PDA

View Full Version : Does Modern Tennis Exist?


Pages : [1] 2

JohnYandell
12-26-2012, 08:52 PM
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.

But the reality is that there is no hard distinction between modern and classical tennis. 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.

And many of the key elements of classical tennis are still critical in the modern game. Eastern grips among top 10 players to start. Then the 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.

The same false distinction is often made in teaching--classical versus so-called modern teaching. 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.

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." They are 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.

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.

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.

There is no argument about that. But you can't have it both ways at the same time: lay out supposed 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

TomT
12-26-2012, 09:10 PM
A most interesting thread starter. Thanks for posting JY. I'll be following this thread. Always great to hear what serious, talented, and articulate students/researchers of the game of tennis have to say about it.

JohnYandell
12-26-2012, 09:19 PM
Tom T,

Thank you sir for your words.

arche3
12-26-2012, 10:39 PM
JY,
Are you actually a tennis coach or just study the mechanics of tennis?

arche3
12-26-2012, 10:44 PM
What is your take on mastering technique vs. Winning at a young age for kids? Is it better to win with bad strokes or lose with proper technique as you compete as a junior. Say 10-14. Boys and girls.

Head Pegger
12-26-2012, 10:46 PM
IMO I don't care what others label it
Tennis is, and always will be, TENNIS

TomT
12-26-2012, 10:49 PM
IMO I don't care what others label it
Tennis is, and always will be, TENNISWhat have others labeled it?

JohnYandell
12-26-2012, 10:50 PM
Arche,

I started as working teaching pro in the early 1980s. I coached multiple sectionally ranked juniors in norcal, coached high school tennis for 30 years--355 wins and 14 titles, thank you--as well, as teaching the whole gamut of adult players from total beginners to nationally ranked senior players.

I started producing instructional videos and doing filming in the mid 1980's. I developed a reputation and an expertise in technical stroke analysis which has been the major focus of my work since.

The higher level coaching I have done has been as a technical consultant, filming, analyzing and making suggestions on court as well as off court for probably at this point a few hundred elite juniors, college players, satelite players, and wta and atp tour players.

I have been fortunate to work with some of the top players in the world as well as their coaches in this capacity, including players who won multiple slams and many others who played in the top 100.

JohnYandell
12-26-2012, 11:01 PM
Arche,

As for the other question, it's a great one. Confidence is founded on winning and unless you win you don't stay too long in the brutal world of junior sanctioned tournament play.

At the same time, technical, tactical and mental limitations are often obvious in young successful players.

I am not a developmental coach. That's not my interest or expertise, although I provide technical info and feedback to many high level ones.

So the rest is just my opinion, which is: you can lead a horse to water, but, etc.

A good friend who had coached one of the greatest women's players to multiple slams had me film a new player he was working with. Her serve, we saw in high speed video, was actually worse than either of us thought--and it looked bad to the naked eye!

Still she was in the top 20. My friend actually predicted what would happen but felt it was his duty to bring her the analysis of what it would take to go higher--a better serve motion among other things. She and her dad took him out to Denny's for breakfast and fired him.

My opinion is many players, especially kids, can only handle so much change. You push them as far as you can without making them go negative on themselves. The most successful players will of course have the ability to recognize and implement what they need to go to the next level.

Since virtually zero percent will ever earn money, I think at some point the sport for life mentality has to drive.

treblings
12-26-2012, 11:04 PM
John,

first, let me take this opportunity to thank you for giving me access to your site for a week. i used it extensively and enjoyed it a lot.
i can recommend it highly and will subscribe to it

as to the decline of u.s. tennis. we europeans probably have the advantage of playing on slower surfaces, mainly red clay, in clubs and academies.
with the atp tour slowing down the courts, the fact that europeans are used to playing longer rallies and maybe working on shot selection more, probably pays off.

Head Pegger
12-26-2012, 11:06 PM
Some call it modern tennis
Slower courts and better equipment(rackets, strings)
leads to different approach to the game
More spin, more rallies, less volleys etc.
but to ME I just call it tennis.

JohnYandell
12-26-2012, 11:13 PM
treb,

Thanks for the good review! There is a coach's discount so email me before you subscribe.

And yes the court surfaces especially combined with the poly string are a huge factor. I've hit on some of the show courts in Cincinnati and Indian Wells and man they are gritty and slow--don't fall down if you don't want to bleed.

If the hard courts were fast and slick like in the old days and the indoor courts bounced like the old supreme court that might shift the balance of style for at least some players.

TomT
12-26-2012, 11:19 PM
Since virtually zero percent will ever earn money, I think at some point the sport for life mentality has to drive.Good point, and I think that for most of us, this is the driving force. And of course we all want to get better. So, it seems that there will always be a demand for instructors of various orientations. Your stuff seems to be primarily based on detailed observational analyses of movements/techniques. Since I'm a former working scientist, this approach appeals to me. But I also like the 'intuitive' or 'feeling' or 'broadstrokes' approach.

Am I just getting progressively less able to deal with detailed technical nuances or is there something to be said for the, er, 'inner tennis' approach?

What do you think ... keeping in mind that I highly value the detailed technical analysis approach?

Or am I mischaracterizing?

JohnYandell
12-26-2012, 11:25 PM
Tom,

No you hit one of problems on the head. If for example you came to my private court in SF and wanted to work on your forehand, we would film you and look at you side by side with some pro models but focus on a limited number of key positions--as few as one or two.

You could have as much or as little of the detailed technical info I am posting as suited you.

Another paradox is that despite it's tremendous complexity all the clear verbal understanding in the world won't get you a better forehand.

We would use the video to create actual, precise physical positions with checkpoints which you would master and you would then create internal mental images of them--this creation of kinesthetic feel and mental image is the real key to creating change. Most people need some of the explanation but for others it is simply interesting and fun--or of no interest.

Greg G
12-26-2012, 11:32 PM
I also took John up on his free one week trial, and was thoroughly impressed by the quantity, and more importantly, the quality of the content on the site. I didn't even wait for the week to finish before signing up!

I particularly enjoyed the articles in the biomechanics section, and the 'your strokes' section. I am the type who likes to have a deep understanding of all things, so it really hits the spot.

A question about the checkpoints though- are they static positions you have the players hold for a certain amount of time, for them to get the feel of it? Then I suppose you progress to shadow swings?

TomT
12-26-2012, 11:41 PM
Another paradox is that despite it's tremendous complexity all the clear verbal understanding in the world won't get you a better forehand.I don't think this is a paradox. In fact, to me it makes a lot of sense. Stroke technique is unique and complex. Communicating, in ordinary language, what needs to be done to improve is a challenge that I can appreciate.

We would use the video to create actual, precise physical positions with checkpoints which you would master and you would then create internal mental images of them--this creation of kinesthetic feel and mental image is the real key to creating change.This makes sense to me, and, though technically based, it seems to be in accord with the 'inner tennis' orientation of 'quiet the mind', 'visualize', 'imitate'.

Most people need some of the explanation but for others it is simply interesting and fun--or of no interest.Well, it's certainly interesting. And when it's associated with actual improvements in one's game, then also fun.

dominikk1985
12-27-2012, 12:41 AM
well I would say there is a developement in tennis but we cannot say a certain year is the cutoff.

even in the 1920s there were some FHs that looked like a WW FH
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IdvdxqSg8E

however there were also some very odd looking ones.

what is different now´is that the top100 strokes now all look virtually identical (apart from nadal maybe with his finish) because other strokes just cannot compete anymore.

crosscourt
12-27-2012, 01:18 AM
Obtviously 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...

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." 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...


Your site is excellent because it gives us all the chance to look in tremendous depth at the components of leading players' strokes, and because we benefit from the expert analyses you gather. But modern tennis isn't about the techniques involved. It's about how you play the game. Rackets, strings, the fitness of the players, their mentality, the evolution of ideas about how to win points, are all significant. Good/modern technique gives you the chance to play the game but having those things isn't playing the game one way or another.

tennis_balla
12-27-2012, 04:37 AM
Hopefully this will not get deleted either.

luvforty
12-27-2012, 04:44 AM
I agree with many points from JY.. especially on the part about zero percent earning money...

student should understand how the contact is made...

'ques' leading to good contact are helpful, but should not be universal.

I have watched some of Oscar's clips, pulling to left, backwards.... volley with the hand etc... can work for some, but also can screw up others.

luvforty
12-27-2012, 04:54 AM
what is different now´is that the top100 strokes now all look virtually identical (apart from nadal maybe with his finish) because other strokes just cannot compete anymore.

I'd say, if graphite rackets were available 100 years ago, them classic players would be playing the same way in the top100 as today.

there is really nothing technically 'modern'... it's not rocket science to figure out that swinging across the ball provides more control and therefore allow the player to take a bigger cut.

however, I'd say there are still plenty of varieties in the top100 men... tomic, stepanek, and the retired santoro... they look more uniform now because of the condition - modern rackets, strings, and the fact that the surfaces are more uniform.

if we had faster grass and indoor surfaces, flatter/ linear strokes will come back, because these naturally lead player to the net, not sideways/backwards.

luvforty
12-27-2012, 05:38 AM
on another thought... if rules say that only 65in wood is allowed, and they make the surface faster, and players have to wear long pants.... and we let this play out for a few years...

then, what will be the definition of 'modern' tennis? what will the top 100 play like? :)

TCF
12-27-2012, 06:26 AM
===================

tennis_balla
12-27-2012, 06:51 AM
A tennis coach should know all the details, and not really the player. That's why when you ask a top players certain questions they give vague answers. Reference points, cues, feelings etc and hours upon hours of training, on court and off. The coach behind the scenes knows exactly whats going on, and breaks it down into simple terms for his player to understand, especially when things are going well. However, there are lots of times where you need deeper analysis, especially when changing technique or correcting flaws. In that case, pictures speak a thousand words and video analysis is priceless. High speed video is even more valuable because the human eye misses many important factors at normal speeds. We only see at what? 30fps? That's pretty dismal

JohnYandell
12-27-2012, 07:20 AM
Most of the debate over technique centers on the fundamental stroke of the forehand.

Let's start with some basic facts. In the pro game in a typical groundstroke exchange, there is about 1 second between the rackets. The ball leaves Fed's racket and 1 second later it leaves Nadal's, plus or minus.

As our research was the first to show, the ball loses about 50 percent or more of it's speed in this interval. If that wasn't true the speed of tennis would exceed human reaction capacity.

So on a forehand measured off the racket at 80mph, pros are actually hitting an incoming ball that is, say, traveling around 40mph, and they have at most a few tenths of second after the bounce in which to make contact.

But speed and time are not the only factors to consider in the nature of pro excahnges. The balls are leaving the racket on the top forehands with 2500rpm of spin or more. And the spin actually increases after the bounce. The bottom half of the ball grabs the court and the friction causes the top half to accelerate. After the bounce the spin can double. We've measured balls spinning at over 5000rpm before the contact.

So between the hits, the speed is halved and the spin is doubled. What does it all mean?

arche3
12-27-2012, 07:23 AM
A tennis coach should know all the details, and not really the player. That's why when you ask a top players certain questions they give vague answers. Reference points, cues, feelings etc and hours upon hours of training, on court and off. The coach behind the scenes knows exactly whats going on, and breaks it down into simple terms for his player to understand, especially when things are going well. However, there are lots of times where you need deeper analysis, especially when changing technique or correcting flaws. In that case, pictures speak a thousand words and video analysis is priceless. High speed video is even more valuable because the human eye misses many important factors at normal speeds. We only see at what? 30fps? That's pretty dismal

I propose another topic for this forum. "Ballin with the Balla" is various ideas or tips from the "tennis balla" from the trenches of high performances tennis coaching. Live from Europe. Any observations of the international tennis climate as it applies to high level player coaching. From specific training trends to technical stroke philosophies.

arche3
12-27-2012, 07:29 AM
Most of the debate over technique centers on the fundamental stroke of the forehand.

Let's start with some basic facts. In the pro game in a typical groundstroke exchange, there is about 1 second between the rackets. The ball leaves Fed's racket and 1 second later it leaves Nadal's, plus or minus.

As our research was the first to show, the ball loses about 50 percent or more of it's speed in this interval. If that wasn't true the speed of tennis would exceed human reaction capacity.

So on a forehand measured off the racket at 80mph, pros are actually hitting an incoming ball that is, say, traveling around 40mph, and they have at most a few tenths of second after the bounce in which to make contact.

But speed and time are not the only factors to consider in the nature of pro excahnges. The balls are leaving the racket on the top forehands with 2500rpm of spin or more. And the spin actually increases after the bounce. The bottom half of the ball grabs the court and the friction causes the top half to accelerate. After the bounce the spin can double. We've measured balls spinning at over 5000rpm before the contact.

So between the hits, the speed is halved and the spin is doubled. What does it all mean?

I think it means the ball is freakin moving fast... The focus of a player at that level is to be able to still the mind and be able to slow down the perceived speed of the game. Every tennis player has felt this, when your mind is calm and you see the fastest balls slow and huge. Your sense of time is slowed. Its the zone. Every athlete has felt this.

TCF
12-27-2012, 07:35 AM
==========================

tennis_balla
12-27-2012, 07:41 AM
I propose another topic for this forum. "Ballin with the Balla" is various ideas or tips from the "tennis balla" from the trenches of high performances tennis coaching. Live from Europe. Any observations of the international tennis climate as it applies to high level player coaching. From specific training trends to technical stroke philosophies.

haha thanks for the kind words but not interested. Too many threads get deleted or go way off track. I had a mod delete one of my last threads for this reason. Effort is put in and then wasted. I'd rather spend my energy on court.

arche3
12-27-2012, 08:09 AM
haha thanks for the kind words but not interested. Too many threads get deleted or go way off track. I had a mod delete one of my last threads for this reason. Effort is put in and then wasted. I'd rather spend my energy on court.

Yeah. I can see how its frustrating to post some insight you feel is useful then having some guy on ttw that can barely hit 3 balls in a row start spewing that your obviously mistaken due to the influence of Jupiter on the rotation of the ball but only on slices.

JohnYandell
12-27-2012, 09:25 AM
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.

And this one doesn't either. My point is that you have fractions of a second to make critical complex motions in the preparation and that the bulk of this must occur before the bounce.

More on this later. Going to see my cousin in Connecticut for a couple of days!

JohnYandell
12-27-2012, 09:27 AM
Greg,

And thanks to you for the great words about Tennisplayer. The part about the quality means a lot.

TCF
12-27-2012, 09:41 AM
============================

Ash_Smith
12-27-2012, 10:36 AM
A tennis coach should know all the details, and not really the player. That's why when you ask a top players certain questions they give vague answers. Reference points, cues, feelings etc and hours upon hours of training, on court and off. The coach behind the scenes knows exactly whats going on, and breaks it down into simple terms for his player to understand, especially when things are going well. However, there are lots of times where you need deeper analysis, especially when changing technique or correcting flaws. In that case, pictures speak a thousand words and video analysis is priceless. High speed video is even more valuable because the human eye misses many important factors at normal speeds. We only see at what? 30fps? That's pretty dismal

^^^This. End Thread :D

Coaching is equal parts Science and Art - the Science off court informs the Art on court.

ATP100
12-27-2012, 10:42 AM
Easy Answer: NO

Ash_Smith
12-27-2012, 10:42 AM
oh, and to answer John's original question - yes "Modern Tennis" does exist, but only in the same sense that "Modern Art" exists.

dominikk1985
12-27-2012, 11:28 AM
BTW: is it possible to hit a slice that still has backspin after the bounce? Mr yandell said the ball gains spin as it bounces because the bottom stops on the ground, so it should not be possible to hit a slice that keeps backspinning after ground contact, right?

luvforty
12-27-2012, 11:37 AM
BTW: is it possible to hit a slice that still has backspin after the bounce? Mr yandell said the ball gains spin as it bounces because the bottom stops on the ground, so it should not be possible to hit a slice that keeps backspinning after ground contact, right?

it's certainly possible if the surface doesn't grab much... I can tell some of the hardest knifed slices do this because if you simply try to block back, ball goes into the net.

the bottom does NOT stop. it is slowed down.

if it stopped, it would not leave the skid ball marks on clay.... balls bounce higher on clay because the skid pushes the loose dirt into a little hump, and the ball then climbs up the hump when it leaves the ground.

Avles
12-27-2012, 12:48 PM
balls bounce higher on clay because the skid pushes the loose dirt into a little hump, and the ball then climbs up the hump when it leaves the ground.

