PDA

View Full Version : Traditional vs Modern: It's Freakin' Obvious


TimothyO
12-29-2012, 03:53 PM
Who would you believe, me or your lying eyes?

:)

In another thread an industry marketing rep asserted that there's no real distinction between "traditional" tennis and "modern" tennis. He said the distinction is artificial.

Here for your consideration are two videos. The first is Laver vs Roche at the 1969 A0.

The second is Djoker vs Nadal at the 2012 AO.

I'm sorry, but there's no way to put this delicately. To assert that there's no distinction between these two styles of play one must be a blind or seriously incapable of even rudimentary critical thought.

I asked my 12 year old to review the two films and he immediately ticked off numerous differences between the two styles of play.

And this ain't even high speed film!

Laver vs Roche: Traditional Tennis 1969
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHaN2h21ANs

Djoker vs Nadal: Modern Tennis 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Urn4a2VgvgI

Strokes, pace, shot selection, patterns of play, movement: they're all very different.

Maybe that marketing rep was confused since both videos involve two men hitting a ball over a net with racquets?

arche3
12-29-2012, 04:16 PM
Its obvious its not the same. The only similarity is they all had tennis rackets. Traditional has much more of a forward component in all strokes. Modern has so much rotational across aspect on the fh they are leaving the ground due to the speed of the rotation. Its violent and fast. Its a different stroke between the two. You can see how the game progressed by watching two videos but to say they are the same is not true.

luvforty
12-29-2012, 04:28 PM
yes and no.

on surface they look different... but if you put nadal and nole on fast grass and give them 65in woodie and tell them that they can't leave the ground during serve.... then they will play very much like roche and laver.

arche3
12-29-2012, 04:34 PM
yes and no.

on surface they look different... but if you put nadal and nole on fast grass and give them 65in woodie and tell them that they can't leave the ground during serve.... then they will play very much like roche and laver.

Its not just the serve. Everything is different. Might be because of the new rackets but the technique is different now.

luvforty
12-29-2012, 05:20 PM
Its not just the serve. Everything is different. Might be because of the new rackets but the technique is different now.

technique is different because of the conditions... athletes have been using a circular motion to propel linearly since our ancestors had to hunt for food... discus, shot put, hammer throw, you name it.... it doesn't take scientists to figure out you can generate speed by rotation.

give today's players old conditions - fast grass with lots bad bounces, wood rackets with gut string, they will play the same way laver and roche played.. simply a survival of the fittest.

if you pull to the left or even pull backwards, you will never get to the net in time.

if you hit across the ball, it will be shanksville.

like Ash Smith said, modern tennis exists just like modern art exists... there is nothing new under the sun... just what style makes money.

OHBH
12-29-2012, 05:32 PM
Their shot selection is dictated by the surface. Their is really only one way to hit a tennis ball. The modern rackets allow todays players to swing bigger and more violently but the are all the same in the impact zone

10isfreak
12-29-2012, 05:33 PM
I would take the time to ask what someone EXACTLY means when he says there is no difference between both before criticizing his ideas... and, well, besides this, I would bother analysing high speed videos carefully before saying anything about this subject.

With the naked eye, Nadal and Federer are very different. Using high speed videos, we can determine that their forehand present the EXACT same micromovements: it‘s 40 or more specific moves that they both perform. And, just to make it clear: it‘s not all pros who hit the same forehand. They, however, hit a nearly identical stroke anatomically speaking.

Accuracy is important.

luvforty
12-29-2012, 05:42 PM
a rotational stroke would be inferior in laver's days because -

1) little momentum to the net
2) a finish with right shoulder pointing at the opponent, requires an extra move to recover to square, to cover the volley

actually if you look at the golf swings in the similar era... ben hogan and george knudsen would be in the 'swing to the left' category, while moe norman and byran nelson more in the 'swing down the line' class, with sam snead somewhere in between...

back then they already knew the options to generate power.

ShoeShiner
12-29-2012, 06:32 PM
Good comparison, really obvious.

martini1
12-29-2012, 07:00 PM
yes and no.

on surface they look different... but if you put nadal and nole on fast grass and give them 65in woodie and tell them that they can't leave the ground during serve.... then they will play very much like roche and laver.

Are you saying Nadal would all of sudden be able to hit with a continental grip on his forehand?? He won't be able to a single ground stroke at all.

These guys would still swing the only way they know but with the woodies they won't be able to do much pace or spin.

There is vid of Safin vs Haas (?) hitting with woodie. They did not change so much that they looked like Laver or even Borg.

luvforty
12-29-2012, 07:03 PM
no... survival of the fittest doesn't happen overnight.

luvforty
12-29-2012, 07:05 PM
if ATP were to announce that starting 2014 we'll play on fescue grass with 65in wood only, then you watch.

arche3
12-29-2012, 07:06 PM
technique is different because of the conditions... athletes have been using a circular motion to propel linearly since our ancestors had to hunt for food... discus, shot put, hammer throw, you name it.... it doesn't take scientists to figure out you can generate speed by rotation.

give today's players old conditions - fast grass with lots bad bounces, wood rackets with gut string, they will play the same way laver and roche played.. simply a survival of the fittest.

if you pull to the left or even pull backwards, you will never get to the net in time.

if you hit across the ball, it will be shanksville.

like Ash Smith said, modern tennis exists just like modern art exists... there is nothing new under the sun... just what style makes money.

