PDA

View Full Version : Modern Tennis Tips by Oscar Wegner


Pages : [1] 2 3

Wegner
12-24-2012, 12:00 PM
I will be posting here some tips about modern tennis, as an alternative to conventional teaching. Please keep your comments civil.

Wegner
12-24-2012, 12:06 PM
Look, Don’t Think
Be a natural, a tennis whisperer. Observe.
The human mind needs to be calmed down.
This mind is too fast, thinks too many non-efficient things.
If you operate looking, rather than thinking, you’ll be calmer, more efficient.
Just move your head and your upper body to start in one direction.
The outside foot will slide underneath the body, which now, unbalanced, will move on its own.
There will be no need to push hard.
Then find the ball in your favorite hitting spot, feel it, and finish your stroke all the way.

The Edge
Conventional tennis had been thought to be played with the strings meeting squarely the ball.
Modern tennis power emphasis is led mostly with the racquet’s edge.
Think of it in terms of Martial Arts. The edge of the hand is your powerful weapon, and also your defense.
Today’s high power game is more of deflection than straight power. You want spin on nearly every ball.
Lead with your racquet’s edges, top edge for topspin, bottom edge for slice, and you’ll have more control.

Transference
I have tested, for decades, an interesting experiment that has proven helpful to a lot of players, from amateurs to pros.
Rather than trying to position your body at a certain distance from the ball, track the ball with your playing hand or hands as if you were trying to catch it.
Now comes something that is instinctive, dictated by your intention of driving the hand to your favorite end of the stroke. For example, you track the ball with your hand, you see it right where you want it, with a bit of back and forth hand movement you then accelerate your racquet diagonally, that is, up for topspin and across your body for control. You finish the stroke pointing the butt of the racquet to where you sent the ball.
It is an easy transfer of focus where you transition from catch to hit with no doubts or reservations in the blink of an eye.
You may even have your racquet quite loose.
It may seem too simplistic, too left to chance. But by keeping both hands on the racquet while tracking the ball, your playing hand will determine the timing necessary and the details of your stroke. Just make sure you finish the stroke all the way.
Focusing initially on the hand, rather than on the racquet, can develop several abilities. One is something that you most likely learned at a very young age: the skill to catch a moving object while YOU are on the move as well and then throw it away.
Another resulting advantage is the simplification of the thought process. There is a hand and there is a ball you want to catch. Nothing else matters. I’d like to venture that there is no thought necessary at all. You are free to go about it as you please.
It is nothing complicated, nothing rushed. Your lower body may be in an emergency, running fast. It will tend to look for efficiency to help you execute your primary intention, which is your stroke. Let your body teach you. Feel it and don’t force it in authoritarian ways.
The details on how to maximize your control and power are in other sections of my work.
Give it your best try and let me know the results.

Maui19
12-24-2012, 12:15 PM
The human mind needs to be calmed down.
This mind is too fast, thinks too many non-efficient things.

This is SO true. Playing with a quiet mind optimizes performance in any sport.

Mick3391
12-24-2012, 01:02 PM
Look, Don’t Think
Be a natural, a tennis whisperer. Observe.
The human mind needs to be calmed down.
This mind is too fast, thinks too many non-efficient things.
If you operate looking, rather than thinking, you’ll be calmer, more efficient.
Just move your head and your upper body to start in one direction.
The outside foot will slide underneath the body, which now, unbalanced, will move on its own.
There will be no need to push hard.
Then find the ball in your favorite hitting spot, feel it, and finish your stroke all the way.

The Edge
Conventional tennis had been thought to be played with the strings meeting squarely the ball.
Modern tennis power emphasis is led mostly with the racquet’s edge.
Think of it in terms of Martial Arts. The edge of the hand is your powerful weapon, and also your defense.
Today’s high power game is more of deflection than straight power. You want spin on nearly every ball.
Lead with your racquet’s edges, top edge for topspin, bottom edge for slice, and you’ll have more control.

Transference
I have tested, for decades, an interesting experiment that has proven helpful to a lot of players, from amateurs to pros.
Rather than trying to position your body at a certain distance from the ball, track the ball with your playing hand or hands as if you were trying to catch it.
Now comes something that is instinctive, dictated by your intention of driving the hand to your favorite end of the stroke. For example, you track the ball with your hand, you see it right where you want it, with a bit of back and forth hand movement you then accelerate your racquet diagonally, that is, up for topspin and across your body for control. You finish the stroke pointing the butt of the racquet to where you sent the ball.
It is an easy transfer of focus where you transition from catch to hit with no doubts or reservations in the blink of an eye.
You may even have your racquet quite loose.
It may seem too simplistic, too left to chance. But by keeping both hands on the racquet while tracking the ball, your playing hand will determine the timing necessary and the details of your stroke. Just make sure you finish the stroke all the way.
Focusing initially on the hand, rather than on the racquet, can develop several abilities. One is something that you most likely learned at a very young age: the skill to catch a moving object while YOU are on the move as well and then throw it away.
Another resulting advantage is the simplification of the thought process. There is a hand and there is a ball you want to catch. Nothing else matters. I’d like to venture that there is no thought necessary at all. You are free to go about it as you please.
It is nothing complicated, nothing rushed. Your lower body may be in an emergency, running fast. It will tend to look for efficiency to help you execute your primary intention, which is your stroke. Let your body teach you. Feel it and don’t force it in authoritarian ways.
The details on how to maximize your control and power are in other sections of my work.
Give it your best try and let me know the results.

Cool, I keep saying and others disagree that Tennis is in the brain, we all have the same equipment, the difference is the mind. I do disagree big time with point 2, that's what these guys do teach, but not all shots should be topspin, we need flat shots, slice, sidespin, the whole gallery, but yea cool:)

5263
12-24-2012, 01:15 PM
Cool, I keep saying and others disagree that Tennis is in the brain, we all have the same equipment, the difference is the mind. I do disagree big time with point 2, that's what these guys do teach, but not all shots should be topspin, we need flat shots, slice, sidespin, the whole gallery, but yea cool:)

You use the edge on those shots in point 2 as well, except maybe the flat, lack of spin that is
not too common really with better players.

Biggest part for many who have some info, is to know what to leave out.

tennis_balla
12-24-2012, 01:38 PM
Can people please be civilized and can TT not delete these types of threads?
Let the discussion grow, let people debate. The more different types of coaching philosophies we have on here the better, even if you don't agree with anything mentioned. This is getting beyond ridiculous.

TomT
12-24-2012, 01:43 PM
Thanks for the tips Wegner.

treblings
12-24-2012, 02:12 PM
Can people please be civilized and can TT not delete these types of threads?
Let the discussion grow, let people debate. The more different types of coaching philosophies we have on here the better, even if you don't agree with anything mentioned. This is getting beyond ridiculous.

couldn´t agree more with the points you made

Mick3391
12-24-2012, 02:25 PM
You use the edge on those shots in point 2 as well, except maybe the flat, lack of spin that is
not too common really with better players.

Biggest part for many who have some info, is to know what to leave out.

If they leave out flat shots they are not "better players", they may think they are though.

tlm
12-24-2012, 02:40 PM
Can people please be civilized and can TT not delete these types of threads?
Let the discussion grow, let people debate. The more different types of coaching philosophies we have on here the better, even if you don't agree with anything mentioned. This is getting beyond ridiculous.


I agree 100%, who are the complainers that keep getting these threads deleted. This is supposed to be a tennis site for tennis discussion, it amazes me that on a tennis site a long time tennis instructor is giving free advise and the threads keep getting nuked.

It makes you wonder if some of the haters are worried that the same instruction that they claim is so wrong could be found to be helpful and ruin their non stop Oscar bashing.

I think most players looking for help take a little something from many different teaching methods, some they will like and some they will think are no good. But it would be nice if we would at least get to make that choice.

And if Oscar is so wrong I do not understand why the same few haters have to jump in and start the trouble. If they know it is wrong just stay out of these threads and stay with what they think is the right way. Isn't that what most normal people would do?

tennis_balla
12-24-2012, 02:49 PM
There's no good guy/bad guy here.

Raul_SJ
12-24-2012, 03:15 PM
Why are these threads being deleted???

There was a good discussion yesterday and now that thread is gone

It is good to hear all approaches.

5263
12-24-2012, 03:17 PM
If they leave out flat shots they are not "better players", they may think they are though.

You must mean flatter trajectory then, because I don't see the big 4 hitting
without spin but on the most rare occasions. Do you?

If you mean trajectory, then using the edge still applies then too.

TheCheese
12-24-2012, 03:45 PM
Thanks for trying to simplify tennis.

TimothyO
12-24-2012, 04:04 PM
Be a natural, a tennis whisperer. Observe.
The human mind needs to be calmed down.
This mind is too fast, thinks too many non-efficient things.
If you operate looking, rather than thinking, you’ll be calmer, more efficient.

Best advice ever, applies to every stroke, even the serve. Truly the foundation for playing well.

Also, thanks for contributing here. You and Daniel from Babolat are standup guys for engaging in the rough and tumble of an internet forum. Hopefully others will remain civil...

sureshs
12-24-2012, 05:12 PM
Just move your head and your upper body to start in one direction.
The outside foot will slide underneath the body, which now, unbalanced, will move on its own.

Lead with your racquet’s edges, top edge for topspin, bottom edge for slice, and you’ll have more control.


These are more or less correct.

Only things to add are that for many beginners, the outside foot does not automatically slide out towards the ball, as the natural tendency is to crossover with the inside foot (in real life, you usually want to turn and step across if something interesting is on one side). So this might have to be encouraged a little by a coach if it does not happen automatically.

For the second point, the terminology "lead" is indeed correct. Perhaps it is simpler to say "keep the face a little closed for top spin, a little open for slice," which is the same as the above. Important thing is that leading with one edge does not mean that contact will necessarily be towards that edge of the strings or the opposite edge, or in the center, but will depend on other things. A steeper lead will favor contact with the lower edge of the strings, a shallower lead more with the center.

Related to that, there is a subtlety that for topspin, the actual contact position is often not closed. The racket face is often vertical at contact. This is seen in Fed and Nadal forehands. It is difficult to see how this can be reconciled with a closed face or leading with the top edge. It seems that there is supination or opening of the arm on the forward swing till impact, followed by pronation during the dwell time and after. Otherwise, it is impossible to reconcile vertical face at impact with supposed closed face or leading with the top edge. I think the vertical to closed transition is what gives the solidity at impact. Instead of the swing path being a single arc over the ball, it is more like an arc coming up from under the ball and then closing over it at the end of the dwell time.

dominikk1985
12-24-2012, 05:14 PM
hey mr wegner. great to have a Coach of your credentials here.

First let me say that I think you are a great Coach. you teach modern aspects of the game but still don't make it overally complicated. I think analyzing it too much is not going to help.

but I still do have a a couple of issues with your Videos based my studies of biomechanics literature. note that this is not a criticism as many great coaches Keep it simple and still get the results. cues and reality are not always the same and in Coaching it is not about what the Coach means but what the Student does on court:

1. you don't seem to mention the ground up kinematic chain (sequential acceleration of Body parts from the ground up starting at the legs and ending in the racket. instead you Videos seem to Focus more on the arm and racket.

2. you mention hitting "across". I do of course agree that pros do finish across but isn't that more because the circular centrifugal swing of the racket around the Body and the pronation pull the racket around?

those shots of federer seem to indicate that he does "extend" through a Little and the across happens after the ball has left the strings (which would mean that the across has absolutely Zero effect on the hit ball).

http://s1.directupload.net/file/d/3115/ukj4f4jo_jpg.htm

or am I interpreting this Image wrong? don't get me wrong-I still like the across (or better around! which would be a better term IMO) finish because it allows for a more free acceleration of the rackethead (the modern swing does allow for higher RHS) but I don't see a "to the ball and then across" but instead I see a constant arc around the Body which of course later turns left. or do you see the radius of the arc changing around contact?

3. the slow to contact and then accelerating Thing:

again I understand why you teach that: you want a smooth and gradual acceleration to contact and no "jerking" of the racket. but biomechanically the contact time is so short that the swing is basically over the Moment the ball touches the strings. the ball will leave the racket before the shock waves in the racket reach the Hand. there is a study about the Baseball swing that suggests that theoretically a Player could release the bat before contact and still hit the ball the same distance.

that would mean all acceleration must happen before contact (but you don't want to slow down either so your cue might be a good Thing).

Again I admire your results as a Coach and I'm certainly in no Position to criticise you but I want to understand why you teach some things. are you intentionally keeping stuff simple? of am I missinterpreting your stuff? could you please Elaborate on my 3 Points? It is probably not necessary to know all this and it would sometimes be better to just perform and athletic Task without thinking but I'm a quite analytical guy (sometimes too much:)).

sureshs
12-24-2012, 05:42 PM
those shots of federer seem to indicate that he does "extend" through a Little and the across happens after the ball has left the strings (which would mean that the across has absolutely Zero effect on the hit ball).

Across, up, and extension happen together as the arc is 3D. You cannot artificially separate them.

Cheetah
12-24-2012, 06:31 PM
Across, up, and extension happen together as the arc is 3D. You cannot artificially separate them.

yes they can be separated. if your torso is rotating and your arm is acting independently or disengaged from the rotation (arming it etc)then you can go straight through with no across. or if let/make your hand move away at an increasing distance from the side of your body while your torso/shoulders are rotating then you can nullify/short circuit the across.

you can see the pros do the latter a lot. i do this when i want pure top w/ no side action.

dominikk1985
12-24-2012, 06:47 PM
Across, up, and extension happen together as the arc is 3D. You cannot artificially separate them.

that's what I was saying. there is no "across" in a Tennis shot. it is just a natural continuation of the arc around the Body. of course you could actually fight against the arc by extending. and you could also cut the off by actively pulling the arm in (active pull across).

but to me it Looks like neither is Happening- there is just one arc around the Body.

5263
12-24-2012, 08:42 PM
that's what I was saying. there is no "across" in a Tennis shot. it is just a natural continuation of the arc around the Body. of course you could actually fight against the arc by extending. and you could also cut the off by actively pulling the arm in (active pull across).

but to me it Looks like neither is Happening- there is just one arc around the Body.

It's fine if you decide not to take advantage of pulling across, but for those
who have learned to add it, there is quite a gain to be realized. For you to tell
those who know how to use it that it doesn't work is like telling someone with
a 6 speed, that they only have 5....It won't fly. You can continue to sell it to
those who also think there are only 5 speeds in some cases though...at least
till the give it a fair chance and see that the 6th gear is actually there.
I realize if you are satisfied with your Fh, there is little reason to push for more.

CCH4TENNIS
12-25-2012, 01:37 AM
Can people please be civilized and can TT not delete these types of threads?
Let the discussion grow, let people debate. The more different types of coaching philosophies we have on here the better, even if you don't agree with anything mentioned. This is getting beyond ridiculous.

Agreed :-)

arche3
12-25-2012, 02:27 AM
The cue to pull across (and to a certain extent to also actively pull back at impact) works. But does it actually go across only? No of course not. As the swing is circular the swing can be manipulated with a lot of nuance. If you see how djokovic hits when he finishes his fh over his shoulder there seems to be active use of his bicep to pull back the stroke as well as the across aspect. Does the racket pull back and slow down? No. The racket seems to accelerate faster in the arc across. One advantage I've found in focusing on the across aspect of a fh stroke is your shoulders are always centered over your hips. I've tried numerous cues when coaching my 11 year old son and focusing on the across aspect of the stroke and with an emphasis on starting the swing slower then accelerating through impact really helps with pace and spin. One thing I add that Oscar does not really touch on much is the use of the legs. I found that by using the knee bend and lifting into the stroke it adds more racket head speed with out the need to swing any faster.

I am still not certain the active pull back advice by Oscar is right for every occasion. As I taught my son a straight arm forehand when he hits with a normal wiper motion he hits harder than when he actively pulls back. The finish is different as well as spin. My son gets more top spin if he uses the cue to pull back. But the ball is heavier with a normal wiper motion using the straight arm. And the ball has enough clearance over the net regardless. And on wide balls on the run to the fh he is hitting a reverse fh. Perhaps the active pull back cue can be used more effectively to affect the wide fhs on the run? To add more height and spin without resorting to a reverse fh?

Regardless my son prefers to not use the pull back cue as he hits well with a normal wiper straight arm fh. The ball is moving fast and with a lot of spin. And I'm not about to change things at this point after 6 years of working on his fh.

dominikk1985
12-25-2012, 02:43 AM
It's fine if you decide not to take advantage of pulling across, but for those
who have learned to add it, there is quite a gain to be realized. For you to tell
those who know how to use it that it doesn't work is like telling someone with
a 6 speed, that they only have 5....It won't fly. You can continue to sell it to
those who also think there are only 5 speeds in some cases though...at least
till the give it a fair chance and see that the 6th gear is actually there.
I realize if you are satisfied with your Fh, there is little reason to push for more.

I'm not even sure if I disagree with you.

I certainly do hit "across". I just don't know if across means active use of the arm to pull across or letting the rotational nature of the stroke carry the racket across.

I'm also against trying to extend the arm through the ball as this means disconnection from Rotation.

corbind
12-25-2012, 07:50 AM
Tracking input here...

Wegner
12-25-2012, 08:38 AM
I'm not even sure if I disagree with you.

I certainly do hit "across". I just don't know if across means active use of the arm to pull across or letting the rotational nature of the stroke carry the racket across.

I'm also against trying to extend the arm through the ball as this means disconnection from Rotation.

Dominikk, try it both ways, pushing away for disconnection (as you explain) at or near the impact and through it, more linear towards the other player's court, and other times pulling in, across and towards the fence behind you, accelerating through the impact in a major change of direction, and tell us which one works best for you in terms of power, control, spin, amount of effort, etc.

I'd love to hear from your experience with such.

Wegner
12-25-2012, 08:57 AM
The cue to pull across (and to a certain extent to also actively pull back at impact) works. But does it actually go across only? No of course not. As the swing is circular the swing can be manipulated with a lot of nuance. If you see how djokovic hits when he finishes his fh over his shoulder there seems to be active use of his bicep to pull back the stroke as well as the across aspect. Does the racket pull back and slow down? No. The racket seems to accelerate faster in the arc across. One advantage I've found in focusing on the across aspect of a fh stroke is your shoulders are always centered over your hips. I've tried numerous cues when coaching my 11 year old son and focusing on the across aspect of the stroke and with an emphasis on starting the swing slower then accelerating through impact really helps with pace and spin. One thing I add that Oscar does not really touch on much is the use of the legs. I found that by using the knee bend and lifting into the stroke it adds more racket head speed with out the need to swing any faster.

I am still not certain the active pull back advice by Oscar is right for every occasion. As I taught my son a straight arm forehand when he hits with a normal wiper motion he hits harder than when he actively pulls back. The finish is different as well as spin. My son gets more top spin if he uses the cue to pull back. But the ball is heavier with a normal wiper motion using the straight arm. And the ball has enough clearance over the net regardless. And on wide balls on the run to the fh he is hitting a reverse fh. Perhaps the active pull back cue can be used more effectively to affect the wide fhs on the run? To add more height and spin without resorting to a reverse fh?

Regardless my son prefers to not use the pull back cue as he hits well with a normal wiper straight arm fh. The ball is moving fast and with a lot of spin. And I'm not about to change things at this point after 6 years of working on his fh.

Arche, you are right in present time. But, let's say your son grows to be a tall, powerful hitter, and hits forehands close to or above 100 MPH (normal in today's tour, even in college). Would he be able to pound the ball without any rotation and get it consistently in the court? Would he be able, at those speeds, to have a safe net clearance and not restrain his power in a tight situation? Would he be confident on pounding and attacking the ball no matter what?

The modern racquets, with so much available response and power, have changed the equation quite a bit.

Those are the considerations that make me teach topspin from a young age. It is always easier, as a variation, to resort to hit flatter, forward and harder. Your swing is quite coincidental with the flight of your ball. What is more difficult is to tell the usual flat player TO POUND the ball with topspin and hitting across. It takes new training and countless hours of practice to instill in a player with a forward tendency to exert his effort in a completely new direction than that of the ball trajectory he intends.

treblings
12-25-2012, 09:07 AM
Oscar,
in the video interview you posted you were critical of fyb´s modern footwork videos.
i actually liked them a lot and feel like they helped me in my game
what is it you don´t like about them?

dominikk1985
12-25-2012, 09:33 AM
Dominikk, try it both ways, pushing away for disconnection (as you explain) at or near the impact and through it, more linear towards the other player's court, and other times pulling in, across and towards the fence behind you, accelerating through the impact in a major change of direction, and tell us which one works best for you in terms of power, control, spin, amount of effort, etc.