At risk of going way off topic-- is this really true? I've never heard this explanation before, and it sounds kind of implausible...

max
12-27-2012, 12:58 PM
^^^This. End Thread :D

Coaching is equal parts Science and Art - the Science off court informs the Art on court.

I think communication is the secret: being able to get a message across to different kinds of people using different ways; for some, visual, for others, metaphorical, and yet others, very plain language technical.

luvforty
12-27-2012, 01:20 PM
At risk of going way off topic-- is this really true? I've never heard this explanation before, and it sounds kind of implausible...

well, going off topic is just a matter of time.... so what the heck.

the reason that a slow hard court makes the ball bounce higher, is because the surface has more these tiny 'hills' (if you look under microscope), that provides the ball with a angle to climb up on.

the same applies to the clay surface, the clay particles provide these tiny hills for the ball to climb up on..... plus the little pile that the skidding ball pushes the loose dirt into.... just look at the ball marks.

Ash_Smith
12-27-2012, 02:12 PM
I think communication is the secret: being able to get a message across to different kinds of people using different ways; for some, visual, for others, metaphorical, and yet others, very plain language technical.

Of course - the best coaches use combinations of visual, audial and kinaesthetic teaching. Audial can be further split (depending on the intention of the coach) into Control (Direction), Common Understanding (shared goal) or Emancipator Reflections (guided discovery to liberate from unconscious or conscious behaviours).

Raul_SJ
12-27-2012, 03:31 PM
One of the first tips I ever heard from Oscar, way back in his tennis tips on TV days, was that the ball loses half its speed from the time it leaves the racquet and reaches the other player. He also repeated this in his first book back in the day.

You guys came to the exact same conclusion....you with detailed research, Oscar through whatever means he used (perhaps just estimating??) way back when!

If the ball did not lose speed, a forehand hit at 80mph (~120 feet per second), would take 0.67 seconds to travel 80 feet to the opposite baseline.

But players know that they have much more than 0.67 seconds (>1.0 second) to react.

Players 100 years ago would have intuitively known the ball significantly slows down during its flight..

treblings
12-28-2012, 07:32 AM
The balls are leaving the racket on the top forehands with 2500rpm of spin or more. And the spin actually increases after the bounce. The bottom half of the ball grabs the court and the friction causes the top half to accelerate. After the bounce the spin can double. We've measured balls spinning at over 5000rpm before the contact.

So between the hits, the speed is halved and the spin is doubled. What does it all mean?

probably means that a teaching pro working with potential future elite players should direct his students towards more spin, or does it?
can we predict the direction tennis will take in the next 20 years?
will they make the courts faster again, develop different balls that favor pace and not spin?

Akubra
12-28-2012, 07:53 AM
Most of the debate over technique centers on the fundamental stroke of the forehand.

Let's start with some basic facts. In the pro game in a typical groundstroke exchange, there is about 1 second between the rackets. The ball leaves Fed's racket and 1 second later it leaves Nadal's, plus or minus.

As our research was the first to show, the ball loses about 50 percent or more of it's speed in this interval. If that wasn't true the speed of tennis would exceed human reaction capacity.

So on a forehand measured off the racket at 80mph, pros are actually hitting an incoming ball that is, say, traveling around 40mph, and they have at most a few tenths of second after the bounce in which to make contact.

But speed and time are not the only factors to consider in the nature of pro excahnges. The balls are leaving the racket on the top forehands with 2500rpm of spin or more. And the spin actually increases after the bounce. The bottom half of the ball grabs the court and the friction causes the top half to accelerate. After the bounce the spin can double. We've measured balls spinning at over 5000rpm before the contact.

So between the hits, the speed is halved and the spin is doubled. What does it all mean?

John,

As someone who has the means, why don't you do a study on the actual effect of court speed? Measure the difference in time-to-contact, rpms and speed at contact for the same shot on 2 different hard courts - one fast, one at typical pro-tournament speed? There is so much talk about the effect of the court speed on the game, but no real data that I've ever been able to find. Some real information could frame the discussion moving forward rather than the pure speculation we're dealing with now.

5263
12-28-2012, 02:21 PM
oh, and to answer John's original question - yes "Modern Tennis" does exist, but only in the same sense that "Modern Art" exists.

So a clear wrong answer then, since it is the name of teaching method and has been
for years. It exist, therefore it is! :)

JohnYandell
12-28-2012, 06:26 PM
AK,

Yeah it's an interesting idea.

JohnYandell
12-28-2012, 06:59 PM
So when we left Roger Federer the ball had left Rafa's racket traveling 80 mph with 3000rpm leaving him around a second to reach the contact point on his forehand.

This is why immediately after the split step--and sometimes even before landing--all top players have started to turn the body and the feet sideways.

This full body turn includes the feet and legs, the hips and the shoulders. No matter what anyone else including Wegner tries to tell you, it is universal.

How do I know this? By careful study of thousands of high speed video clips of dozens of the top players. The naked eye records at about 20 frames a second. Anyone who tells you they have seen the truth with their own eyes is mistaken.

This turning motion is continuous and includes, often, multiple steps to the ball when players are moving wide, or back, or around the ball to hit inside out.

This instantaneous, smooth and continuous preparation reaches a characteristic point that coincides roughly with the bounce on the court. The shoulders turn 90 degrees plus to the net. The left arm stretches across the body, pointing square or perpindicular to the sideline. If the ball allows, the player will also load on the outside foot in a stationary position, but often the full turn is reached while the player is still on the move or on the run.

The hands have separated and the racket hand has reached, roughly, the top of the backswing.

There is no delaying, there is no keeping your hands in front as long as possible, there is no stalking, there is no counting to five after the bounce--unless you can count to five in about 3/10s of a second. Watch Wegner's preparation in his "modern" forehand tips--he is no where near the pro position and neither are the MIT coaches in the video he touts as examples of his system.

This fully loaded position is what allows the players to deal with the incredible forces in the high velocity, heavy balls launched at them at one second intervals.

And guess what? You can find the great players of the past like Bill Tilden and Jack Kramer in that exact same position.
This is what I mean when I say the hard distinction between classical and modern tennis is artificial at best, and a marketing scam at worst. Early, strong preparation is an element than runs across a century of high level tennis.

This position, fully turned with the racket at the top of the backswing is sometimes described by coaches like Rick Macci as the position from which the forehand swing starts. Rick calls it "dropping into the hit." Remember that at this point the contact is only a couple or at most a few 1/10ths of a second away.

Imagine if the top players waited til the bounce to try to create this position, much less then complete the swing. Impossible.

Ironically the rare times you see the turn and preparation delayed proves the truth of the above analysis. You see it sometimes on short, slow, or high bouncing moonlike balls. You see it on lets.

So here is one of the funamental ironies of "modern" instruction and why it can be so detrimental to the games of so many players. Not only is it not modern, it is actually the antithesis of the way modern players really prepare. There are many others to come.

JohnYandell
12-28-2012, 07:22 PM
But wait a minute some club level advocate of "modern" instruction may argue, I don't have to deal with 80 mph forehands so I can stalk and delay and start to prepare when the ball bounces. "Modern" instruction really works for me because I am a low level player.

OK let's examine the assumption there. Wasn't the claim that modern instruction works because it allows anyone to "play like the pros" and make the game so very, very easy?

Now you reach a fundamental contradiction. I am going to play like the pros by not playing like the pros.

The reality is that the difference in the time interval between the pros and a high level 4.5 player is less than you think. When we did our first studies of ball speed we were surprised to find that those exchanges were around 1.2 to 1.4 seconds in duration and that club spin on the forehand could be well over 1000rpm and sometimes a lot higher.

So there is no doubt that given the reaction times of the rest of the players in the tennis world the same principles apply. If anything they apply more.

Just go to any club. I see it all the time. Watch the players standing around waiting for the ball to bounce on their side of the net. Then making the kind of ugly arm based swings that are also so common at that level.

It's as if the basic tenets of "modern" instruction were designed to make this fundamental problem worse. Don't fall for it.

Learn to make a gorgeous precise, powerful turn.

WildVolley
12-28-2012, 07:28 PM
I'm not that interested in the fighting over schools of tennis teaching. But I'm totally convinced that using high speed video, in which Yandell has been a pioneer, is the big breakthrough in understanding high level tennis.

For example, I think there is a "new" forehand as performed by Federer, Nadal, etc. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know that there weren't early antecedents, but the heavy "pat-the-dog" motion at the end of the back-swing along with the straighter arm stuff seems to be different than what I recall seeing of Lendl or even Agassi. However, this is not something that I think Wegner or anyone else can claim credit for (can they?).

So, I think the game is still evolving, and that the way pros actually play is shaping what is taught because we can see things in ways that wasn't possible before. We don't need to rely on the pronouncement of gurus, and the younger generation probably doesn't care as much about who claims to have "invented" what the pros are doing.

Hopefully, I haven't gone too off course.

JohnYandell
12-28-2012, 07:38 PM
Wegner claimed in one of the famous nuked threads that virtually any technical problem a club player faced could be magically erased by watching his DVDs.

I mean I like the sham wow commericals as much as anyone, but developing a gorgeous effective esthetically satisfying game that produces real competitive results is a little harder than drying your car.

It's been well established that true mastery of any athletic or musical or academic skill takes roughly 10,000 hours of practice or about 10 years.

Not everyone is going to take it to that level obviously but part of the satisfaction of any endeavor is the challenge.

Every competitive player myself included has played matches where everything felt ridiculously easy--you are in a flowing rhythm, you can hit with power and dominate the court creating openings and hitting winners.

That isn't going to come from watching a DVD. Yes, I feel most players when exposed to simple model positions with use of video and video feedback can make immediate progress--but mastering that as part of a honed game takes time and the ability to work the change through at increasing levels of difficulty.

You see this with even the greatest players in the world lilke Murray or Djokovic that achieved more and more of their potential over time.

That is the great satisfaction of becoming a player. It's not something you can learn in two hours or two days. In fact it can be a lifetime process--that's what makes tennis great, not bogus miracle promises.

JohnYandell
12-28-2012, 07:59 PM
WV,

Actually Laver and McEnroe and Philipoussis all hit with a straight arm. And most of the modern players today hit with the double bend.

But you are right. Some of the ways the elements are combined, particularly with the advantages of the strings, are prevelent in a way never before seen.

Ironically, they are not actually elements in Wegner's so called "modern" system. I'm working toward explaining that but trying to build a systematic step by step presentation.

Mulach
12-28-2012, 09:05 PM
John,

I wonder if you and Oscar are just talking past each other.

I've just come across this swing/pull across the body tip. Before now, for some time I've been working on split step, unit turn, pat the dog, drive the swing with legs and core, passive arm extends through the ball.

Now I am doing the same thing except that instead of a passive arm, I am actively pulling the arm up and across. And guess what, my extension through the ball is better than ever. Do you know why? Because that active pull of the arm is complemented by my right shoulder rotating almost a full shoulder width through the ball as I pull my arm up and across.

So do you see it? The tip from Oscar about pulling the arm up and acros is leading to exactly what you are saying should hapen based on high speed video analyss. Why can't you guys reconcile that? Too much ego on both sides?

For me adding the pull across the body seems like it will be a game changer. I've never hit a forehand as hard as I have following Oscars tip. And for the record, I'm doing it with a full shoulder turn and loading/unloading my legs. Oscar doesn't say don't do that. Why do you assume he advocates that?

If you bothered to test his coaching, you would realize that swinging across actually ENCOURAGES a full shoulder turn. And a full shoulder turn ENCOURAGES loading the legs to maintain balance.

You guys fight all you want. I will reap the benefits on the court.

If you were to get over yourselves, you would see that you are coaching the same results. JY via what happens in high speed video. OW via simple tips that lead to what is seen in high speed video.

What else can we players say to get you two to realize that you are debating feel vs real and in this case OW feel should lead to JY real?

JohnYandell
12-28-2012, 09:15 PM
M,

Glad you are having success. If you read the rest of the thread or if you were more familiar with my work you would see that the finish or the extension of the forward swing and how to achieve it is key. This includes, obviously, the across dimension but not the limited forward dimension and bicep scissor move Wegner advocates. That a situational exception and different than most drives.

The preparation is also key and it sounds like yours, as you describe it, is good. And yes I would agree great preparation leads to great extension. But coming across and extending are two independent components.

I have absolutely no need to reconcile theories with Wegner or anyone else. There is no need in this world for unifying conflicting viewpoints. If anything the contrast is a way of sharpening your own views.

I always consider new data when I see it. I try to integrate and learn and evolve and form my own views. It's ongoing. Those who wish to agree or disagree are welcome.

If you were more familiar with Wegner's work you'd see that the great preparation you are describing isn't part of his system and in fact what he believes undermines it.

That's just my view and as I said what others such as yourself get out of my work or anyone else's is there for the taking.

Ash_Smith
12-29-2012, 01:41 AM
So a clear wrong answer then, since it is the name of teaching method and has been
for years. It exist, therefore it is! :)

exactly, it is nothing more than a label. "Modern Art" for example covers a period roughly from around 1860 to the 1970's and includes other art movements including Impressionism, Cubism, Surrealism, Abstract Expressionism and Pop Art - in other words it included all sorts of philosophies and went through many transitions during its existence and was considered a period where artists threw aside the spirit of traditionalism in favour of experimentation. If Oscar feels this is what his teaching method is all about then in those terms the Label "Modern Tennis" is more than appropriate.

TimothyO
12-29-2012, 04:25 AM
John,

first, let me take this opportunity to thank you for giving me access to your site for a week. i used it extensively and enjoyed it a lot.
i can recommend it highly and will subscribe to it

as to the decline of u.s. tennis. we europeans probably have the advantage of playing on slower surfaces, mainly red clay, in clubs and academies.
with the atp tour slowing down the courts, the fact that europeans are used to playing longer rallies and maybe working on shot selection more, probably pays off.

Are players such as Sharapova American or Russian?

In her case she has a Russian flag icon or the letters "RUS" next to her name on TV but she is a product of the American tennis system.

Others such as Azarenka are a mix having moved to the US to train as a teenager.

I wonder how many of the other top WTA and ATP players received some or most of their training in US facilities but still nominally play for other countries (eg Andy Murray now lives and trains in Florida).

Relinquis
12-29-2012, 06:20 AM
The WTA is a different sport altogether.

P.S. Sharapova is Russian. There is more to being a player than where you trained. You do make a valid point though.

treblings
12-29-2012, 06:57 AM
Are players such as Sharapova American or Russian?

In her case she has a Russian flag icon or the letters "RUS" next to her name on TV but she is a product of the American tennis system.

Others such as Azarenka are a mix having moved to the US to train as a teenager.

I wonder how many of the other top WTA and ATP players received some or most of their training in US facilities but still nominally play for other countries (eg Andy Murray now lives and trains in Florida).

they don´t ´nominally´play for other countries. they play for their home country.
many players train at least part time in Spain nowadays, maybe more so than the U.S. that doesn´t make them spanish.
as reliquis said, you make a good point though:)

TimothyO
12-29-2012, 07:17 AM
Nominally was poor choice of words on my part. Sorry bout that.

I guess what I'm saying is that when we bemoan the lack of American talent we should remember that America is producing fine players who happen to play for other countries (although in Sharapova's case I would argue that she's culturally American rather than Russian...and she clearly prefers living here rather than over there).

That's also a good point about the Spanish School O Tennis. Didn't Murray train there too?

This fall I spoke with some coachs at an ITF juniors event. They said this is a touchy subject in the business. Some folks feel kids from other countries take slots that might otherwise go to Americans since they are willing to pay full cost. Doesn't make sense to me but I'm completely ignorant of the world of up and coming juniors. Talking to parents at the same event it seems like a really tough life given the ultra low probability of success.

treblings
12-29-2012, 07:27 AM
Nominally was poor choice of words on my part. Sorry bout that.

I guess what I'm saying is that when we bemoan the lack of American talent we should remember that America is producing fine players who happen to play for other countries (although in Sharapova's case I would argue that she's culturally American rather than Russian...and she clearly prefers living here rather than over there).

That's also a good point about the Spanish School O Tennis. Didn't Murray train there too?