I dont think its a question if laver can play and compete now. I happen to agree laver and past pros can and would play like the current pros play. The question is if the pros actually play differently now, I think they do. The technique is geared towards the current conditions.

martini1
12-29-2012, 09:40 PM
Just watch any sports over the past 50 years. Technique changes, equipment changes, mentality changes, game plan changes.
You simply cannot ask an athlete from a certain era to play like what's a generation before or after. You cannot reprogram one's body once they have matured. They can adjust a little bit but no way they can transform, unless they are only 10.

tlm
12-29-2012, 09:50 PM
Who would you believe, me or your lying eyes?

:)

In another thread an industry marketing rep asserted that there's no real distinction between "traditional" tennis and "modern" tennis. He said the distinction is artificial.

Here for your consideration are two videos. The first is Laver vs Roche at the 1969 A0.

The second is Djoker vs Nadal at the 2012 AO.

I'm sorry, but there's no way to put this delicately. To assert that there's no distinction between these two styles of play one must be a blind or seriously incapable of even rudimentary critical thought.

I asked my 12 year old to review the two films and he immediately ticked off numerous differences between the two styles of play.

And this ain't even high speed film!

Laver vs Roche: Traditional Tennis 1969
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHaN2h21ANs

Djoker vs Nadal: Modern Tennis 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Urn4a2VgvgI

Strokes, pace, shot selection, patterns of play, movement: they're all very different.

Maybe that marketing rep was confused since both videos involve two men hitting a ball over a net with racquets?

Couldn't agree more, it is amazing that people will debate that there is no difference.

NLBwell
12-29-2012, 10:27 PM
Of course there is a difference in the way the matches look.
You can not point to a day that tennis changed from traditional to modern.
Also, traditional players did hit with open stances, "reverse forehands," two-handed backhands (a few guys), big topspin, etc.
However, they did not normally play this way or hit these shots because they were not optimal to the equipment and conditions. (Oscar Wegner's teaching was based on watching how guys like Laver actually hit the ball.) The game was serve-and-volley in 1969. Low bad bounces were the norm and were difficult to contact cleanly with a wood (or metal) racket.
These people weren't stupid - they played the optimal game for the situation.

Nobody in the modern game can move into the net and volley nearly as well as these guys. There isn't much advantage to it anymore, so why should they do it a lot?


The swinging volley is a good example. Of course, in 1969 guys hit swinging volleys, but it was not a good play. Picking a moving ball out of the air and hitting the sweetspot of a wood racket so that you would get enough power and placement, was a difficult thing to do. Andre Agassi and his ilk popularized the swinging volley. Of course he used a Prince Oversize racket. The technology changed the way the game was played.


.
Tennis has morphed from badmitton to ping-pong.

JW10S
12-29-2012, 10:32 PM
Its not just the serve. Everything is different. Might be because of the new rackets but the technique is different now.Which is why someone claiming they were teaching 'modern' tennis back in 1968 is blowing smoke...

Larrysümmers
12-29-2012, 10:45 PM
it is pretty much the same. these days the players have lighter, bigger rackets and poly strings allowing them to take huge cuts, and put massive power on the ball compared to then.
the laws of the game haven't changed, though. It's was and still is get under the ball, and swing follow through.
There's a book from the late 20s and it is filled with "modern tennis" ideas, but they are wielding around 15?+ OZ of wood around, so their swings look different than ours nowadays.
The author was all about hitting topspin CC and using angles.

arche3
12-29-2012, 10:55 PM
Which is why someone claiming they were teaching 'modern' tennis back in 1968 is blowing smoke...

I dont really care what oscars claims are. I am a pretty decent tennis player although I didn't play on the tour. Just college. When I see these two videos I just don't understand how some people can say there is no such thing as modern tennis.

I don't make a living from tennis. I am simply a player. I don't have a reason to doubt peoples claims about their coaching resume.

And I hope more pro coaches would actually post useful info on here as I am coaching my young son now. I will go as far to say if any person who calls themselves a tennis coach sees no difference between these two videos they should just pack it up right now. There are so many difference in everything.

dominikk1985
12-30-2012, 01:39 AM
traditional vs. modern doesn't exist.

but to say the technique stayed the same is also wrong. technique evolved over the years. there is no cut off for modern tennis.

there always have been rotational WW FHs but with the modern rackets that style became less diverse since those strokes are the most effective way to hit balls.

I also think that style is natural consequence of the modern rackets. a lot of kids are never taught thus and still do it because they imitate the pros in TV and other kids. the use of rotation to generate speed has been used for 100 years in baseball (babe ruth swings exactly like modern players). it is just that you can use it better with modern rackets and also tennis was a polite sport were you weren't supposed to jump and twist around.

that has changed and now players are jumping, screaming and wearing their cap with the shield back:).

TimothyO
12-30-2012, 05:25 AM
John Yandell vs John Yandell

TO, Arche,

I think you should actually try reading what I wrote.

I never said there was "no difference"--that would be as idiotic as your response.

What I said was that there were many modern elements in classical tennis and many classical elements in modern tennis. I guess the distinction was too subtle for you guys but a lot of people got it.

My prayer would be you try to get the facts straight before disproving them--but then maybe you are just following the techniques you learned from the master.