I'd love to hear from your experience with such.

thanks mr wegner. I will try that and Report back.

I'm definitely against Extension of the arm but do you actually mean active pulling in by bending the arm (biceps). or do you mean just follow the natural arc around the Body?

arche3
12-25-2012, 12:12 PM
Arche, you are right in present time. But, let's say your son grows to be a tall, powerful hitter, and hits forehands close to or above 100 MPH (normal in today's tour, even in college). Would he be able to pound the ball without any rotation and get it consistently in the court? Would he be able, at those speeds, to have a safe net clearance and not retrain his power in a tight situation? Would he be confident on pounding and attacking the ball no matter what?

The modern racquets, with so much available response and power, have changed the equation quite a bit.

Those are the considerations that make me teach topspin from a young age. It is always easier, as a variation, to resort to hit flatter, forward and harder. Your swing is quite coincidental with the flight of your ball. What is more difficult is to tell the usual flat player TO POUND the ball with topspin and hitting across. It takes new training and countless hours of practice to instill in a player with a forward tendency to exert his effort in a completely new direction than that of the ball trajectory he intends.

I actually used your across approach to teach his fh. Along with leading with the hip rotation in the modern style. I just question the pull back part of your instruction. As that does not seem to add more pace to a straight arm fh.
I found the cue to pull across the ball worked wonders for my son. He is a big and strong 11 year olds. Almost 5 ft 6i nches tall now. He has enough spin to keep the ball in at this point.

Raul_SJ
12-26-2012, 02:14 AM
TCF,

In an earlier thread, that has since been deleted, you mentioned that your students improved when presented with the "pulling across" image.

Congratulations on this.

But what do you believe is physically changing with their stroke?

5263
12-26-2012, 01:25 PM
I'm not even sure if I disagree with you.

I certainly do hit "across". I just don't know if across means active use of the arm to pull across or letting the rotational nature of the stroke carry the racket across.

I'm also against trying to extend the arm through the ball as this means disconnection from Rotation.

Looks like we are connecting some dots here on this.
If you add the pull across right prior to contact, that will accel the racket
out into the ball with a controlled power that also enhances your ability to
control net clearance better.
It does incorporate your rotational nature of the stroke prior to the pull, with
the pull across enhancing the arc.

Mick3391
12-26-2012, 02:51 PM
I agree 100%, who are the complainers that keep getting these threads deleted. This is supposed to be a tennis site for tennis discussion, it amazes me that on a tennis site a long time tennis instructor is giving free advise and the threads keep getting nuked.

It makes you wonder if some of the haters are worried that the same instruction that they claim is so wrong could be found to be helpful and ruin their non stop Oscar bashing.

I think most players looking for help take a little something from many different teaching methods, some they will like and some they will think are no good. But it would be nice if we would at least get to make that choice.

And if Oscar is so wrong I do not understand why the same few haters have to jump in and start the trouble. If they know it is wrong just stay out of these threads and stay with what they think is the right way. Isn't that what most normal people would do?

So if you disagree you are labeled a "Hater"?

Aren't others entitled to opinions, or do we just sit back like mindless robots and say "Yes teacher"?

I agree many get very nasty, but a difference of opinion helps people grow. I do a thread and I don't care if others disagree.

tlm
12-26-2012, 03:15 PM
So if you disagree you are labeled a "Hater"?

Aren't others entitled to opinions, or do we just sit back like mindless robots and say "Yes teacher"?

I agree many get very nasty, but a difference of opinion helps people grow. I do a thread and I don't care if others disagree.

Well you must have missed most of these Oscar threads obviously. There have been a few posters that have to jump in every thread that involves Oscar and start useless bickering that leads to the the thread being deleted.

The difference of opinion is fine with me, I agree that it helps to hear different sides and opinions. Even though a lot of it was just obnoxious trouble making that didn't bother me that much, but what did is the thread would just be getting going and becoming interesting and it would be nuked because of the haters starting so much crap.

Maui19
12-26-2012, 03:40 PM
Instruction threads get very heated in golf forums too. A lot of personal insults and flame wars among the same group of posters leading to locked or deleted threads. I'm not sure why instruction discussions bring out the worst in people, but it seems to do so.

Mick3391
12-26-2012, 06:14 PM
Well you must have missed most of these Oscar threads obviously. There have been a few posters that have to jump in every thread that involves Oscar and start useless bickering that leads to the the thread being deleted.

The difference of opinion is fine with me, I agree that it helps to hear different sides and opinions. Even though a lot of it was just obnoxious trouble making that didn't bother me that much, but what did is the thread would just be getting going and becoming interesting and it would be nuked because of the haters starting so much crap.

Yea hear you, it's amazing some of these threads, guy posts "Here's why I think X is better than Y", and dudes are vicious! "This shows why you are such a ..............." It's like "Cool it it's just tennis".

I've fallen for this myself, but yea we should all be friendly, we say something stupid, so what. I mean I have a stalker on this forum, some guy can't stand me, I just ignore it because I really enjoy this forum.

luvforty
12-26-2012, 06:17 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6a6WWX5AWUA

notice that in this video EA just talks about options, not valid/invalid options.. also check out his work titled 'power of 3', which is a masterpiece on open-minded golf instruction suited to individual players.

why can't tennis coaches be more open minded.

seems these debates about individual ques are quite pointless.... they are all valid, to the extent that they work for somebody.... they are all invalid, to the extent that they don't work for everybody !

luvforty
12-26-2012, 06:22 PM
i agree with dominikk1985.... it's just a rotation.. whatever que used to achieve that doesn't matter, pulling to the left, backwards etc.... this may work for some people, but maybe an overkill for others.

rotation thru impact... that's all the que the brain needs.

Mick3391
12-26-2012, 06:45 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6a6WWX5AWUA

notice that in this video EA just talks about options, not valid/invalid options.. also check out his work titled 'power of 3', which is a masterpiece on open-minded golf instruction suited to individual players.

why can't tennis coaches be more open minded.

seems these debates about individual ques are quite pointless.... they are all valid, to the extent that they work for somebody.... they are all invalid, to the extent that they don't work for everybody !

I don't know if tennis coaches are necessarily closed minded, but what I don't like is that it seems almost universal they want to teach the "New way", like I said before people out on the courts LOVE to give unsolicited advice, "Well your son needs to get behind the baseline and.......". Maybe I'm just old school, but I can't find one flaw in teaching baseline, net play, all court. I'm telling you these kids are taught one thing, and that is how to dictate from the baseline.

I tell my son to once in awhile to do a shot just over the net to make them nervous, and to take the ball mid court in the air and finish it, and of course the net. I mean even Sampras said if he played today he'd still serve and volley, and while I'm not teaching him pure S&V, he needs to know how to do it all, what if they speed courts back up? What's wrong with knowing how to play all court? He's only 12, I want him to be able to do it all.

JohnYandell
12-26-2012, 06:46 PM
Disagreement is not "hating." Calling people out on their credibility problems by citing evidence is not "hating."

Expalining why certain claims are falacious when presented as monolithic truth is not "hating." Suggesting how these claims may be detrimental to the tennis of players here is not "hating."

But there is a reaction pattern we have seen here over and over again when these criticisms are raised that leads to thread oblivion. It's self inflicted.

On with the love fest!

luvforty
12-26-2012, 07:10 PM
everybody is built differently, therefore by definition there can NOT be monolithic truth.

whoever claims so is basically self-labeling as a one trick pony.

arche3
12-26-2012, 07:33 PM
Disagreement is not "hating." Calling people out on their credibility problems by citing evidence is not "hating."

Expalining why certain claims are falacious when presented as monolithic truth is not "hating." Suggesting how these claims may be detrimental to the tennis of players here is not "hating."

But there is a reaction pattern we have seen here over and over again when these criticisms are raised that leads to thread oblivion. It's self inflicted.

On with the love fest!

I have an idea. If you started a JY tennis ideas thread I am sure people would enjoy it just as much as this one. I know I would.

Mulach
12-26-2012, 07:38 PM
John, why are you so critical of this approach?

Have you ever bothered to try it? As a scientist, which you are, you would test this notion of feel vs real. And if feel results in the "right" real, then a scientist would just acknowledge it.

I've heard your criticism but can you explain how following OW advice can results in problems? You've said it is dangerous but I would like to hear details of how so.

I'm just learning about this accelerate across and it makes a lot of sense. I see the pro's doing it, now that I'm looking for it. I also see then extend through. So the two things coexist. Is it a chicken before egg debate?

It's quite simple. Throw a ball at a target. The first way - chase the ball with your hand straight in line with your throw and target. Second way, throw it at target and as you release, accelerate your arm across your body. After playing with this, which method results in a faster throw? After a bit of practice, direction control is just as accurate with both methods.

So what gives? Why so much resistance if this coaching works? What are the pitfalls? What are the signs we should look for that indicate backfire?

Lets have some data.

JohnYandell
12-26-2012, 07:53 PM
Mulach,

All reasonable questions you ask. You're late to this debate though by about 2 years. I lost count of how many threads in which I posted video clips, hard data, interviews with other authorities who challenged various points as well as myself, not to mention a ton of very precise reasoning, all that have been vaporized in a haze of denial and...well, let's just stop there before the vapor trial is all that is left.

I am going to duck out here and leave the love fest to the lovers.

Arche had an interesting suggestion.

3fees
12-26-2012, 08:02 PM
Thanks for sharing

Mulach
12-26-2012, 08:15 PM
Mulach,

All reasonable questions you ask. You're late to this debate though by about 2 years. I lost count of how many threads in which I posted video clips, hard data, interviews with other authorities who challenged various points as well as myself, not to mention a ton of very precise reasoning, all that have been vaporized in a haze of denial and...well, let's just stop there before the vapor trial is all that is left.

I am going to duck out here and leave the love fest to the lovers.

Arche had an interesting suggestion.

John, thank you for your reply. I will try search for it. If you can point me in the right direction I would appreciate it. Private message would work if that helps keeps the mods from having to take action.

I'm in this forum to learn and this seems like an extremely important topic.

TomT
12-26-2012, 08:58 PM
I have an idea. If you started a JY tennis ideas thread I am sure people would enjoy it just as much as this one. I know I would.Ditto. I think I can learn from both Oscar Wegner and John Yandell ... and a lot of other people for that matter. :) If something (after sufficient work on my part in applying a principle or technical adjustment) helps my game, then, for me at least, it was sage advice.

JohnYandell
12-26-2012, 09:06 PM
OK Gentleman I won't promise anything less than rigorous analysis, however. I made a start in a thread titled "Does Modern Tennis Exist?"

TennisCJC
12-27-2012, 06:51 AM
3 questions for Oscar - first, in general, I like your simply way of teaching the game and it has helped me in the past.

Question 1: you don't seem to stress what other call the "prep" phase where you pivot the shoulders to the side. I have studied many pros and a shoulder pivot where the shoulder turn to the side and the hands stay in front of the chest seems to be almost universally used. Why do you not teach this as part of your method?

Question 2: you don't teach to change grips for a 2HBH in your book, but again almost all pros and better players use a continental on the dominant side (r hand conti for right handed player) and an eastern or semi-western grip on the non-dominant side (l hand for right handed player). Shouldn't advanced players use a conti R hand/E or SW L hand grip?

Question 3: you and many others teach the 2 HBH is a a L handed forehand for a right handed player. But, many pros use the dominant hand, arm and shoulder quite a bit. Djoko hits 90% of his 2 HBH with a square/neutral or slightly closed stance, his right shoulder closes a bit to the incoming ball, he does not have the racket head as high up on the backswing as a normal pro forehand, and the L hand seems to take over on the follow-thru. He does rotate the hips, shoulders to fully open and wraps the follow-thru like a WW forehand, but there seem to be a vast difference in his 2 HBH and his forehand. Isn't the 2 HBH really quite different from a normal forehand?

Povl Carstensen
12-27-2012, 07:35 AM
I would say that there is across in this forehand:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTjBXVQyiwg
But the ball seems to go pretty straight though...

ShoeShiner
12-27-2012, 08:59 AM
. . .
Focusing initially on the hand, rather than on the racquet, can develop several abilities.
. . .

I have found by myself this is true.:-?

B.W.
12-27-2012, 10:08 AM
If Oscar says so.I guarantee its true.Just try it.

Wegner
12-27-2012, 10:27 AM
3 questions for Oscar - first, in general, I like your simply way of teaching the game and it has helped me in the past.

Question 1: you don't seem to stress what other call the "prep" phase where you pivot the shoulders to the side. I have studied many pros and a shoulder pivot where the shoulder turn to the side and the hands stay in front of the chest seems to be almost universally used. Why do you not teach this as part of your method?

Question 2: you don't teach to change grips for a 2HBH in your book, but again almost all pros and better players use a continental on the dominant side (r hand conti for right handed player) and an eastern or semi-western grip on the non-dominant side (l hand for right handed player). Shouldn't advanced players use a conti R hand/E or SW L hand grip?

Question 3: you and many others teach the 2 HBH is a a L handed forehand for a right handed player. But, many pros use the dominant hand, arm and shoulder quite a bit. Djoko hits 90% of his 2 HBH with a square/neutral or slightly closed stance, his right shoulder closes a bit to the incoming ball, he does not have the racket head as high up on the backswing as a normal pro forehand, and the L hand seems to take over on the follow-thru. He does rotate the hips, shoulders to fully open and wraps the follow-thru like a WW forehand, but there seem to be a vast difference in his 2 HBH and his forehand. Isn't the 2 HBH really quite different from a normal forehand?

Answer to question number 1:

I would say that there are 3 stages in tennis: one is geting to the ball, then focussing on finding it well, the next is how you hit it. The squaring of the shoulders is part of the third stage. To do it as part of stage #1 for a ball that you have to run to is a waste of time (the body usually turns to run to a distant ball anyway). Only when the ball is coming directly to you it is wise to address it, while you are making room for the stroke, with the shoulder turn.

Answer to question number 2:

There are a lot of players that operate as you say, mainly with the right hand. Others operate with the left hand. I prefer the second one as more natural and more efficient. You can easily hit it easily with an open stance.

Answer to question number 3:

Depending on your choice as per my answer to number 2, the 2 handed-backhand has more similarities to a one-handed backhand, or with a forehand with the left hand. Throughout my teachings, I work on making tennis simple and easy to learn. That is reflected in the two-handed backhand as well. I start the student with the left hand only, as if it was a forehand, then I have them add the right hand and I drill both back and forth. The power of simplicity!

Wegner
12-27-2012, 10:31 AM
I would say that there is across in this forehand:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTjBXVQyiwg
But the ball seems to go pretty straight though...

Beautiful example. Thank you, Povl.

Wegner
12-27-2012, 10:34 AM
Oscar,
in the video interview you posted you were critical of fyb´s modern footwork videos.
i actually liked them a lot and feel like they helped me in my game
what is it you don´t like about them?

Just that I feel there is undue attention to footwork. I like foot movement to be more natural, more instinctive, that to pay so much attention to the feet.

Wegner
12-27-2012, 10:37 AM
thanks mr wegner. I will try that and Report back.

I'm definitely against Extension of the arm but do you actually mean active pulling in by bending the arm (biceps). or do you mean just follow the natural arc around the Body?

I pull actively, and coach so as well. Why? Because I noticed that the results are spectacular in terms of accuracy, power, feel and ease. Spectacular, at times.

Wegner
12-27-2012, 10:42 AM
TCF,

In an earlier thread, that has since been deleted, you mentioned that your students improved when presented with the "pulling across" image.

Congratulations on this.

But what do you believe is physically changing with their stroke?

The change from conventional to modern is that you use more your major muscle groups in modern and you have a freer posture, while conventional is more elaborate and involves too much muscles that are smaller and therefore weaker (and that includes rotational forces on your hips and knees at the end of the stroke, making you more vulnerable to injury).

morandi
12-27-2012, 11:32 AM
I would say that there is across in this forehand:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTjBXVQyiwg
But the ball seems to go pretty straight though...

I think the great lesson to learn in watching this, is look how slow it seems his racquet moves to the ball, and then the rapid acceleration at the end. It almost seems like he is going to catch the ball on his strings. Talk about finding the ball.

morandi
12-27-2012, 11:40 AM
Here is another, more extreme example of pulling across. There is no backswing here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUcymJTm0gs

treblings
12-27-2012, 11:49 AM
Just that I feel there is undue attention to footwork. I like foot movement to be more natural, more instinctive, that to pay so much attention to the feet.

so if for example you have a new student who hits his fh only with a closed stance you wouldn´t draw his attention to his footwork and make him try more open stances?

arche3
12-27-2012, 12:06 PM
I think the great lesson to learn in watching this, is look how slow it seems his racquet moves to the ball, and then the rapid acceleration at the end. It almost seems like he is going to catch the ball on his strings. Talk about finding the ball.

Yes! I've been saying this for ages. Oscar was the first coach I heard say this. If you watch top juniors even the racket head looks slow to start then blam. Its jumps into the ball and you get the pop.

Wegner
12-27-2012, 12:15 PM
I encourage you to visit John Yandell's thread, Does Modern Tennis Exist? It is great to have several viewpoint exposed so you can make up your own mind as to was is true for you and what is not, or what works for you and what does not. My comments here are in red. The normal black type is John Yandell's comments on his thread

Obviously modern tennis exists, at least in so far as you believe this is the modern age and that in it some of the best tennis imaginable is being played by great, great champions. Agreed.

But the reality is that there is no hard distinction between modern and classical tennis. Disagreed. There is a big distinction between the two. Open stance vs. closed. Stalking the ball vs. early preparation. Hitting up and across the ball vs. hitting straight through. And more. Elements that are commonly labeled "modern" have always been a part of the game going back to the 19th century. This includes extreme grips, over the shoulder wraps, reverse and windshield wiper finishes, swinging volleys, as well as the whole spectrum of hitting stances. The top players used these characteristics you mention, I always remarked in my works that those needed to be studied and followed in coaching, but they were frowned upon and were not taught. People were discouraged by coaches on copying the top pros.

And many of the key elements of classical tennis are still critical in the modern game. These include immediate initiation of preparation through the unit turn, the full coiling of the torso through the left arm stretch, and the upward, outward and right to left components on the forward swing--all mixed in different degrees to create swing arcs that have different levels of extension, height of finish, hand and arm rotation, velocity and spin. And that's just on the forehand. I disagree. Immediate initiation of preparation introduces arbitrarily a time altering sequence to the nature of the game. You do the unit turn immediately and you cut your time to run for the ball. How about running first and then do the unit turn as you are geting to the ball?

The same false distinction is often made in teaching--classical versus so-called modern teaching. It isn't false, just a fact which can be observed. You saw it in the instruction of QuickStart. Kids learning to play tennis like baseball, closed stance and finish pointing to the target. I think QuickStart is finally changing the instructional manuals as we speak. The claim is that the majority of coaches teach "traditionally" and that this doesn't result in the benefits of a "modern" approach--and further that the lack of American players at the top of the game is expalined by this single factor. This so called failed traditional approach includes the huge majority of American coaches including, paradoxically, the coaches who have produced our greatest champions. None of that is true. Some coaches saw the truth and let players evolve naturally. Weren't Agassi, Courier, Sampras, Capriati, the Williams sisters, Michael Chang, Davenport, all the "modern" American champions the exceptions to the rule?

But the deepest irony here is that the so-called modern approach is not based on accurate descriptions of the strokes of the very players it purports to take as models to teach everyone in the world at all levels to "play like the pros." False. You description is not quite accurate. You have quite a few misconceptions tacked onto your "modern tennis" definition. There are complete misunderstandings of the fundamentals running from the classical thru the modern age, as well as the myriad variations, and in the shifts in emphasis and prevelance of important elements over time, something that has been largely the by product of the changes in rackets and especially string. Exactly, the modern racquet "exposed" the inefficiency of those myths, which I discovered before the 1970s and before these modern racquets appeared. Doesn't that tell you something is amiss?

When these criticisms are detailed the response is often that that the lack of correspondence between actual pro modern technique and "modern" teaching is "irrelevant" because teaching technique is all about producing the right result. Well, the details are here.

And that point at least is true. In my own work I have since the 1980's used what I call the concept of over compensation at times to exaggerate some physical component of the stroke in order to move the overall motion in the direction I felt correct. Bravo. An engineering modus operandi procedure, provided that you are on the right track.