This fall I spoke with some coachs at an ITF juniors event. They said this is a touchy subject in the business. Some folks feel kids from other countries take slots that might otherwise go to Americans since they are willing to pay full cost. Doesn't make sense to me but I'm completely ignorant of the world of up and coming juniors. Talking to parents at the same event it seems like a really tough life given the ultra low probability of success.

as i said, you made a good point about the american system producing champion players. attending u.s colleges on a tennis scholarship is very popular over here in europe as well.

JohnYandell
12-29-2012, 09:28 AM
Ash,

Any tennis played in the modern era or teaching system taught in the modern era can be called modern. That was my starting point.

Just because you call it "modern" doesn't mean a teaching system corresponds with the way top pro players play much that less that it produces similar technical results for the average player. One of the most important points here is that if you are going to claim to teach players to "play like the pros" that you understand and can describe how they play, can distinguish the huge spectrum of techniques included in this, can make choices about what elements you are trying to teach, and have a methodology tied to and designed to produce those elements. This is where, unfortunately, truth and marketing hype diverge in the woods.

Mulach
12-29-2012, 10:12 AM
M,

...But coming across and extending are two independent components....

This is the part I believe you should reconsider.

I agree if all that happens is the arm pulls across there won't be extension. So where does extension come from? I believe in an open stance, it comes from the shoulder rotating about the core. Where does your analysis say it comes from in an open stance? Surely it isn't the arm straightening out through impact and since it is open stance it can't be body displacement from forward weight transfer.

Here is my hypothesis why "pulling across works". When you pull across by default the shoulder will come around. This happens without having to think about it. The harder or faster you try to pull across the more that shoulder comes around to the chin or past it. So even if you don't do a unit turn, you will stil get extension from pulling across as the shoulder displaces forward from in line with your ear to in line with your chin.

I'd love to hear your expert opinion on my hypothesis.

JohnYandell
12-29-2012, 11:19 AM
The hand and racket are moving in 3 directions. Up out and across. This is true regardless of stance. Yes the upper body is rotating. But the shoulder muscles are raising the arm and extending it forward and out on a curve as well, independent of the torso rotation.

There is no one finish or extension position. You can flatten the curve of the swing, keep the arm in the hitting position longer, extend more, and come across with more spacing between the hand and torso.

You can come across sooner and more sharply and bend the elbow sooner. And infinity in between depending on the ball you receive and the shot you are hitting.

All those finishes are possible with open, semi-open and neutral stances. There is no such thing as one open stance and that is important to understand.

If you want to understand this and see it with the top players in high speed video with frame by frame analysis you can take me up on the same offer as others and get a free week on Tennisplayer. I've spent about 15 years studying these various permutations and the results are all there in the Advanced Tennis section.
It's much easier when you can actually see it. videotennis@metricmail.com

JohnYandell
12-29-2012, 02:17 PM
The Forward Swing

So from the fully prepared turn position with the left arm stretched and the racket at the top of the backswing, the racket drops and then starts forward.

There is a huge discussion about the meaning the the pat the dog move or the supination of the forearm or whatever you want to call it, and yeah, probably that is a key to the stretch shorten cycle and the turbocharging of the forward swing from the shoulder as Brian Gordan has so brilliantly documented.

You can see in the video how the first part of the forward swing is quite linear from the bottom of the pat position.

And yes many players esepcially women even on the tour take the racket back behind the plane of the body and still manage to generate 90mph forehands.

And players such as Del Potro have minimal pat the dog action.

I have experimented with all that myself and find the minimal backswing to the right with the face slightly closed is efficient and powerful and encourage everyone to try that for themselves.

However, regardless of how close you are to a type 1 or ATP style forehand, there are key components in the forward swing that all good forehands share.

First the swing is from the inside out toward the contact, and then on a curve from right to left after contact and out into the followthrough.

There is no sudden, violent upward pulling across. The data shows the real acceleration begins about the time the butt of the racket truly starts forward and in that few fractions of a second maxes out around contact.

So what then is the point of the followthrough? The followthrough is the indication of the path of the racket at contact. And for the average player, focusing on keys in the followthrough can lead to shaping the swing to achieve the correct direction of the racket head at contact, as well as controlling the amount of spin.

The followthrough is outward, upward and across on a curve.
The whole forward swing is a relatively flat arc that starts moving from the player's left to right and finishes moving right to left.

This is true in modern tennis and it's true in classical tennis and it true for all good forehands. There are a myriad of possible swing combinations, but to develop a basic, moderate topspin power drive, there is a key point to focus on.

Make the racket pass through this extension point and the rest happens automatically, assuming you have the preparation described above.

This point as I described many times before is with the wrist at about eye level, the racket hand at about the left edge of the toso, and with good spacing of about a foot and a half to two feet--depending partially on arm length of the player and grip style.

JohnYandell
12-29-2012, 02:25 PM
More on the Forward Swing:

"Modern" tennis exponents will try to tell you that classical players didn't swing across, or sometimes they acknowledge that they did, but say it's classical teaching that teaches players to finish on the right side.

This is patently ridiculous. Even coaches such as Robert Lansdorp who use exercises to stresss the outward power dimension focusing on the outward swing component have produced players--in his case multiple grand slam champions-- who still make the finish point described above.

Ironcially as we will see, these classical players like Sampras who could not, allegedly compete with players using "modern" technique are actually following Wegner's precepts. It's bizarre and just shows a lack of study and research about how the game has actually evolved.

That's right Wegner's finish is really old style classical and doesn't account for how pro players finish in the modern game.
More on that in future posts, but note for now we have a preparation model that was never used by classical much less modern players and a finish that is used mainly by classical players Wegner and his disciples denigrate as being old school, traditional, obsolete, not "modern." Is it any wonder his views are seen with such skepticism by the vast majority of working coaches in the "modern" game?

JohnYandell
12-29-2012, 02:37 PM
After players reach the extension point described above, they can complete the swing with essentially 4 variations of the wrap or deceleration phase.

The first is the old school over the shoulder wrap that was used by every great player in the so-called classical era, from Tilden to Kramer to Gonzalez, etc etc.

Paradoxically this is the finish Wegner calls modern. It's not. You see it today in some players as the norm, particularly among the women, and most players especially Djokovic use it to greater or lesser extent.

But there are 3 other finishes than total far more of the total compared to the old over the shoulder finish. These are a wrap around the shoulder (rather than over), the wrap around below the shoulder, and the reverse, which eventually ends back on the same side where the swing started.

Paradoxically, it was that crusty dinosaur of extinct classical tennis, Robert Lansdorp, who was among the first to see the wave and adjust his teaching accordingly. As he once told me, "the only guys I see finishing over the shoulder all the time are old and bald." In a seminal article years ago on Tennisplayer he outlined how he trained players in the new multiple finishes required in the "modern" game...

Mulach
12-29-2012, 04:56 PM
Wonderful!. A lot to digest here. Not to be anal, but I did get a sense that you agree that swinging across also means extension. The forward vector of the across swing and shoulder turn. and as you say there is an across, up and forward vector and the magnitude of all three can vary greatly.

So the tip to swing across and up literally addresses the across and up vector while without explicitly calling it out, also results in the extend vector.

At least on this point I think there is common ground?

Are there other good tips or "swing thoughts" that we should think about that lead to good form?

jackcrawford
12-29-2012, 07:19 PM
After players reach the extension point described above, they can complete the swing with essentially 4 variations of the wrap or deceleration phase.

The first is the old school over the shoulder wrap that was used by every great player in the so-called classical era, from Tilden to Kramer to Gonzalez, etc etc.

Paradoxically this is the finish Wegner calls modern. It's not. You see it today in some players as the norm, particularly among the women, and most players especially Djokovic use it to greater or lesser extent.

But there are 3 other finishes than total far more of the total compared to the old over the shoulder finish. These are a wrap around the shoulder (rather than over), the wrap around below the shoulder, and the reverse, which eventually ends back on the same side where the swing started.

Paradoxically, it was that crusty dinosaur of extinct classical tennis, Robert Lansdorp, who was among the first to see the wave and adjust his teaching accordingly. As he once told me, "the only guys I see finishing over the shoulder all the time are old and bald." In a seminal article years ago on Tennisplayer he outlined how he trained players in the new multiple finishes required in the "modern" game...
Great stuff here - I have had differences with JY on these boards in the past, basically over a poster here who wrote an article for the site that I saw as not worthy of publication; and regarding the amount of influence the site has had on tour coaches; that said, I can't imagine any serious player or fan not subscribing for at least a month, there's so much of interest there. And, his customer service is first rate.

Cindysphinx
12-29-2012, 07:56 PM
Fascinating stuff. Thank you.

A story.

I was doing a clinic as a guest of a teammate, so we were using her pro. Her pro was very young, recent college grad.

After we hit groundstrokes a while, the pro came up to the four of us (3.5 players). She told us all of us were making the same mistake on our FHs: We were preparing too early. She said we shouldn't prepare/take our racket back until the ball bounced.

I was thunderstruck to hear this, but it explained a lot. See, my friend hits late all the time. It is like she waits to do her unit turn until the ball bounces, which causes terrible directional control because she is late.

I asked my own pro about this, and he said he would never tell a developing player not to prepare until the ball bounced. He said most developing players are late as it is, so the last thing you would want to do is encourage them to wait to prepare. Instead, he would emphasize early preparation.

Is my friend's young pro teaching "Modern" tennis?

luvforty
12-29-2012, 08:09 PM
^^ I agree with your own pro.. most 3.5s prepare too late.

take back at ball bounce is too late.

10isfreak
12-29-2012, 08:22 PM
Fascinating stuff. Thank you.

A story.

I was doing a clinic as a guest of a teammate, so we were using her pro. Her pro was very young, recent college grad.

After we hit groundstrokes a while, the pro came up to the four of us (3.5 players). She told us all of us were making the same mistake on our FHs: We were preparing too early. She said we shouldn't prepare/take our racket back until the ball bounced.

I was thunderstruck to hear this, but it explained a lot. See, my friend hits late all the time. It is like she waits to do her unit turn until the ball bounces, which causes terrible directional control because she is late.

I asked my own pro about this, and he said he would never tell a developing player not to prepare until the ball bounced. He said most developing players are late as it is, so the last thing you would want to do is encourage them to wait to prepare. Instead, he would emphasize early preparation.

Is my friend's young pro teaching "Modern" tennis?

Actually, it‘s a wording issue. Let‘s get some nuance here. The preparation includes your grip change, your unit turn and the take back...

Pros do the first two things very early... however, you‘ll notice that the third one occurs late. They usually “split hands“ as the ball bounces: one hand takes the racket back, the other arm extends. Once they split hands, it‘s a continuous swing.

To finally answer your question, you should do like the pros and it would solve all timing issues - even hitting late.

Passion4Tennis
12-29-2012, 08:22 PM
Interesting story, Cindy. I agree with your instructor as well. Preparing early isn't the problem, it's when they prep too late. I've seen this countless times. They are slow to move their feet, do a unit turn, and get their racquet back. If you and your friends have flaws in your fhs, it is due to other things. I've always prepared early on my groundstrokes, and it works well. It would be foolish to change it.

Could you imagine waiting for the ball to bounce when it's coming in hard and a foot or two from the baseline? Not me!

10isfreak
12-29-2012, 08:27 PM
That‘s the point of doing a unit turn and setting up early... but you can‘t wait with the racket back without loosing timing or power.

Passion4Tennis
12-29-2012, 08:31 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rs9sJryQg0M

It may not be the same for all the top players, but notice how Fed splits his hand well before the ball bounces.

Wow, that music is annoying! lol

JohnYandell
12-30-2012, 12:25 AM
Mulach,

Still on the common ground thing eh? In most every actual instance because of the nature of the swing arc the up out and across all continue together--this is true.

As I have said using an image of a finish point for the forward swing--as oposed to the deceleration or the wrap--will make this happen.

It might be possible to hit such a severe windshield wiper that the outward dimension was trunkcated to the point of near non-existence.

The issue with Wegner is that he wants the across to be violent and abrubt and the forward component to be reduced. That's no way to learn to drive the ball with pace.

JohnYandell
12-30-2012, 12:27 AM
Freak, Passion, Cindy, Luv, et al,

The separation of the hands varies somewhat in timing. However it is virtually always well before the bounce in any kind of normal pro paced baseline rally.

You can see this in thousands of clips. It's not just Fed--it's the same for about 60 top 100 players on our site.

I agree there is no point where the racket stops. Good players time the motion with slight adjustments to keep it continuous. If you look at the left arm stretch it occurs sometimes right at the bounce and sometimes slightly after or even before.

But to speak to the point above all good players initiate the unit turn immediately. No one except struggling club players waits to prepare until after the bounce. That is crazy crazy.

JohnYandell
12-30-2012, 01:06 AM
Jack,

Thanks for the great words! Having fun doing this.

JY

treblings
12-30-2012, 06:25 AM
But to speak to the point above all good players initiate the unit turn immediately. No one except struggling club players waits to prepare until after the bounce. That is crazy crazy.

agreed, the only exception would be if a player has to run full speed to get to a ball, would you agree?
doing a unit turn and then starting to run to the ball would take up too much time and make for awkward running, imo

Cindysphinx
12-30-2012, 07:58 AM
Freak, Passion, Cindy, Luv, et al,

The separation of the hands varies somewhat in timing. However it is virtually always well before the bounce in any kind of normal pro paced baseline rally.

You can see this in thousands of clips. It's not just Fed--it's the same for about 60 top 100 players on our site.

I agree there is no point where the racket stops. Good players time the motion with slight adjustments to keep it continuous. If you look at the left arm stretch it occurs sometimes right at the bounce and sometimes slightly after or even before.

But to speak to the point above all good players initiate the unit turn immediately. No one except struggling club players waits to prepare until after the bounce. That is crazy crazy.

What exactly do the Wegner/"Modern" advocates say about this issue of early preparation?

I was looking at some Davydenko slow motion footage of his FH. He splits, and immediately prepares. Then you see the ball bounce, and by then he has already started his forward swing.

Thinking back on it, I suppose what the young pro was trying to do is perhaps get us to stop waiting for the ball. By that I mean we (especially I) tend to wait for the ball to reach us rather than moving up to the ball. This can make it look like we are preparing too early when in fact the problem is that we are preparing at the right time but are waiting around to hit the ball for no reason instead of attacking it.

JohnYandell
12-30-2012, 09:15 AM
Cindy,

Well preparation is better than no preparation. It would be better to prepare early than not to prepare at all.

The ideal is a silky rhythmic turning motion that begins when the other player hits and leads to perfect loading on time to strike that unique oncoming ball.

Wegner advocates waiting "as long as possible" whatever that means, "stalking" the ball with the hands in front and the most difficult to imagine, counting to 5 after the bounce (in 3 1/10s of a second...???) before preparing the racket. This is some of the modern marketing magic you refer to in your other post.

You can look at possibly the greatest woman's player of all time--Serena--and see that she sometimes gets the racket back so quicklly that she runs to the ball in that position and actually double pumps to get rhythm on her swing again. Same wiith Venus.

Ironically Wegner claims to have influenced them both (among all the others).
But the point is most club players are standing around when the ball bounces. They never turn and end up mainly arming the shot. Preparation is the single biggest issue I see when I watch club tennis and it's one of the easiest to correct.

JohnYandell
12-30-2012, 09:18 AM
T,

Agreed. On the full run you sometimes see a delay or slowing of the unit turn, but it always initiates with the movement to the ball as players run sideways, not facing front ways.

What we are talking about are the basic positions to learn to drive the ball--and these always adapt to the individual ball especially at higher levels.

Off The Wall
12-30-2012, 09:49 AM
Cindy,


Wegner advocates waiting "as long as possible" whatever that means, "stalking" the ball with the hands in front and the most difficult to imagine, counting to 5 after the bounce (in 3 1/10s of a second...???) before preparing the racket. This is some of the modern marketing magic you refer to in your other post.


At one point in the past on this forum, there was a consensus that "stalking" could be defined as 'after the unit turn and before racquet take-back.' It identifies a unique portion of the shot and is rather descriptive. I'm not sure if the MTMers had this in mind, but they didn''t protest.

JohnYandell
12-30-2012, 09:52 AM
Off,

Yeah I remember that. Not what they officially say but they were pressed by some overwhelming video evidence probably...

The thing I think is still horribly detrimental is the idea that the preparation stops or pauses when in virtually all normal rally situations it doens't.

JohnYandell
12-31-2012, 11:34 AM
As the video evidence shows the best players have always demonstrated the variety of shot and finishes we see so commonly in the modern game.