And one other thing you should ponder is whether Wegner's system teaches either the elements that are similar or those that are different. It misses significantly on both fronts.


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

Sorry John, the film evidence says you're wrong. Even on elements such as a wrap finish you're wrong. There's nothing as consistently extreme in the 1969 film as in the 2012 video.

There is a very hard distinction between those two films, between old school and modern tennis.

I would argue that what we see today is a product of changes in frame and string technology, fitness, and a better understanding of tennis physics driving technique (eg increasing emphasis on spin and its effect on stroke paths).

I don't believe the change was binary. It was evolutionary over many years. There was a feedback loop between technology, fitness, and technique.

I think it's clear you're just looking to argue and to attack an industry competitor.

Anyone viewing those two films can see the extraordinary differences in play: pace, strokes, movement, shot selection are all very different. There is a very HARD contrast between the two. One is dominated by low pace angle shots, generally from midcourt to the net. The other is dominated by high pace baseline rallies using extreme topspin.

That doesn't mean that current players never come to net. Nor does it mean that baseline rallies never happened in the 60s. But even those exchanges are different, especially the baseline rallies.

To assert that there's no hard distinction between old school tennis and modern tennis is just crazy.

But if your company, TennisPlayer.net, believes that there's no hard difference then the solution to this extended argument is simple: go to your co-workers and customers and tell them that the '69 film is all you need to play tennis today. Changes in frames, strings, and fitness have not had a hard effect on stroke technique or shot strategy. You can simplify your product catalog by striping it down to the 60s.

In fact, take your quote:


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

and place it as a banner ad on the TennisPlayer.net home page.

If you really believe that incredible statement and all the other needlessly argumentative drivel you've inflicted on Tennis Talk then posting your own thesis statement as the banner ad on your home page should not be a problem.

On the other hand, if you find it as idiotic as the rest of us, you won't post it and will instead disavow it as you just did. In any case, you're arguing with yourself, again.

treblings
12-30-2012, 05:33 AM
Timothy,

interestingly enough, the industry competitor you speak of, Oscar to us, tells us that the pros of Lavers times were playing modern tennis, and he learned that by watching them hitting across and preparing late, etc
That the coaches of that era neglected to teach it and he was the first to do so.

onehandbh
12-30-2012, 05:41 AM
I don't believe the change was binary. It was evolutionary over many years. There was a feedback loop between technology, fitness, and technique.


To everyone:
Do you think there is a big difference between 1980's tennis and the current
tennis today as well? What things do you think are different today vs
the 1980's, which was about 23-33 years ago?

TimothyO
12-30-2012, 05:44 AM
Timothy,

interestingly enough, the industry competitor you speak of, Oscar to us, tells us that the pros of Lavers times were playing modern tennis, and he learned that by watching them hitting across and preparing late, etc
That the coaches of that era neglected to teach it and he was the first to do so.

That's sort of my point too. There IS a hard distinction between classic nd modern tennis but there were subtle changes over time that fed one another.

If you read Oscar closely it's not like he's asserting that Laver was hitting like Nadal and that nobody noticed. That would be just as silly as John's assertion that there's no hard distinction between classic and modern tennis.

Oscar has said that certain aspects of certain players from many years ago were clearly advantageous on the court. Those techniques were the exception and not the rule when it came to teaching. That teaching was constrained to some degree by technology and cultural inertia (happens in other sports too...hitting your head hard on the frozen ground when I played football as a kid in the late 70s/early 80s is treated differently today!)

Over the last 20-30 years feedback between teaching pros such as Oscar, technology, and yes, films by guys like John, have changed the game dramatically.

Given that John is now walking back his comment is a relief but also revealing. I've said in the past that he can contribute a lot if he stays constructive but instead he keeps choosing to be combative in the face of the obvious such as those films.

TimothyO
12-30-2012, 05:51 AM
To everyone:
Do you think there is a big difference between 1980's tennis and the current
tennis today as well? What things do you think are different today vs
the 1980's, which was about 23-33 years ago?

That's and excellent question that goes to the rate of change over the years.

After reading John's thread I also looked at some women's tennis from the 70s and 80s and compared it to WTA matches in 2012. The ferocity of athletes today such as Li Na and Schivione (sp?) is very different from those days.

arche3
12-30-2012, 06:12 AM
(This is not about John Yandel or his slow mo videos)

The majority of 60s tennis was trying to get to net in this video. The majority of modern tennis between djoko and nadal looked an awful lot like ping pong as already stated. Classic tennis does not look like ping pong. Of rather table tennis. The assumption that tennis evolved is an obvious truth that does not need to be proven via slow motion video or scientific methods. It is that obvious. Glaring in your face obvious if you watch the videos in this thread,

All you have to do is count the number of volleys per point for one.

luvforty
12-30-2012, 06:15 AM
these discussions are boring.

honestly.

treblings
12-30-2012, 06:15 AM
That's sort of my point too. There IS a hard distinction between classic nd modern tennis but there were subtle changes over time that fed one another.

If you read Oscar closely it's not like he's asserting that Laver was hitting like Nadal and that nobody noticed. That would be just as silly as John's assertion that there's no hard distinction between classic and modern tennis.

Oscar has said that certain aspects of certain players from many years ago were clearly advantageous on the court. Those techniques were the exception and not the rule when it came to teaching. That teaching was constrained to some degree by technology and cultural inertia (happens in other sports too...hitting your head hard on the frozen ground when I played football as a kid in the late 70s/early 80s is treated differently today!)