There is no argument about that. But you can't have it both ways at the same time: lay out clear descriptions of what pros do and then say that those descriptions aren't in fact what they do, those descriptions are just teaching devices. If that were true how then would you even know those devices were working? You have now rejected your own reference points for what is "pro" technique. You are very likely commenting from a very superficial inspection, rather than having tested how these principles work in actual practice.

Let's face it, if tennis technique wasn't so dynamic and difficult to understand, there wouldn't be so much impassioned debate. And that debate will always go on and has the potential at least to be healthy. Tennis is not difficult to understand. It is actually a very simple game. I actually demonstrate it by playing with my bare hand. It's the complications that make it complicated, of course.

There are incredible resources available to any sincere student of the game--extensive high speed archives of the strokes of the top players, and now the further game changing emergence of 3D data bases and the potential to measure players in 3D in real time. If you look at the link that Povl pointed to in Post #50 of this thread, you'll see a vivid example of tenets I have been insisting on for years. One is that the stroke is up and across.

My belief is that the first step is a clear understanding of how players actually hit the ball and the incredible diversity of elements and stroke variations. This is a vast and at times daunting task. It is something I have spent 15 years working towards, in conjunction with dozens of elite coaches worldwide, starting with our groundbreaking first live pro high speed filmings in 1997. Yes, and I thanked you for those 1997 films because they truly validated what I have been coaching for decades, including in Spain's National School in 1973, Brazil in the 80s, on the New Tennis Magazine Channel and on ESPN International throughout the 90s. The top players have been playing like this, as you pointed out, for more than a century. Why wasn't tennis being coached like that?

This understanding provides the reference universe for creating and evaluating the potential range of teaching techniques and their application to players at all levels, to various appropriate extents. Couldn't agree more. Just don't make it difficult, it's a simpler, easier game that it is thought to be.

10isfreak
12-27-2012, 12:22 PM
everybody is built differently, therefore by definition there can NOT be monolithic truth.

whoever claims so is basically self-labeling as a one trick pony.

Actually, this reasoning is erroneous in a very specific sense... and you might understand what I mean if you try to think through this small post.

In science, we try to build things that we call "theories." We proceed to do this by devising tons of different experiments. When we begin, we overview a topic and, through readings, we specify a question which we will try to answer. As we get to know more about previous works, we may try to make a guess: what are we likely to find, what is the likeliest answer to our question? At that point, there is no distinction between philosophers and scientists: we speculate about reality, but we do so on the basis of a rigorous reasoning -- we try to logically infer the likeliest answer to our question and this likely answer we call it "hypothesis."

We choose a logical and reasonable hypothesis for purely methodological reasons: we get an easier way toward answering our questions if we aim closer to the actual target than if we make wild guesses out of nowhere. Of course, we could still take a very stupid guess and make it our hypothesis... it would just make our research a lot harder and a lot longer to perform.

Then, once we have this hypothesis, we devise a test... Every claim has factual implications: the hypothesis implies certain things about reality and the presence or absence of these things allow us to confirm or infirm it -- or to come to other, alternative, conclusions.

Once we get our claims tested, get results and bring forward factually justified conclusions, we have what we call scientific answers. If you have enough of them and each covers a given aspect of a common topic, you may wish to group all these answers together in a convenient way. That's this organization of scientific answers in a coherent scheme that we call "theory" in science. It doesn't have the same meaning as in common language, specifically because scientific theories aren't just wild guesses... they are a compilation of valid, verified and coherent answers.

And, do you know what is convenient about theories? They are general enough to be applied to a potentially infinite series of different situations, yet they are also precise enough to explain everyone of them properly.


In fact, you do not need a hundred answers for a hundred people... you just need one which is general enough to cover them all, yet precise enough to allow to cover each peculiar case properly. We call that a theory.

Wegner
12-27-2012, 12:42 PM
TCF,

I don't believe--correct me if I am wrong--Oscar acknowledges that this conclusion came from his attendance at a talk I did at the Open in 1998.

He approached me after the conference to discuss this. This is an example of the kind of appropriation I don't appreciate--especially when combined with his rejection or denial of so much of my other research that doesn't fit his theories.



The two paragraphs above are not correct. I did not attend any of JY's talks. I met John Yandell in 1997, not in 1998, at Flushing Meadows. John was filming a practice between Pete Sampras and Patrick McEnroe. When he stopped, I said hello and I asked JY: John, have you noticed how much the ball slows down? And John responded: "if I wasn't filming it, I wouldn't".

Later on, mid 2000s, when John worked at Tennis One, I acknowledged him for his Advanced Tennis Research Project, thanking him for validating my theories, and I don't think he appreciated my comment.

morandi
12-27-2012, 01:00 PM
Yes! I've been saying this for ages. Oscar was the first coach I heard say this. If you watch top juniors even the racket head looks slow to start then blam. Its jumps into the ball and you get the pop.

Even the same thing happens on the serve. I think that last minute explosion on the strokes gives tons of pace, but also allows for lots of control.

morandi
12-27-2012, 01:04 PM
Watch Lopez serving. Super slow to begin and then a fast snap at the ball.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DbR3rqgu1Ho#!

arche3
12-27-2012, 01:09 PM
Watch Lopez serving. Super slow to begin and then a fast snap at the ball.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DbR3rqgu1Ho#!

They all do it. I think it allows you to execute the stroke with the most precision with power.

luvforty
12-27-2012, 01:11 PM
In fact, you do not need a hundred answers for a hundred people... you just need one which is general enough to cover them all, yet precise enough to allow to cover each peculiar case properly. We call that a theory.

you are going to the other extreme. I am not saying 100 answers... I am saying for 100 people, there is a distribution curve, so for 68 of them you can apply 1 method, but need some others to cover the statistical tails.

by the way - I am a scientist.

Raul_SJ
12-27-2012, 01:43 PM
I would say that there is across in this forehand:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTjBXVQyiwg
But the ball seems to go pretty straight though...

It is difficult to tell in real-time.

It would be good to examine slow motion forehand video of two players, one "pulling across", and the other with the "hitting through 5 balls" method, and compare the differences... if any.

It is possible that the differences are so subtle that even high speed video cannot pick up the differences.

Cheetah
12-27-2012, 02:40 PM
Watch Lopez serving. Super slow to begin and then a fast snap at the ball.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DbR3rqgu1Ho#!

wow. he really accelerates there at the end. interesting. my serve definitely doesn't look like that haha.

10isfreak
12-27-2012, 03:58 PM
you are going to the other extreme. I am not saying 100 answers... I am saying for 100 people, there is a distribution curve, so for 68 of them you can apply 1 method, but need some others to cover the statistical tails.

by the way - I am a scientist.

Oh then you should be able to understand what I mean here. A theory may apply to all cases - I know dozens of theories who do apply to every single cases of a phenomenon. However, what the theory recommands will be context-dependant.

You do not teach an eight years old the same way you teach a 12 years old or an adult... however, I‘ll use only 2 theories to know exactly what to do for every single case. Piaget‘s model of cognitive development and Vygotski‘s three principles of psychological development. The same theory makes me act differently, but it‘s still only two theories, not hundreds of them.

Since you‘re knowledgeable, let‘s be more precise: the method is dictated by the theory and you do not need many theories... It‘s the point of having theories: you deduce the case-specific approach to solving your problems. You learn one theory instead of hundreds of solutions to specific cases.

What I was saying is that you should focus on theory, not practice because you infer proper practice from valid theories.

psv255
12-27-2012, 04:16 PM
I would say that there is across in this forehand:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTjBXVQyiwg
But the ball seems to go pretty straight though...

It is difficult to tell in real-time.

It would be good to examine slow motion forehand video of two players, one "pulling across", and the other with the "hitting through 5 balls" method, and compare the differences... if any.

It is possible that the differences are so subtle that even high speed video cannot pick up the differences.

In terms of direction, the ball goes where Fed intends, but if you look closely, the degree and timing of the "across" in each shot corresponds to the way the ball bounces on the other side of the net. It's less noticeable from the camera's POV as opposed to first-person, but there are two predominant shot shapes Fed uses, and both are hit very much to his side (still in front):
One causes the ball to curve right-to-left (2:13 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wTjBXVQyiwg#t=133s)), while the other causes the ball to curve left-to-right (two shots after 1:55 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wTjBXVQyiwg#t=115s)).

DropShotArtist
12-27-2012, 07:57 PM
Just a question. Excluding for now the talk of actively pulling across on the ball, before that all of what is taught here completely depends on proper implementation of the kinetic chain, does it not? i.e leading the turn with the body and having the arm passively pulled through and ending in a wrist snap (not active) to the ball. Without that, the RHS gets compromised and all of the things taught here become kinda useless don't they? What are Oscar's views on the kinetic chain? It seems to me most beginner and even intermediate players will have some component of actively arming the ball on the forehand swing, no?

JohnYandell
12-27-2012, 09:00 PM
To All,

I won't bother to restate my positions in response to Wegner's comments on my first post. He continues to restate his positions with bascially zero factual support other than his own grandiose assertions, and they are as inaccurate now as they were before. More on this will be obvious as the thread unfolds.
Why bother with facts when you can simply make claims about how easy everything is if you can just follow a couple of bogus ideas and maybe buy some dvds? Everyone reading will just have to make their own determinations about that.

As to his refusal to acknowledge the source of the research for changes in ball speed: that's shameful and unethical.
But par for the course. Really? With his own eyes he could predict the percentage of deceleration? Pure genius. He'd get barred from academic journals for that kind of misrepresention, but I understand this is the internet. And as for his reconstruction of our conversation at the Open: BS 100%.

directionals
12-27-2012, 11:17 PM
The change from conventional to modern is that you use more your major muscle groups in modern and you have a freer posture, while conventional is more elaborate and involves too much muscles that are smaller and therefore weaker (and that includes rotational forces on your hips and knees at the end of the stroke, making you more vulnerable to injury).

I'm lost here. Doesn't modern also use rotational forces at the hips and knees?

10isfreak
12-27-2012, 11:47 PM
The difference between a philosopher and a scientist is slim, though it is significant: the scientists bothers to verify his claims.

While Oscar might have a point in trying to bring results through visual cues or figurative speech, it is very uncertain whether he actually knows what he is talking about in the first place... I am ready to believe anything and am willing to let Oscard justify himself, but if JY is right and Oscar cannot back up his claims with scientific research or propose a meta-analysis of many researches as a justification, then anyone‘s words are as good as his.

With his reputation, I would expect that he‘d be thoughtful enough to answer this criticism properly... so, I‘ll let him reply to John. Leave your visual cues home and use a precise vocabulary to answer our doubts. Go through several of your key advices and demonstrate your points one by one.

That‘s how we should be proceeding every single time...

TheCheese
12-28-2012, 02:22 AM
Oscar,

How would you teach someone who is trying to learn how to make their shots curve right-left or left-right?

tlm
12-28-2012, 04:22 AM
The difference between a philosopher and a scientist is slim, though it is significant: the scientists bothers to verify his claims.

While Oscar might have a point in trying to bring results through visual cues or figurative speech, it is very uncertain whether he actually knows what he is talking about in the first place... I am ready to believe anything and am willing to let Oscard justify himself, but if JY is right and Oscar cannot back up his claims with scientific research or propose a meta-analysis of many researches as a justification, then anyone‘s words are as good as his.

With his reputation, I would expect that he‘d be thoughtful enough to answer this criticism properly... so, I‘ll let him reply to John. Leave your visual cues home and use a precise vocabulary to answer our doubts. Go through several of your key advices and demonstrate your points one by one.

That‘s how we should be proceeding every single time...



Hah a brand new TT member joined just in time for the Oscar thread.

arche3
12-28-2012, 05:36 AM
The difference between a philosopher and a scientist is slim, though it is significant: the scientists bothers to verify his claims.

While Oscar might have a point in trying to bring results through visual cues or figurative speech, it is very uncertain whether he actually knows what he is talking about in the first place... I am ready to believe anything and am willing to let Oscard justify himself, but if JY is right and Oscar cannot back up his claims with scientific research or propose a meta-analysis of many researches as a justification, then anyone‘s words are as good as his.

With his reputation, I would expect that he‘d be thoughtful enough to answer this criticism properly... so, I‘ll let him reply to John. Leave your visual cues home and use a precise vocabulary to answer our doubts. Go through several of your key advices and demonstrate your points one by one.

That‘s how we should be proceeding every single time...

My suggestion to you is to just try any methods of tennis instruction on a tennis court and decide if it works for you or not. Tennis is not science. Nothing needs scientific research here. Tell your rant to any of the top coaches. They would laugh you off the court. Even when high speed video is used it simply allows you to see more precisely so you can form an opinion. It is just a tool to help a coach. They do not have advanced scientific labs setup court side to prove coaching theories.

There has been this thing called "practice" that good tennis players do which improves their tennis. Hard to believe I know but it really works.

Wegner
12-28-2012, 09:15 AM
I'm lost here. Doesn't modern also use rotational forces at the hips and knees?

Absolutely. A lot more than conventional. But in a more natural way. Think of it this way. Modern stroking is as if you compress a spring and then release it, all at its proper time. Conventional is as if you compress it, keep it compressed while you are running, all prepared, and then release it. A bit unnatural, wouldn't you say? The conventional teachings are based on the theory that there is no time or very little time in tennis, a misconception that leads to rushing, too early a preparation, etc., awkwardness.

Since early in my career, and going back to the late 1960s, I noticed that the ball slows down on its flight and after the bounce, and that on days when I was Zoned-in it seemed to slow down even more. Experimenting with it while coaching at the National Tennis School in Spain in the 1970s (with the top 18 and under, 16 and under and 14 and under from all over Spain) and Brazil in the 1980s with kids from 5 to 18 year olds, I came up with a slogan: "The More You Wait, The More Time You'll Have". Very unconventional, and to this day battled by the experts. You know who agreed with me? Bjorn Borg, who I coached in 1992 for his second comeback. Guga Kuerten, who learned this as a kid. Vincent Spadea, who beat Andre Agassi 4 or 5 times. And so many others.... It helped them understand the Zone. And the trick is to wait, rather than to rush, rather than prepare too early. You still act, but holding yourself from reacting too early, too soon.

Nike, who has done research in the area of the Zone, heard of my ideas and invited me to visit their headquarters in Portland. They had developed Vapor Strobe glasses that could be regulated to obstruct your eyesight anywhere from 10% to 80% and they were using them with football players, especially receivers. The end result had been quite amazing, with players focusing a lot better, increasing their ability to catch, and many times reporting they saw the football slower. Included in the group I met with was the inventor of the glasses, Dr. Alan Reichow. Knowing that I was a believer in the Zone, they asked me for my viewpoint on the matter. And my answer was: the mind makes mental image pictures. It copies what is happening at the rate of about 25 pictures per second. Who is making the pictures? The spirit, the soul, the being, whatever you want to call it. This is YOU, the operator, and you have the ability to direct your attention units to wherever you want, focus them, disperse them, etc. You also have the ability to make pictures based on imagination, dreams, etc. This is also your internal clock, the way you mesure time, against that sequence of 25 pictures per second. And this is how you operate: estimating future efforts by comparing it with past efforts, at incredible speeds and through paths that earth computers cannot even remotely approach. And those paths can become complicated. The more you think, the more you "prepare", the less time you seem to have. What top athletes can do is focus so much in the present time moment, observing the ball or object with the great majority of their attention units focussed in present time. To a greater or lesser extent they shut off that operation of continually estimating future efforts and they practically shut off what we call the mind. To different individual extent, of course, depending on their ability to get in the Zone, but experiencing a remarkable increase in their athletic ability. And the Nike Strobe glasses helped anyone get increase their awareness of staying in present time.

Since 1977 I have done studies that touched upon this phenomena and it quickly helped me understand the Zone, which I had experienced on and off in my tennis career. My friends on the tour in the 1960s had reported feeling sometimes the same, which confirmed that I was not hallucinating.

I have been using this awareness all throughout my coaching career because I noticed it produced great results. I even published materials such as my 1989 book, the one I gave to the Russian Tennis Federation, counseling to take your time, to observe the ball after the bounce, etc. I coached that in Spain in 1973, and, later on, when my studies starting in 1977 affirmed what I had been observing, I coached all my students on how to slow the perception of the flight of the ball. I found that a very high percentage benefitted from such. When Nike gave me a pair of Strobe glasses, I experimented and designed simple drills to Zone-in people, and Zone-in they did, some even saying what Andre Agassi said in an interview: "I hit the ball when it stops". Weird but truth.

Of course this is very controversial. It is going to be some time before I find much agreement. Tennis is the mix of sciences, physics, engineering, mechanics, biology, kinetics, the operating connection between body-mind-spirit, and you could add many other sciences to the mix. I know this is new data for many. But I won't hold back if I am criticized, because I think the public deserves an explanation, deserves to know this phenomena exists, deserves to know that if it happens they are not hallucinating, that this is a "normal" experience.

And to those who think I am hallucinating on what top players do with the hand at impact, who think my mechanics and engineering are wrong, and that my ideas that time can be expanded, that there is enough time in tennis to do things at the proper time, that tennis is an easier sport to learn and to play than it is thought to be, that tennis can be made simpler, uncomplicated, a beautiful, engaging sport to play where you are not fighting yourself, where you have complete understanding of the outer and inner forces and energies involved, I say: look, don't think so much. Awareness, not thinking, will help you and others discover a new world, more aligned, more perfect, more relaxing, more fun!!!

Head Pegger
12-28-2012, 10:04 AM
Oscar I think I have gone through this too
When I'm really concentrated when I am about to swing the ball seems to sit in place for a second. cool

Wegner
12-28-2012, 11:45 AM
Oscar I think I have gone through this too
When I'm really concentrated when I am about to swing the ball seems to sit in place for a second. cool

Fantastic. Welcome to the Club (the Zone).

Happy New Year, Oscar

5263
12-28-2012, 01:58 PM
Disagreement is not "hating." !

Maybe not by itself, but when added to calling folks who disagree with you
cults and calling Oscar a "Messiah" (yours I guess since you thought of it?),
along with direct attacks....yep..that hating, but thanks again for a demonstration
of how your logic is full of misinfo.

5263
12-28-2012, 02:02 PM
so if for example you have a new student who hits his fh only with a closed stance you wouldn´t draw his attention to his footwork and make him try more open stances?

It's more in how it's done. You don't just call it footwork but you show how to
load the torso thru facing the net...then coiling thru turning your shoulders to
the side. This doesn't focus on dance steps, but more on how the body works
as a unit.

treblings
12-28-2012, 02:12 PM
It's more in how it's done. You don't just call it footwork but you show how to
load the torso thru facing the net...then coiling thru turning your shoulders to
the side. This doesn't focus on dance steps, but more on how the body works
as a unit.

how do you show this specifically? the body working as a unit is something that isn´t limited to open stances, imo

5263
12-28-2012, 02:23 PM
how do you show this specifically? the body working as a unit is something that isn´t limited to open stances, imo

That sounds a bit like a JY comment, :???:.
I didn't place any limitations. Just said that is how
we do it in place of teaching dance step with the feet. :)

treblings
12-28-2012, 02:56 PM
That sounds a bit like a JY comment, :???:.
I didn't place any limitations. Just said that is how
we do it in place of teaching dance step with the feet. :)

that was a misunderstanding on my part. you were simply talking about how to show the student the open stance:) i would probably do it in a similar way

corbind
12-28-2012, 04:18 PM
The difference between a philosopher and a scientist is slim, though it is significant: the scientists bothers to verify his claims.

While Oscar might have a point in trying to bring results through visual cues or figurative speech, it is very uncertain whether he actually knows what he is talking about in the first place... I am ready to believe anything and am willing to let Oscard justify himself, but if JY is right and Oscar cannot back up his claims with scientific research or propose a meta-analysis of many researches as a justification, then anyone‘s words are as good as his.

With his reputation, I would expect that he‘d be thoughtful enough to answer this criticism properly... so, I‘ll let him reply to John. Leave your visual cues home and use a precise vocabulary to answer our doubts. Go through several of your key advices and demonstrate your points one by one.

That‘s how we should be proceeding every single time...

Agreed the scientific approach is really he way to have intelligent conversation/debate/resolution. People can talk until they exhaust themselves. I'll read it all since I'm not lazy and desire to learn.

For those who claim tennis is easy. Sure you can get a guy who has never left the farm, never watched tv, and still play well.

You can also have a guy who has never played on a court but has extensively studied books, videos and watched others who could play well in short order.

people are on forums for a plehora of reasons.