What has changed is the ability to use them more frequently and as normal finishes, due to the changes in equipment and string.

Paradoxicaly, coaches such as Lansdorp have adjusted to these changes and teach the full variety of swing patterns. One of the strangest things about the Wegner system that is touted is so revolutionary and modern is that he has stayed with the old style over the shoulder finish.

That is something that isn't modern at all, going back to Bill Tilden. All the great players of the classical era forward wrapped, and mostly over the shoulder.

And one more important point. Don't let anyone tell you that the wrap--over the shoulder or otherwise is the key to racket acceleration. It's not.

There has been on this board tremendous confusion and misrepresentation of the the actual speeds of the racket at various points in the swing. If we assume a 90mph forward the fact is the racket speed is maxed right around the contact at say around 60 mph.

It builds up to that from the start of the forward swing. This is no last second acceleration before contact and certainly none after.

As for the wrap, that is the slowest portion of the swing. The speed at that point declines to as little as 5mph. This makes perfect sense when you think about it--why would the racket accelerate when it is moving in the opposite direction of the hit?

From the injury prevention point of view this is critical as well. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, etc, and the human body needs to decelerate a speeding implement over distance to avoid stressing the joints and muscles.

This is why the mantra, "show me the butt of the racket" is so wrong headed. Many junior players are encouraged to force the wrap. I call this the "mechanical" wrap. What they end up doing is reducing the extension of the swing in the outward dimension, reducing racket head speed, and increasing the strain on their arms and shoulders.

This is why you often see players with these forced, exaggerated wraps appearing to swing with great effort and producing short, spiny, paceless balls.

5263
01-01-2013, 01:02 PM
Fascinating stuff. Thank you.

A story.

I was doing a clinic as a guest of a teammate, so we were using her pro. Her pro was very young, recent college grad.

After we hit groundstrokes a while, the pro came up to the four of us (3.5 players). She told us all of us were making the same mistake on our FHs: We were preparing too early. She said we shouldn't prepare/take our racket back until the ball bounced.

I was thunderstruck to hear this, but it explained a lot. See, my friend hits late all the time. It is like she waits to do her unit turn until the ball bounces, which causes terrible directional control because she is late.

I asked my own pro about this, and he said he would never tell a developing player not to prepare until the ball bounced. He said most developing players are late as it is, so the last thing you would want to do is encourage them to wait to prepare. Instead, he would emphasize early preparation.

Is my friend's young pro teaching "Modern" tennis?

Confusion here is over what is proper prep instead of when to prep.
Below is stated much better...


Pros do the first two things very early... however, you‘ll notice that the third one occurs late. They usually “split hands“ as the ball bounces: one hand takes the racket back, the other arm extends. Once they split hands, it‘s a continuous swing.

To finally answer your question, you should do like the pros and it would solve all timing issues - even hitting late.

JohnYandell
01-01-2013, 02:30 PM
5263:

Again truth = the opposite of your posts. 98% of all forehands the hands split before the bounce.

Evidence = the opposite of your posts. The level of denial inside your head has got to be painful.

5263
01-01-2013, 02:35 PM
5263:

Again truth = the opposite of your posts. 98% of all forehands the hands split before the bounce.


Well I guess we all know how reliable that number is and where you pulled it from :)

JohnYandell
01-01-2013, 03:05 PM
Developing a great forehand depends on mastering a few simple positions, mastering them physically and visually.

The first is the full turn--a commonality from classical through modern tennis. This means initiating the turn with the feet and body at the opponent's hit, making a smooth continuous motion that fills the interval of the oncoming ball, and reaching the left arm stretch with the racket hand at the top of the backswing at about the time of the bounce.

Don't stalk, don't delay the turn, don't wait for the bounce to separate the hands. Good players don't, never have, never will.

Stance is a controversial topic and the buzz words have major positive and negative connotations. "Open" stance is considered "modern" by Wegnerites. But again the problem is the vast majority of pro players hit the vast majority of forehands semi-open with a line along the toes at about a 30 to 45 degree angle to the baseline.

The term "closed stance" is in oposition seen as the epitome of old school. Again, reality is something different from belief. The fact is that on the run closed stance is common in the pro game.

But "closed" in which the player steps across is confused in "modern" terminology with "neutral" or "square" in which the line along the toes is 90 degrees to the baseline or often parallel to the target line.

Lower level players who try to hit fully open stance will almost never master the full body turn. This is why most instructors believe that neutral stance is critical in the learning process.
Wegner makes a big deal about his influence in Spain, but many of the best known Spanish coaches use neutral stance first in exactly this fashion.

In reality all players and even top pros use neutral stance in match play. Master it yourself when you are working on your turn. You can easily evolve this to semi-open and even open, but again fully open is the exception related to circumstance when players are forced on time.

The other key component is the proper forward swing. No matter what the radical modern guys claim, all forward swings move forward toward the target as part of the natural arc of the motion.

Master the drive first--as noted above--wrist at eye level, hand at the left edge of the torso. Good spacing between your racket hand and your chest. From there you can add a wiper finish with essentially the same checkpoints--but with the hand and arm rotation added.

From there you can learn to break off the wiper sooner for low balls, short balls, and angles.

From there you can even add reverse finishes which can be very effective on the run.

Finally a word on grips. If you have already developed a swing pattern with an extreme semi-western grip that will be very difficult to change. All the above advice will apply, but for the club level it's not ideal.

Extreme grips are suited to high contact heights for pro players who play deep and let those searing topspin drives bounce high.

Yet three of the top 10 players in the world play Eastern or slight variations. Federer. Del Potro. And Jo Willie.

These guys play up and take the ball at lower contact heights. This means hitting on the rise which is the mark of true viruosity in the pro game.

But you know what? Those contact heights are normal in the club game. With an eastern or a mild semi-western grip you can have it all, especially if you experiment with poly strings.

You can drive the hell out of the ball, you can hit all degrees of topspin and you can master all the finishes. It's a great time to be a recreational tennis player if you have the right equipment and the right information!

Good luck to all and I welcome questions from the sincere among us here on the beloved TW boards.

JohnYandell
01-01-2013, 03:12 PM
5263:

Please refrain from references to anal cavities on this board. It is unbecoming for an analyst of your stature and high values.

5263
01-01-2013, 03:14 PM
The first is the full turn--a commonality from classical through modern tennis. This means initiating the turn with the feet and body at the opponent's hit, making a smooth continuous motion that fills the interval of the oncoming ball, and reaching the left arm stretch with the racket hand at the top of the backswing at about the time of the bounce.

Good luck to all and I welcome questions from the sincere among us here on the beloved TW boards.

Sincere question in the pursuit of truth as you have mentioned-
Maybe you can compare and contrast this Unit turn above,
with the classic unit turn to the surfboard stance you depict in "Visual Tennis"?

5263
01-01-2013, 03:16 PM
5263:

Please refrain from references to anal cavities on this board. It is unbecoming for an analyst of your stature and high values.

Thanks for the nice comments, but don't know why you mention cavities...
I was referring to your vivid imagination :)

JohnYandell
01-01-2013, 03:18 PM
Oh thanks so much for the clarification--how could I have possibly gotten that wrong? But wait, truth = the opposite in your posts.

5263
01-01-2013, 04:06 PM
Oh thanks so much for the clarification--how could I have possibly gotten that wrong? But wait, truth = the opposite in your posts.

So, the opposite of vivid imagination would be lacking a vivid imagination?? :???:

Any interest in explaining how your current unit turn relates to your classic
surfboard version in your book?
Since you seem to suggest the unit turn of the past has been a tennis constant...

JohnYandell
01-01-2013, 05:28 PM
The surfboard turn? Is that some technical mtm term I am unfamiliar with?

5263
01-01-2013, 05:34 PM
The surfboard turn? Is that some technical mtm term I am unfamiliar with?

No, that came from a USPTA clinic back when I worked with classic technique.
Looks just like the pic of the guy in your book.
:)

TomT
01-01-2013, 08:12 PM
Lots of good stuff to think about and experiment with. Thanks JY and others.

JohnYandell
01-01-2013, 08:37 PM
Tom,

Cool. Let me know if anything clicks.

TomT
01-01-2013, 08:53 PM
Tom,

Cool. Let me know if anything clicks.Ok JY. Gonna be out on the court tomorrow trying some suggestions which require changes in my game. Was hitting against the wall tonight. Focusing on footwork and being relaxed and hitting out. I think I'm improving. God, I love this game. :)

Nice thread. So glad there's no stupid flaming that might get it deleted.

And yes, will let you know if any particular suggestion "clicks". :)

Passion4Tennis
01-01-2013, 09:10 PM
Here are several videos of pro players hitting forehands. Each one separates their hands well before the ball bounces.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb3smnR6NSc

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCc9DTSqOd0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXWks8yvRJQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xptjKgQZ1E

SystemicAnomaly
01-01-2013, 09:29 PM
Actually, it‘s a wording issue. Let‘s get some nuance here. The preparation includes your grip change, your unit turn and the take back...

Pros do the first two things very early... however, you‘ll notice that the third one occurs late. They usually “split hands“ as the ball bounces: one hand takes the racket back, the other arm extends.

5263, I believe that we already disproved this (bolded) statement in another thread. High speed films show that, in many/most cases, elite players "split hands" a bit before the ball bounces. If you instruct a student to wait for the bounce to separate the "off" hand, they will undoubtedly do it late much/most of the time.

Elite players also extend the "off" hand toward the side (fence) one it separates from the racket and prior to the forward swing. I've posted pics of Sampras, Agassi, Federer, Nadal and others doing this numerous times in other threads -- and have indicated the reason for the action as well. If a player waits for the bounce to "split hands", they will often not have sufficient time for this arm extension.

Lastly, it doesn't really make sense to time the separation of the hand relative to the bounce -- even if we were to say, "separate just prior to the bounce". Such a statement does not work for many balls. Some balls bounce close to the back service line (especially serves), while others bounce much deeper. Balls also come in a different speeds. A blanket statement relating the had separation to the bounce is not wise.

5263
01-01-2013, 10:01 PM
Here are several videos of pro players hitting forehands. Each one separates their hands well before the ball bounces.


Say it how you want, but I watched the 1st two vids and in each they are
still extending the off hand in the separation move as the ball bounces up over a foot.
In real time this is all happening in about a tenth of a second if not less.
We don't teach in slo mo.
Either way, these are minor points and distinctions that don't come up or cause any
problem during instruction.

SystemicAnomaly
01-01-2013, 10:06 PM
^ How about the point that I made in my 1st paragraph in post #100? Also, how about my last point in that post?



.

5263
01-01-2013, 10:22 PM
^ How about the point that I made in my 1st paragraph in post #100? Also, how about my last point in that post?



.

I don't ever approach it as a blanket statement type thing and only get this kind
of discussion on a computer where people can pull up a vid and go frame by
frame. In real time instruction it works well to teach how to separate and extend
at the bounce. In real time a student looks at ( and I always looked at this way)
the bounce as that portion of the ball flight where it is coming down to bounce,
along with contact and coming back up. Like this " V". Seems the
detractors to this terminology see it only as the moment of impact?? Or
coming back up only?? I don't know, but none of this means anything on the
court in actual instruction.
Also the separation part is where the hands come apart and off hand extends.
As I stated, the extension is still happening after the ball has bounced
over a foot high. This is a process, not a singular act.
This is a lot of to-do about nothing important. It's a general time frame, like
don't split the hands when ball is still over the net...do it more like as it
is about to bounce...that kind of thing for my understanding.

JohnYandell
01-01-2013, 10:38 PM
5263:

Agree to disagree. It's critical to get to the left arm stretch with the hands separated and if anything for the average player sooner rather than later. This is why you need video to make sure the timing is within reasonable parameters and most club players are really late if in fact they even have the concept.

I see you are arguing for the left arm stretch. That's good but I think this is your own positive evolution and certainly at odds with many of the stated positions of Wegner.

5263
01-01-2013, 10:50 PM
5263:

Agree to disagree. It's critical to get to the left arm stretch with the hands separated and if anything for the average player sooner rather than later. This is why you need video to make sure the timing is within reasonable parameters and most club players are really late if in fact they even have the concept.

I see you are arguing for the left arm stretch. That's good but I think this is your own positive evolution and certainly at odds with many of the stated positions of Wegner.

In the book he just says don't commit to your swing till the bounce. He doesn't
talk about when to separate the hands and only to not have it fully back or
commit the swing till the bounce.
Just looked it up and it jives with my court experience with him.
This is very much in line with what we see and the video provided in this thread.

TomT
01-01-2013, 11:02 PM
In the book he just says don't commit to your swing till the bounce. He doesn't
talk about when to separate the hands and only to not have it fully back or
commit the swing till the bounce.
Just looked it up and it jives with my court experience with him.
This is very much in line with what we see and the video provided in this thread.I'm glad you guys are talking about this, because I've never really thought about it much. I do find that the earlier my preparation, then the better my shots seem to be. I've also come to think that using the left hand (on the forehand, I'm a righty) to sort of point at the ball (after separation from the normal prep) seems to help me sustain my concentration on the ball and has improved the consistency of my shots.

If this isn't a generally accepted good thing to do ... please advise. Thanks.

5263
01-01-2013, 11:16 PM
I'm glad you guys are talking about this, because I've never really thought about it much. I do find that the earlier my preparation, then the better my shots seem to be. I've also come to think that using the left hand (on the forehand, I'm a righty) to sort of point at the ball (after separation from the normal prep) seems to help me sustain my concentration on the ball and has improved the consistency of my shots.

If this isn't a generally accepted good thing to do ... please advise. Thanks.

Not a bad technique to point, but top players are going to stretch further across
and get more shoulder turn on avg., but
not to say you can't point and still get good shoulder turn.
And early prep is fine as long as it does not mean pointing the racket at the back
fence as part of that early prep.

TomT
01-01-2013, 11:49 PM
Not a bad technique to point, but top players are going to stretch further across
and get more shoulder turn on avg., but
not to say you can't point and still get good shoulder turn.
And early prep is fine as long as it does not mean pointing the racket at the back
fence as part of that early prep.Thanks 5263, but I think that sometimes I actually do take the racquet back as far as to point at the back fence on some of my best shots ... both forehand and backhand. So, what might be going on there. Don't know. Just asking.

EDIT: Ah, it just occurred to me. Maybe that's not a part of the early prep, but rather the final takeback and swing into the ball.

5263
01-01-2013, 11:52 PM
Thanks 5263, but I think that sometimes I actually do take the racquet back as far as to point at the back fence on some of my best shots ... both forehand and backhand. So, what might be going on there. Don't know. Just asking.

that could tend to throw off timing and racket control, but would be more critical
at higher levels I expect.
I should have hit with you when I was down there on the break :)

TomT
01-01-2013, 11:57 PM
that could tend to throw off timing and racket control, but would be more critical
at higher levels I expect.
I should have hit with you when I was down there on the break :)Oh man. You were here? Next time please look me up. I'll pay for everything. It would be such a treat.

Anyway, here's a vid to illustrate what I'm talking about. This is the sort of forehand motion and execution that feels really good to me. If you see any problem, please critique.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQa4VIRh5d8

chico9166
01-02-2013, 02:06 AM
Here are several videos of pro players hitting forehands. Each one separates their hands well before the ball bounces.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb3smnR6NSc

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCc9DTSqOd0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXWks8yvRJQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xptjKgQZ1E

Uhh, but this isn't how MTM methology works. Essentially, Oscar tells his people what to believe, they fall in line, and then defend him to the end. Forget about logic, or video proof.

As the video illustrates, finding the left arm stretch and the top of the backswing by the time the ball bounces, is perhaps the most critical reference point. It is universal amoungst good players. That's saying something given the wide array of backswing shapes and general individual ideosyncracys. And there's a reason for it. It allows a player to load properly, stay relaxed/develop good tempo in the backswing, which are critical in good ball striking.

I find it ironic that Oscar preaches relaxation and yet advocates a system that promotes stress. If the hands break apart late because of "waiting" it creates ...rushed backswings, incomplete turns, etc...... STRESS.

No, if you want to develop good timing, tempo, proper loading, KEY off this reference point/postion. Finding the top of the backswing at more or less the ball bounce will teach your mind when the hands need to break apart to seamlessly transition into it.

treblings
01-02-2013, 02:46 AM
Uhh, but this isn't how MTM methology works. Essentially, Oscar tells his people what to believe, they fall in line, and then defend him to the end. Forget about logic, or video proof.