Over the last 20-30 years feedback between teaching pros such as Oscar, technology, and yes, films by guys like John, have changed the game dramatically.

Given that John is now walking back his comment is a relief but also revealing. I've said in the past that he can contribute a lot if he stays constructive but instead he keeps choosing to be combative in the face of the obvious such as those films.

i´m fighting with my own personal language barrier here, since english is a second language for me:)
i have to confess, reading JY´s thread starting post, that what he meant was, that it is not either one or the other, classical vs modern, but rather an evolution that has taken place over the decades. and that you can see ´modern´elements even going back a long time, and that many ´classic´elements of the game still have value today. that is how i understood Johns post in his ´does modern tennis exist´-thread.

arche3
12-30-2012, 06:22 AM
To everyone:
Do you think there is a big difference between 1980's tennis and the current
tennis today as well? What things do you think are different today vs
the 1980's, which was about 23-33 years ago?

I think its less distinct for sure. But one example is how agassi and pistol Pete would step into the drive fhs. Driving the force in the direction of the shot. Now you will see pros just as often wrap the same shot. Less step in. More around the body to bend the ball to different places on the court, the court is bigger for the wrapper fhs and drive fhs. Percentage wise they hit deeper during 80s, they hit shallower and more angle now. But just as hard.

Povl Carstensen
12-30-2012, 06:38 AM
I have not folowed the debate closely. But is it a question of that it is not either/or, but both/and? So people of differing camps could exchange views respecting other peoples views and their preferences as to how to express them. Sorry if it is a bit hippie-like...
But still I understand that it is a bit annoying if someone calls his method "modern", thereby implying that all others are obsolete. That is a bit unconstructive to me, and sounds more like marketing and a little disrespectfull perhaps.

luvforty
12-30-2012, 06:43 AM
the debate seems pointless.. just a bunch of people killing time during the off season.

arche3
12-30-2012, 06:52 AM
the debate seems pointless.. just a bunch of people killing time during the off season.

This is life or death man.

Relinquis
12-30-2012, 06:55 AM
i don't know what you are comparing. the strokes in the 69 clip were mostly volleys and one handed backhands (hardly any forehands apart from block return of serve which is similar). in the 2012 video they are baseline rallies with two handed backhands. you're comparing apples to oranges.

nadal's one handed slice backhand looks very similar to the guys in the 69 video. as do the volleys and block return of serve.

so, for the strokes that are comparable like-for-like, there isn't much of a difference between 1969 and 2012!

Relinquis
12-30-2012, 06:57 AM
just as an aside, the 1969 clip was fun. reminded me of rafter vs. sampras type matches. we need a couple of fast surfaces on tour / in slams for variety's sake.

luvforty
12-30-2012, 07:01 AM
yeah - tennis is boring to watch unless fed or tsonga is playing..... back in the days, even 2nd tier guys like rudseski or ivanesavic were worth watching.

dominikk1985
12-30-2012, 07:26 AM
I think that the material and the polite background of tennis is the main reason why swing technique changed so much.

in baseball and discus throwing technique didn't really change in the last 50 years. they always use rotational strokes.

only in tennis there was a big change.

Cindysphinx
12-30-2012, 07:34 AM
I have not folowed the debate closely. But is it a question of that it is not either/or, but both/and? So people of differing camps could exchange views respecting other peoples views and their preferences as to how to express them. Sorry if it is a bit hippie-like...
But still I understand that it is a bit annoying if someone calls his method "modern", thereby implying that all others are obsolete. That is a bit unconstructive to me, and sounds more like marketing and a little disrespectfull perhaps.

Yep, this is really the beginning and end of it.

Once you call your thing "modern" and everything else "traditional" or "classic," you are clearly suggesting your brand is The Hot New Thing That Will Revolutionize Everything and everything else is rubbish. Marketers have been using that technique forever in an attempt to differentiate their brand.

Regarding tennis (and sports in general), it is slowly and continuously evolving. You cannot draw a bright line and call this "traditional" and that "modern." There is too much overlap.

I think if Wegner had called his method of teaching the "Wegner" approach and dropped the adjective "modern,", half of the objections to it would fall away. But so would the subtle ability to denigrate the teaching of others by calling them "traditional."

Personally, I consider that type of marketing to be a turn-off. If someone's method is good enough, they will not need to sell it by claiming it is revolutionary when others are teaching the same stuff and the stuff being taught has evolved over decades.

JackB1
12-30-2012, 08:04 AM
Who would you believe, me or your lying eyes?

:)

In another thread an industry marketing rep asserted that there's no real distinction between "traditional" tennis and "modern" tennis. He said the distinction is artificial.

Here for your consideration are two videos. The first is Laver vs Roche at the 1969 A0.

The second is Djoker vs Nadal at the 2012 AO.

I'm sorry, but there's no way to put this delicately. To assert that there's no distinction between these two styles of play one must be a blind or seriously incapable of even rudimentary critical thought.

I asked my 12 year old to review the two films and he immediately ticked off numerous differences between the two styles of play.

And this ain't even high speed film!

Laver vs Roche: Traditional Tennis 1969
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHaN2h21ANs

Djoker vs Nadal: Modern Tennis 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Urn4a2VgvgI

Strokes, pace, shot selection, patterns of play, movement: they're all very different.