Learning
Trolling
Selling products
Bragging of wins
Sulking over beat-downs

Yet the vast majority here are here to LEARN! As such the method of addressing ideas/issues and grinding them down to small details if of great value if they are validated with research or some reasonable proof. Without the "proof" it becomes a, "I heard..." From maybe a kid who just picked up a racquet last month. We ALL were THAT GUY at one time and learned a ton since... May the wise bring us knowledge (with sources)! ;)

Relinquis
12-28-2012, 09:38 PM
i don't know why everyone is so sensitive on this thread. all of you coaching types criticise one another's approaches. even the "celebrity" coaches.

as someone who plays tennis for fun, i can make my own mind up when comparing the various approaches. It's actually useful to see different coaches disagreeing on specific points, or even teaching philosophies.

debate can be useful when people are knowledgeable of the topic. most people here have played a lot of tennis and/or received a lot of instruction/coaching. if we only posted on threads we agreed with this place would be a lot less useful.

Povl Carstensen
12-29-2012, 03:53 AM
In terms of direction, the ball goes where Fed intends, but if you look closely, the degree and timing of the "across" in each shot corresponds to the way the ball bounces on the other side of the net. It's less noticeable from the camera's POV as opposed to first-person, but there are two predominant shot shapes Fed uses, and both are hit very much to his side (still in front):
One causes the ball to curve right-to-left (2:13 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wTjBXVQyiwg#t=133s)), while the other causes the ball to curve left-to-right (two shots after 1:55 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wTjBXVQyiwg#t=115s)).I would agree. And the right to left is hit on a low bounce, while the left to right is hit on a higher ball. Which is very natural considering the natural curve of a swing. But by far the most are curling left to right (inside out one might say), while on the fewer low balls you get the opposite.

treblings
12-29-2012, 02:25 PM
most players at the rec level hit the ball too late, not in front of them where they would find more power and control.
the main reason for this i find is that many players play at a faster speed than they can handle
their footwork and their stroke preparation isn´t good enough to handle the pace. but virtually everybody likes to hit hard
many players don´t do a very good unit turn as well. some don´t do it at all and just arm the ball.
doing a split step is also not widely known.
by teaching all these things, and in many cases more open stances as well i see big improvements
once people learn about stuff like that it leads to more confidence and competence and less rushing

Passion4Tennis
12-29-2012, 02:46 PM
most players at the rec level hit the ball too late, not in front of them where they would find more power and control.
the main reason for this i find is that many players play at a faster speed than they can handle
their footwork and their stroke preparation isn´t good enough to handle the pace. but virtually everybody likes to hit hard
many players don´t do a very good unit turn as well. some don´t do it at all and just arm the ball.
doing a split step is also not widely known.
by teaching all these things, and in many cases more open stances as well i see big improvements
once people learn about stuff like that it leads to more confidence and competence and less rushing

This is true. I doubt that a lot of people I've played with over the years (3.5-4.5) would have any idea what a split step is. I didn't know what it was until I came to this forum.

TheCheese
12-29-2012, 03:35 PM
Can we please keep it civil and keep this thread open? It's one of the more useful threads on TTW.

We realize JY and Oscar disagree, but it'd be great if they could stay out of each other's tip threads so they don't get deleted.

tennisfan69
12-29-2012, 04:06 PM
What JY is putting out in his thread -does modern tennis exist- is brilliant stuff for anyone to absorb...

arche3
12-29-2012, 04:10 PM
The best coaches in every sport realises that players need to keep things simple and uncluttered in their minds. So they play without conscious thought and play in the moment. Which coincidentally is the reason drills and patterns of play are used by the top coaches of all sports. So the situation is familiar to the player. The players body just does what it knows. There is no overriding ego sitting ontop of the mind during the split second between hits.

You cannot get much better as a player watching videos. You can however get much better if you have a coach that watches videos of your technique and game play. The job of the player is to keep it simple in a complex dynamic situation of the point in a tennis match.

Have you guys seen the video of djokovic teaching how to serve? He says its all in the wrist snap. High speed video of top pros show its really not about snapping the wrist. But that is what djokos coach used to elicit a certain performance from him. So djoko thinks its because he snaps his wrists.

10isfreak
12-29-2012, 05:11 PM
My suggestion to you is to just try any methods of tennis instruction on a tennis court and decide if it works for you or not. Tennis is not science. Nothing needs scientific research here. Tell your rant to any of the top coaches. They would laugh you off the court. Even when high speed video is used it simply allows you to see more precisely so you can form an opinion. It is just a tool to help a coach. They do not have advanced scientific labs setup court side to prove coaching theories.

There has been this thing called "practice" that good tennis players do which improves their tennis. Hard to believe I know but it really works.

I will surprise you...

There are theories about friendship, communication, education, teaching, even love. Thepries have major advantages over your experience, namely that they are not context-dependant and that they reflect reality objectively... your experience is unfortunately a biased sample.

You then have two options:
You guess that your experience luckily happen to fit reality in this case and you solve your problems through trials and errors;
Or you use the existing theories and you solve your problems systematically.

Guess what works best? In any case, you have good reasons to believe the theories will work every time: they‘re tested, unlike your personal convictions.

10isfreak
12-29-2012, 05:22 PM
*theories in the scientific sense

To further develop, trying out different approaches is very inefficient, long and tiring... We can compare both ways to solve this problem with a simplified example.

Maximize f(x,y)= 3xy^2 subject to y=4x+2
Try doing this by trial and error... it‘s nearly impossible and we‘re talking about three variables. Use appropriate method and you solve it in under 10min.

In reality, when we talk about things like human behavior, thought or simply hitting a forehand, we can have 40, 50 or even more distinct components interacting. Teaching asks you what will work best with all that stuff... Being presumably an adult, you have an edge over kids: you can use deductive logic and, therefore, theories to solve these problems in minutes instead of spending a life time, hoping to get it right.

arche3
12-29-2012, 05:27 PM
I will surprise you...

There are theories about friendship, communication, education, teaching, even love. Thepries have major advantages over your experience, namely that they are not context-dependant and that they reflect reality objectively... your experience is unfortunately a biased sample.

You then have two options:
You guess that your experience luckily happen to fit reality in this case and you solve your problems through trials and errors;
Or you use the existing theories and you solve your problems systematically.

Guess what works best? In any case, you have good reasons to believe the theories will work every time: they‘re tested, unlike your personal convictions.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm talking about playing tennis on a real court with tennis racket and tennis balls. What are you saying? Study physics of tennis more than practice? Tennis is not that hard to learn. There is no theory of trying to learn tennis. You just get a good coach and play tennis.

How did you learn to play tennis? I had a coach and he showed me as a kid how to play and we practiced. And coaches through high school and college, they all had different ideas about tennis but were all variations on how to win.

arche3
12-29-2012, 05:30 PM
[QUOTE=10isfreak;7085776]*theories in the scientific sense

To further develop, trying out different approaches is very inefficient, long and tiring... We can compare both ways to solve this problem with a simplified example.

Maximize f(x,y)= 3xy^2 subject to y=4x+2


? What does this have to do with training your body to hit tennis balls?

10isfreak
12-29-2012, 05:31 PM
I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm talking about playing tennis on a real court with tennis racket and tennis balls. What are you saying? Study physics of tennis more than practice? Tennis is not that hard to learn. There is no theory of trying to learn tennis. You just get a good coach and play tennis.

How did you learn to play tennis? I had a coach and he showed me as a kid how to play and we practiced. And coaches through high school and college, they all had different ideas about tennis but were all variations on how to win.

What I am telling you is that you cannot teach what you do not understand.

Greg G
12-29-2012, 05:50 PM
And here I thought you meant you don't need to understand it to feel it...LOL

10isfreak
12-29-2012, 05:56 PM
[QUOTE=10isfreak;7085776]*theories in the scientific sense

To further develop, trying out different approaches is very inefficient, long and tiring... We can compare both ways to solve this problem with a simplified example.

Maximize f(x,y)= 3xy^2 subject to y=4x+2


? What does this have to do with training your body to hit tennis balls?

If you know what to practice and how to practice it, you learn faster... This math problem is an analogy: it‘s more efficient to solve your problem using a systematic analysis than running in all directions at once.

10isfreak
12-29-2012, 06:03 PM
And here I thought you meant you don't need to understand it to feel it...LOL

Well, this is true in some sense. Understanding influences perception and thus experience, but sensing has nothing to do with it, so indeed: you need nothing else than your senses to sense.

But the problem here is about teaching, not doing...

arche3
12-29-2012, 06:18 PM
[QUOTE=arche3;7085791]

If you know what to practice and how to practice it, you learn faster... This math problem is an analogy: it‘s more efficient to solve your problem using a systematic analysis than running in all directions at once.

There are pretty standard ways to teach tennis at this point. All the top coaches coach a similar system. I don't really see people trying to hit a top spin fh using a continental grip these days. Some things are self explanatory once you hit some tennis balls and see the results. The same goes I don't need the science to tell me to not use a kids racket to play as its too small. I just know it.

Wegner
12-29-2012, 06:44 PM
It's it interesting how the author of "Does Modern Tennis Exist?" contradicts his own position back and forth. He is further agreeing with some of the tenets that I published in 1989, that is 23 years ago, longer than the quote "I've spent about 15 years studying these various permutations" he declares. I venture that I was coaching modern tennis before he was even born, starting in 1968 with Pancho Segura at the Beverly Hills Tennis Club. And of course I saw with my own eyes the ball slow down, losing more than half the speed. It was a given on the tour, always accepted by the touring players who stalked the ball. Not a precise measurement, but awareness non-the-less.

For those interested in comparing what he says in the thread Does Modern Tennis Exist? with my publications, check out my free 1989/1992 book:
www.tennisteacher.com/eBook.html (http://www.tennisteacher.com/eBook.html)

I personally don't understand why he comes to this thread to argue non-sequitur with other posters, unless he feels threatened by the array of technical data addressed here, feeling that it could be helpful to the reader and thus improve my status as a coach on TalkTennis, and wants this thread to be removed.

Wouldn't you agree that it is better if he posts in his own thread his conclusions and opinions? Wouldn't it be beneficial to the visitor if other great coaches such a Nick Bollettieri, Paul Anacone, Rick Macci, and more would open their own thread and post some of their knowledge?

I agree that my techniques, books and DVDs are the most radical departure from conventional coaching ever seen. Why have I adopted and published them?

Because they work !!!!!! Over 30,000 coaches and players have bought my DVDs, and more my books.

How does an individual wanting to be scientific ever fail to be so? He fails to be scientific by failing to apply logic. When one of his considerations fails to be a fact the whole string falls apart. It is one thing for a premise to be counter-intuitive, it is another thing for a premise to be false. This happens in tennis coaching as well.

I identified in my 1989 book 21 misconceptions that derail performance in this beautiful game. Some of them, as I see even from my detractors, have been overcome. Still, the industry has failed to make the game as simple as it can be. Rather than throwing false data overboard, justifications and compensations run galore.

An unfortunate result is that better players are counseled to compensate as well, in order to find invisible solutions to the equally invisible but frustrating failures to advance to the level they seek.

So, what is the solution?

Part of the answer lies in identifying and utilizing the so-called scientific method* accurately, with objective observation and experimentation unclouded by pre-conceived theory or agenda. Another contributing solution is having more positive, more famous coaches posting on TalkTennis. They may differ in opinion, but I say: "Bring It On".

Definitions:

scientific method - a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.

JW10S
12-29-2012, 07:29 PM
I venture that I was coaching modern tennis before he was even born, starting in 1968 with Pancho Segura at the Beverly Hills Tennis Club.

Another contributing solution is having more positive, more famous coaches posting on TalkTennis. They may differ in opinion, but I say: "Bring It On".

I guess we have to take your word that you were teaching 'modern' in 1968 since like so many of your assertions there is no empirical 'scientific' proof of it. I have to ask, has your teaching evolved at all since 1968 and if so how has it--if not it can't be called 'modern' can it? Nothing that happened 45 years ago can still be considered 'modern'--nothing. So what exactly is your definition of 'modern'?

FWIW, since we're dropping names (which you LOVE to do), I went to Segura when I was in college (I played for an NCAA National Championship team, played pro tennis, and currently coach all over the world) when he was the pro at La Costa (well after his time with you at the BHTC) and he did not teach like you. Prior to that I took a few private lessons from Pancho Gonzalez, who you claim to base at least some of your teachings on, and again he did not play or teach like you. And neither of them hit primarily open stance, semi-western, windshield-wiper, sudden 'yank across' forehands (Segura in fact hit his forehand with 2 hands). Gonzalez very rarely, if ever, hit topspin backhands. So where does the 'modern' fit in?

So again, what exactly is your defintion of 'modern'? And what exactly are the current crop of Americans doing that is not 'modern' and holding them back (be specific)? Maybe that would clear a lot of things up.

(I'm going ignore all responses from the minions, peons, worshippers & wannabes--as should everyone).

And none of the 'more famous coaches' would ever bother to post here for the simple reason that they just don't have to--their work, their influence and their results speak for themselves. They don't need to constantly post links to their website or Youtube like you apparently need to. I'm actually surprised someone of your 'legendary stature' (???) would find this little forum so important to you. That alone says a lot...

Wegner
12-29-2012, 09:17 PM
I guess we have to take your word that you were teaching 'modern' in 1968 since like so many of your assertions there is no empirical proof of it. I have to ask, has your teaching evolved at all since 1968 and if so how has it--if not it can't be called 'modern' can it? Nothing that happened 45 years ago can still be considered 'modern'--nothing. So what exactly is your definition of 'modern'?

FWIW, I went to Segura when I was in college (I played for an NCAA National Championship team, played pro tennis, and currently coach) when he was the pro at La Costa (well after his time with you at the BHTC) and he did not teach like you. Prior to that I took a few private lessons from Pancho Gonzalez, who you claim to base at least some of your teachings on, and again he did not teach like you. And neither of them hit open stance, semi-western, windshield-wiper, 'yank' across forehands (Segura in fact hit his forehand with 2 hands).

So again, what exactly is your defintion of 'modern'? And what exactly are the current crop of Americans doing that is not 'modern' (be specific)? Maybe that would clear a lot of things up.

(I'm going ignore the responses from the minions).

And none of the 'more famous coaches' would ever bother to post here for the simple reason that they just don't have to--their work and their results speak for themselves. I'm actually surprised someone of your 'legendary stature' would find this little forum so important to you. That alone says a lot...

Well, JW, I preached, in 1968, open stance, topspin, stalking the ball, finishing across the opposite shoulder. In 1971 I started putting a string 3 ft. over the net to promote topspin, I used this in Spain in 1973. In Brazil in the 1980s I experimented by putting the string 5 ft over the net, and I emphasized waiting for the ball to emphasize the Zone, always testing, seeing what gave out the best results. In 1989 I published my first book, "Tennis in 2 Hours" (a name that the Germans called me when I coached there in the 80s). I gave a copy of the book at the 1989 Sunshine Cup to the Russian coach, for the Russian Tennis Federation. Bud Collins confirmed the next year, on his first trip to Moscow that coaches there loved it and asked him for more copies. I learned from a Belgrade coach that is now in Australia that my 1989 book was in Belgrade in 1991 and well received by coaches.

Then came the 1990s, and for four years I participated with instruction in more than 100 New Tennis Magazine shows, and we sold DVDs with that instruction through the TV show. From 1994 to 2000 I worked for ESPN International as an ATP, Australian Open and French Open commentator. I started emphasizing hitting on the lower part of the strings for topspin. I then commented for another channel PSN, in 1992 for the whole year, doing Wimbledon.

I retired from broadcasting in December 2000 and dedicated my time to promote my modern tennis videos (the term came up in 1991 as a friend of mine started doing surveys for me in Boca Raton and I started using it, and Brad Holbrook said in a New Tennis Magazine TV show that I was "the father of modern tennis"). In the 2000s I started emphasizing more and more pulling across instead of just swinging across and I added two more videos in 2006 and 2007. Then I started to visit Europe again (where I had played so much in the 1960s), meeting with old friends that were now coaches (Tony Roche in Rome, Angel Gimenez and Pato Alvarez in Barcelona, and in England meeting with David Lloyd and laying out teaching his main Next Generation clubs top coaches the system, plus seminars in Belgium, Holland and Finland, with great reception).

Next, in 2008, 2009 and 2010 producing 4 more DVDs, the series Tennis Into the Future, I just authored a new DVD, The Best of Oscar, a compilation, stroke by stroke of my most salient video segments, and I am on the process of writing a new book. I know my methodology is quite controversial and revolutionary, but it is a real good service to kids and public at large.

This is a long answer to your question, but also need to say that Segura played open stance two-handed forehands which was a bullet, and I did not teach like he taught, neither like Gonzalez, I taught like Segura and Gonzales played, not how they taught, although Gonzales forehand was a bit continental and not his forte. But Gonzalez serve, his slice approach, his volleys were a beauty to behold. I also studied/copied, some of the best strokes of all time, including the modern players. You must have witnessed, being a pro player and now a coach, some of the incredible shotmaking of many champions and I am lucky to have witnessed the evolutions that the game took and proud to be a part of that.

Finally, to answer your question specifically, American coaches stress to play forehands semi-open, which is a bit less efficient than the open stance for pulling across, and, perhaps for that reason, they are not geting that much action on the ball. They are also not tracking the ball long enough. Other than that, the USA has some fantastic prospects. I would say, encourage them to yank the ball up and across. When you get the feel, the harder you hit, the more the ball goes in.

I wish you a very Happy New Year and the best in your endeavors as a coach and in life. I am 73 years old, semi-retired, enjoying life myself, and loving every day. Occasionally I have posted in Talk Tennis, and thought starting my own thread to post tips would be a fun thing to do. I have the time, and a ton of materials to post.

Best, Oscar

morandi
12-29-2012, 09:38 PM
I wish this thread would not get so argumentative and defensive. I like hearing the tips and insights that I can use to improve or expand my tennis, rather than it becoming a he said, she said discussion.

JW10S
12-29-2012, 10:15 PM
Well, JW, I preached, in 1968, open stance, topspin, stalking the ball, finishing across the opposite shoulder. In 1971 I started putting a string 3 ft. over the net to promote topspin, I used this in Spain in 1973. In Brazil in the 1980s I experimented by putting the string 5 ft over the net, and I emphasized waiting for the ball to emphasize the Zone, always testing, seeing what gave out the best results. In 1989 I published my first book, "Tennis in 2 Hours" (a name that the Germans called me when I coached there in the 80s). I gave a copy of the book at the 1989 Sunshine Cup to the Russian coach, for the Russian Tennis Federation. Bud Collins confirmed the next year, on his first trip to Moscow that coaches there loved it and asked him for more copies. I learned from a Belgrade coach that is now in Australia that my 1989 book was in Belgrade in 1991 and well received by coaches.

Then came the 1990s, and for four years I participated with instruction in more than 100 New Tennis Magazine shows, and we sold DVDs with that instruction through the TV show. From 1994 to 2000 I worked for ESPN International as an ATP, Australian Open and French Open commentator. I started emphasizing hitting on the lower part of the strings for topspin. I then commented for another channel PSN, in 1992 for the whole year, doing Wimbledon.

I retired from broadcasting in December 2000 and dedicated my time to promote my modern tennis videos (the term came up in 1991 as a friend of mine started doing surveys for me in Boca Raton and I started using it, and Brad Holbrook said in a New Tennis Magazine TV show that I was "the father of modern tennis"). In the 2000s I started emphasizing more and more pulling across instead of just swinging across and I added two more videos in 2006 and 2007. Then I started to visit Europe again (where I had played so much in the 1960s), meeting with old friends that were now coaches (Tony Roche in Rome, Angel Gimenez and Pato Alvarez in Barcelona, and in England meeting with David Lloyd and laying out teaching his main Next Generation clubs top coaches the system, plus seminars in Belgium, Holland and Finland, with great reception).

Next, in 2008, 2009 and 2010 producing 4 more DVDs, the series Tennis Into the Future, I just authored a new DVD, The Best of Oscar, a compilation, stroke by stroke of my most salient video segments, and I am on the process of writing a new book. I know my methodology is quite controversial and revolutionary, but it is a real good service to kids and public at large.

This is a long answer to your question, but also need to say that Segura played open stance two-handed forehands which was a bullet, and I did not teach like he taught, neither like Gonzalez, I taught like Segura and Gonzales played, not how they taught, although Gonzales forehand was a bit continental and not his forte. But Gonzalez serve, his slice approach, his volleys were a beauty to behold. I also studied/copied, some of the best strokes of all time, including the modern players. You must have witnessed, being a pro player and now a coach, some of the incredible shotmaking of many champions and I am lucky to have witnessed the evolutions that the game took and proud to be a part of that.