As the video illustrates, finding the left arm stretch and the top of the backswing by the time the ball bounces, is perhaps the most critical reference point. It is universal amoungst good players. That's saying something given the wide array of backswing shapes and general individual ideosyncracys. And there's a reason for it. It allows a player to load properly, stay relaxed/develop good tempo in the backswing, which are critical in good ball striking.

I find it ironic that Oscar preaches relaxation and yet advocates a system that promotes stress. If the hands break apart late because of "waiting" it creates ...rushed backswings, incomplete turns, etc...... STRESS.

No, if you want to develop good timing, tempo, proper loading, KEY off this reference point/postion. Finding the top of the backswing at more or less the ball bounce will teach your mind when the hands need to break apart to seamlessly transition into it.

what i find ironic is that people from both sides of the trenches take videos like the ones above as evidence that they are right and the other party is wrong

i work a lot with adults who have played for years, in lots of cases competitively in team leagues etc, and most of them don´t know about the importance of the split step, don´t do a correct unit turn and don´t know that once the hands split, the racquet movement should be continous

once they master this, and it is often not easy to relearn, than virtually all of them report back, that they feel like they have more time and as a result are more relaxed and feel in control

SystemicAnomaly
01-02-2013, 05:03 AM
I'm glad you guys are talking about this, because I've never really thought about it much. I do find that the earlier my preparation, then the better my shots seem to be. I've also come to think that using the left hand (on the forehand, I'm a righty) to sort of point at the ball (after separation from the normal prep) seems to help me sustain my concentration on the ball and has improved the consistency of my shots.

If this isn't a generally accepted good thing to do ... please advise. Thanks.

I'm with you and JY on the early prep. I don't believe that we should use "wait for the bounce" as some sort of mantra. On many (deep/fast) balls, that would be much too late.

Pointing to the incoming ball is more of an old school technique. Agassi, Sampras and modern players, instead, extend the arm more toward the sideline rathter than pointing to the ball. The extended hand does, more or less, line up with the incoming ball. This arm extension to the side helps to maintain a good coiling of the torso and helps the footwork by using the extended hand to measure the body position relative to the incoming ball.

http://www.ontennis.com/files/image/shots/instructions/open-stance-forehand.jpg

5263
01-02-2013, 07:54 AM
Uhh, but this isn't how MTM methology works. Essentially, Oscar tells his people what to believe, they fall in line, and then defend him to the end. Forget about logic, or video proof.
.

Aw, Come on Man, :)
No need to hurt your excellent credibility with those kind of comments.
There are several things I'm not defending. I'm not saying he is wrong, but
I don't defend counting to 5 at the pro level and currently don't get the idea
of "yanking" across. I'm reserving judgement in those minor areas, which also
dont appear in the book that I know of.

But this one is pretty easy to get. Don't know if it's Oscar's words or someone
else's that are tripping you up, but the I watched the first 2 vids and they are
exactly what we teach. If a pic is worth thousand, then a vid must be worth a mil?
We use vid just like those first two to make sure the point gets across.
You can do all the good prep you want, but in the book, Oscar says don't
commit to the swing to the ball until the bounce. Those guys in the vid don't start
a forward swing to the ball till well after the bounce.

As to stress.....It's going to take loading at some point to swing the racket
briskly, so relax when you can, but there is "go" time as well. :)

sureshs
01-02-2013, 08:00 AM
There is nothing modern in tennis except perhaps the complete across the body swing on the forehand, which comes automatically with increased swing speeds and full follow-through, and should not be forced.

Everything is just common sense and a natural consequence of using lighter and more powerful rackets.

Off The Wall
01-02-2013, 09:22 AM
Timing the hand separation won't be an issue at higher levels.

Since beginners are fed slower balls, waiting for the bounce for separation is probably a good way to convey a unit turn/stalk without pointing the racquet at the back fence.

As students improve, they should grasp the technique and then make separation adjustments for the different speeds of incoming shots.

IMO.

JohnYandell
01-02-2013, 10:37 AM
Off the Wall,

Couldn't disagree more. If anything it's the opposite for lower level players.

sureshs
01-02-2013, 10:44 AM
Timing the hand separation won't be an issue at higher levels.

Since beginners are fed slower balls, waiting for the bounce for separation is probably a good way to convey a unit turn/stalk without pointing the racquet at the back fence.

As students improve, they should grasp the technique and then make separation adjustments for the different speeds of incoming shots.

IMO.

Everyone gets the timing eventually and learn to adjust to different speeds. Those who don't are adults who do not watch the pros play and continue with a preconceived notion for ever. They are also the same people who use wrong grips or have a dinky second serve after 30 years of club play.

TomT
01-02-2013, 12:53 PM
Another example (this time from match play) of a forehand that felt good to me, and happened to be effective. But I feel sure that it could be much better, and I don't know what to do to make that happen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYcHrKgWFg8

sureshs
01-02-2013, 12:54 PM
Developing a great forehand depends on mastering a few simple positions, mastering them physically and visually.

The first is the full turn--a commonality from classical through modern tennis. This means initiating the turn with the feet and body at the opponent's hit, making a smooth continuous motion that fills the interval of the oncoming ball, and reaching the left arm stretch with the racket hand at the top of the backswing at about the time of the bounce.

Don't stalk, don't delay the turn, don't wait for the bounce to separate the hands. Good players don't, never have, never will.

Stance is a controversial topic and the buzz words have major positive and negative connotations. "Open" stance is considered "modern" by Wegnerites. But again the problem is the vast majority of pro players hit the vast majority of forehands semi-open with a line along the toes at about a 30 to 45 degree angle to the baseline.

The term "closed stance" is in oposition seen as the epitome of old school. Again, reality is something different from belief. The fact is that on the run closed stance is common in the pro game.

But "closed" in which the player steps across is confused in "modern" terminology with "neutral" or "square" in which the line along the toes is 90 degrees to the baseline or often parallel to the target line.

Lower level players who try to hit fully open stance will almost never master the full body turn. This is why most instructors believe that neutral stance is critical in the learning process.
Wegner makes a big deal about his influence in Spain, but many of the best known Spanish coaches use neutral stance first in exactly this fashion.

In reality all players and even top pros use neutral stance in match play. Master it yourself when you are working on your turn. You can easily evolve this to semi-open and even open, but again fully open is the exception related to circumstance when players are forced on time.

The other key component is the proper forward swing. No matter what the radical modern guys claim, all forward swings move forward toward the target as part of the natural arc of the motion.

Master the drive first--as noted above--wrist at eye level, hand at the left edge of the torso. Good spacing between your racket hand and your chest. From there you can add a wiper finish with essentially the same checkpoints--but with the hand and arm rotation added.

From there you can learn to break off the wiper sooner for low balls, short balls, and angles.

From there you can even add reverse finishes which can be very effective on the run.

Finally a word on grips. If you have already developed a swing pattern with an extreme semi-western grip that will be very difficult to change. All the above advice will apply, but for the club level it's not ideal.

Extreme grips are suited to high contact heights for pro players who play deep and let those searing topspin drives bounce high.

Yet three of the top 10 players in the world play Eastern or slight variations. Federer. Del Potro. And Jo Willie.

These guys play up and take the ball at lower contact heights. This means hitting on the rise which is the mark of true viruosity in the pro game.

But you know what? Those contact heights are normal in the club game. With an eastern or a mild semi-western grip you can have it all, especially if you experiment with poly strings.

You can drive the hell out of the ball, you can hit all degrees of topspin and you can master all the finishes. It's a great time to be a recreational tennis player if you have the right equipment and the right information!

Good luck to all and I welcome questions from the sincere among us here on the beloved TW boards.

Great points. Fully open stance facing the net all the time is rare even among club players, as it does not create enough torque. It is the case even if fully open is defined as legs parallel to the baseline, but body turned. Most pro forehands are at least a little semi open - the outside foot is behind the inside foot. Then they either bring the inside foot back (commonly) or sometimes drag the outside foot forward.

The swing arc is also noticeably towards the target before it turns over. Towards the target does not mean linear, which is a strawman. For a CC shot, the towards is already angular. The racket face is perpendicular to the direction pointing towards the target at impact, or slight closed, and that is what gives the power in the intended direction.

treblings
01-02-2013, 01:58 PM
Another example (this time from match play) of a forehand that felt good to me, and happened to be effective. But I feel sure that it could be much better, and I don't know what to do to make that happen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYcHrKgWFg8

it´s a very short clip to say anything useful.
anyway, here´s a tip:
try holding the racquet with your left hand between points and keep the racquet head up, that should help with a more efficient unit turn. if it doesn´t help, forget the tip and blame me:)

LuckyR
01-02-2013, 05:51 PM
The OPs point that there is nothing new under the sun, that is: what is called Modern strokes have been used since the 19th century, is in fact true but is misleading. Ultimately making the statement needlessly controversial.

Yes tennis players have used extreme grips and wraparound strokes and used lots of spin since time began. But the unstated obvious fact in the OP is that before Modern strings, there was a relatively low limit to swingspeed before the number of long shots would make the stroke unusable in matchplay.

What makes Modern strokes Modern isn't that they were invented recently, it is that with the advent of string tech, players could hit those same strokes with previously thought to be crazy swingspeeds and bring to bear topspin that had never been seen before.

You're not seriously saying that 19th century players were getting 5000 rpms on their FHs, are you?

sureshs
01-02-2013, 06:52 PM
The OPs point that there is nothing new under the sun, that is: what is called Modern strokes have been used since the 19th century, is in fact true but is misleading. Ultimately making the statement needlessly controversial.

Yes tennis players have used extreme grips and wraparound strokes and used lots of spin since time began. But the unstated obvious fact in the OP is that before Modern strings, there was a relatively low limit to swingspeed before the number of long shots would make the stroke unusable in matchplay.

What makes Modern strokes Modern isn't that they were invented recently, it is that with the advent of string tech, players could hit those same strokes with previously thought to be crazy swingspeeds and bring to bear topspin that had never been seen before.

You're not seriously saying that 19th century players were getting 5000 rpms on their FHs, are you?

Only one player gets 5000 rpm today and he seems to be injured frequently.

JohnYandell
01-02-2013, 07:46 PM
Lucky,

Try reading the posts. You haven't quite understood what I wrote. For the most part it's similar to what you have said.

Again, there are modern elements in classical tennis and classical elements in modern tennis--the balance and the extremities are what have evolved, mostly due to equipment and especially strings. But to say that there is some kind of complete divide, that's just not true. That distinction is for marketing purposes and does a disservice to coaches and players.

5263
01-02-2013, 08:22 PM
Lucky,

Try reading the posts. You haven't quite understood what I wrote. For the most part it's similar to what you have said.

Again, there are modern elements in classical tennis and classical elements in modern tennis--the balance and the extremities are what have evolved, mostly due to equipment and especially strings. But to say that there is some kind of complete divide, that's just not true.

LOL, Lucky...you can't understand??

There is no clear divide between modern and classic, which I guess means there
is no modern or classic...just tennis or just classic. Now even though they lack
a divide to classify, Modern is in classic and Classic is in modern.. I guess that
is why they can't be divided, because they are inside each other...but how is
there one or the other to be inside the other if they are inseparable and can't
be classified.
Now Lucky, why can't you understand that type marketing disservice above ??

JohnYandell
01-02-2013, 09:06 PM
5263:

I wouldn't speak for Lucky. But then you weren't really.

DropShotArtist
01-02-2013, 09:26 PM
Only one player gets 5000 rpm today and he seems to be injured frequently.

Yeah Federer got that on a BH slice, be he's not very frequently injured.

luvforty
01-03-2013, 05:45 AM
Yeah Federer got that on a BH slice, be he's not very frequently injured.

that's not the same.

the knife down slice goes WITH gravity, while the FH goes AGAINST.... big difference.

SystemicAnomaly
01-03-2013, 05:53 AM
that's not the same.

the knife down slice goes WITH gravity, while the FH goes AGAINST.... big difference.

Possibly even more important is that nearly all incoming balls that players hit already have topspin generated by the bounce or by the other player. In order to put your own topspin on the ball, you must reverse the spin direction. If one slices an incoming ball, less effort is required to add spin to the ball since the spin direction would be the same.

SystemicAnomaly
01-03-2013, 06:26 AM
^ Note also that, when a player hits a topspin shot, the post-bounce spin rate is greater that the pre-bounce spin. Any ball that keeps moving forward after the bounce will have topspin. A sliced ball that sits up (i.e., it doesn't move forward much), like a drop shot, will have very little post-bounce spin. Only ball that bounce backward will still have a backspin on them after the bounce.

Cheetah
01-03-2013, 11:11 AM
^^ Agreed.
Also the muscles in the shoulder are stronger going down than up and also extending the elbow can provide more spin than flexing it. same motion as in the serve. Gravity is not a factor here.

LuckyR
01-03-2013, 12:04 PM
Lucky,

Try reading the posts. You haven't quite understood what I wrote. For the most part it's similar to what you have said.

Again, there are modern elements in classical tennis and classical elements in modern tennis--the balance and the extremities are what have evolved, mostly due to equipment and especially strings. But to say that there is some kind of complete divide, that's just not true. That distinction is for marketing purposes and does a disservice to coaches and players.

A couple of things: I reread your OP and I am not seeing a reference to Modern string tech as a contributing factor in what can be accomplished in Modern tennis. Secondly if: "For the most part it's (your OP) similar to what you have said" then I guess we agree with each other. Nice to hear it.

You do agree that there is a differnce between 19th century optimal matchplay and Modern Pro matchplay, right? So there IS a difference. When the difference happened, whether it was gradual or sudden, what caused it, who invented it, how is it best to teach it... we can debate topics around the edges of it, but it is a real difference.

I do agree that the difference is evolutionary (with retention of many elements of the Classic game), instead of revolutionary (totally new from A to Z).

JohnYandell
01-03-2013, 01:30 PM
Lucky,

There is a later post that deals with speed and spin in the current game--think I mention the strings--in any case it's been documented that poly generates 25% or more additional spin. That is a huge game changer and Federer himself has atributed the death of serve and volley to the strings.

And yes that's a good way to put it--evolutionary--with elements from co-called classical and so called modern tennis mixed over the decades, trending toward the more extreme usage of the more extreme elements, but with some core elements also transcending the eras.

The revolutionary thing is a false claim to put down coaches with a balanced perspective and frankly to try to sell product based on hype not fact. Sadly and ironically it doesn't even accurately describe technique in the current game.

5263
01-03-2013, 04:22 PM
Sadly and ironically it doesn't even accurately describe technique in the current game.
At least not to the point to be understood by the lowest common denominator.

julian
01-03-2013, 05:01 PM
Lucky,

There is a later post that deals with speed and spin in the current game--think I mention the strings--in any case it's been documented that poly generates 25% or more additional spin. That is a huge game changer and Federer himself has atributed the death of serve and volley to the strings.

And yes that's a good way to put it--evolutionary--with elements from co-called classical and so called modern tennis mixed over the decades, trending toward the more extreme usage of the more extreme elements, but with some core elements also transcending the eras.

The revolutionary thing is a false claim to put down coaches with a balanced perspective and frankly to try to sell product based on hype not fact. Sadly and ironically it doesn't even accurately describe technique in the current game.
Just to have some perspective for players below 4.5 NTRP
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=184942 post #1
--->
Polyester All the rage, what the pros use. What 95% of the tennis playing population should NOT be using. Poly is a stiff, durable string, that if you have sufficient batspeed will allow you to generate wicked spin. Newer polys (Called Co-Polys) are softer and hold tension better than older polys, but poly strings in general are still stiff, harsh, and don't hold tension well at all. If you don't have the racquet head speed to make these strings bend, then you would be best suited trying something else. Polyester strings are only good for a very short amount of time before they "Go Dead" and stop working their magic. After Poly goes dead, it is about the worst string on the planet. This happens long before the strings break. Generally poly stringbeds do not need to have the strings straightened out because they slide back after every hit. If you see that your poly stringbed needs straightening, then it is VERY DEAD and needs to be re-strung ASAP. Poly is not at all good or reccomended to anyone with arm issues or injuries. If your arm starts hurting, try something else.