Maybe that marketing rep was confused since both videos involve two men hitting a ball over a net with racquets?

I have never heard or read ANYONE say there's "no difference between modern and traditional tennis". Could you provide a quote or a link?

maverick66
12-30-2012, 10:04 AM
Personally, I consider that type of marketing to be a turn-off. If someone's method is good enough, they will not need to sell it by claiming it is revolutionary when others are teaching the same stuff and the stuff being taught has evolved over decades.

This is what made me really dislike them as well. We got the everyone is dumb but us attitude from them and questions where not met with answers but rather insults or subject changes.

Also games evolve nobody argues that. However to make claims like his book sold once in Serbia so clearly he is responsible for Djoker is a hard one to accept. I have no doubt he might know a good amount of legends of the game but that doesnt make him a good coach or really even a good tennis person. That just means he was in the right place at the right times.

As for people defending him as hard as they are I dont understand it. Unless you have your career linked to him why the hard line approach to the fights I dont get.

Also I wish I could be there if Yandell and Wegner ever ran into each other at a tennis conference or tournament. Talk about awkward moments.

TimothyO
12-30-2012, 10:32 AM
I have never heard or read ANYONE say there's "no difference between modern and traditional tennis". Could you provide a quote or a link?

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.

From the thread, "Does Modern Tennis Exist"

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=449122

TimothyO
12-30-2012, 10:46 AM
i´m fighting with my own personal language barrier here, since english is a second language for me:)
i have to confess, reading JY´s thread starting post, that what he meant was, that it is not either one or the other, classical vs modern, but rather an evolution that has taken place over the decades. and that you can see ´modern´elements even going back a long time, and that many ´classic´elements of the game still have value today. that is how i understood Johns post in his ´does modern tennis exist´-thread.

Yes, I mostly agree, and that's my point. John just seems to want to argue or at least berate an industry competitor. He seems to implicitly acknowledge that there is such a thing as modern tennis but just can't bring himself to openly admit it.

So he makes hyperbolic declarations like there's no hard distinction between classic and modern tennis and post provocative thread titles such as, "Does Modern Tennis Exist?", a clear jab at Oscar.

I think the two of them agree more than not in some ways.

Oscar saw things back in the 60s that he incorporated into his teaching, things that have come to define the modern game.

John admits that there have been changes over time and that things that existed back then still have value. What he can bring himself to do is admit that while there are common elements between classic and modern tennis there are more differences than similarities and that those differences are truly at the core of Oscar's teachings. I think it annoys him that Oscar figured this stuff a long time ago.

As for Cindy's point about marketing, I agree there too and have made the same observation in previous threads.

At this point I think the question is this: rather than attacking Oscar why isn't John content with simply discussing his own observations? Why does he feel compelled to belittle Oscar? Video analysis is extremely valuable.

Oscar has become John's Moby Dick and that obsession could damage his ship, TennisPlayer.net, if he keeps proclaiming stuff like there's no hard distinction between classic and modern tennis when the VIDEO evidence clearly shows a vast chasm between the two.

JohnYandell
12-30-2012, 12:24 PM
Mick,

I can't really disagree with anything you say above. The rackets and strings have skewed the game in the direction of tendencies and techniques that always existed.

JohnYandell
12-31-2012, 10:08 AM
TO,

Thanks once again for your attempts advice and direction. However the video evidence shows nothing of the kind, as I believe I have explained. And I feel confident that I can make my own decisions about the right course for my posts, business etc. without your input.

oldschoolrules
12-31-2012, 11:37 AM
First, I must say that while I have posted very little on the board I "visit" quite frequently and thoroughly enjoy reading the various posts/contributions - particularly those by the various instructors and "students" of the game. But, truth be told, this modern versus traditional thing is a bit silly. Wegner and the MTM guys are marketing a product (which I personally don't believe will ultimately help very many players advance far beyond hitting a nice rally ball from the baseline) with Oscar himself pushing his own "history" as a selling point a bit too hard. John, as well as some of the anti-mtm-at-all-costs guys, ultimately just seem to egg them on, however. Whether that it due to their pushing a competing set of instructional videos/websites or because they really disagree with the fundamentally different approaches presented is sometimes is a bit difficult to discern.

While the only thing I can point to as "credentials" are my sort of "nerdy" love of a game that I have played for over thirty years (my first "good" racquet was a Wilson Kramer Pro Staff) and a little teaching experience, I would like to offer the following: "modern" technique (like others have already indicated) is merely evidence of the evolution in the way the game is played basically due to three, what I think are overwhelming obvious factors - 1) the now-favored use of the semi-western and western forehand grip among both professional and recreational players; 2) the speed of the game as influenced by better athletes at the higher levels and changes in racquet/string technology; and 3) the increasing uniformity of surfaces on which the game is played.

