poker, billiards.

now they may require different degrees of athleticism, but that is a separate topic.

There weren't plastic mats in my first time, it was real grass. I have also played on par 72 courses a couple of times. I was probably 15 to 20 over par on those. But you have to consider that those were the 2nd or 3rd times I ever picked up a golf club and were around 5 years apart each! I'd say that's pretty good for just picking up a club and start hitting de novo. Anyways whether it's good or not is not the point I'm making, I may have sucked. The point is after playing golf I saw that if I practiced like hell, took some lesson, I could get quite good at it. Sure probably not pro but pretty damn good. It's not a sport. It's like billiards. Tennis is on a whole different plane. You are right we are arguing in circles, you don't seem to understand my point. I'm not saying golf is inherently easy, I'm saying it's not a sport next to professional tennis. And that ESPN analysis confirmed my subjective experience.

Your use of the word 'difficult' is ambiguous. I would say the athleticism required in some sports is part of said difficulty. Take a fat obese person, there is 0 chance he can play in the NBA or tennis. There is a chance he could play pro golf or billiards.

dozu
10-29-2011, 08:38 PM
ok. let me define 'difficult', so we are on the same page.

say there are 1 million players trying to become the top 1000 to be pro... so only the 1000 with the best combination of work ethic + natural talent + luck + financial backing, can get to the top... and that combination is what I call 'difficulty'.... therefore based on this definition, everything is equally difficult.

the components maybe different for different sports, one of which may or may not be athleticism.

DjokovicForTheWin
10-29-2011, 08:41 PM
ok. let me define 'difficult', so we are on the same page.

say there are 1 million players trying to become the top 1000 to be pro... so only the 1000 with the best combination of work ethic + natural talent + luck + financial backing, can get to the top... and that combination is what I call 'difficulty'.... therefore based on this definition, everything is equally difficult.

the components maybe different for different sports, one of which may or may not be athleticism.

Therein lies the problem. It's really all a semantic argument isn't it. 'Difficulty' for me entails athletic ability.

Better to make it objective by simply taking a sample of 1 million random average joes. My bet is that more of them would be golf pros than tennis pros.

eliza
10-30-2011, 06:22 AM
Of course you can play mini tennis. That is what Quickstart is.

Quickstart is a tool, not standing by itself...

sureshs
10-30-2011, 09:16 AM
So, how's that working out for you? :p

LOL.................

sureshs
10-30-2011, 09:18 AM
Quickstart is a tool, not standing by itself...

I know. I was kidding. But nothing prevents you from playing it. People might look strangely at you, but you can make up some excuse.