JohnYandell
01-03-2013, 07:13 PM
I use a soft 17g copoly kiteboard picked for me and it is fabulous-sounds and feels great and I will also claim 25 percent more spin...but yeah u gotta follow your instincts and feel stress if equip causes it

JohnYandell
01-03-2013, 10:05 PM
To All,

Here is a 120 frame/second high speed clip of Dimtrov hitting a forehand.

I won't interpret what I see right now. Curious to see what others think. Remember with this type of file you can go frame by frame and that is critical to really unlocking the meaning.

Hint for Tom T: there is a magic key to your forehand included.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/public/tw/dimtrov/

Cheetah
01-03-2013, 10:36 PM
Great footage. Thanks.
Looks like he must have hit that one very near the top of the frame.

JohnYandell
01-03-2013, 11:00 PM
Yep probably but that's true of Djokovic and others on a regular basis... what else????

Cheetah
01-03-2013, 11:10 PM
I"m guessing you're referring to -
Early unit turn
hands separate before the bounce
left arm extension
push off from outside leg
continous motion from back-swing to contact
inside out swing
contact out in front but not as much as cc as it's an i/o
full right arm extension
relatively safe i/o shot just trying to place it wide ad side - very small amount of radial deviation
finish around the shoulder

Relinquis
01-04-2013, 01:33 AM
he's making so many mistakes... typical 3.5 player noob.

sorry, someone had to do it. that forehand is actually very pretty.

to add from what cheetah said:
- early prep, shoulder turn, separation prior to ball bounce due to fast ball
- allow racquet to drop after separation/shoulder turn.
- swings slightly from below the contact to above the contact, but still following the natural rotation around his body/core.
- wrist laid back during the swing to the contact point..
- at contact the racquet is almost perpendicular to the ground, seems to be a few degrees angled forward (say 10 degrees? hard to tell from behind).
- head focused on contact during most of the swing and after contact.

question, is keeping that bend in the right elbow a style thing?

Cheetah
01-04-2013, 02:10 AM
He also doesn't drop the racquet down into the slot until the bounce. Not sure that's important and you can see a lot of variety on that timing.

TomT
01-04-2013, 02:28 AM
To All,

Here is a 120 frame/second high speed clip of Dimtrov hitting a forehand.

I won't interpret what I see right now. Curious to see what others think. Remember with this type of file you can go frame by frame and that is critical to really unlocking the meaning.

Hint for Tom T: there is a magic key to your forehand included.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/public/tw/dimtrov/Thanks for that. It's a keeper. Yeah, that's the way (or one way) that I would love to learn how to hit a forehand. Not sure what the magic key is. I'm guessing it has to do with Dimitrov's really nice bouncy footwork, the more open stance, and the high takeback and that he holds onto the racquet with his left hand longer. Or more likely one (or more?) of the points that Cheetah and Relinquis made.

Clearly, I have no idea what the magic key is. :)

tennisfan69
01-04-2013, 06:18 AM
To All,

Here is a 120 frame/second high speed clip of Dimtrov hitting a forehand.

I won't interpret what I see right now. Curious to see what others think. Remember with this type of file you can go frame by frame and that is critical to really unlocking the meaning.

Hint for Tom T: there is a magic key to your forehand included.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/public/tw/dimtrov/

John, we dont see the pulling across or yanking of the ball. he pretty much extends to the target area.

sureshs
01-04-2013, 06:36 AM
Hands separate before the bounce and there is no "yanking." There is good extension before turning over. This should put to rest a lot of debate.

treblings
01-04-2013, 07:29 AM
John, i like that you talk about a magic key, because it makes me look harder at the video, than i would have otherwise done.
Dimitrov basically does all of the good stuff,that is talked about here, cheetah did a good sum-up.
one of the things i really like about his forehand, is that he holds his head very still throughout the stroke.

LuckyR
01-04-2013, 09:32 AM
Just to have some perspective for players below 4.5 NTRP
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=184942 post #1
--->
Polyester All the rage, what the pros use. What 95% of the tennis playing population should NOT be using. Poly is a stiff, durable string, that if you have sufficient batspeed will allow you to generate wicked spin. Newer polys (Called Co-Polys) are softer and hold tension better than older polys, but poly strings in general are still stiff, harsh, and don't hold tension well at all. If you don't have the racquet head speed to make these strings bend, then you would be best suited trying something else. Polyester strings are only good for a very short amount of time before they "Go Dead" and stop working their magic. After Poly goes dead, it is about the worst string on the planet. This happens long before the strings break. Generally poly stringbeds do not need to have the strings straightened out because they slide back after every hit. If you see that your poly stringbed needs straightening, then it is VERY DEAD and needs to be re-strung ASAP. Poly is not at all good or reccomended to anyone with arm issues or injuries. If your arm starts hurting, try something else.


Very true. If you are going to make the decision to take advantage of what poly has to offer (and you predict your arm can handle it), great.

It will be interesting to see over the next couple of decades what happens to a generation of players who have been using poly and Modern strokes for their entire tennis life, reach retirement age (when a lot of players get the most enjoyment out of the game).

For me: gut.

arche3
01-04-2013, 09:40 AM
John, i like that you talk about a magic key, because it makes me look harder at the video, than i would have otherwise done.
Dimitrov basically does all of the good stuff,that is talked about here, cheetah did a good sum-up.
one of the things i really like about his forehand, is that he holds his head very still throughout the stroke.

OK. I see the key as the lag of the racket head at the part of the stroke when the hand starts to change direction. The cue when the rackets points back as the hand starts forward. They move in different directions. Then the racket catches up. I see him trying to direct the shot inside out. And as a consequences he does not pronate much till much later than contact almost till the end of the finish. So he actually directs in the line of the shot as much as the rotation can allow. The hitting towards the target thing.

I think the reason is because he is coming off a serve. The return is a pretty good one. So he only needed to redirect the pace to the open court. If we can see a federer inside out in a rally I think you will see much more of a pulling glancing shot with a bit of sidespin because of the pulling across. Much more than this clip with dmitrov extending as much as he can into the direction of the ball. Maybe he hits like this all the time. But fed and nadal djoko pronate and pull across earlier. Just at contact. And especially down the middle or crosscourt shots as its easier to just pull the arm across early then. But they all have that racket tip lag at the change of direction of the stroke. That's the power move IMO.

JohnYandell
01-04-2013, 10:01 AM
Tom,
Go frame by frame, stop when the ball is on the court and look at the position of the shoulders and left arm...in ur clip u get there but r slow to this position in relation to the bounce.

JohnYandell
01-04-2013, 10:04 AM
To All,

At 120 frames per second you can calculate certain critical intervals accurately.

What duration do you come up with from the opponent's hit to the bounce? From after the bounce to GD's hit?

What implications do you find in that?

JohnYandell
01-04-2013, 10:08 AM
Arche,

I have posted exactly what you asked for before but will dig it out.
Will be very interested in how you find your hypothesis holds up.

The lag is a key but is this clip you can also see the critical precursors that make that possible and effective.

TomT
01-04-2013, 10:13 AM
Tom,
Go frame by frame, stop when the ball is on the court and look at the position of the shoulders and left arm...in ur clip u get there but r slow to this position in relation to the bounce.Thanks JY.

arche3
01-04-2013, 10:17 AM
Arche,

I have posted exactly what you asked for before but will dig it out.
Will be very interested in how you find your hypothesis holds up.

The lag is a key but is this clip you can also see the critical precursors that make that possible and effective.

Cool. I'm looking at the forums and vid on a tablet so it doesn't really do frame by frame. My guesses were just via slow mo. Not using the full frame by frame. Could of easily missed a lot even slowed down.

TomT
01-04-2013, 10:32 AM
Tom,
Go frame by frame, stop when the ball is on the court and look at the position of the shoulders and left arm...in ur clip u get there but r slow to this position in relation to the bounce.Ok, have compared vids and I see what you're talking about. It starts with being a bit earlier than my prep and opening the stance a bit more. (Also, his arm extension is better. That is, I think my upper arm is too close to my body.) Is this correct? Anyway, the vid of Dimitrov gives me some very specific things that I can visualize and work on. Thanks JY.

TomT
01-04-2013, 10:41 AM
The lag is a key but in this clip you can also see the critical precursors that make that possible and effective.Yes, the lag also. I can see that Dimitrov's racquet hand wrist goes back further than mine. How important is this? To me, now, it seems like it might be one of the crucial missing ingredients in my forehand.

arche3
01-04-2013, 10:56 AM
Yes, the lag also. I can see that Dimitrov's racquet hand wrist goes back further than mine. How important is this? To me, now, it seems like it might be one of the crucial missing ingredients in my forehand.

Its the missing link. The difference between a pro ATP fh and rec fh. Its everything to do with leading with the body first. The legs, hips, etc...

TennisCJC
01-04-2013, 12:39 PM
Yes, modern tennis definately exist but some pros have been playing modern tennis for decades. Tilden, Bitsy Grant, Borg, Vilas, Solomon, even Laver to a certain degree.

Classic Tennis:
1. Prep: turn to side and take racket back so head points at back fence
2. Stroke: step into ball in square stance and drive up and through contact.
3. Finish: follow through until tip of racket points at top of opposite fence

Modern:
1. Prep: some teach shoulder pivot and some say just stalk ball
2. Stroke: loop swing with slightly closed racket face at contact - shoulders should rotate to side but any stance will do
3. Finish: pull up, thru and across and finish with hand over or by opposite shoulder - butt of racket will point at net and tip of racket will point behind you.

John Yandell and Oscar's MTM both are "modern" but they differ on exact intepretation of modern. John seems to like early pivot/prep while Oscar likes stalk the ball. John thinks you must start the stroke earlier while Oscar wants you to work on waiting. They both are somewhat consistent on the actually contact and finish but Oscar's latest "yank back" theory is confusing to me.

5263
01-04-2013, 01:04 PM
Great footage. Thanks.
Looks like he must have hit that one very near the top of the frame.

Really? How can you tell? Contact is off screen on my view.

TennisCJC
01-04-2013, 01:08 PM
John, we dont see the pulling across or yanking of the ball. he pretty much extends to the target area.

To each their own. I see a lot of across action in the stroke. I agree there is extension too. But, I see a racket moving up, thru and across at contact. I don't see anything I would call a yank but some across action to my eye.

5263
01-04-2013, 01:21 PM
He also doesn't drop the racquet down into the slot until the bounce. Not sure that's important and you can see a lot of variety on that timing.

Actually after the bounce, right?

I stopped the vid with the ball compressed on the court and that was exactly as
he hit the old unit turn full early prep position. I even went backwards a few
frames to be sure and you could see the shoulder was still moving to the full back
old prep position. I won't speak for Jy, but isn't that the position he says players immediately
go to; and don't we clearly see the delay here as the shoulders
stay squared up facing the incoming ball, tracking or stalking it and not moving to
the full preped position till the bounce impact?

Taking this vid frame by frame, you can clearly see how he faces the incoming ball
("stalks it" to some) with both hands on the frame...even though there is a very
short time frame to do this. As the ball starts to come down to the bounce,
you can see how he leaves the position of facing the ball and starts to turn
his shoulders to prepare the shoulder turn and arriving at that full should turn
precisely at the bounce of the ball.
Wow...very nice video, thanks

5263
01-04-2013, 01:28 PM
John, we dont see the pulling across or yanking of the ball. he pretty much extends to the target area.

While I agree I don't see any yanking, this vid is an excellent view of how the
hand is moving across at contact and has moved on it's arc from a full extension
to the right inline with the shoulders; and pulls across to almost in front of the
rt shoulder at contact. How much more across were you looking for?

Even more evident if you factor in this shot is dtl or I/O.

julian
01-04-2013, 01:34 PM
While I agree I don't see any yanking, this vid is an excellent view of how the
hand is moving across at contact and has moved on it's arc from a full extension
to the right inline with the shoulders; and pulls across to almost in front of the
rt shoulder at contact. How much more across were you looking for?

Even more evident if you factor in this shot is dtl or I/O.
You have to define "yanking"
Otherwise the conversation is fruitless
Please do NOT use LOL in your response.
Please do NOT use any abbreviations either
Please cross check with your OWN posts
in
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/search.php?searchid=14268013

stating that "yanking is NEW to you"

Cheetah
01-04-2013, 01:40 PM
Really? How can you tell? Contact is off screen on my view.

i can't tell. just what it looks like. Where on the stringbed do you think he hit it?

Cheetah
01-04-2013, 01:44 PM
Actually after the bounce, right?

I stopped the vid with the ball compressed on the court and that was exactly as
he hit the old unit turn full early prep position. I even went backwards a few
frames to be sure and you could see the shoulder was still moving to the full back
old prep position. I won't speak for Jy, but isn't that the position he says players immediately
go to; and don't we clearly see the delay here as the shoulders
stay squared up facing the incoming ball, tracking or stalking it and not moving to
the full preped position till the bounce impact?

Taking this vid frame by frame, you can clearly see how he faces the incoming ball
("stalks it" to some) with both hands on the frame...even though there is a very
short time frame to do this. As the ball starts to come down to the bounce,
you can see how he leaves the position of facing the ball and starts to turn
his shoulders to prepare the shoulder turn and arriving at that full should turn
precisely at the bounce of the ball.
Wow...very nice video, thanks

Yes, after the bounce. Or maybe as it bounces?
He's taking the racquet back...,back...,back and only when the ball bounces does he let the racquet actually drop.

5263
01-04-2013, 01:46 PM
i can't tell. just what it looks like. Where on the stringbed do you think he hit it?

Honestly I don't have a clue from what I can see. I respect your objective
opinion and was just wondering how you arrived at that and Jy seemed to
agree. Thought maybe I should make my window bigger or something? :???:
It was just a honest question on that.
You may be right on the money. I never had a dog in that fight about where
lands on the strings and what the intentions are. My point on that was that
it couldn't accurately addressed anyway, so why argue either way.

5263
01-04-2013, 01:49 PM
Yes, after the bounce. Or maybe as it bounces?
He's taking the racquet back...,back...,back and only when the ball bounces does he let the racquet actually drop.

yes, I agree. He does not complete the prep or unit turn until the bounce.

sureshs
01-04-2013, 01:55 PM
yank (yngk)
v. yanked, yank·ing, yanks
v.tr.
1. To pull with a quick, strong movement; jerk: yanked the emergency cord.
2. Slang To extract or remove abruptly: yanked the starting pitcher early in the game.
v.intr.
To pull on something suddenly. See Synonyms at jerk1.
n.
A sudden vigorous pull; a jerk.


It is clear that yanking is an abrupt pull.

1. There is nothing abrupt or jerky in a pro forehand
2. A pulling force always tends to draw an object closer. A pulling force on a first object must result in a pulling force on a second object it touches (racket touching ball). This is called principle of transmission of force and in theory applies only to rigid bodies, but the non-rigidity is not a factor in this discussion.
3. If the racket was being yanked, it would also yank the ball and actually bring it closer to the body.
4. This is absurd - a pro does not bring the ball closer to himself after the contact point
5. The racket coming closer to the body after impact has to happen, just like a slammed door rotates fully and does not fly off straight. It has nothing to do with yanking.
6. Yanking is not the same as across motion. An across motion is not an abrupt pull.
7. Ergo, yanking is an absurd notion.

sureshs
01-04-2013, 01:56 PM
yes, I agree. He does not complete the prep or unit turn until the bounce.

His hands have separated before the bounce, which is contradictory to the claim that both hands are together and stalking till after the bounce.

Once again, video shows how wrong these claims are.

JohnYandell
01-04-2013, 02:00 PM
Glad you guys like this clip. I think it shows a lot. I will post a similar Fed one in the next day or so.

A couple of comments.

Stalking seems now to be for 5263 on a sliding definition. Stalking as Oscar defines it is keeping the hands in front as long as possible--that is simply not happening. There is no delay anywhere in that motion. It's smooth and seemless from start to finish as are the overhwelming majority of pro forehands. The hands separate well before the bounce and again this is the universal norm.

Also note something else about "time" after the bounce. For Grigor and this is again typical its about 3/10s of a second. 3/10's of a second from bounce to contact. Try counting to 5 in that interval. if you wait til the bounce to try to prepare you are dead, dead, dead.

The checkpoint I see missing in so many forehands at the club level--including so clearly for our friend TLM who has a lot of ability and very fast hands--is the full turn around the bounce. He is still hitting fearsome forehands but mainly with his arm and those incredible reverse finishes. He is just scratching the surface of his potential as that forehand of his should be a nuclear missle.

In the name of god if you really want a good forehand this is one component that anyone can successfully copy from the pros.