Finally, to answer your question specifically, American coaches stress to play forehands semi-open, which is a bit less efficient than the open stance for pulling across, and, perhaps for that reason, they are not geting that much action on the ball. They are also not tracking the ball long enough. Other than that, the USA has some fantastic prospects. I would say, encourage them to yank the ball up and across. When you get the feel, the harder you hit, the more the ball goes in.

I wish you a very Happy New Year and the best in your endeavors as a coach and in life. I am 73 years old, semi-retired, enjoying life myself, and loving every day. Occasionally I have posted in Talk Tennis, and thought starting my own thread to post tips would be a fun thing to do. I have the time, and a ton of materials to post.

Best, OscarYou still didn't answer my questions, but then I really didn't expect you would. But in a way that in itself does answer them.

I'm well aware how lucky I've been to have interacted with some of the game's greats like Gonzalez and Segura, to have played (sometimes succeeding and sometimes failing) in pressure situations, to have seen some amazing, almost superhuman, shot making as a spectator, coach and player (unfortunately sometimes too often against me), to have been able to travel, to have been able to meet many high-profile celebrities, and now to be able to help people play and love this game as I do. It's just that my experience differs from yours--in some cases by miles. It's because of my passion for the game that I have such strong feelings.

I thank you for the kind wishes, and I wish you the same--after all we are both very lucky to be doing something we love. We just do so in very different ways--and I'm not talking just about technique. You'll note that I have never once linked my website, Youtube, or testimonials to anything I've ever posted here. The only names I've dropped are some of those who've coached me, and for whom I will be forever grateful. I haven't named any of the tour players I've worked with either in the past or currently--and I take no credit for someone who may or may not have read something I've published. Happy New Year.

Wegner
12-29-2012, 11:07 PM
I wish this thread would not get so argumentative and defensive. I like hearing the tips and insights that I can use to improve or expand my tennis, rather than it becoming a he said, she said discussion.

Morandi, you are right. Perhaps no more explanation is needed. Here is the tip.

The Frame

In older times the ball was adressed squarely with the strings.

In modern tennis you approach the ball with the racquet’s frame, the upper edge, starting from below the ball for topspin, the lower edge, starting from above for slice.

Tennis today is more of brushing, massaging, deflecting the ball.

Not only is contact longer in this fashion, it also elicits spins and more control.

Power is no longer the main consideration. Modern racquets and strings have great response and generate ball speed with a lesser effort that racquets of old.

Even further, when you are looking at the ball you are about to strike, having the edges in mind increases your awareness of the racquet angle, especially of the vertical angle that determines the height of your shot.

It is almost as if playing tennis with the hand. The fingers have feel, have awareness. The racquet has not.

TomT
12-29-2012, 11:46 PM
It is almost as if playing tennis with the hand. The fingers have feel, have awareness. The racquet has not.I like this way of approaching a stroke. The racquet is just an extension of my hand. I have total control over my hand, and so total control over the racquet. When I think and visualize and execute this way, while remembering to prepare early and keep my eye on the ball to racquet contact, then I always, not almost always but always, make good strokes and hit good shots ... where I want to hit them. But of course I'm an amateur with comparatively little experience, and am somewhat lazy, and so I almost invariably neglect one of the essential ingredients on almost all of my shots.
Practice ........................................... :)

Dragan
12-30-2012, 12:07 AM
Have you guys seen the video of Djokovic teaching how to serve? He says its all in the wrist snap. High speed video of top pros show its really not about snapping the wrist. But that is what djokos coach used to elicit a certain performance from him. So djoko thinks its because he snaps his wrists.

Good point, it is this video, towards the end:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0dldQUtRbo

It looks like he truly believes that he actually snaps his wrist, while in practice he clearly pronates, not snaps. Regardless, somebody apparently used "wrist snapping" as a way to teach him how to improve his serve.

JohnYandell
12-30-2012, 12:16 AM
To All,

So I have been castigated for daring to post in this Wegnerite thread. Is there anyone here that is not too brainwashed to note the sequence of events?

Wegner copied one of my posts and inserted it in toto here along with a series of weak and evasive responses.

I feel I have the right to respond to that tactic and will continue to if--or if I just happen to feel like it for that matter.

Greg G
12-30-2012, 03:50 AM
I think from here on out, we (we being the main protagonists) should just have a gentleman's agreement to stay out of each other's threads and avoid direct quotes from the other's thread. Would be a real shame to lose both threads :)

Happy New Year :)

treblings
12-30-2012, 06:15 AM
The best coaches in every sport realises that players need to keep things simple and uncluttered in their minds. So they play without conscious thought and play in the moment. Which coincidentally is the reason drills and patterns of play are used by the top coaches of all sports. So the situation is familiar to the player. The players body just does what it knows. There is no overriding ego sitting ontop of the mind during the split second between hits.

You cannot get much better as a player watching videos. You can however get much better if you have a coach that watches videos of your technique and game play. The job of the player is to keep it simple in a complex dynamic situation of the point in a tennis match.

Have you guys seen the video of djokovic teaching how to serve? He says its all in the wrist snap. High speed video of top pros show its really not about snapping the wrist. But that is what djokos coach used to elicit a certain performance from him. So djoko thinks its because he snaps his wrists.

of course you can get better as a player watching videos. as long as you realize that there is something of value presented in those videos, that is worth trying out for yourself and could improve your own game.
than you need to apply yourself to the task and practice, practice,....:)

arche3
12-30-2012, 07:37 AM
of course you can get better as a player watching videos. as long as you realize that there is something of value presented in those videos, that is worth trying out for yourself and could improve your own game.
than you need to apply yourself to the task and practice, practice,....:)

I'm not saying video is not valid. Have you never videod yourself and then said wtf? I never knew OK I had that hitch at the take back? My point is you can watch all the videos you want at however millions of frame rate. And try to emulate it. But you need someone to be on court with you and actually tell you what you are actually doing vs what you think your doing.

I have personal experience with this. After 20+ years off from tennis when I took it up again I got decent pretty fast. After 2 or 3 years my friend asked me "did you know you had a hitch in the trophy position?". What? I had watched a lot of slow mo video trying to do all the current instruction. Studied tennis videos to get back in competitive form. Had good pace and spin on serve.

So I setup a camera..... I had the worst hitch. Lol. I wish someone would of said something sooner. I watched old videos from my coaches when I playing in college. I didnt have a hitch. I watched a video i took the month i got back into tennis. No hitch. 3 years later after serious study of high speed video I had this weird hitch.

How did I fix it? I set up a camera once a week during ,my serve practice and looked at the video after every 5 serves. Made corrections based on what I saw and used shadow swings to build new muscle memory. Watched the serve doctors advice on how to rebuild a serve. One year later my serve is better than ever and hitch is gone. Thanks to video!

Wegner
12-30-2012, 09:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by arche3
Have you guys seen the video of Djokovic teaching how to serve? He says its all in the wrist snap. High speed video of top pros show its really not about snapping the wrist. But that is what djokos coach used to elicit a certain performance from him. So djoko thinks its because he snaps his wrists.

Good point, it is this video, towards the end:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0dldQUtRbo

It looks like he truly believes that he actually snaps his wrist, while in practice he clearly pronates, not snaps. Regardless, somebody apparently used "wrist snapping" as a way to teach him how to improve his serve.

That is why coaching tennis is so interesting. It's almost like being the student, looking at things from their viewpoint, and then explain things with full understanding of the impact you are going to have for the things that the student wants achieved. So, if I am teaching a kid and he says "I want to play like Roger Federer", I acknowledge him and show him what Federer does and how to copy him. If he says he wants to play like Rafa, then Rafa is the model, and so on. It used to kill me when I watched a lesson and the kid said: "I want to play like Andre Agassi", and the coach teaching him would say, "you can't do that". "First you need to learn sideways, racquet back towards the fence, step into the ball with your left foot, hit and finish towards the target". I even heard a coach say to a kid, after a similar can't do message: "When you get good, then you can copy Agassi".

Kids deserve better than that. Thankfully, coaching has improved dramatically, and I think I achieved quite some success presenting this viewpoint, especially through the ESPN International "Play Like the Pros" Tips, with billions of impressions in more than 150 countries, and my videos and books.

Happy New Year for everyone! And for a reflection of very sad things we still need to solve, here is a link to a John Lennon song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yN4Uu0OlmTg

TheCheese
12-30-2012, 05:00 PM
Oscar,

Do you have any insight into how to teach someone to be able to curve the ball left-right or right-left like Federer is able to do? (He'll commonly have to ball curve to the right on an inside out forehand, for example)

Thanks

Wegner
12-30-2012, 05:24 PM
It’s All Feel

The ball stays on the racquet a few milliseconds if you hit flat, longer if you brush across.

To optimize your focus on feel it is better to maximize your sensations on a longer time span.

I recommend to focus on the feel of the hand at the ball contact and at the finish, when the racquet is already pointing behind you, getting the sensation of acceleration between one and the other.

This way you become aware of the connection between the feel of the ball, the finish, and the resulting placement of the ball.

Racquet head speed at the top level is greatest closer to the end than at the impact, which tells the intention of the player to go towards the stroke’s end.

Tracking the ball as if going to catch with your hand, not your racquet, is another simple way to facilitate your strike.

Rather than preparing early, track the ball with the racquet on both hands as long as possible, then go back and forth with your dominant hand alone for your swing.

You don’t need to swat at the ball.

Find it easily in front, while accelerating up and across. You’ll see it speed up with great control.
_______________________________________________

The Finish

There is a good drill that works marvelously on shaping groundstrokes.

On the forehand finish, touch the left cheek with the back of your right hand.

On the two-handed backhand, touch your right cheek with the back of your left hand.

The butt of the racquet will be pointing towards where you aimed the shot.

Do it gently but consistently. It will improve your stroke.
_______________________________________________

The Outside Foot

On groundstrokes, landing on the outside foot has several virtues:

1) you stop your run,

2) you are more balanced than otherwise,

3) it helps you turn back and power your shot,

4) you recover and cover the court you left open much faster.

Learn to pivot on the ball of the outside foot and you’ll handle the tennis ball in a better way.
_______________________________________________

Stay in the Present

When you are playing tennis, avoid thinking.

Just look.

It’s almost as if immersed in a stupor.

In this regard, tennis is a very special sport.

It has its own modus operandi, its own Zone.

Once the ball is in play, you can’t really plan for the future.

You have to adjust, to be capable of adjusting, minute to minute, millisecond to millisecond, to the path and changing velocity of the ball.

If you go into the future, you rush.

If you go to the past, you get distracted.

Watch the ball and stay in present time.
______________________________________________

Delay

Do you want to play like the pros?

Don’t take the racquet back as soon as possible.

Delay your backswing. Use your non-playing hand as a holder, as a restraint.

Look at the ball exceptionally well AFTER THE BOUNCE.

Track the ball with the hand, as if going to catch it.

Find it slowly and then accelerate up and across and end up with the hand over the shoulder, with the butt of the racquet pointing to the net (like Djokovic and Murray).

If you want natural footwork, do drills around a cone (turning from behind, as in a figure eight).

It’s easy to put together. Tennis can be a very natural sport.
______________________________________________

A Gentle Touch

When warming up or having a light practice, it is best to touch the ball, rather than hitting it, but emphasizing lifting it two or three feet over the net.

Tennis is a vertical game, much more than horizontal.

Gravity is the main force you are fighting.

Further, the ball is only a bit over 2 ounces in weight, while your body and racquet combined are perhaps one thousand times heavier.

Warm up gently, immersed in feel and control rather than power, and you’ll play later a very beautiful game.

Wegner
12-30-2012, 05:29 PM
Oscar,

Do you have any insight into how to teach someone to be able to curve the ball left-right or right-left like Federer is able to do? (He'll commonly have to ball curve to the right on an inside out forehand, for example)

Thanks

Brushing the ball across will lead to that famous inside out left to right curve. There is also an upward component, but just dropping the racquet below the ball to approach it and pulling the racquet towards you and the finish will naturally induce the windshield wiper lift as well.

TomT
12-30-2012, 11:33 PM
To All,

So I have been castigated for daring to post in this Wegnerite thread. Is there anyone here that is not too brainwashed to note the sequence of events?

Wegner copied one of my posts and inserted it in toto here along with a series of weak and evasive responses.

I feel I have the right to respond to that tactic and will continue to if--or if I just happen to feel like it for that matter.I think you both have a lot to offer to any tennis player who sincerely wants to improve and is willing to do the necessary work to improve.

I don't pay attention to squabbles over instructional approaches. I take into account what somebody has to say. If it makes sense to me, then I experiment with the suggestions/instructions.

TomT
12-30-2012, 11:38 PM
Brushing the ball across will lead to that famous inside out left to right curve. There is also an upward component, but just dropping the racquet below the ball to approach it and pulling the racquet towards you and the finish will naturally induce the windshield wiper lift as well.I'm sometimes able to do this on both forehand and backhand shots, and I'm just a very low level competitor.

Also liked all your tips from post #135. The most important thing for me, it seems, is to just keep my mind quiet and focused on the now, and relax. When I do that, then I play much better.

TCF
12-31-2012, 07:57 AM
================================

luvforty
12-31-2012, 08:56 AM
some nice tips above from Oscar... my 2 cents below on 1 bit -

the fact that the greatest RHS is near the finish, is a result of the racket being released after impact... it does not necessarily mean that the player tried to do that.

just wonna make sure that players are not misled into trying to achieve the fastest speed before the finish... that may result in over-rotation.

morandi
12-31-2012, 09:16 AM
some nice tips above from Oscar... my 2 cents below on 1 bit -

the fact that the greatest RHS is near the finish, is a result of the racket being released after impact... it does not necessarily mean that the player tried to do that.

just wonna make sure that players are not misled into trying to achieve the fastest speed before the finish... that may result in over-rotation.

I think it is more common for your general player to be fast in the beginning of the stroke and slower to the end. They rush the movement in the beginning and then choke up at the finish in hopes the ball goes in. I have found by really working on correcting this rhythm, my strokes and serve really came together.

treblings
12-31-2012, 11:09 AM
thanks for the good tips, Oscar:)

some thoughts
the finish
seems like a really good drill. i´ll try this with a particular student of mine who struggles in this respect.
do you agree that tip is more geared towards beginners?
the outside foot
sometimes it looks from the outside as if you don´t care about footwork at all. good to see a tip on footwork:)
stay in the present
good advice in any sport. i feel staying in the present is always easier when you know what to do with your time. could be a split step or a good unit turn, or some adjustment steps,...
delay
the tip with the two hands preventing you from preparing to early is good, but that would mean a unit turn is o.k., right?

happy New Year Oscar, thanks for your contributions

Wegner
12-31-2012, 12:05 PM
Oscar, great thread!

By the way, you advocated teaching a young boy the pull across forehand as he will get big and strong enough to keep it effective as he ages. How about the girls? Would you teach an 8 year old girl the same or instead teach a more penetrating and extending forehand as she may have strength limitations when she is older?

We usually teach boys and girls differently, and teach the girls to have more penetrating and flatter forehands.

Thanks and have a good New Years.

I agree on the penetration of shots. Less topspin. But still across. When you pull from the racquet rather than extending, the contraction of biceps and pectorals connects the body weight to the impact. That, together with the acceleration makes for more ball speed. If you extend, you disconnect, and you actually loose power. Give both choices a try.

some nice tips above from Oscar... my 2 cents below on 1 bit -

the fact that the greatest RHS is near the finish, is a result of the racket being released after impact... it does not necessarily mean that the player tried to do that.

just wonna make sure that players are not misled into trying to achieve the fastest speed before the finish... that may result in over-rotation.

luvforty, when you yank the ball to get more power, the racquet first encounters the resistance of the impact with the ball, that is why you see a loss of speed at that moment. But because you are forcing the action with acceleration (across, for the reasons mentioned in my answer above) the racquet speeds up incredibly and of course you don't intend for the racquet to hit your shoulder or you arm, so you stop it or at least you cease contracting. That is why you see a top player having more than 50 MPH on the racquet head across the body and to his left. (Now you can be a fortyluv)


I think it is more common for your general player to be fast in the beginning of the stroke and slower to the end. They rush the movement in the beginning and then choke up at the finish in hopes the ball goes in. I have found by really working on correcting this rhythm, my strokes and serve really came together.

Morandi, absolutely right. Emphasizing the finish gets rid of the choke.

thanks for the good tips, Oscar:)

some thoughts
the finish
seems like a really good drill. i´ll try this with a particular student of mine who struggles in this respect.
do you agree that tip is more geared towards beginners?
Sometimes I need to do this drill with a good player to avoid the choke.
the outside foot
sometimes it looks from the outside as if you don´t care about footwork at all. good to see a tip on footwork:)
I have an entire DVD, Modern Footwork, dedicated to this subject. It's very delicate. There are a lot of misconceptions around footwork.
stay in the present
good advice in any sport. i feel staying in the present is always easier when you know what to do with your time. could be a split step or a good unit turn, or some adjustment steps,...
Also covered abundantly in my works. Timing these particulars is of the essence, so you don't get stuck.
delay
the tip with the two hands preventing you from preparing to early is good, but that would mean a unit turn is o.k., right?
Absolutely, but later rather than sooner.

happy New Year Oscar, thanks for your contributions

Thank you. Happy New Year to you too.

guitarplayer
12-31-2012, 06:34 PM
Oscar....I have your book, I have taken key points and written them down. Since May, using your technique my game has completely changed. I have no fear facing better players anymore. My confidence has been the biggest factor. I now give much higher level players fits. Sometimes I feel like I can spin my forehand wherever I want in the court.

I am no longer nervously racing in my mind a million check points. I am relaxed, just looking for the ball, running to it and sending it along it's way wrapping that follow through around me.

My swing is no longer fast to the ball....like amatur golfers....who try to HIT the ball. Instead, I am swinging the racquet through the ball building up speed in my follow through.

I am 57 and I love tennis more now than ever. Should have changed to this years ago. Would have saved me a lot of frustration!

directionals
12-31-2012, 09:40 PM
luvforty, when you yank the ball to get more power...


Oscar, aren't we supposed to relax the arm to maximize the kinetic chain? If we try to yank the ball, by definition the arm isn't relaxed anymore. Is this somewhat contradicting?

Thanks for sharing tennis tips. I've been enjoying them.

purple-n-gold
12-31-2012, 10:59 PM
Oscar, aren't we supposed to relax the arm to maximize the kinetic chain? If we try to yank the ball, by definition the arm isn't relaxed anymore. Is this somewhat contradicting?

Thanks for sharing tennis tips. I've been enjoying them.
I took that the "yank" across was more for the non-hitting hand, both arms working in unison of course but the yanking/pulling across was with the non-hitting hand prior to impact. It seems to increase rhs, has worked well for me the last couple of days..maybe Mr. Wegner or someone will clarify, thanks.

Wegner
01-01-2013, 10:38 AM
Oscar....I have your book, I have taken key points and written them down. Since May, using your technique my game has completely changed. I have no fear facing better players anymore. My confidence has been the biggest factor. I now give much higher level players fits. Sometimes I feel like I can spin my forehand wherever I want in the court.

I am no longer nervously racing in my mind a million check points. I am relaxed, just looking for the ball, running to it and sending it along it's way wrapping that follow through around me.

My swing is no longer fast to the ball....like amatur golfers....who try to HIT the ball. Instead, I am swinging the racquet through the ball building up speed in my follow through.

I am 57 and I love tennis more now than ever. Should have changed to this years ago. Would have saved me a lot of frustration!

Fantastic! Well done and thank you for letting me know. Makes my day! Now you can teach me guitar! I am restarting to play piano, it is so much fun.

Happy New Year!

Wegner
01-01-2013, 10:58 AM
Oscar, aren't we supposed to relax the arm to maximize the kinetic chain? If we try to yank the ball, by definition the arm isn't relaxed anymore. Is this somewhat contradicting?

Thanks for sharing tennis tips. I've been enjoying them.

Directionals,

the kinetic change in tennis is a combination of muscle contractions that lead the body to contribute to the stroke. Your premise is right in that the more relaxed the other muscles that are not contributing to the hit are, the more you maximize the kinetic chain and the less counter-effort to your kinetic chain effort you experience. So you are contracting, for the forehand for example, the biceps and pectorals for the effort, with the outside foot grounded and body lifting and turning, etc.

