PDA

View Full Version : Any TennisOne Subscribers?


formula16
01-08-2012, 05:28 PM
Anyone here subscribe to tennisone? Could you tell me if the site is any good? Better than tennisplayer.net?

Thanks

CoachingMastery
01-08-2012, 07:02 PM
Both are excellent with an abundant of information for every level of player. I'm partial to TennisOne...but believe that TennisPlayer is excellent too.

charliefedererer
01-09-2012, 07:57 PM
TennisOne tends to have shorter, somewhat less complex analysis. But there is a cleverness to the way Jim McLennan and Doug King get their points across, often with unique insights,

Tennisone might have more articles for the intermediate player.

Tennisplayer tends to have more in depth analysis for more advanced players.

I have to admit I enjoy both.

Dadof10s
01-09-2012, 09:27 PM
I also like TennisOne better. More fun and I just relate more to the content.

formula16
01-10-2012, 01:50 AM
i've had tennisplayer before, and some of the content seemed too "scientific" and not really practical enough if you get what i mean.

Is tennisone like that? or is it easier and more useful?

formula16
01-15-2012, 09:42 PM
anyone?!

anything appreciated

kiteboard
01-16-2012, 06:51 AM
tennisplayer.net has a 65,000 clip library of high speed video, and in depth articles on all sorts of instruction, and it's for the serious student.

I think Yandell is going to put up some very interesting new stuff this month. I'd like to see an article on focusing your energy, and on Djokovic's diet, and on the internal body rhythm during different types of shots. Too bad we can't video tape energy fields.

charliefedererer
01-19-2012, 11:35 AM
i've had tennisplayer before, and some of the content seemed too "scientific" and not really practical enough if you get what i mean.

Is tennisone like that? or is it easier and more useful?

It sounds like for you tennisone would be easier and more useful.

To quote my post above:
"TennisOne tends to have shorter, somewhat less complex analysis. But there is a cleverness to the way Jim McLennan and Doug King get their points across, often with unique insights.

Tennisone might have more articles for the intermediate player."

5263
01-19-2012, 12:05 PM
They are both quite good, but I'd rec tennisone, as much of Tennisplayer is quite old-school despite their effort to be cutting edge.

kiteboard
01-19-2012, 12:39 PM
I think you might be referring to Yandell's publishing Doreen Gonzales articles, and the homage Yandell pays to old school players like Gonzales. They deserve that homage, due to the dues they paid, with no video, no articles to read themselves, no money, no coaching to speak of, and no modern equipment, nutrition, cross training, insights of anyone but their own insights, which paved the way for all to come, at their own suffering and punishments. 14 oz wood frames at 64 sq/ in. with powerful gut was the stock set up.

So it is both cutting edge and old school. While other sites are only one point of view.

5263
01-21-2012, 08:33 AM
I think you might be referring to Yandell's publishing Doreen Gonzales articles, and the homage Yandell pays to old school players like Gonzales. They deserve that homage, due to the dues they paid, with no video, no articles to read themselves, no money, no coaching to speak of, and no modern equipment, nutrition, cross training, insights of anyone but their own insights, which paved the way for all to come, at their own suffering and punishments. 14 oz wood frames at 64 sq/ in. with powerful gut was the stock set up.

So it is both cutting edge and old school. While other sites are only one point of view.

Really more it's lean toward coaches like one of your favs, RL, when it comes to interpreting what they see in a vid. They also tend to publish more from those type coaches IMO. I feel it holds them back.

stormholloway
01-21-2012, 09:06 AM
TennisOne is what I subscribed to when I first got back into tennis almost 10 years ago. The articles were great. I assume not much has changed except for better stroke videos. They were the first site I found that let me watch slow-mo pro strokes.

There's a lot more competition now but I recommend the site.

GuyClinch
01-21-2012, 09:23 AM
My only gripe with tennisone is that I prefer the direction of one coach/pro as I feel tennisone has alot of conflicting info..

OTOH some people might enjoy that..

JohnYandell
01-21-2012, 03:09 PM
I will have to disagree with the characterization of Tennisplayer as "old school."

In my opinion that old/new distinction is pretty arbitrary, something that has been discussed previously at length on this board. Looking back at the last year we've published an incredible amount of information about the current or modern game and the range of techniques we see in the top players. As well as giving history it's due.

First, over 500 new high speed high def stroke files on the top 4 players in the modern game: Novak. Rafa, Roger, and Andy.