JohnYandell
01-04-2013, 02:01 PM
And Suresh you have nailed it, this yanking concept is the most absurd one yet. And that is claiming a lot...

julian
01-04-2013, 02:02 PM
yank (yngk)
v. yanked, yank·ing, yanks
v.tr.
1. To pull with a quick, strong movement; jerk: yanked the emergency cord.
2. Slang To extract or remove abruptly: yanked the starting pitcher early in the game.
v.intr.
To pull on something suddenly. See Synonyms at jerk1.
n.
A sudden vigorous pull; a jerk.


It is clear that yanking is an abrupt pull.

1. There is nothing abrupt or jerky in a pro forehand
2. A pulling force always tends to draw an object closer. A pulling force on a first object must result in a pulling force on a second object it touches (racket touching ball). This is called principle of transmission of force and in theory applies only to rigid bodies, but the non-rigidity is not a factor in this discussion.
3. If the racket was being yanked, it would also yank the ball and actually bring it closer to the body.
4. This is absurd - a pro does not bring the ball closer to himself after the contact point
5. The racket coming closer to the body after impact has to happen, just like a slammed door rotates fully and does not fly off straight. It has nothing to do with yanking.
6. Yanking is not the same as across motion. An across motion is not an abrupt pull.
7. Ergo, yanking is an absurd notion.
You would save a lot of time if you would allow 5263 to respond FIRST.

JohnYandell
01-04-2013, 02:04 PM
And the string bed...

Yeah the contact must be above the so-called sweet spot but is still on the center line as the racket isn't tilting either way after contact the way it does on a mishit above or below the center line. This is common for Djok but haven't studied it for GR.

Cheetah
01-04-2013, 02:07 PM
Honestly I don't have a clue from what I can see. I respect your objective
opinion and was just wondering how you arrived at that and Jy seemed to
agree. Thought maybe I should make my window bigger or something? :???:
It was just a honest question on that.
You may be right on the money. I never had a dog in that fight about where
lands on the strings and what the intentions are. My point on that was that
it couldn't accurately addressed anyway, so why argue either way.

I'm not arguing.

the frames where you can tell he makes contact can be seen in the vid. In those frames more than half of the stringbed can be seen with no ball in the picture. That means it's at least in the upper half. Judging by the angle and speed the ball is travelling and the path/speed of the racquet coming up and around to meet the ball it looks like contact was made very close to the frame on top of the racquet.

arche3
01-04-2013, 02:09 PM
And Suresh you have nailed it, this yanking concept is the most absurd one yet. And that is claiming a lot...

The yanking is new. I'm not ready to call it wrong just because I can't really do it. And yes oscar means a deliberate yank back. Its very hard to do.

I do see elements of it on djoko fh. But thats it. No one else.

I'm gonna try it tomorrow morning again when I play w my kid. I just dont want to hit myself in the forehead. Lol.

sureshs
01-04-2013, 02:10 PM
And Suresh you have nailed it, this yanking concept is the most absurd one yet. And that is claiming a lot...

He has the pull back idea even on the 1 handed BH:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5csE9UD1CU&feature=relmfu

Yanking and pull back may be unfortunate terms. He probably means raising the body from low to high as part of hitting up and across, but he wanted to show he was different from the old coaches. There was a time when people would say "stay low through the stroke" which is not needed with the powerful rackets today. Wonder if his yanking/pull back was supposed to address this.

sureshs
01-04-2013, 02:14 PM
The yanking is new. I'm not ready to call it wrong just because I can't really do it. And yes oscar means a deliberate yank back. Its very hard to do.


In that case, it would contradict his claim of making tennis easy and natural. It seems to be a mystical concept where the racket is pulled back but the ball it is in contact with is not, but actually heads outwards.

5263
01-04-2013, 02:32 PM
His hands have separated before the bounce, which is contradictory to the claim that both hands are together and stalking till after the bounce.

Once again, video shows how wrong these claims are.

Post it if you can find it, and I'll admit a mistake if I ever posted "till after the
bounce." I doubt you will find it, but I mis-state things like anyone at times.
I expect you will try to paint me in a corner saying I'm splitting hairs on terms, but,
When I use the terms "at the bounce" and "hands separation" they are terms
for a process and used in a context. At the bounce, or "as it is bouncing" is not
a precise moment for me, Like you dribble a ball, that whole process is bouncing,
not just the moment the ball touches ground.
There is a window there to use and adjust. Odd to think anyone would consider
picking some precise moment to do something, especially when that something
is also a process, like stalk, prep, or hand separation.

Hand separating is not even a MTM term that I know of and I only used that
in response to questions and comments about how the process ...which is hands
leaving the racket to reach across with the off hand and continue to prepare
the racket with the other. This hands separating Process is not just the moment
the off hand leaves the racket, but also includes the off hand reaching & shoulder
doing the final part of the turn.

arche3
01-04-2013, 02:33 PM
In that case, it would contradict his claim of making tennis easy and natural. It seems to be a mystical concept where the racket is pulled back but the ball it is in contact with is not, but actually heads outwards.

Try it. It does work. It snaps the racket head forward as you yank. But for someone like me with a smooth wiper I cant do it with skill enough to hit the ball right everytime. Its actually very hard for me. I've tried it myself numerous times. Too hard. But ill keep trying to see what happens.

5263
01-04-2013, 02:36 PM
I'm not arguing.

In those frames more than half of the stringbed can be seen with no ball in the picture. That means it's at least in the upper half.

I'm not either. Talking on the forum is tough, lol.

Anyway, we are not talking about the same upper half. :???:

sureshs
01-04-2013, 02:40 PM
Try it. It does work. It snaps the racket head forward as you yank. But for someone like me with a smooth wiper I cant do it with skill enough to hit the ball right everytime. Its actually very hard for me. I've tried it myself numerous times. Too hard. But ill keep trying to see what happens.

This is the same kind of discussion once about hitting down with the racket. If you hit down, you cannot hit up. If you yank (pull the racket backward), it cannot move forward. These things are not physically possible, there is no point in arguing that they can happen.

arche3
01-04-2013, 02:45 PM
This is the same kind of discussion once about hitting down with the racket. If you hit down, you cannot hit up. If you yank (pull the racket backward), it cannot move forward. These things are not physically possible, there is no point in arguing that they can happen.

No no you misunderstand. You can try it air swinging. As you rotate into the wiper you just pull back the bicep. The racket keeps going around but it is just more abrupt. Not smooth if your swing fast. I'm doing it right now in my living room. Its weird feeling.

5263
01-04-2013, 02:47 PM
Try it. It does work. It snaps the racket head forward as you yank. But for someone like me with a smooth wiper I cant do it with skill enough to hit the ball right everytime. Its actually very hard for me. I've tried it myself numerous times. Too hard. But ill keep trying to see what happens.

I think it is a waste of time to share this concept with those who don't have the
background to get it. They must have never cracked a whip, popped someone
with a damp towel, or thrown a wave in a rope to get it over an obstacle.
All these things and others, use a method of changing directions to accel the
instrument...very much like the method Oscar describes.

sureshs
01-04-2013, 02:49 PM
No no you misunderstand. You can try it air swinging. As you rotate into the wiper you just pull back the bicep. The racket keeps going around but it is just more abrupt. Not smooth if your swing fast. I'm doing it right now in my living room. Its weird feeling.

I know. It all feels like that. Let me know when the racket is moving towards you at ball contact, but the ball then moves away from you.

These are illusions. You can imagine what you want and you will experience it. That is why high-speed video removes the illusions.

arche3
01-04-2013, 02:50 PM
I think it is a waste of time to share this concept with those who don't have the
background to get it. They must have never cracked a whip, popped someone
with a damp towel, or thrown a wave in a rope to get it over an obstacle.
All these things and others, use a method of changing directions to accel the
instrument...very much like the method Oscar describes.

Ok I've been doing it with my eyes closed. If I listen to the racket head air turbulence when i engage my bicep and pull the racket head air sounds higher. Its going faster. same motion as wiper but adding the bicep.

sureshs
01-04-2013, 02:54 PM
I think it is a waste of time to share this concept with those who don't have the
background to get it. They must have never cracked a whip, popped someone
with a damp towel, or thrown a wave in a rope to get it over an obstacle.
All these things and others, use a method of changing directions to accel the
instrument...very much like the method Oscar describes.

Which just does not happen when the video is analyzed. He is wrong, plain and simple. Simply twisting words will not make it right, like jumping through hoops about hands now not separating before bounce. You were proved wrong by video, Oscar was also proved wrong. His one handed BH video is even more absurd.

A whip LOL. It is as far from a rigid body as possbile. There is no comparison with a tennis racket. Same with a towel. Yank a wet towel on a court and hit a forehand with it and take a video of it and post it here, then we will see.

These terms like yanking only mislead people and make them believe they are into some great secret, when it is clearly disproved by what the pros do.

arche3
01-04-2013, 02:56 PM
I know. It all feels like that. Let me know when the racket is moving towards you at ball contact, but the ball then moves away from you.

These are illusions. You can imagine what you want and you will experience it. That is why high-speed video removes the illusions.

I have tried it. All it does is speed up the racket. Your pull only slows down forward part of the hand in fjnish and makes it more compact. Its a different contact closer to you than a full wiper wrap. Just try it. Its not as literal as you think. The racket does not go backwards. It goes forward just like a normal stroke

sureshs
01-04-2013, 02:58 PM
Ok I've been doing it with my eyes closed. If I listen to the racket head air turbulence when i engage my bicep and pull the racket head air sounds higher. Its going faster. same motion as wiper but adding the bicep.

Doesn't seem that tennis is a simple and natural sport as claimed. Seems quite complicated.

I want a simple methodology which will make me like the pros immediately, like just running to the ball like a baby and then feeling the ball.

tennisfan69
01-04-2013, 03:03 PM
if one keeps yanking... injury prone i guess...

5263
01-04-2013, 03:05 PM
While I agree I don't see any yanking, this vid is an excellent view of how the
hand is moving across at contact

Just curious...how do you read the above?
and just for the record, I've never said yanking or
abrupt...so you can leave me out of that politics.
Seems some still can't read.

Cheetah
01-04-2013, 03:05 PM
I'm not advocating yanking or pulling back or stepping back or anything else but...

what arche said is true. I was doing it last night. If you 'yank' across it will throw the racquet forward a bit and the rhs increases. You can hear the head whoosh. With several adjustments to foot position and grip and swing etc etc you can vary the direction of the yank so that it doesn't even look like a yank and the head can go more forward or less or any degree of arc you're trying to get.

Personally I don't swing like this all the time but I do do it on occasion. It definitely works if that's what you're going for. It's easy, definitely increases rhs and it makes a nice swing shape actually.

edit: and you don't have to 'yank' to the side fence. you can 'yank' towards the net post or more towards the center of the court or less.

sureshs
01-04-2013, 03:06 PM
I have tried it. All it does is speed up the racket. Your pull only slows down forward part of the hand in fjnish and makes it more compact. Its a different contact closer to you than a full wiper wrap. Just try it. Its not as literal as you think. The racket does not go backwards. It goes forward just like a normal stroke

What you are describing is something that Federer does when the hand comes tucking in close to the body with supination, and then there is pronation into impact. He uses it to put more side spin. It is like a mini-inside-out action embedded inside his forehand, and he sometimes will use more wrist than usual in that stroke to add a flicking component too.

It is precisely what has been widely discussed here as a "pull forehand" rather than a "push forehand."

It is not yanking or pulling in. Those have been illustrated as a push forehand, but with a pull in just before contact. That is not this.

5263
01-04-2013, 03:09 PM
what arche said is true. I was doing it last night. If you 'yank' across it will throw the racquet forward a bit and the rhs increases. You can hear the head whoosh.

Yes, of course it works, but it's tucking... not pulling, lol.
can't you see that? :)

arche3
01-04-2013, 03:10 PM
What you are describing is something that Federer does when the hand comes tucking in close to the body with supination, and then there is pronation into impact. He uses it to put more side spin. It is like a mini-inside-out action embedded inside his forehand, and he sometimes will use more wrist than usual in that stroke to add a flicking component too.

It is precisely what has been widely discussed here as a "pull forehand" rather than a "push forehand."

It is not yanking or pulling in. Those have been illustrated as a push forehand, but with a pull in just before contact. That is not this.

Its not. I can hit what you described. This is active use of the biceps. Along with the pronation into the contact. It would really be easier to just grab a racket and engage your biceps than dont. See for yourself.

TomT
01-04-2013, 03:16 PM
I wouldn't call anything that Dimitrov is doing yanking back either. To me, yanking back would refer to an anomalous motion aimed at producing more sidespin.

I like what JY, arche3, et al. have indicated as the keys to work on. In addition, I notice that what Dimitrov does with his left hand all through the motion (but mainly at the finish where it looks much more graceful and to be an important component of the mechanics) is somewhat different than mine, and also that he's bending his wrist more at the takeback lag and his upper arm is more extended.

Also have to agree with sureshs, JY, et al. that OW's reference to yanking back is not the best way to describe a key component of normal good stroke mechanics.

Question, mainly for JY, but also for anybody. Given that I have the Dimitrov high speed vid to refer to, and that I think I understand the key components to work on to improve my stroke, in what order should I work on those components?

Recent vids for reference:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQa4VIRh5d8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYcHrKgWFg8

sureshs
01-04-2013, 03:19 PM
It is basically a small inside-out swiping action starting with a tucked in elbow.

After that action is over, the racket gets to swing around as usual.

So it gives the impression that you are pulling in. Actually, you are pulling in you elbow and then throwing the hand and wrist into the ball before the racket goes across.

Again, let me make it clear: you cannot hit a ball forward when the racket is moving backward at impact. It is the same argument I had with someone who claimed that he was hitting down on the ball on the serve while the racket was moving up. No, it cannot happen. He also made convoluted examples and suggesting holding the palm at an angle and then hitting down on the ball and why that would cause the racket to be going up. I was like, no dude, the angle does not matter. If one part of the racket is moving up, every part of it is moving up, and it cannot exert a downward force on an object it touches.

sureshs
01-04-2013, 03:21 PM
Also have to agree with sureshs, JY, et al. that OW's reference to yanking back is not the best way to describe a key component of normal good stroke mechanics.


Very good point. Even if with some strange imagery someone can convince himself that it is yanking, it is not "normal good stroke mechanics." It is just a diversion thrown out there for marketing purposes to appear to be different.

sureshs
01-04-2013, 03:23 PM
OK time to head out for some tennis

5263
01-04-2013, 03:23 PM
Its not. I can hit what you described. This is active use of the biceps. Along with the pronation into the contact. It would really be easier to just grab a racket and engage your biceps than dont. See for yourself.

seems some do not realize that the rackets have 2 ends that don't have to
both move in the same direction a the same time.

JohnYandell
01-04-2013, 03:29 PM
Arche,

You are "yanking" at straws. You asked for a Fed video--it will show the same principles. Ask for Djok it won't matter.

It's physically impossible to hit the ball forward if the racket is moving backwards. And even if you then say, no it's the hand, think about what you are saying for a second.

What is the effect on racket speed? Racket speed in good forehands maxs at contact, so how is reversing the hand direction going to help that? Sitting in your house snapping a towel is really not a convincing way to gather evidence.

But even leave the physics out of it. I've looked at thousands of forehands and I have seen many many things, but I can assure you the hand and the racket are never going backwards at contact. I tried to get you to take me up on that free Tennisplayer trial. Why don't you try to find one "yank" in the thousands of pro forehand clips there?

If you do I will post it for you.

JohnYandell
01-04-2013, 03:58 PM
Tom,

First things first. In the second video where you are actually hitting you can see the slight delay in the start of the turn. Look at Dimtri frame by frame at the turn where the ball is on the court. Model that position physically. Stretch that left arm across hard and feel the pull on your shoulder.

Create that visual image and imagine the feeling as part of it. Now when the other guy hits, just bring up that image in your mind. Start the turn immediately--don't rush, be smooth--but get to the stretch at the bounce. If you do you may surprise yourself how much pace you generate and you may hit a few balls out. That's a good sign and just work into the rhythm. Use the video to see that you are actually making the position.

arche3
01-04-2013, 04:07 PM
Arche,

You are "yanking" at straws. You asked for a Fed video--it will show the same principles. Ask for Djok it won't matter.