All this is a concatenated chain connecting your whole body to the stroke. You get more weight into the shot, and more acceleration as well to help with the velocity you want to impart to the ball. The idea that you have to go forward to get power in your final act of striking defeats the spin that you want to ad to the shot to maximize the chance to find your target (over the net and down on the court) and to hit a "heavy" ball.

Wegner
01-01-2013, 11:05 AM
I took that the "yank" across was more for the non-hitting hand, both arms working in unison of course but the yanking/pulling across was with the non-hitting hand prior to impact. It seems to increase rhs, has worked well for me the last couple of days..maybe Mr. Wegner or someone will clarify, thanks.

Do you mean the movement of the non-playing arm to help with the body open up and turn? Many players do that. What I was referring to is the combined action of turning the forearm and pulling the playing hand towards you while going across. But I agree with your statement that the left arm, pulled by some of your back muscles, helps open up and aids the kinetic chain. Well said.

5263
01-01-2013, 01:56 PM
-if not it can't be called 'modern' can it? Nothing that happened 45 years ago can still be considered 'modern'--nothing. ..

Seems this guy is still struggling under the idea that "modern" in MTM is a current
description instead of the name of something.
Must just be another with agenda, since this has been explained many times.

JohnYandell
01-01-2013, 02:27 PM
5263:

Yes JW is struggling under what for you guys is a wild agenda--called truth.

5263
01-01-2013, 02:32 PM
5263:

Yes JW is struggling under what for you guys is a wild agenda--called truth.

So do you also not realize that "MTM" stands for Modern Tennis Methodology?;
the name of the instruction?
Or is this just more of your admitted "hobby" agenda of harassing Oscar?

Raul_SJ
01-01-2013, 02:36 PM
Oscar,

I am using the Eastern Forehand grip and I am not getting as much topspin as I would like. My shots have one to two feet net clearance and I would like at least three feet net clearance.

Would you advise changing to Semi-Western?

Or keep the Eastern grip and brush up more?

JW10S
01-01-2013, 02:41 PM
The word 'modern' is an adjective, not a noun. Saying 'I was coaching modern tennis in 1969' (not 'I taught MTM') is not using the 'name of the instruction'--it's describing the instruction. Modern 45 years ago is an oxymoron. And continually falling back on the notion that modern is just the name of the instruction is really a lame cop out.

guitarplayer
01-01-2013, 02:41 PM
So do you also not realize that "MTM" stands for Modern Tennis Methodology?;
the name of the instruction?
Or is this just more of your admitted "hobby" agenda of harassing Oscar?

I'm with you 5263. JY should just stay out of Oscars thread. Doesn't make him look good...at all.

JohnYandell
01-01-2013, 03:16 PM
guitar,

I am looking as good as ever. Again, if you had read the thread you would see that Oscar copied huge sections of my posts and made some crazy attempts at rebutle. That's how I got over here. And by the way, I believe this is considered a free board?

It's a classic tactic of his: to do that then complain when myself and others respond to his direct references.

5263
01-01-2013, 03:20 PM
The word 'modern' is an adjective, not a noun. Saying 'I was coaching modern tennis in 1969' (not 'I taught MTM') is not using the 'name of the instruction'--it's describing the instruction. Modern 45 years ago is an oxymoron. And continually falling back on the notion that modern is just the name of the instruction is really a lame cop out.

Might want to get back to that education of yours :)

Names are nouns and since MTM is the name that refers to the instruction he
began to formulate in '68, this clearly applies....but
nice try :)

5263
01-01-2013, 10:40 PM
Oscar,
I just saw this from a prominent S. Fl coach.

"I use phrases like,'work the wrist thru the stroke, towards the target,
work the hand thru the ball towards target, elongate hitting zone,
fully pronate forearm before comming across torso."

and some argue that no one is still teaching this way.

Wegner
01-02-2013, 12:04 AM
Oscar,
I just saw this from a prominent S. Fl coach.

"I use phrases like,'work the wrist thru the stroke, towards the target,
work the hand thru the ball towards target, elongate hitting zone,
fully pronate forearm before comming across torso."

and some argue that no one is still teaching this way.

5263, I would like to keep this thread clean in the sense that we are just talking about technique, answers to questions, tips, drills, and so on. Others have their own thread and I don't post in their territory anymore, as it could cause friction and get threads deleted. I know readers enjoy seeing different points of view. So perhaps it is better to keep things positive and not point fingers or start arguments. At least in this thread. Let me be a good example.

Of course, 5263, your contributions are highly valuable, and I know you like to participate across TalkTennis' threads. I view my responsibility (as clarified by moderators and the administrator) as different. To stay within boundaries, to keep things calm and within the rules of TalkTennis, and to contribute to the readers (we had over 6,500 views already) as much as possible.

Happy and very prosperous 2013.

TomT
01-02-2013, 12:09 AM
5263, I would like to keep this thread clean in the sense that we are just talking about technique, answers to questions, tips, drills, and so on. Others have their own thread and I don't post in their territory anymore, as it could cause friction and get threads deleted. I know readers enjoy seeing different points of view. So perhaps it is better to keep things positive and not point fingers or start arguments. At least in this thread. Let me be a good example.

Of course, 5263, your contributions are highly valuable, and I know you like to participate across TalkTennis' threads. I view my responsibility (as clarified by moderators and the administrator) as different. To stay within boundaries, to keep things calm and within the rules of TalkTennis, and to contribute to the readers (we had over 6,500 views already) as much as possible.

Happy and very prosperous 2013.Nice post. Great thread. Thanks to Wegner. I value input from 5263 and Oscar Wegner. Admire OW's accomplishments. Will take what I think I can use from this. Most appreciated. Thanks to you guys (and others) for sharing your wisdom.

Wegner
01-02-2013, 12:14 AM
The word 'modern' is an adjective, not a noun. Saying 'I was coaching modern tennis in 1969' (not 'I taught MTM') is not using the 'name of the instruction'--it's describing the instruction. Modern 45 years ago is an oxymoron. And continually falling back on the notion that modern is just the name of the instruction is really a lame cop out.

I understand. You are right, I always wanted a word that could describe that this is different from classical or conventional instruction. So I started using the word modern over 20 years ago as a description.

And yes, my techniques are perhaps the most radical departure from conventional tennis teaching that you may have ever seen. And it started way before (over 40 years ago) the new racquets made such difference in the game. But it made the adjustment to the new racquet technology much easier and more efficient.

Wegner
01-02-2013, 12:20 AM
Oscar,

I am using the Eastern Forehand grip and I am not getting as much topspin as I would like. My shots have one to two feet net clearance and I would like at least three feet net clearance.

Would you advise changing to Semi-Western?

Or keep the Eastern grip and brush up more?

Raul, practice with a string two or three feet over the net, and hit just above, hard, but with plenty of topspin. Try to make the ball land just past the service line on the other side.

If you keep your grip a bit loose, it might adjust itself instinctively. If it stays Eastern or goes gradually Semi-Western it is just a matter of feel. Don't force it either way. And let us know here in this thread what happened as a result.

TomT
01-02-2013, 12:30 AM
If you keep your grip a bit loose, it might adjust itself instinctively. If it stays Eastern or goes gradually Semi-Western it is just a matter of feel. Don't force it either way. And let us know here in this thread what happened as a result.I think this is great advice. Anyway, it seems to work for me. The relaxing part. It seems that I'm able to use Eastern or SemiWestern or whatever grip and still hit good shots. The most important part seems to be relaxation and preparation. Relaxed grip, relaxed wrist, relaxed swing, and, above all, good footwork and keeping eye on the ball = really good shots.

Of course, easier said than done for a patzer such as myself. But very much appreciate your tips and insight Oscar.

CCH4TENNIS
01-02-2013, 03:11 AM
I have an idea. If you started a JY tennis ideas thread I am sure people would enjoy it just as much as this one. I know I would.

Yeah, that would be interesting ;-)

CCH4TENNIS
01-02-2013, 05:24 AM
Oscar....I have your book, I have taken key points and written them down. Since May, using your technique my game has completely changed. I have no fear facing better players anymore. My confidence has been the biggest factor. I now give much higher level players fits. Sometimes I feel like I can spin my forehand wherever I want in the court.


I only picked up tennis in Mid 2009 and was basically going nowhere and sometime last year, I bought Oscar's Book from Amazon.com and discovered that simply by finding the ball by stalking it, my game just went to the next level. My usual weekend opponents was pretty amazed at my almost instant improvement of my return of serve. I eventually bought his DVDs and am now coaching my 2 daughters based mainly on his methods.

BTW, I also found easy spin by the simple idea of the left hand catching the ball and then an accelerated follow through across my body and over the shoulder for most of my FH groundstrokes.

As far as I am concerned, I have no interest in the scientific basis of what Oscar teaches nor his detractors perception of his credibility. His method simply worked for me :-)

TCF
01-02-2013, 06:56 AM
==============================

5263
01-02-2013, 07:36 AM
5263, I would like to keep this thread clean in the sense that we are just talking about technique, answers to questions, tips, drills, and so on. Others have their own thread and I don't post in their territory anymore, as it could cause friction and get threads deleted. I know readers enjoy seeing different points of view. So perhaps it is better to keep things positive and not point fingers or start arguments. At least in this thread. Let me be a good example.


That all sounds good to me, but just to set the record straight, that quote didn't
come from another post here, but from a whole different site altogether. It was
intended as a chance to discuss technique and how some do still teach that way,
even notable jr programs.

Glad to see you here and working with posters thru your thread.
Happy New Year!

TCF
01-02-2013, 07:44 AM
=====================

sureshs
01-02-2013, 07:53 AM
It’s All Feel

On groundstrokes, landing on the outside foot has several virtues:

1) you stop your run,

2) you are more balanced than otherwise,

3) it helps you turn back and power your shot,

4) you recover and cover the court you left open much faster.

Learn to pivot on the ball of the outside foot and you’ll handle the tennis ball in a better way.
_______________________________________________

When warming up or having a light practice, it is best to touch the ball, rather than hitting it, but emphasizing lifting it two or three feet over the net.

Tennis is a vertical game, much more than horizontal.

Gravity is the main force you are fighting.

Further, the ball is only a bit over 2 ounces in weight, while your body and racquet combined are perhaps one thousand times heavier.

Warm up gently, immersed in feel and control rather than power, and you’ll play later a very beautiful game.

1. As I said before, the outside foot landing is something that often doesn't happen by itself naturally and needs to be consciously cultivated till it becomes automatic.

2. Not sure what the weight comparison implies. During warm-up at the net, gentle touches are not only good but necessary unless you do not want to rally. Hitting the ball hard will not result in the mini-tennis that needs to be played. And once warm up is over, the hitting is not about gentle touches. At advanced levels, it is indeed about power.

5263
01-02-2013, 07:58 AM
1. As I said before, the outside foot landing is something that often doesn't happen by itself naturally and needs to be consciously cultivated till it becomes automatic.


Not so much when you start them with Open stance as we do.

TCF
01-02-2013, 08:02 AM
=========================

5263
01-02-2013, 08:35 AM
Exactly. And its so easy with verbal cues. We tell the kids 'shoulder shoulder'. In other words one shoulder is showing when the start the stroke, the other when they end it. Is that all that they need to do and all they are actually doing? Of course not....but it works. When combined with a wide stance almost all the kids start naturally landing on the outside foot.

Its not rocket science, a coach uses whatever cues obtain the desired results without bogging the players down with too many details. Sometimes the cues do not detail exactly what is actually happening, but still end in the desired result.

As usual, it is those without a working knowledge who post this type of mistaken impression.

Inner Game
01-02-2013, 09:27 AM
All I can say is that being a USPTA pro since 1980 I have seen a lot of "Modern Tennis" instructors and lessons plans. All and all, Oscar Wegner has it right....I have personally seen Oscar demonstrate his skills and even a few years ago at age 73 the guy could volley better then most ATP pros. While he is not a technical guy he knows tennis. Sure he copies others on some things but face it who doesn't. Isn't the goal to improve peoples tennis?

arche3
01-02-2013, 09:49 AM
When I started coaching my son I gravitated towards Oscars use of instruction because I felt the simplicity was scalable from beginner to advanced play. Its worked out so far. As I get better at teaching him tennis I am finding the least instruction that I can use to achieve a desired result the faster he gets it and owns it. We have used video to spot problem areas before they get out of hand. But mostly I study the details like video slow motion of his game but I try to in the simplest way convey my ideas how to improve. I tell him to feel the way through different strokes when its a new situation during practice.

AbsolutTennis
01-02-2013, 10:32 AM
I really find it interesting that people have here used the “theory X actual results” approach many times, but have actually failed to observe that Oscar has been able to back his theories with actual results… And the other way around… People really seem to forget that his techniques and approaches were REALLY used by Gustavo Kuerten (including the drill OW has just suggested to Raul_SJ). People also seem to forget that Bjorn Borg (ANOTHER #1 player in the world) looked for Oscar’s help and advice when he tried a comeback. I would think Guga and Borg can recognize what’s good and what’s not when talking about tennis related techniques… People ALSO seem to forget, or pretend they don’t know, that Richard Williams acknowledged the fact that he used Oscar’s videos when coaching his daughters…So much for facts and results, huh? You CANNOT contest and/or argue against FACTS!!!! Meanwhile, some people prefer to spend time discussing the sex of the angels (instead of generating results ON A TENNIS COURT)…

JohnYandell
01-02-2013, 10:36 AM
Absolut,

A closer look into your alleged facts would result in different conclusions regarding impact and results. You are taking the marketing claims at face value.

sureshs
01-02-2013, 10:38 AM
Not so much when you start them with Open stance as we do.

I was responding to Oscar's post. He has changed his tune that footwork is natural by now talking about the virtues of landing on the outside foot. If it is natural, there would have been no need to point it out. It is good that he now understands the importance of footwork.

Please do not interfere when I am responding to his posts by posting partial quotes.

sureshs
01-02-2013, 11:03 AM
I really find it interesting that people have here used the “theory X actual results” approach many times, but have actually failed to observe that Oscar has been able to back his theories with actual results… And the other way around… People really seem to forget that his techniques and approaches were REALLY used by Gustavo Kuerten (including the drill OW has just suggested to Raul_SJ). People also seem to forget that Bjorn Borg (ANOTHER #1 player in the world) looked for Oscar’s help and advice when he tried a comeback. I would think Guga and Borg can recognize what’s good and what’s not when talking about tennis related techniques… People ALSO seem to forget, or pretend they don’t know, that Richard Williams acknowledged the fact that he used Oscar’s videos when coaching his daughters…So much for facts and results, huh? You CANNOT contest and/or argue against FACTS!!!! Meanwhile, some people prefer to spend time discussing the sex of the angels (instead of generating results ON A TENNIS COURT)…

Serena does not have a short take back and an abrupt acceleration just before contact. She often has a big take back (so big sometimes the racket is behind the body). Clearly the facts about her play do nto indicate waiting late and hitting with small take back. Such shots will generate no power. In another thread, I had posted videos to illustrate how different her backhand is from what Oscar was advising someone.

The other "facts" have been discussed many times - I don't want to discuss them any more.

TCF
01-02-2013, 11:13 AM
====================

TCF
01-02-2013, 11:18 AM
=======================

sureshs
01-02-2013, 11:19 AM
He does not say everything is natural and nothing must be taught. Far from the truth. He says tennis movement is mostly natural, run like you run. Especially as players advance in levels though, he says to add more details depending on what they are lacking.

I did not teach my daughter when age 4 and just learning the forehand to land on the outside foot. But as she mastered certain aspects of tennis and advanced, we added it in. Other students of mine did end up landing on the outside foot naturally.

Its situational but he is right overall, tennis movement is mostly natural. Tonlars said he could not remember a single time a coach taught him footwork, and he is as good a player we have on the board.

I was also never taught anything by anybody. Well, almost. But I don't go about saying that Murray should not have a coach. Footwork is an integral part of all coaching that I have seen. Obviously, it is not the only thing - that kind of notion is only a strawman. Some people like Tonlars have great footwork by themselves, others like the slightly more successful Masha have described specific footwork training she undertakes. I don't take one example and generalize with it.

sureshs
01-02-2013, 11:23 AM
Thats not what the poster said, he said Richard has said he used Oscar's materials. That is fact.

No student incorporates everything one coach teaches them. A pro many times has many coaches through the years.

And yes, Serena does accelerate right before contact.

Every pro accelerates before contact. It is a proven fact. The acceleration actually decreases before contact - but it is still acceleration.

The videos show that her large swing is building up the speed. There is no slow movement of the frame to "catch" the ball and then a rapid acceleration just before contact. Of course, there is acceleration before contact - have we not discussed the speed vs position plots many many times?

sureshs
01-02-2013, 12:42 PM
Another thing in relation to the outside foot placement mentioned by Oscar: the first big step followed by small adjustment steps. This is a key difference between juniors and club adults. I saw it the day before the break, when a coach was conducting a women's clinic. The natural instinct to take a small first step, and then panic and use big steps when they realize they are not close to the ball. This tendency has to be reversed by learning. A more advanced use of footwork seen with the pros and college players is how the outside foot plant is also used to bounce back for recovery in a smooth motion. Club players have a discontinuity after hitting a wide shot and before recovery. Pros use an energy efficient continuous motion to use the foot planting to also fuel the recovery back to the court.

Wegner
01-02-2013, 12:43 PM
Just to clarify what I mean by yanking the ball across, it is meant, an abrupt change of direction and the application of force through acceleration. This implies the tightening of certain muscles. My contention is that the hand pulls into the body as in bending or contraction or shortening of a length (arm), rather than separating the hand from the body, as in extension of the arm.

And regarding the landing on the outside foot, I have seen it happen naturally even while just catching a ball or an object tossed to the side of a person. Nobody turns completely sideways to catch, unless they must cover a significant distance. In general, people prefer to catch in an open stance.

The open stance promotes both the loading on the outside foot and the yanking of the ball. You have more strength this way to achieve a forceful action through the ball. The racquet may slow down at impact because it encounters the ball, but immediately increases speed (in a modern stroke), a proof that the player is still within that forceful acceleration).

And yes, the so-called unit turn exists, but it happens to occur also naturally by keeping the non-playing hand on the racquet. All my players in Spain, Brazil, USA and other places used it to aid the movement and to aid the stroke. It works like a twisted spring, it want to straighten out.

Although I cover these concepts in my videos, I need to shoot more video instruction to elaborate on these premises precisely comparing it with the opposite viewpoint.

luvforty
01-02-2013, 01:02 PM
Just to clarify what I mean by yanking the ball across, it is meant, an abrupt change of direction and the application of force through acceleration. This implies the tightening of certain muscles. My contention is that the hand pulls into the body as in bending or contraction or shortening of a length (arm), rather than separating the hand from the body, as in extension of the arm.


2 questions -

1) does the contraction applies to a straight arm FH (e.g. Federer)? seems quite awkward to try it.

2) in the case of a bent arm FH, e.g. Joker, is the contraction a purposeful action to shorten the arm, or is it just a reaction to the centrifugal force... in other words, during the core rotation, if the arm is bent to start with, and if you don't contract, it will straighten out and ruin the rotation.

thanks.

sureshs
01-02-2013, 01:17 PM
Just to clarify what I mean by yanking the ball across, it is meant, an abrupt change of direction and the application of force through acceleration. This implies the tightening of certain muscles. My contention is that the hand pulls into the body as in bending or contraction or shortening of a length (arm), rather than separating the hand from the body, as in extension of the arm.

And regarding the landing on the outside foot, I have seen it happen naturally even while just catching a ball or an object tossed to the side of a person. Nobody turns completely sideways to catch, unless they must cover a significant distance. In general, people prefer to catch in an open stance.

The open stance promotes both the loading on the outside foot and the yanking of the ball. You have more strength this way to achieve a forceful action through the ball. The racquet may slow down at impact because it encounters the ball, but immediately increases speed (in a modern stroke), a proof that the player is still within that forceful acceleration).

And yes, the so-called unit turn exists, but it happens to occur also naturally by keeping the non-playing hand on the racquet. All my players in Spain, Brazil, USA and other places used it to aid the movement and to aid the stroke. It works like a twisted spring, it want to straighten out.

Although I cover these concepts in my videos, I need to shoot more video instruction to elaborate on these premises precisely comparing it with the opposite viewpoint.

Not turning sideways is not the same as moving outside foot out first. In real life, many people either do a small cross step without turning sideways completely, or worse, keep the outside foot planted and bend over sideways. Like knee bend, it is not obvious. All movers will tell you that a heavy object is to picked up with a knee bend, not a waist bend, but it does not come easily to others.