A three part series on building the Spanish forehand, including drills that are widely used by the top Spanish coaches.

A three part series on Novak's forehand breaking down his unique and largely misunderstood combination of technical elements.

A three part series on the two paths to power in the modern two-handed backhand.

A three part series on rhythm style on the serve--if you are considering moving to an abbreviated motion you better read this one.

Studies of the spin levels and the actual string bed contact points in the pro game. A statisitcal analysis of Novak's dominance of Nadal. The first ever 3D study of the actual racket head speeds in 125mph pro serves.

The first ever study and explanation of how and why poly strings work (it's not what you probably think) and how that has shaped the way the pro game is played.

As for Robert Lansdorp the last instructional article we published from him was about 3 years ago and dealt with the use of the wiper and reverse finishes on the forehand and his fascinating work with Sharapova and Sampras on these topics.

I could go on. But as I said though I think we need to be careful is making an arbitrary distinction between old school and new. We can see trends, we can see evolution, and we can see threads that can be traced back to the origins of tennis. It's all part of a moving organic whole. There isn't some sharp dividing line where suddenly everything changed.

I'm really proud for example of the series on Richard Gonzalez--very few people know the real story of his life and career which was full of obstacles and inspiration and phenomenal achievement--or see the similarities between his service motion and those of the great modern servers (and the differences).

Tennisplayer is not about old school or new school, it's about tennis.

5263
01-22-2012, 07:25 PM
I will have to disagree with the characterization of Tennisplayer as "old school."

In my opinion that old/new distinction is pretty arbitrary, something that has been discussed previously at length on this board. Looking back at the last year we've published an incredible amount of information about the current or modern game and the range of techniques we see in the top players. As well as giving history it's due.


Well we surely wouldn't expect you to agree on that would we. : )

TP.net (tennisplayer.net) a great site to view lots of quality vids for sure, and there is plenty of very good info on there as well.
But the OP asked for opinions and now I have a little more time to explain mine, which is not arbitrary at all, and in fact quite the opposite.
It is based on extensive study of old school, traditional tennis explanations
(including the book Visual Tennis by TP.net's JY himself),
contrasted with extensive study of Modern tennis strokes with the Teacher related to the origination of the term "Modern Tennis".

I must admit I'm not current on TP.net, but see some of their work from time to time and not much seems to have changed in their way of viewing what they see. The instruction on that site so often seems to take what is viewed, then describe it to fit within the traditional take on it. I often see the same thing on the stroke break down in tennis magazine. Sometimes it's like they are not even looking at the frame they are describing.

For example, with the Lansdorp instruction on the rev Fh along with RL's take on modern grips.
Now realize this Rev Fh shot had been used for decades and been called the lasso or bolo, but since I guess Lansdorp was not familiar with it, he gave it a new name- the rev Fh (which is very misleading IMO, since nothing is reversed). I guess he also didn't know the excellent purposes of hitting it, since he admits to trying to stop Sampras from using it. Fortunately Pete was willing to stand up for himself and was able the get RL to realize there was a time for it to the extent he began to include it in his instruction. Nothing really bad in any of this, but somehow things are twisted in a way to portray RL as an innovator with this and is used as a segway to RL making use of three modern finishes, being modern and even the whole idea that different finishes are different strokes in some way, even though RL did TP interviews talking about how extreme grips (like DJs and Rafas) don't win majors and can't hit thru the court or handle low balls. (don't tell those guys)

Forgive how convoluted all that is, but that is how complex the modern game seems when you look at it thru a traditional perspective. Lots of weird grips, reverses and finishes. lol.

Now when you look at the same strokes from a truly Modern Stroke perspective, the fluid simplicity is way more obvious. When you find the ball from below, leading with the hand, the different finishes are just the extensions of one modern, steeper swing path. With the contact point more out front, usually to drive the ball, you will get more of a wiper motion. Using a more neutral, standard contact point, the racket will travel up to the other shoulder. The Bolo (Rev) finish happens when you have a deeper, later contact, but in all these and everything in-between, the the racket face itself will look very similar as it travels up and across the ball. With Modern tennis you just focus on using your hand to pull the racket face up and across the ball. The traditional instruction wants/needs to focus on hitting through the ball, but in Modern Instruction, that just happens due to the way the stoke is shaped and how the hand moves. And it happens in a way that gives you tons of control as well.