When I was a kid, players like Borg, Vilas, Clerc, Solomon, Arias, etc. all hit with semi-open to open stance forehands. Why is that significant? Well, all of them played with semi-western to western forehand grips which made it very difficult for them to make good contact with the ball from a close-stance position as they had to hit it so much further out in front of their body compared to those who employed eastern or continental grips. Initially, this approach to the forehand seemed to be confined more to the so-called clay-court specialists of the day who could sit back on the baseline and, while taking a big cut at the ball, hit topspin forehands landing around the service line that would often bounce above the heads of their opponents on the opposite side of the court. Borg (and a few others) with the more semi-western grips, however, could also flatten their stroke out pretty effectively when necessary and thus hold their own on faster surfaces as well. It was this ability to hit both with more, naturally-generated topspin (due to the swing path necessitated by the grip) as well as to flatten the ball out when needed that heralded the significant rise in popularity of the semi-western forehand. Probably one of the best examples of this shift to the becoming-more-prominent semi-western and open to semi-open stance forehand and also arguably of the advent of the "modern" power-baseline game among the pros was seen with the rise of Ivan Lendl to the top tier of the sport. Lendl's hammer of a forehand, with his semi-western grip and abbreviated elbow-first small loop take-back, made him a dominant force in the game and influenced the technique of many future hall-of-fame players who followed including, among others, Pete Sampras. As the semi-western grip became more common among the pros, it naturally began to supplant the teaching of the traditional eastern forehand at the recreational level and, by extension, the closed-stance approach. Now, by this time we also have graphite, larger headed racquets starting to relegate wood frames to the dustbin of history. These larger but less cumbersome racquets made it easier to hit the ball as well as generate pace and, by extension, the speed of the game began to change. So now you have people both hitting the ball harder and having less time to set-up (as the ball is coming at them at a higher speed), making it even more necessary for them to generate additional spin to keep the ball in play and do so, timing-wise, from a more open stance. Fast-forward a couple of years and slower, more uniform surfaces have made it nearly impossible to serve/volley on the pro tours as it is now so much easier to rip passing shots off just about anything other than the biggest serve or perfect approach. More extreme western grips are also now being used by significantly more players - primarily to generate more topspin so that they can keep the ball in play and increasingly swing harder. At least at the professional level, it has become a game of trying to push the opponent as far behind the baseline or from the center of the court as possible so one can smack an acute angle winner or drive the ball through the open court. No more finesse (aside from the occasional drop shot), very little variety, and bigger, faster, stronger competitors with larger, more powerful equipment, plying their trade on surfaces that perpetuate that mode of play. Evolution.

Okay - got that off my chest :) Now, the problem with approaches like Oscar's is how it tries to teach amateurs to "play like the pros" when most rec players do not have the strength or skill to ever be able to generate the amount of racquet-head speed that the pros hit with - whether they are pulling/jerking across or hitting through the ball toward the target. As such, instead of producing a heavy, penetrating topspin forehand the student ends up with spinny, lower paced rally ball that sits up a little too much. This kind of approach to the game ignores the fact that it is still necessary to teach/learn how to hit through the ball while moving forward in order to reach a more advanced level of play. It is absurd to suggest that at the professional level (whether ATP or WTA) or the highest amateur levels that players do not still, at least on occasion, hit through the ball with forward momentum/movement. To say otherwise would actually amount to approaching the game in a more one-dimensional way than the more traditional teaching methods that Oscar and the mtm pundits deride. With but a few exceptions, almost everyone who plays at the higher levels of the game at least occasionally still hits an "semi" old school" forehand like a Borg/Lendl/Sampras. That fact, and the history/reason for development of same, should be taken into account when teaching the game today. Bottom line is that you can't have one without the other as they are linked/tied to each other in such a way that makes its silly to say one can draw a direct distinction between them and still succeed in teaching/learning this great sport.

Thank you for putting up with my rant. Happy New Year!

JohnYandell
12-31-2012, 12:35 PM
old,

Actually well said. According to some who post here I've done damage to my business by trying to explain my own views and the fundamental problems with the "modern" approach of Wegner...so no. I just think it's important to stand up at some point to bad information--not to mention inaccurate marketing hype.

JackB1
12-31-2012, 12:36 PM
From the thread, "Does Modern Tennis Exist"

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=449122

Well. If u read the ENTIRE quote then it makes more sense. I think you were taking it way too literally and focusing on the visual differences.

JohnYandell
12-31-2012, 12:45 PM
Jack,

You took the time to read it! Thanks.

TimothyO
12-31-2012, 01:23 PM
Jack,

You missed some posts by Yandell in which he openly admitted to deliberately stalking Wegner as a "hobby". He claims that Wegner insulted him in the 90s and stole his work. Thus his stalking hobby (Yandell used the word "hobby".)

It looks like Yandell then had the mods delete those posts when I noted that such accusations against Wegner may be actionable if he can't prove that Wegner stole his work and that California has pretty strict anti-stalking laws.

Since the posts were removed it would seem that Yandell feels free to continue his stalking hobby.

Yandell simply can't admit that, yes, modern tennis does exist. His blind rage and jealousy of Wegner's success prevents him from doing so explicitly even though he does admit it implicitly as you note.

He probably hates the fact that major networks handed Wagner high profile gigs while he was ignored by the media. He's simply green with envy.

TimothyO
12-31-2012, 01:28 PM
Jack,

You took the time to read it! Thanks.

Great to see you admit that mdoern tennis does exist distinct from classic tennis. You owe Oscar an apology.

arche3
12-31-2012, 01:38 PM
I read the posts where yandel said he made fun of or ridiculed oscar for sport.
I think it is because oscar didn't credit yandel with saying the ball slowed down 50 percent on the bounce. Or oscar stole the idea from him.

luvforty
12-31-2012, 01:44 PM
tim you are wrong

luvforty
12-31-2012, 01:45 PM
arche how was the coaching session today?