It's physically impossible to hit the ball forward if the racket is moving backwards. And even if you then say, no it's the hand, think about what you are saying for a second.

What is the effect on racket speed? Racket speed in good forehands maxs at contact, so how is reversing the hand direction going to help that? Sitting in your house snapping a towel is really not a convincing way to gather evidence.

But even leave the physics out of it. I've looked at thousands of forehands and I have seen many many things, but I can assure you the hand and the racket are never going backwards at contact. I tried to get you to take me up on that free Tennisplayer trial. Why don't you try to find one "yank" in the thousands of pro forehand clips there?

If you do I will post it for you.

Jy. You have to know its not my instruction. I'm just trying it. And yes i know the racket does not go backwards as the ball comes at you. I just tried the techniqiue. It feels different and i dont think the pros do it or not. You cant tell from video because even when I watch myself in a mirror the swing looks the same but it feels different. Like I said try it and it feels different. The sound is different. If its right or wrong the racket head moved faster. Thats all. Not endorsing anyone. And anyone can perform the experiment for themselves. Go to you racket bag and just do it.

5263
01-04-2013, 04:16 PM
Jy.. Like I said try it and it feels different. The sound is different. If its right or wrong the racket head moved faster. Thats all. Not endorsing anyone. And anyone can perform the experiment for themselves. Go to you racket bag and just do it.

He's not going to give it an honest try...he's going to just say it's doesn't work
and try to convince others that what you and other players are doing can't be.
If he can't see it in his slow mo, then it's not there.
Always interesting when those who can't or don't, try to convince others they
can't either. :???:
They don't seem to realize how hard it is to convince folks they can't do what
they have done!

JohnYandell
01-04-2013, 04:35 PM
5263:

Uh, I just wiffed a few balls on the ball machine trying to make the racket go back at contact. It's probably just me though or I was being dishonest again by actually experimenting or posting hard data. For someone who claims to have a science background you capacity for delusion and denial is extremely impressive. In case you haven't studied psychology as well, the technical diagnosis for your condition is projective disorder.

Arche:

Whatever idea works for you or you think does, go for it. But please don't try to tell me the racket goes backwards at contact unless you have some actual evidence.

arche3
01-04-2013, 04:37 PM
5263:

Uh, I just wiffed a few balls on the ball machine trying to make the racket go back at contact. It's probably just me though or I was being dishonest again by actually experimenting or posting hard data.

Arche:

Whatever idea works for you or you think does, go for it. But please don't try to tell me the racket goes backwards at contact unless you have some actual evidence.

Are you really not getting this? I am not saying the racket goes back. I've said this three times. Again the racket does NOT go back. OK?

JohnYandell
01-04-2013, 04:38 PM
Arche,

OK sorry if I got that wrong. We are agreed, the racket does not go back.

5263
01-04-2013, 04:40 PM
Jy. You have to know its not my instruction. I'm just trying it. And yes i know the racket does not go backwards as the ball comes at you.

Is that what Jy stated? Seems he is trying to twist it to something you or Oscar
never said about the racket going backwards?
Don't you love how those with agendas have to change the wording to fit their
misconceptions. Guess it explains why they don't get it.

But please don't try to tell me the racket goes backwards at contact unless you have some actual evidence.

Another clear example of how he can't keep his misinfo straight.

arche3
01-04-2013, 04:49 PM
Is that what Jy stated? Seems he is trying to twist it to something you or Oscar
never said about the racket going backwards?
Don't you love how those with agendas have to change the wording to fit their
misconceptions. Guess it explains why they don't get it.



Another clear example of how he can't keep his misinfo straight.

Suresh was harassing me about the racket going back. I kept saying it does not. John must of read suresh post claiming I said its in reverse. While not seeing my replies.

It impossible for it to go backwards at contact.

JohnYandell
01-04-2013, 04:51 PM
5263:

OK Arche Suresh and I all agree that the racket does not go back. But you say it does is that correct?

Cheetah
01-04-2013, 05:02 PM
It is basically a small inside-out swiping action starting with a tucked in elbow.

After that action is over, the racket gets to swing around as usual.

So it gives the impression that you are pulling in. Actually, you are pulling in you elbow and then throwing the hand and wrist into the ball before the racket goes across.

Again, let me make it clear: you cannot hit a ball forward when the racket is moving backward at impact. It is the same argument I had with someone who claimed that he was hitting down on the ball on the serve while the racket was moving up. No, it cannot happen. He also made convoluted examples and suggesting holding the palm at an angle and then hitting down on the ball and why that would cause the racket to be going up. I was like, no dude, the angle does not matter. If one part of the racket is moving up, every part of it is moving up, and it cannot exert a downward force on an object it touches.

we are not talking about pulling backwards. why does everyone keep saying this? I'm saying during the swing you call pull to the left either by the whole body, the legs, the hips, the shoulder or even biceps. i don't use biceps. during the forward swing while the racquet is whipping around going forward on it's own (if you have a nice fluid swing w/ ssc etc etc) you can shift your weight slightly to the left during the whip which pulls the racquet slightly to the left and the rhs increases.
I submitted an example of kohlschreiber doing it because he exaggerates it

JohnYandell
01-04-2013, 05:18 PM
The alleged yank is pulling the racket sharply up and backwards at contact with the bicep... This exists in the tennis twilight zone only.

In reality the pull with the biceps is one factor sometimes in play and certainly not around contact on many forehands, especially the "modern" straight arm ones.

The wiper is caused not by any "yank" it is caused by the upper arm rotation of the hitting and the rotation of the entire structure...

5263
01-04-2013, 05:42 PM
5263:

OK Arche Suresh and I all agree that the racket does not go back. But you say it does is that correct?

I'm sorry, lol, but can you show anywhere I said that?? or is this just more of
your inability to keep things straight? How could anyone listen to your supposed
insight after watching you flail at this simple conversation?

5263
01-04-2013, 05:46 PM
we are not talking about pulling backwards. why does everyone keep saying this?

Thank you, lol, :)

But really we know why don't we.

TomT
01-04-2013, 06:06 PM
Tom,

First things first. In the second video where you are actually hitting you can see the slight delay in the start of the turn. Look at Dimtri frame by frame at the turn where the ball is on the court. Model that position physically. Stretch that left arm across hard and feel the pull on your shoulder.

Create that visual image and imagine the feeling as part of it. Now when the other guy hits, just bring up that image in your mind. Start the turn immediately--don't rush, be smooth--but get to the stretch at the bounce. If you do you may surprise yourself how much pace you generate and you may hit a few balls out. That's a good sign and just work into the rhythm. Use the video to see that you are actually making the position.Thanks JY. Noted.

JohnYandell
01-04-2013, 06:57 PM
5263:

OK but do you think the yank moves the racket back at contact?

5263
01-04-2013, 07:00 PM
5263:

OK but do you think the yank moves the racket back at contact?

I don't think I would word it like that, lol. :)
I'm not sure Oscar would say it exactly that way.
Too many word games here and I do think you know what he means.
I hope so anyway.

JohnYandell
01-04-2013, 07:21 PM
5263:

I understand why you don't want to answer-- you are done with word games now.

JohnYandell
01-04-2013, 07:24 PM
But having now sworn off word games how would you put it? What does this mysterious yank really do to the racket at contact?

sureshs
01-04-2013, 09:59 PM
we are not talking about pulling backwards. why does everyone keep saying this? I'm saying during the swing you call pull to the left either by the whole body, the legs, the hips, the shoulder or even biceps. i don't use biceps. during the forward swing while the racquet is whipping around going forward on it's own (if you have a nice fluid swing w/ ssc etc etc) you can shift your weight slightly to the left during the whip which pulls the racquet slightly to the left and the rhs increases.
I submitted an example of kohlschreiber doing it because he exaggerates it

I know what you and arche are saying. You are both correct. But I don't think that was what was meant originally. To me, the original statement is not what you or arche are saying. It is your expertise that is revealed, not his.

sureshs
01-04-2013, 10:03 PM
I'm not sure Oscar would say it exactly that way.


Then what exactly would he say, and why didn't he say it instead of this?

His knowledge of English is pretty good - you cannot claim that it is a mis-communication like Nadal's interviews.

Cheetah
01-04-2013, 10:38 PM
I know what you and arche are saying. You are both correct. But I don't think that was what was meant originally. To me, the original statement is not what you or arche are saying. It is your expertise that is revealed, not his.

ok. i hear ya. my bad for diverting the thread with a different type of 'yank' than what was in discussion.

sureshs
01-05-2013, 11:04 AM
^^^ BTW I had sent you email but I am already playing on Sunday with a guy at the club who contacted me.

5263
01-05-2013, 11:05 AM
Then what exactly would he say, and why didn't he say it instead of this?


Do you have an exact quote where he made that statement?
I feel this exact wording sounds more like Jy/sureshs version of something than
what I read or experience from Oscar.

Cheetah
01-05-2013, 12:06 PM
^^^ BTW I had sent you email but I am already playing on Sunday with a guy at the club who contacted me.

didn't get it :(

5263
01-05-2013, 05:18 PM
But having now sworn off word games how would you put it?
What does this mysterious yank really do to the racket at contact?

What is mysterious is how you arrive at your conclusions.

I say there are too many word games being used here (just like this quote above)
and you conclude I'm done with word games. By your next post' you have me sworn off
word games?? I don't start them, BuT Unfortunately I can't be done with
them since that what you and sureshs constantly trade in and you are often active
in Modern instruction discussions.
Saying there are too many words games simply means their are too many;
to address in this case and mostly sort of silly like the one above.

All this does help me understand why you two can't understand good modern
instruction, and why you struggle to make the old terms and descriptions fit
and work for more modern strokes.

JohnYandell
01-06-2013, 09:09 AM
5263:

OK but really what happens in the yank?

Relinquis
01-06-2013, 09:34 AM
it sounds like you guys are talking about a fade sidespin/topspin shot in table tennis.

http://youtu.be/MUdE5JwY-eI?t=2m32s

Doesn't seem like a tennis shot to me. I can understand pulling across in the direction of rotation to get sidespin*, but i don't see that as a normal pro-tennis forehand, or a yanking action at all.

* I junkball sometimes (more so on slice). It's fun and I'm not a pro, so it doesn't matter.

5263
01-06-2013, 09:44 AM
5263:

OK but really what happens in the yank?

you are really enjoying yourself on this, aren't you :)

Just because I've not embraced the term yet (as you well know), is a far
cry from counting Oscar out on this one.
Remember, I studied your work for more years than his, and while none of
us is perfect of course, Oscar has you 10-1 or better by my account :)

As players and coaches, we are just all looking for the best sources of info
out there.

sureshs
01-06-2013, 10:13 AM
it sounds like you guys are talking about a fade sidespin/topspin shot in table tennis.

http://youtu.be/MUdE5JwY-eI?t=2m32s

Doesn't seem like a tennis shot to me. I can understand pulling across in the direction of rotation to get sidespin*, but i don't see that as a normal pro-tennis forehand, or a yanking action at all.

* I junkball sometimes (more so on slice). It's fun and I'm not a pro, so it doesn't matter.

If you see the instructions in the video you posted, it is about wrist movement and there is no use of the terms pulling back or yanking.

sureshs
01-06-2013, 10:14 AM
5263:

OK but really what happens in the yank?

That is a great question.

What is the answer?

JohnYandell
01-06-2013, 10:38 AM
5263:

OK so he is 10 times better--that must be in part because the yank. What is it?

5263
01-06-2013, 10:46 AM
5263:

OK so he is 10 times better--that must be in part because the yank. What is it?

Why would you ask me?
Why don't you ask him in his thread?

JohnYandell
01-06-2013, 11:09 AM
5263:

Well if he's 10 times better and you have been studying me for years you must have some knowledge of the yank since it is apparently a critical technical forehand term. Otherwise that exponent may be in question and you can revise it upwards even further when the yank is revealed. You've never hesitated to share your thoughts on "modern" tennis before and this is a phrase from the leader.

JohnYandell
01-06-2013, 11:11 AM
Suresh,

You are a master of the threads. Do you recall where the yank was introduced?

Ash_Smith
01-06-2013, 11:13 AM
kill me, kill me now.

5263
01-06-2013, 11:13 AM
some knowledge of the yank since it is apparently a critical technical forehand term. .

Really... a critical term?? I can't find it in the books? Maybe you can provide
that ref since you are so up on his work?

Relinquis
01-06-2013, 11:15 AM
If you see the instructions in the video you posted, it is about wrist movement and there is no use of the terms pulling back or yanking.

yeah, my point was that he is trying to do a sidespin fade on a topspin shot. in table tennis that means laying your wrist back to create that angle. I feel that he, mistakenly, thinks that yanking the racquet across and pulling back will impart the same type of spin in tennis.

JohnYandell
01-06-2013, 01:28 PM
5263:
So either you don't want to share or you don't know or you don't dare to ask the leader what the yank truly is.

luvforty
01-06-2013, 01:41 PM
kill me, kill me now.

kill me too lol.

do these people actually play tennis? in 30+ weather i already put in 3 hours today and i am tired like a dog.

and these guys are still yanking.

JohnYandell
01-06-2013, 01:58 PM
luv,

Correction I would like to try the yank if only I knew what it was. And why not have it all? It's 50 degress and partially sunny in SF and I just hit for 30 minutes on my ace attack ball machine.

luvforty
01-06-2013, 02:11 PM
lol John I am on your side.... there is no yank..

the arm prolly contributes 20% of the rhs... the bigger muscles, legs, hips, core are the engine..

so yank or no yank, pretty much a moot point.

JohnYandell
01-06-2013, 02:15 PM
luv,

Sorry about the weather...you have to go to the mountains out here to get that temp... (but for snowshoeing not tennis...)

JohnYandell
01-06-2013, 02:38 PM
To All:

Well we may never hear from the yank author, but here is the promised Federer inside out clip.

Your thoughts on what this shows about the issues under discussion please.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/public/tw/fed/fed_inside_out.html

sureshs
01-06-2013, 06:44 PM
Suresh,

You are a master of the threads. Do you recall where the yank was introduced?

I don't recall that any more :-)

Was trailing 0-3 in the first set this evening, but then the rain started and I was saved.

JohnYandell
01-06-2013, 06:52 PM
Suresh:

0-3 is a great opportunity for optimism...


Anyone Else:

Where is that first yank quote if you can recall??

luvforty
01-06-2013, 07:00 PM
To All:

Well we may never hear from the yank author, but here is the promised Federer inside out clip.

Your thoughts on what this shows about the issues under discussion please.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/public/tw/fed/fed_inside_out.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW7SVLDZeX8

the bent fh like Davy's may give a 'yank' impression on TV, but slow mo shows the arm structure is unchanged.

like I was saying, in a bent fh, the arm muscle has to work, but to merely maintain the structure.

sureshs
01-06-2013, 07:01 PM
I tracked it down. Just search in the other thread.

It was actually used by another poster first (where he got it from I don't know) and then Oscar continued its usage.

sureshs
01-06-2013, 07:05 PM
Suresh:

0-3 is a great opportunity for optimism...


The guy was quite serious. He is going to start coaching his daughter, and is trying to play with as many people as possible to expand his skills. He said his regular partner just pushed everything back, and he really likes that I have different strokes to offer to him.

Also, it wasn't 0-3 actually. It was 0-2 and 15-all in the 3rd game when we had to abandon the match.

Cheetah
01-06-2013, 07:39 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW7SVLDZeX8

the bent fh like Davy's may give a 'yank' impression on TV, but slow mo shows the arm structure is unchanged.

like I was saying, in a bent fh, the arm muscle has to work, but to merely maintain the structure.

not quite and not everybody. depending on your swing mechanics you can swing w/o using arm muscle contraction to maintain the structure. Also a lot of players let the elbow extend during the swing (not to the point of a straight arm). And also depending on swing type you can also maintain the structure using the shoulder muscles only.

Nobody thinks about 'using muscles to maintain the structure' anyway. If they do they are arming the ball and have low rhs.

JohnYandell
01-06-2013, 08:10 PM
OK here is what I got from the other thread--thank you suresh:

Wegner wrote:

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… 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.

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.

Please compare to this Federer clip and see if you see any yanking going on:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/public/tw/fed/fed_inside_out.html

luvforty
01-06-2013, 08:26 PM
Nobody thinks about 'using muscles to maintain the structure' anyway. If they do they are arming the ball and have low rhs.

how can a bent arm stay bent if the muscle doesn't contract?