Even on what they call the Rev Fh the racket almost always still crosses the midline of body and then comes up and over the head to end up on the side where it started ( not often staying on that side for the whole stroke as RL has described)
So hopefully you can see there is really just the one Modern stroke which appears different relative to the bodies trunk adjusting for various contact points. Really there is an unlimited array of finishes for this one stroke as it works thru the different contact points the player faces, but I used their terminology as a frame of reference. Traditional perspectives like on TP.net view the Fh like a 3 speed transmission, where as Modern Tennis sees it more like the "continuously variable transmission" it's more like!

This was just one small example of how traditional the perspective on TP affects the view on that site. IMO tennisone is more progressive in this respect.

10sLifer
01-22-2012, 09:35 PM
Haha This forum is so awesome!!!!

JohnYandell
01-23-2012, 06:41 AM
You're right I don't agree. I guess I feel the same way you do except in reverse.

Everything you see is filtered and intepreted to support you views on "modern" tennis and anything that is different from or challenges that view is "traditional" and therefore can be dismissed.

You say you are not current on Tennisplayer and I think it is probably been several years since you subscribed. Certainly you are entitled to your views, but I think people here trying to form there own might want to actually know what is on the site and work from there. Hence my post.

charliefedererer
01-23-2012, 07:02 AM
Practice does not make perfect. Only perfect practice makes perfect.
- Vince Lombardi

If you want the most technical breakdown of strokes with video perfectly matched to emphasize and demonstrate the smallest elements of strokes, then to reassemble it all back into a whole, you can not beat tennisplayer.net
Not with any book, video set or website.

Wonder if any/all of the pros are doing it the same way as in the articles, or how you are doing it? Unparalleled super slow motion video that's easy to stop/stop in sharp focus at any point in the stroke.

You can't practice to improve your strokes if you don't know what you are supposed to be doing.




Tons of insight on strategy, footwork, and the mental game.


I think my annual subscription is worth 1/2 the price of a new racquet or another pair of tennis shoes.

SFrazeur
01-23-2012, 07:47 AM
Whenever it comes to an issue of Modern vs. Traditional it always comes down to "Lumping and Splitting." Terminology I became familiar with when I was taking every anthropology class I could in College.


Via Wikipedia: Lumping and splitting refers to a well-known problem in any discipline which has to place individual examples into rigorously defined categories. The lumper/splitter problem occurs when there is the need to create classifications and assign examples to them. . .

The difference here being Tennis educators and instructors are often creating their own "rigorously defined categories."

-SF

SFrazeur
01-23-2012, 07:55 AM
For those interested here is newer article by Lansdorp on the reverse forehand:http://www.active.com/tennis/Articles/The_Three_Forehand_Finishes.htm

-SF

5263
01-23-2012, 08:30 AM
You're right I don't agree. I guess I feel the same way you do except in reverse.

Everything you see is filtered and intepreted to support you views on "modern" tennis and anything that is different from or challenges that view is "traditional" and therefore can be dismissed.

But You say you are current on Tennisplayer and I think it is probably been several years since you subscribed.

No, I say I'm NOT current, and point that out, although I do get the info quite often when others think it is something to get to me. And yes, that is usually something trying to explain something about a modern stroke with a lack of understanding.

Yes, and we should just leave it at that except to say that anyone can see that I don't dismiss it as traditional. I discount much of what I see as traditional influence on attempts to incorporate some modern and show where it goes wrong. Big difference that shouldn't be overlooked, but an example of the subtle things missed by TP.
I have also always had many good things to say about TP, on how they have a great video and have had a good active forum, along with many instructional articles, so sometimes you have to accept the pros and cons of your reviews. I always include it as one of the top 3 sites out there in many respects.

kiteboard
01-23-2012, 08:33 AM
Vince Lombardi also said, "If you're ten minutes early, you're five minutes late.", regarding his players rumps in their bus seats. He knew the prima donnnas would always be late, so he made everyone show early. That way, when the aholes showed up, late by 20 minutes, the bus left on time! That's sort of how Yandell's site works. He's ahead of the curve on video, which is the fastest way to improve perfectly, as you can compare your own shots to the pros on every shot there is.

JohnYandell
01-23-2012, 09:25 AM
Right not current, typo which I'll current. I am not expecting us to agree. We've proven that our assumptions are too different for that, which is fine. Just want to lay out where I think you have misunderstood what's going on and leave it at that.

JohnYandell
01-23-2012, 09:27 AM
Charlie,

Thanks!

John Yandell