The easiest way to see the natural tendency is on a FH volley. Heck, I took two group clinics last week (only way I could play) and this matter came up again. There were some who would "catch" a volley open stance moving outside foot out, and others who would step across closed stance. To each, that movement is natural. Every coach seems to have an opinion about which one is correct. Point is, natural tendency works both ways when catching a ball with a racket. The analogy of catching an object is not very apt, because a person may adopt an open stance with outside foot out if his job is only to catch. But if he is required to hit the ball back immediately, he will also think about how to generate force, and that might drive him sideways.

You are not catching a ball in tennis. When a fielder catches a baseball, he might do it open stance, but he will turn sideways to generate power to throw it. He will typically not do both motions open stance.

Regarding the yanking as a shortening process, I am not sure. The Federer forehand seems to start with a supination of the forearm, then the forearm tucking into the body, followed by a very straight arm towards impact with wrist perpendicular to arm, followed by bending of the elbow for the across finish. I see both a "shortening" of the arm towards the body followed by a lengthening for a straight arm, followed by a bend. The yanking seems to be the consequence of a fast swing and finish across the body.

Povl Carstensen
01-02-2013, 02:39 PM
Well Federer seems to pull across here, especially when he wants to inject more power.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTjBXVQyiwg

Dragan
01-02-2013, 02:46 PM
I frequently thought about what would be the most natural and the most efficient way to execute forehand stroke, to start with.

For example, if you have an old or broken racquet, it's relatively easy to expeiment with different stances and swinging patterns, by throwing the racquet as far as possible while trying to aim in particular direction (i.e. achieving both racquet speed and accuracy).

The analogy with throwing racquet is known for service motions, so I'm quite eager to try it with forehand stroke, too, and see what stance and swing pattern feels the most natural for me.

sureshs
01-02-2013, 02:50 PM
Well Federer seems to pull across here, especially when he wants to inject more power.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTjBXVQyiwg

Without the across pull, how would the racket come across? The key is to see how the racket face is perpendicular to the target direction at contact. That is what imparts the power.

guitarplayer
01-02-2013, 02:51 PM
Well Federer seems to pull across here, especially when he wants to inject more power.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTjBXVQyiwg

I have this saved and it is a perfect example of starting the swing slowly and then accelerating through impact and finishing across your body. Makes the swing effortless doesn't it!!! Not like the rigid swings of most hackers.

People who worry about footwork or those who try to do split steps etc crack me up. Do you focus on your footwork when you walk to a specific point? Do you think about starting with the left foot or right foot???? NO NO NO..you just freaking run to where the ball is!

Some people try to over complicate that which happens naturally. Thus..these people have many mechanical problems. I see it on the golf course every day.

sureshs
01-02-2013, 02:58 PM
People who worry about footwork or those who try to do split steps etc crack me up. Do you focus on your footwork when you walk to a specific point? Do you think about starting with the left foot or right foot???? NO NO NO..you just freaking run to where the ball is!


I agree. It really cracked me up to see Federer split step before every forehand in the video below. I am thinking, does he worry about his footwork when walking? No he just freaking runs to the ball. That is why people like you and me who don't split step will always be the at the top of the ATP while these so-called pros focus on split-stepping and footwork.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ImeQaAyFPc

arche3
01-02-2013, 03:10 PM
I agree. It really cracked me up to see Federer split step before every forehand in the video below. I am thinking, does he worry about his footwork when walking? No he just freaking runs to the ball. That is why people like you and me who don't split step will always be the at the top of the ATP while these so-called pros focus on split-stepping and footwork.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ImeQaAyFPc

I think the issue is you are just a terrible tennis player. Nobody thinks about split stepping when you can actually play. You do it automatically.

sureshs
01-02-2013, 03:15 PM
I think the issue is you are just a terrible tennis player. Nobody thinks about split stepping when you can actually play. You do it automatically.

Yeah and it doesn't happen by itself at first. That is the point. It happens by instruction, or in my case, by subconscious absorption from high-level players (at least on the serve, working on the other shots). To dismiss split-stepping as never requiring instruction or pointing out by someone is a joke, and is an insult to the proven coaches out there who have mentioned it in innumerable articles.

If you don't even understand that, then there is really no point.

arche3
01-02-2013, 03:21 PM
Yeah and it doesn't happen by itself at first. That is the point. It happens by instruction, or in my case, by subconscious absorption from high-level players (at least on the serve, working on the other shots). To dismiss split-stepping as never requiring instruction or pointing out by someone is a joke, and is an insult to the proven coaches out there who have mentioned it in innumerable articles.

If you don't even understand that, then there is really no point.

I taught my son to split step when he was 7. I think 2 weeks later he never needed a reminder. I was told around the same time. It is pretty much not needed after a couple weeks of practice. Whats the point? U still need reminders?

sureshs
01-02-2013, 03:26 PM
I taught my son to split step when he was 7. I think 2 weeks later he never needed a reminder. I was told around the same time. It is pretty much not needed after a couple weeks of practice. Whats the point?

That is the point.

The point is not to laugh at those who try to split step. Like someone laughing at your son when he was 7. Like the previous poster said he does.

Get it?

The other point is not to derail Oscar's threads by posting stuff like what you and the other poster are doing.

You guys are giving him a bad name. When he says footwork is natural, he probably means not overdoing it like the detailed USTA diagrams from the 1920s. You guys are giving him a bad name by confusing people about split-stepping and then admitting you are yourself teaching that. This derails the thread.

user92626
01-02-2013, 03:30 PM
It basically boils down to laziness. Most people just get lazy to keep split stepping, moving their feet and fixing their eyes on the ball and moving early. These are all easy stuffs which can be mastered in no time. But people are just lazy!!

arche3
01-02-2013, 03:34 PM
That is the point.

The point is not to laugh at those who try to split step. Like someone laughing at your son when he was 7. Like the previous poster said he does.

Get it?

The other point is not to derail Oscar's threads by posting stuff like what you and the other poster are doing.

You guys are giving him a bad name. When he says footwork is natural, he probably means not overdoing it like the detailed USTA diagrams from the 1920s. You guys are giving him a bad name by confusing people about split-stepping and then admitting you are yourself teaching that. This derails the thread.

I dont read oscars stuff too closely. So sorry. I think a split step is good to teach. But then after it is taught it kinda becomes just a part of the movement.

Remember the kid on here who posted a video of his hitting where his split step was so exagerated he probably jumped a foot into the air and his heels hit his butt cheeks? Now that is funny. I'm going to try that and see if I move faster. No offence to kid w/goat split step if your reading this. :D

Wegner
01-02-2013, 03:35 PM
There is no point arguing who is right and who is wrong. You both Suresh and Archie presented each of you viewpoints clearly. I am not acting as a judge between posters. We are all presenting viewpoints. Let's move on.

Have either of you tested the yanking, i.e. the drastic change of direction of effort at impact time?

Thank you.

arche3
01-02-2013, 03:42 PM
There is no point arguing who is right and who is wrong. You both Suresh and Archie presented each of you viewpoints clearly. I am not acting as a judge between posters. We are all presenting viewpoints. Let's move on.

Have either of you tested the yanking, i.e. the drastic change of direction of effort at impact time?

Thank you.

It works for me. I have a slight double bend fh.

Doesnt work well for my son. He hits straight arm.

I dont have the timing down or muscle memory to do it all the time. And maybe its too advanced for my 11 year old son. Not sure. And I dont want to miss because I'm hitting a new fh.

luvforty
01-02-2013, 04:32 PM
It works for me. I have a slight double bend fh.

Doesnt work well for my son. He hits straight arm.



I am now convinced that the 'yank' does NOT add any power, but is a mere necessity of a bent FH.

for a straight FH, the arm can't extent, so the centrifugal force will not change the rotation radius, i.e. the MOI Moment of Inertia stays constant, which is necessary to avoid arm stuck behind the body.

but for a bent FH, with the core rotation picking up angular speed, the centrifugal force increases and is pulling the racket and the forearm outward. if the bicep does not contract, the arm will extend, MOI changes, and the rotation is ruined.. player probably end up in an awkward position with arm stuck behind the body as it cannot keep up with the rotation of the core.

5263
01-02-2013, 04:58 PM
Yeah and it doesn't happen by itself at first. That is the point. It happens by instruction,

Just not the case. I remember how I'd been playing for yrs before I ever heard
the term. I wondered what it meant, then once it was explained I realized I
had always done that instinctively. I think most sports involve moves that
work much like the split step in tennis, but folks who didn't play other sports
may need more help with that.

Avles
01-02-2013, 05:05 PM
People who worry about footwork or those who try to do split steps etc crack me up. Do you focus on your footwork when you walk to a specific point? Do you think about starting with the left foot or right foot???? NO NO NO..you just freaking run to where the ball is!


That's a pretty bad analogy. When I'm walking to the fridge to get a sandwich it doesn't really matter if I get to the sandwich a fraction of a second sooner or later, so I don't have to worry whether or not I'm in balance at the moment I decide to get that sandwich. But fractions of a second do matter in tennis. So tennis footwork isn't quite like "walking to a specific point" because economy of motion and time matter much more in tennis.

Maybe some players do just naturally start split stepping once they've played a bit. But that's far from universal, as evidenced by the fact that there are tons of rec players who play tennis all the time and don't do it.

Not overthinking is all well and good, and I agree that it's easy to get mired in unhelpful detail. But it's wacky to think that good footwork will just magically happen if everybody obeys their instincts. There's a place for instruction as well.

5263
01-02-2013, 05:09 PM
He does not say everything is natural and nothing must be taught. Far from the truth. He says tennis movement is mostly natural, run like you run.

Not sure why he struggles under this misunderstanding of how MTM uses "natural".
It has been explained to him before that it does not mean instinctive or what
you might do without instruction, but it means what is a natural way for the
body to function without being awkward or adding negative types of stress.
In some cases things may actually be instinctive as well, but the main point of
natural in MTM is about doing things that are "suitable" to how the body works.

CCH4TENNIS
01-02-2013, 05:11 PM
Absolut,

A closer look into your alleged facts would result in different conclusions regarding impact and results. You are taking the marketing claims at face value.

Rhythm and Timing: Oscar Wegner Got It Right


Stalk the ball. Find the ball. Rip the ball. Oscar Wegner is absolutely correct about the rhythm and timing of top hitters and I think his insight is still not well understood. Hopefully my site can confirm what Oscar brilliantly discovered, perhaps 30 years ago.

Watch how Coria and Hewitt don't "take the racket back" right away. Instead they are "stalking" the ball. Getting a feel for the incoming ball. And delaying so that they can meet the ball at just the right time - not too late...or too early.



Instead of "swinging fast" into the ball, these players work first on alignmnet - or what Oscar calls "finding the ball". They get hand, arm, body and racket properly positioned behind the ball first. Then they accelerate with the force of the hand and shoulder in a windshield wiper motion.

More at http://www.hi-techtennis.com/oscar_wegner/rhythm_and_timing.php

sureshs
01-02-2013, 06:44 PM
I dont read oscars stuff too closely. So sorry. I think a split step is good to teach. But then after it is taught it kinda becomes just a part of the movement.

Remember the kid on here who posted a video of his hitting where his split step was so exagerated he probably jumped a foot into the air and his heels hit his butt cheeks? Now that is funny. I'm going to try that and see if I move faster. No offence to kid w/goat split step if your reading this. :D

See what always happens is we end up fighting with one another and the thread gets deleted. I think it is best to direct all comments only at Oscar and towards those who comment directly on what he says. Like Oscar never said anything about not split stepping or for that matter about the Williams, but that is what generated more arguments than what he actually said.

sureshs
01-02-2013, 06:48 PM
Just not the case. I remember how I'd been playing for yrs before I ever heard
the term. I wondered what it meant, then once it was explained I realized I
had always done that instinctively. I think most sports involve moves that
work much like the split step in tennis, but folks who didn't play other sports
may need more help with that.

Maybe, but it is not borne out by the thousands of bonafide USTA 4.5s who don't split step. Also, you are not a typical example of the adult with a desk job.

I met many veteran 4.0s last week (all strangers). The only person who was split stepping was the assistant coach of the clinic (a member of the women's team at the local university). It was so obvious.

JW10S
01-02-2013, 06:58 PM
That is the point.

The point is not to laugh at those who try to split step. Like someone laughing at your son when he was 7. Like the previous poster said he does.

Get it?

The other point is not to derail Oscar's threads by posting stuff like what you and the other poster are doing.

You guys are giving him a bad name. When he says footwork is natural, he probably means not overdoing it like the detailed USTA diagrams from the 1920s. You guys are giving him a bad name by confusing people about split-stepping and then admitting you are yourself teaching that. This derails the thread.Yes, it's kind of funny, and a little weird, when others attempt to speak for Wegner. In another thread 5263 said there is no abrupt change of direction in MTM--in this thread Wegner said there is indeed an abrupt change of direction, a 'yank'. 5263 has said the word 'modern' in MTM does not mean current, it is just a noun, a name--in this thread Wegner said the word is meant to be descriptive, therefore an adjective. Now we're hearing from arche3 and others what he means by natural, footwork, etc. Maybe Wegner should speak for himself, instead of those who clearly don't know near as much as they think they do, so everyone can honestly judge his work for what it is, and for what it isn't, without the unnecessary (and frankly creepy) fanboyism.

luvforty
01-02-2013, 07:10 PM
what's a split step?

5263
01-02-2013, 07:49 PM
In another thread 5263 said there is no abrupt change of direction in MTM--in this thread Wegner said there is indeed an abrupt change of direction, a 'yank'. 5263 has said the word 'modern' in MTM does not mean current, it is just a noun, a name--in this thread Wegner said the word is meant to be descriptive, therefore an adjective.

Well, the big difference between you and I is that I'll man up and admit to
those mistakes or differences, posted by me and contradicted by Oscar.
I admit my mistake while you continue your lack of class with your name
calling and making creepy fanboy comments.
As to the "yank", this lately is the first I've heard of him use it and am caught
off guard by that idea.
Honestly at this point, I'm not seeing it. Maybe it is a language thing and it is
not in the book I'm pretty sure.

As to the Modern noun comment, well I'm thinking Oscar was just trying to be
accommodating with you and not stir up more fighting. He and I have talked on
that topic before and I thought I understood his position more clearly.
Either way, You are right, I have been contradicted in these areas.
Of course I defer to Oscar to clear up any misconceptions on the MTM system he
developed, but given his comment on modern, must admit that as a descriptor,
it falls a bit short imo as well.
As always, if someone makes a good point as you have in this case, I'm always
ready to accept the superior position or comments.
I can only do my best as always :)

sureshs
01-02-2013, 08:20 PM
It just occurred to me that there is a simple model for the forehand - a door. It neglects the relative motions of the upper arm, forearm and wrist, but in the end, it is a door. Place a ball before a door which is fully open, and swing it. Then do the same (for the same distance from the hinge) when the door is half closed. The ball paths are totally different.

The ball path is perpendicular to the door at contact - along the tangent. For the same contact point, if the hinge is in a place such that the door meets it in a more open position, it is a DTL shot. If the hinge position is such that the door meets it more closed, it is a CC shot.

The same hinge position with the same contact point will not allow both types of shot to be hit (unless there is jerky wrist motion which is seen in some club players).

Another way to look at it is to imagine drawing two circular arcs passing through the same point (the contact point) and with the same radius, but with different centers.

The complication is with players like Fed and Nadal who can swipe the ball sideways for side spin, which a door cannot do.

5263
01-02-2013, 08:46 PM
The same hinge position with the same contact point will not allow both types of shot to be hit (unless there is jerky wrist motion which is seen in some club players).

Another way to look at it is to imagine drawing two circular arcs passing through the same point (the contact point) and with the same radius, but with different centers.

The complication is with players like Fed and Nadal who can swipe the ball sideways for side spin, which a door cannot do.
Imo you are seeing this in a pretty good way, and if you could avoid the
friction of the floor, I think you would also get the sidespin.

Cheetah
01-03-2013, 02:09 AM
I am now convinced that the 'yank' does NOT add any power, but is a mere necessity of a bent FH.

for a straight FH, the arm can't extent, so the centrifugal force will not change the rotation radius, i.e. the MOI Moment of Inertia stays constant, which is necessary to avoid arm stuck behind the body.

but for a bent FH, with the core rotation picking up angular speed, the centrifugal force increases and is pulling the racket and the forearm outward. if the bicep does not contract, the arm will extend, MOI changes, and the rotation is ruined.. player probably end up in an awkward position with arm stuck behind the body as it cannot keep up with the rotation of the core.

Incorrect.
You can pull across with any type of forehand. Oscar talks about bicep usage but there are other ways to do it. You can pull across with a minute change in torso rotation or a slight adjustment in tension in some part of the body such as the shoulder or hip or by a change in the amount of bend in your knees. You can even do it using the tilt of your shoulders or any combination of the above. Any such change during the swing no matter how small increases rhs considerably.

Many people don't get this because they've never tried, or they won't try because they don't believe it or they don't want to change or because it challenges the method's they were taught since the beginning or because they can't see it because it's usually not a big move.

The fact is it works. Not everyone does it and not everyone who does do it does it on every stroke. Pro's need every ounce of advantage they can get. A one inch tug here or there give or take that will increase rhs and spin will be utililized.

Here's one player who does it on a larger scale that is easier to see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-4ssvjz1Sg&t=2m05s

watch it for a few mins

arche3
01-03-2013, 03:19 AM
Yes, it's kind of funny, and a little weird, when others attempt to speak for Wegner. In another thread 5263 said there is no abrupt change of direction in MTM--in this thread Wegner said there is indeed an abrupt change of direction, a 'yank'. 5263 has said the word 'modern' in MTM does not mean current, it is just a noun, a name--in this thread Wegner said the word is meant to be descriptive, therefore an adjective. Now we're hearing from arche3 and others what he means by natural, footwork, etc. Maybe Wegner should speak for himself, instead of those who clearly don't know near as much as they think they do, so everyone can honestly judge his work for what it is, and for what it isn't, without the unnecessary (and frankly creepy) fanboyism.

I was not speaking about Oscar. Or for Oscar. But simply pointing out advanced tennis players do not think about split stepping. They just do it. It has nothing to do with what Oscar has said or not said. If any of the great players I've played with ever thought about doing it I'd be surprised. The point is great players move to the ball without much thought. They just get there.
If anyone is still worried about not doing a split step they have not spent enough time on court or took up the game too late in life.

arche3
01-03-2013, 03:42 AM
Incorrect.
You can pull across with any type of forehand. Oscar talks about bicep usage but there are other ways to do it. You can pull across with a minute change in torso rotation or a slight adjustment in tension in some part of the body such as the shoulder or hip or by a change in the amount of bend in your knees. You can even do it using the tilt of your shoulders or any combination of the above. Any such change during the swing no matter how small increases rhs considerably.

Many people don't get this because they've never tried, or they won't try because they don't believe it or they don't want to change or because it challenges the method's they were taught since the beginning or because they can't see it because it's usually not a big move.

The fact is it works. Not everyone does it and not everyone who does do it does it on every stroke. Pro's need every ounce of advantage they can get. A one inch tug here or there give or take that will increase rhs and spin will be utililized.

Here's one player who does it on a larger scale that is easier to see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-4ssvjz1Sg&t=2m05s

watch it for a few mins

If this is what Oscar means then I do this to an extent all the time. I was under another assumption. Oscar has a video of a junior trying this and he was pulling his bicep back way more forcefully. It changes the timing of the stroke because your activating your bicep muscle to pull back prior to contact as opposed to at the wrap. I think this is something new. Beyond the wiper. And frankly I've never heard anyone but Oscar say this.

luvforty
01-03-2013, 05:17 AM
Here's one player who does it on a larger scale that is easier to see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-4ssvjz1Sg&t=2m05s

watch it for a few mins

eh - you call it yanking to the left, i call it counterclockwise rotation.

to-may-to
to-maa-to

Relinquis
01-03-2013, 05:46 AM
eh - you call it yanking to the left, i call it counterclockwise rotation.

to-may-to
to-maa-to

in this clip he elaborates that it isn't just the rotation, but also a pull back type motion. my interpretation is that this means to actively pull across immediately before contact rather than to continue rotating through the ball. i haven't tried it yet.

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

sureshs
01-03-2013, 07:22 AM
in this clip he elaborates that it isn't just the rotation, but also a pull back type motion. my interpretation is that this means to actively pull across immediately before contact rather than to continue rotating through the ball. i haven't tried it yet.

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

I don't think there is any pull back immediately before contact.

Relinquis
01-03-2013, 07:39 AM
sureshs, it's not my theory. i haven't tried it out.