TimothyO
12-31-2012, 02:17 PM
I read the posts where yandel said he made fun of or ridiculed oscar for sport.
I think it is because oscar didn't credit yandel with saying the ball slowed down 50 percent on the bounce. Or oscar stole the idea from him.

In the posts in question he didn't specify the ideas that Oscar was to have stolen from him. He did say explicitly that he was stalking Oscar because of insults from the 90s and appropriating Yendell's work without credit (a charge of plagiarism).

JohnYandell
12-31-2012, 02:18 PM
Timmy,

You should look up sarcasm and irony in the dictionary. They are part of my hobby. Not everyone is as earnest as you timmy, thank god.

I'm sorry they deleted the posts. And if you think that was grounds for legal action, I know a few lawyers who would like to bill you...that's one of the dumbest things you've posted yet and that is making a significant claim.

TimothyO
12-31-2012, 02:21 PM
tim you are wrong

No, John is just really envious and bitter. He openly admitted that he stalks Oscar as a "hobby".
He explained that he does so because he beieves that Oscar insulted him 20 years ago and stole his work.

That's not only immature, it's sick.

TimothyO
12-31-2012, 02:24 PM
Timmy,

You should look up sarcasm and irony in the dictionary. They are part of my hobby. Not everyone is as earnest as you timmy, thank god.

I'm sorry they deleted the posts. And if you think that was grounds for legal action, I know a few lawyers who would like to bill you...that's one of the dumbest things you've posted yet and that is making a significant claim.

Johny,

You admitted to stalking another industry professional due to perceived insults from 20 years ago and because you believed that he stole your work.

Grow up and grow a pair.

Maybe if you spent as much time on your business as you do stalking people online you would be successful too. ;)

You're getting sort of scary Johny,

http://www.waitingfornextyear.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/heres-johnny.jpg

JohnYandell
12-31-2012, 02:40 PM
Again, your advice is excellent. You probably have an mba. However what you call stalking I call fun target practice.

And really you should refrain from references to genitalia in a public forum.

TimothyO
12-31-2012, 02:48 PM
Again, your advice is excellent. You probably have an mba. However what you call stalking I call fun target practice.

And really you should refrain from references to genitalia in a public forum.

Target practice? Do you intend to take your obsession even further?

Hopefully Oscar has decent security.

Did you behave this way toward Kim Shanley? Is that why you got booted from Tennis One? Any restraining orders against you?

JohnYandell
12-31-2012, 02:56 PM
Timmy,

Wow you really want to know the details of my life, even things that happened 10 years ago. That is so flattering.
And again, please refrain from genitalia references in the future. It is compromising your image here.

arche3
12-31-2012, 03:55 PM
arche how was the coaching session today?

I played with my son today for 2 hours. Ran BH drills and volley and oh, serve practice for him. Played a few quick games. His serve is coming along nicely.

arche3
12-31-2012, 04:09 PM
In the posts in question he didn't specify the ideas that Oscar was to have stolen from him. He did say explicitly that he was stalking Oscar because of insults from the 90s and appropriating Yendell's work without credit (a charge of plagiarism).

That's a long time to hold as grudge. Happy new year Tim. Let's Hope the new year brings some great tennis.

Povl Carstensen
12-31-2012, 04:12 PM
Of course modern tennis exists, in the meaning "contemporary". And of course it is related with with tennis of earlier. As long as its played by humans with a racket it will have common traits. I dont like attempts at monopolizing the word modern. And I dont like personal vendettas, especially if they loose the point of the subject at hand.

JohnYandell
12-31-2012, 04:17 PM
Arche,

10 years to hold a grudge, that's nothing! ... Now quickly do you think I am or was or have been fully serious?

Except the hard analysis of technique--now that is deadly serious. Much of the rest makes theatre of the absurd look like Norman Rockwell. Tim double your security patrols!

JohnYandell
12-31-2012, 04:18 PM
Povl,

My only vendetta is for the truth. Your comments are most sensical.

TennisCJC
01-01-2013, 11:50 AM
Okay - got that off my chest :) Now, the problem with approaches like Oscar's is how it tries to teach amateurs to "play like the pros" when most rec players do not have the strength or skill to ever be able to generate the amount of racquet-head speed that the pros hit with - whether they are pulling/jerking across or hitting through the ball toward the target. As such, instead of producing a heavy, penetrating topspin forehand the student ends up with spinny, lower paced rally ball that sits up a little too much. This kind of approach to the game ignores the fact that it is still necessary to teach/learn how to hit through the ball while moving forward in order to reach a more advanced level of play. It is absurd to suggest that at the professional level (whether ATP or WTA) or the highest amateur levels that players do not still, at least on occasion, hit through the ball with forward momentum/movement.

I enjoyed your analysis and agree that Borg, Vilas, Arias, Solomon and a few others were playing the modern game back in the 70s and early 80s.

But, I disagree that rec players and beginners don't have the strength or skill to learn using Oscar's method. I am not a certified pro but taught my adult kids mostly based on Oscar's progressions. They found it easier and the results were better. Waiting on the ball with both hands on the racket, touching the bottom of the ball, and pulling up and across to finish with the hand touching the opposite shoulder helped them both learn the forehand. My daughter remarked "this new stroke is a lot easier". I don't see any issue with teaching the MTM basics to beginners and don't think it has any limit at the top end of the skill level either.