Povl Carstensen
01-03-2013, 08:32 AM
I don't think there is any pull back immediately before contact.I would call it pulling across instead of extending (btw the two can be mixed). But there is some power on tap in this motion, that can be transferred to the ball, plus pulling your arm towards the body increases rotation speed (like in figure skaters fx). Extending the arm lowers rotation speed.

sureshs
01-03-2013, 09:08 AM
I would call it pulling across instead of extending (btw the two can be mixed). But there is some power on tap in this motion, that can be transferred to the ball, plus pulling your arm towards the body increases rotation speed (like in figure skaters fx). Extending the arm lowers rotation speed.

I had thought about that and concluded it cannot be possible. Pulling across yes, but not pulling back, and that too close to contact. The diver or figure skater increase in rotational speed comes by a much larger shortening of an extended arm/body to a much shortened form, and results in significantly more body rotation speed. Both feet need to be off the ground for this to have any meaning (in diving; in skating the ice provides less friction), otherwise friction will override everything. That is hardly the case even in most pro forehands. And even then, a last instant shortening by a small amount, with the body and hand still not close together. should have only a negligible increase in rotation speed into the ball. It would be much better to continue to build up the impact speed instead of doing this, and that is what I see in the videos.

TennisCJC
01-03-2013, 09:49 AM
I had thought about that and concluded it cannot be possible. Pulling across yes, but not pulling back, and that too close to contact. The diver or figure skater increase in rotational speed comes by a much larger shortening of an extended arm/body to a much shortened form, and results in significantly more body rotation speed. Both feet need to be off the ground for this to have any meaning (in diving; in skating the ice provides less friction), otherwise friction will override everything. That is hardly the case even in most pro forehands. And even then, a last instant shortening by a small amount, with the body and hand still not close together. should have only a negligible increase in rotation speed into the ball. It would be much better to continue to build up the impact speed instead of doing this, and that is what I see in the videos.

I agree. I have been looking at a lot of youtube videos of pros and I don't see a change in direction to yank or pull back. Yes, pros pull up and across. Yes, at some point the end of the rotation is reached and arm, hand, and racket begin to wrap back toward the body. But, I don't see an abrupt pull back in the pro game. It looks like it flows smoothly up, thru and across and than wraps in WW completion. I even studied pro forehands from the side view and you can stop the stroke at contact and the hand moves up, across and THRU or BEYOND the contact point. So, yes it is a deflecting blow but there is an element of THRU and extension BEYOND the contact point as well. The ball is gone - off the strings - before the hand starts back toward the body.

My theory is you vary the degress of up, across and thru for more spin or more drive.

corbind
01-03-2013, 10:00 AM
Heard enough puffing, unsubstantiated statements, and arguments in this thread so unsubscribing. So far I still side with Yondell.

Cheetah
01-03-2013, 10:48 AM
eh - you call it yanking to the left, i call it counterclockwise rotation.

to-may-to
to-maa-to

Read again. I didn't mention 'yanking'. And it's not just rotation. Like I said, some people can't or won't see it.

Cheetah
01-03-2013, 10:52 AM
I don't see any 'pull back' either from any pros.

sureshs
01-03-2013, 11:07 AM
I agree. I have been looking at a lot of youtube videos of pros and I don't see a change in direction to yank or pull back. Yes, pros pull up and across. Yes, at some point the end of the rotation is reached and arm, hand, and racket begin to wrap back toward the body. But, I don't see an abrupt pull back in the pro game. It looks like it flows smoothly up, thru and across and than wraps in WW completion. I even studied pro forehands from the side view and you can stop the stroke at contact and the hand moves up, across and THRU or BEYOND the contact point. So, yes it is a deflecting blow but there is an element of THRU and extension BEYOND the contact point as well. The ball is gone - off the strings - before the hand starts back toward the body.

My theory is you vary the degress of up, across and thru for more spin or more drive.

I think my original thinking on this was correct. My speculation is that if you plot the (eventual) contact point on the racket face as an arc, then it should meet the arc (or line) you want the ball to follow (after impact) such that the two curves are continuous at the impact point. At this point, the racket face can be in a perpendicular plane to the common tangent, or more closed.

Mulach
01-03-2013, 02:48 PM
How are people measuring or defining pull back, yank or swing across?

Draw a straight line from one shoulder to the other and call that the shoulder axis. Then from above looking down - the angle between shoulder axis and the humerus seems to reduce from start of stroke to finish. Also, the angle between the humerus and the forearm reduces from start to finish (Ferrer?).

These angles are reduced most noticeably after impact because at that point the the shoulder rotation slows to a stop but the arm is still pulling due to kinetic chain timing.

That is what I picture when I think of pulling across.

Extension through the ball will happen via shoulder rotation. On a full turn, the shoulder will start roughly behind my head and as I finish the stroke my shoulder will end up in front of my chin. For me that is more than 2 feet of forward shoulder displacement some of which will translate to racquet extension through the ball.

So long as my shoulder is rotating as it should, extension through the ball will happen even if I'm pulling across.

My simplistic way of looking at this whole debate.

sureshs
01-03-2013, 03:15 PM
^^^ Comes back to the same point. You seem to define racket extension through the ball as the motion of the racket in the eventual path of the ball, during the swing. Others define it in terms of how much the racket moves in the eventual path of the ball after impact. Yet others use it to describe forward extension only, not extension towards the target in CC shots.

Povl Carstensen
01-04-2013, 04:15 AM
Both feet need to be off the ground for this to have any meaning Not at all imo. Btw I dont know what pull back is, and I think yank is a bad word. But pulling across the body and ball (but still through also), I understand.
Look at the video. To me theres a lot of across ball and body action. Admittedly not on a couple of low balls. And to a lesser degree in a passage where he hits loopier, higher, more topspin balls. But otherwise, right from the beginning, I think I see it. It makes sense also, if you want to get action on flatter balls, you do not want it to be all topspin, or they would be short.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTjBXVQyiwg

sureshs
01-04-2013, 06:18 AM
Not at all imo. Btw I dont know what pull back is, and I think yank is a bad word. But pulling across the body and ball (but still through also), I understand.
Look at the video. To me theres a lot of across ball and body action. Admittedly not on a couple of low balls. And to a lesser degree in a passage where he hits loopier, higher, more topspin balls. But otherwise, right from the beginning, I think I see it. It makes sense also, if you want to get action on flatter balls, you do not want it to be all topspin, or they would be short.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTjBXVQyiwg

The need for less friction was to increase rotational speed. It has nothing to do with the tennis shot. I was commenting only on whether the rotation speed will increase with the hands coming in, and I said it will be negligible and friction will make it even less of a factor.

No one is disputing that pros finish across the body.

TCF
01-04-2013, 08:28 AM
Thanks again for the great help through the years Oscar. Your ideas and communication skills have helped me help many students.

I could not give a dang about what exactly happens with each stroke, what pulls and how far, the angle at contact....yawn.

All I know is that I have used your techniques to help kids win in juniors and some get scholarships to pay for their education.

Thanks for that and please keep the tips coming.

Inner Game
01-04-2013, 08:34 AM
I gotta say John your whole tennis instructional website revolves around hyped marketing....So shame on you for trashing someone who just figured out a better way of selling their products or systems. Face the facts anyone can take a bunch of slow motion videos and make a good analysis of whats going on...But bottom line is you have to have athletic ability to play tennis the correct way...95% of tennis is hit and giggle....That part drives me crazy, you have put the time in on the court and off the court to really become a real tennis player....

arche3
01-04-2013, 08:57 AM
I gotta say John your whole tennis instructional website revolves around hyped marketing....So shame on you for trashing someone who just figured out a better way of selling their products or systems. Face the facts anyone can take a bunch of slow motion videos and make a good analysis of whats going on...But bottom line is you have to have athletic ability to play tennis the correct way...95% of tennis is hit and giggle....That part drives me crazy, you have put the time in on the court and off the court to really become a real tennis player....

John was wronged by Oscar so he fights against Oscars methods while he himself is hyping his own services under a different banner. I still do not know what the bad blood is about.

I am pretty confident if someone gives me slo mo video I can make a very good analysis. At least enough to make some newb hacks think I know what I am talking about.

treblings
01-04-2013, 09:03 AM
John was wronged by Oscar so he fights against Oscars methods while he himself is hyping his own services under a different banner. I still do not know what the bad blood is about.

I am pretty confident if someone gives me slo mo video I can make a very good analysis. At least enough to make some newb hacks think I know what I am talking about.

John has put a highspeed video of Dimitrov in the other thread. i am interested how you would analyze it:)

luvforty
01-04-2013, 09:08 AM
I still do not know what the bad blood is about.


hint - there is no 'bad publicity'.... all these free eyeballs....

WildVolley
01-04-2013, 09:19 AM
...95% of tennis is hit and giggle....That part drives me crazy, you have put the time in on the court and off the court to really become a real tennis player....

I'm confused by this last part. Do you think any tennis teaching professional thinks that a player can improve without practice? Or any teaching pro tells his students not to practice?

JohnYandell
01-04-2013, 09:24 AM
As usual you guys have it wrong. According to you I have hurt my marketing efforts by posting here. And if you think all publicity is good publicity look at Ted Bundy or the current speaker of the house...

"Anyone" could put together that high speed collection? That's an interesting claim! It took me about 15 years but I am sure it was easier than I thought...lol. As for analysis, you just have to look at the threads here to see that video may be the basis for truth but that doesn't mean it isn't susceptible to poor analysis.

As for the alleged false hope, well we have a section on the site with about 100 before and after examples of players using our information and changes there are real and documented. You can lead a horse to water, etc, inner boy.

And as for practice, if you look at my book you see I believe that not just practice, but disciplined, progressive practice based on good information is fundamental. That's pretty obvious and not sure why anyone would say practice was irrelevant. Oh except Oscar who claimed watching his DVDs once would solve all technical problems...

And speaking of the thing with Oscar it's about the truth and representing what actually happens and doesn't happen in tennis, accurately representing what coaches actually believe and how they may have come to believe it, and how certain ideas influence players for better or worse. What can I say, I don't like false claims.

arche3
01-04-2013, 09:25 AM
John has put a highspeed video of Dimitrov in the other thread. i am interested how you would analyze it:)

Will have a look

sureshs
01-04-2013, 09:48 AM
John has put a highspeed video of Dimitrov in the other thread. i am interested how you would analyze it:)

The comments on that so far indicate that the hands separate before the bounce and there is good extension before the racket comes across. High frame-rate video shows what is really happening, which can often be missed by the naked eye or preconceived notions.

PS: and no "yanking" or "pull back" is seen

sureshs
01-04-2013, 09:49 AM
I'm confused by this last part. Do you think any tennis teaching professional thinks that a player can improve without practice? Or any teaching pro tells his students not to practice?

That kind of post is what gets threads deleted. Makes no sense and is just an attack.

tennisfan69
01-04-2013, 09:54 AM
Oscar, Would love to get an analysis for John's recent video link in his thread from Oscar Wegner
http://www.tennisplayer.net/public/tw/dimtrov/

WildVolley
01-04-2013, 12:14 PM
That kind of post is what gets threads deleted. Makes no sense and is just an attack.

I don't get the recent posts attacking technique discussions. :confused:

I realize some people are angry, but at least of lot of them seem to have legitimate differences of opinion. Recently we've been getting angry posts by people arguing that discussing technique is bad and that people should just shut-up and go practice. The whole point of discussing technique is to make the practice more helpful.

sureshs
01-04-2013, 12:19 PM
I don't get the recent posts attacking technique discussions. :confused:

I realize some people are angry, but at least of lot of them seem to have legitimate differences of opinion. Recently we've been getting angry posts by people arguing that discussing technique is bad and that people should just shut-up and go practice. The whole point of discussing technique is to make the practice more helpful.

And yet these people seem to want to read this forum. Why don't they go and practice instead?

arche3
01-04-2013, 12:36 PM
And yet these people seem to want to read this forum. Why don't they go and practice instead?

I don't know about others but I'm old and lazy...,

TennisCJC
01-04-2013, 01:13 PM
I don't think there is any pull back immediately before contact.

I agree - no pull back that I see. My opinion is you can think stop the off side or even pull back on the off side to generate power on the hitting side. For example for a right handed player, the left shoulder may pull back to speed up the right shoulder and hitting arm. But, I have watched many pro forehand including GD clip and I don't see a pull back at/before contact in the hitting hand, arm or shoulder. Hitting arm seems to flow thru contact - up, thru and across until it wraps and finishes by L shoulder.

luvforty
01-04-2013, 01:24 PM
I start to think that all this stuff is hog wash... with some practice, the body should know what motion generates the most power.

if there is a nail at the contact point, and you tell the student to hammer this nail hard into a 2x4 with a FH grip, he will know what motion drives the nail the deepest.

point the nail slightly up towards the sky, then you get topspin.

simple.

WildVolley
01-04-2013, 02:36 PM
I start to think that all this stuff is hog wash... with some practice, the body should know what motion generates the most power.

if there is a nail at the contact point, and you tell the student to hammer this nail hard into a 2x4 with a FH grip, he will know what motion drives the nail the deepest.

point the nail slightly up towards the sky, then you get topspin.

simple.

My guess is that you've never coached or taught tennis. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I've found that coaching some students makes a huge difference even in a short period of time. I also know players who have been playing tennis for more than a decade and have terrible form and terrible shots and have never taken a single lesson.

JohnYandell
01-04-2013, 03:31 PM
luv,

yes it's all hog wash--except the part about driving nails. That is up there with the ultimate worst tennis tips of all times for so so many reasons, but it would be hog wash to go into why.

luvforty
01-04-2013, 03:31 PM
My guess is that you've never coached or taught tennis. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I've found that coaching some students makes a huge difference even in a short period of time. I also know players who have been playing tennis for more than a decade and have terrible form and terrible shots and have never taken a single lesson.

have worked with high school/rec players... also have coached golf....

I am not saying 'don't take lesson', I am saying these body-parts analysis is hog wash... if we relate a tennis stroke to another task (e.g. hammering a nail), perhaps student can figure out what motion generates the most power.

5263
01-04-2013, 04:20 PM
John was wronged by Oscar so he fights against Oscars methods while he himself is hyping his own services under a different banner. I still do not know what the bad blood is about.


This part is not hog wash, and that much is clear.

WildVolley
01-04-2013, 04:46 PM
have worked with high school/rec players... also have coached golf....

I am not saying 'don't take lesson', I am saying these body-parts analysis is hog wash... if we relate a tennis stroke to another task (e.g. hammering a nail), perhaps student can figure out what motion generates the most power.

OK, then I believe you should be more careful about how you express yourself, as I interpreted your original complaint as being a criticism of getting coaching or lessons.

Teaching by analogy might work, but I don't understand your hammering nails comparison. To me, hitting a tennis ball is not at all like hammering a nail.

I don't know how to take a lot of Wegner's advice. It seems to me he is exaggerating things in his descriptive language. For example, the pros don't slowly approach the ball with a fh and then accelerate at the last second. What they tend to do, from my personal observation and slow motion video, is accelerate hard from the end of the backswing into contact. Does his advice give the same result or are students ignoring his advice and accelerating earlier anyway?

JohnYandell
01-04-2013, 04:56 PM
WV,

Teaching ideas don't always correspond to reality--that's well accepted. What people find ridiculous is claims about reality that are obviously false and don't correspond to even the most rudimentary physics. And the complete unwillingness to address the errors... it's so revolutionary it doesn't have to bear any relation to reality apparently.

sureshs
01-04-2013, 09:45 PM
I am watching the Chennai Open now, and Anand Amritraj is commentating. Two of his comments struck me. He said, in his playing days, the ball would be around the knees, but today it is much higher. and require much more upper body strength. The strength thing was a new insight for me.

The second thing he said was that Cilic's forehand has a technical glitch and he was surprised that his coach Bob Brett has not worked on it.

Here is a challenge to you coaches: what is the glitch, if any? The double pumping too-early takeback?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=S4YKpQJTMTI#t=1007s

sureshs
01-04-2013, 10:11 PM
I don't know how to take a lot of Wegner's advice. It seems to me he is exaggerating things in his descriptive language. For example, the pros don't slowly approach the ball with a fh and then accelerate at the last second. What they tend to do, from my personal observation and slow motion video, is accelerate hard from the end of the backswing into contact.

To me, it is not an exaggeration. I mean, the sentences I have put in bold are just the opposite of each other. The first is not a symbolic overstatement of the second.

sureshs
01-04-2013, 10:24 PM
I am saying these body-parts analysis is hog wash...

It depends on what the motivation is. Federer is probably not interested in the physics of tennis, but the book by Rod Cross and the other guy is a well-respected classic. Many people think that racket design is a farce, but Wilson has a well-equipped design lab for it. Everything has a place. You are assuming that if someone does not discuss body parts, somehow that will make him a better player than he is. It doesn't work that way.

JohnYandell
01-04-2013, 10:25 PM
Where the hell is the fh close up super slow mo in this terrible clip??

treblings
01-05-2013, 01:47 AM
I am watching the Chennai Open now, and Anand Amritraj is commentating. Two of his comments struck me. He said, in his playing days, the ball would be around the knees, but today it is much higher. and require much more upper body strength. The strength thing was a new insight for me.

The second thing he said was that Cilic's forehand has a technical glitch and he was surprised that his coach Bob Brett has not worked on it.

Here is a challenge to you coaches: what is the glitch, if any? The double pumping too-early takeback?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=S4YKpQJTMTI#t=1007s

interesting challenge, here´s one for you, find a decent video in hd of Cilic forehand for us to analyze:)

Povl Carstensen
01-05-2013, 01:48 AM
I was commenting only on whether the rotation speed will increase with the hands coming in, and I said it will be negligible and friction will make it even less of a factor.

No one is disputing that pros finish across the body.I dont think the centrifugal force from pulling your arm in is neglible, but never mind.
Of course pros finish across the body. But would you agree that in the video there is quite a lot of across the ball hitting (from about 4-5 o'clock to about 10-11 o'clock)? And vice versa on the backhand btw.

luvforty
01-05-2013, 08:14 AM
friction is not a factor... upper body still rotate with feet planted on the ground.... suresh you don't get ice cream for the friction thing.

I hit bent fh... arm has to contract otherwise it straightens during core rotation and the shot is ruined... power still comes from the hip though.

you can it yank, i call it 'maintaining the arm bend'.

to-may-toe, to-maa-toe

sureshs
01-05-2013, 11:02 AM
I dont think the centrifugal force from pulling your arm in is neglible, but never mind.
Of course pros finish across the body. But would you agree that in the video there is quite a lot of across the ball hitting (from about 4-5 o'clock to about 10-11 o'clock)? And vice versa on the backhand btw.

There is centrifugal force whether or not you pull in your arm. If you mean the increase in angular velocity due to bending you arm and bringing it closer, I think the increase will be negligible. You should also realize that if the arm is truly brought inwards, the ball cannot be hit outwards, so the situation is physically impossible.

5263
01-05-2013, 11:07 AM
You should also realize that if the arm is truly brought inwards, the ball cannot be hit outwards, so the situation is physically impossible.
Incorrect,
This explains a bunch about what you don't about tennis strokes.

sureshs
01-05-2013, 12:50 PM
Incorrect,
This explains a bunch about what you don't about tennis strokes.

Why don't you explain it then, considering that video evidence has contradicted everything claimed about yanking and last minute abrupt acceleration?

Pickle9
01-05-2013, 01:54 PM
interesting challenge, here´s one for you, find a decent video in hd of Cilic forehand for us to analyze:)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTtCFap5FfE

sureshs
01-05-2013, 02:58 PM
Where the hell is the fh close up super slow mo in this terrible clip??

hehehe that was the challenge - to find a good clip

sureshs
01-05-2013, 03:00 PM
Apart from a very pronounced "racket up" phase, what is different about his forehand in the clip above?

Is Anand calling that a glitch?

sureshs
01-05-2013, 03:20 PM
Thanks again for the great help through the years Oscar. Your ideas and communication skills have helped me help many students.

I could not give a dang about what exactly happens with each stroke, what pulls and how far, the angle at contact....yawn.

All I know is that I have used your techniques to help kids win in juniors and some get scholarships to pay for their education.

Thanks for that and please keep the tips coming.

He got banned again

5263
01-05-2013, 04:13 PM
Why don't you explain it then, considering that video evidence
has contradicted everything claimed about yanking and last minute abrupt acceleration?

Does no good to explain it to you, and is likely obvious to most others what you
missed with your comments.
I don't think you will find any quotes from me suggesting to yank or be abrupt.