5263
01-01-2013, 12:40 PM
No, John is just really envious and bitter. He openly admitted that he stalks Oscar as a "hobby".
He explained that he does so because he beieves that Oscar insulted him 20 years ago and stole his work.

That's not only immature, it's sick.

I was wondering where the post went where I quoted Jy admitting his hobby agenda
related to Oscar.

I pointed out how it was a rare confession with clear insight to his motives,

and also included Jy's ironic perspective that
Modern does not exists, but while it does not exist, he says
it contains many mistakes. Is it just me that finds that hard to understand?
How does something that does not exist, contain these errors?
Usually people take one mistaken view of the other, but he somehow has
taken both views :???:
Thankfully I saved quote; expecting that Jy would seek to have it removed
once he realized his admissions.

5263
01-01-2013, 12:50 PM
I enjoyed your analysis and agree that Borg, Vilas, Arias, Solomon and a few others were playing the modern game back in the 70s and early 80s.

But, I disagree that rec players and beginners don't have the strength or skill to learn using Oscar's method. I am not a certified pro but taught my adult kids mostly based on Oscar's progressions. They found it easier and the results were better.

Excellent point here. Speed & strength of pros, along with their timing, is a big part of
what leads to their superior performance and results, but has nothing to do with
use of the same technique.

That would be sort of like saying folks at the local gym can do curls with the
same form as Pro bodybuilders due to strength, when actually just like in tennis,
using many of the same "techniques" can be very helpful.

Pros play the simplest and easiest way because the speed & power of the game demand it for efficient execution.

JohnYandell
01-01-2013, 01:24 PM
5263:

At this point we can pretty much take any of your statements, and the opposite will be the truth.

The fact is that the analysis in that thread I started basically eviscerates not modern tennis per se, but your so-called modern methodology.

Your strategy is then not to counter those criticisms as that would be impossible using facts and logic. Your strategy in the classic strategy of the cult follower is to make up outright lies about what I actually post.

Does modern tennis exist? If anyone really thinks I said no, I would love it if you would read the first post in that thread and let 5263 know what my answers is. He still won't acknowledge it of course, but maybe it would clarify things for people on this board who stay open minded.

And as for removing threads or comments, again it's just another lie in the big lie theory. The more lies you tell the harder it is to keep track of them much less waste time refuting them. I've never asked anything to be removed. I don't think you and your fellow worshipers can say the same.

And remember guys when he responds read his post and just figure out the opposite.

5263
01-01-2013, 01:38 PM
Your strategy is then not to counter those criticisms as that would be impossible using facts and logic.
Your strategy in the classic strategy of the cult follower is to make up outright lies about what I actually post.
.

Anyone can see how you must stoop to your name calling of cult and worship
since you have no real point.

Are you now saying that you agree that there is something known to many as
Modern Tennis Methodology?

JohnYandell
01-01-2013, 02:20 PM
5263:

Hey didn't you hear? I thought you copied every post word for word into your diary.

Arche now refers to Oscar as the Messiah as well.

As for the name of the doctrine of the church, I can no longer bring myself to utter it. You post it enough for everyone worldwide.

5263
01-01-2013, 02:58 PM
5263:

Arche now refers to Oscar as the Messiah as well.

As for the name of the doctrine of the church, I can no longer bring myself to utter it. You post it enough for everyone worldwide.

Pretty shrewd tactic to make a post like this, which will likely draw a report
and get this thread, critical of you removed.

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

You've just positively admitted defeat on the issues. Look at your last 10 posts. Nothing but catty snipes at myself and JW.

Who is gonna file that report? You? Remember truth = the opposite of your posts.

5263
01-01-2013, 03:10 PM
5263:
Look at your last 10 posts. Nothing but catty snipes at myself and JW.


Guess that is true if you ignore the important pts and questions like how your
classic unit turn with a surfboard man relates to your new description, which
sounds much more like stalking than the classic unit turn in your book. :)

I guess if you just recycle the old name with your newer technique, then you
have somehow bridged your old instruction with your constant updates version? :???:

luvforty
01-01-2013, 03:22 PM
I have a little story to tell -

after repeated requests from the kids, I took them to petsmart to buy a couple of gerbils.

the store clerk, a nice guy, told us that he needed to test if the 2 of them can get along.

the moment he put the 2 gerbils in the same shipping box, both started ppi$$ing really hard to claim territory. Afterwards, they went on to scratch and bite each other violently.

this went on for 15 minutes and there was no sign of peace.

Finally we had to change plan, only brought one of them home.

5263
01-01-2013, 04:17 PM
I have a little story to tell -

after repeated requests from the kids, I took them to petsmart to buy a couple of gerbils. .

Nice story :)
Are you surprised there is more than one perspective on this?

IMO the contrasting points made on here are quite useful for those learning.
Jy has plenty of useful frames to use from his video study and Oscar does a
great job with how strokes feel. Discussion from varying view points can be
insightful.

JohnYandell
01-01-2013, 04:26 PM
Luv forty,

yes I would not want to be in box with...well a few people on this board.

5263:

Great idea! Discussion of issues. When do you propose to start with that?

5263
01-01-2013, 04:30 PM
Luv forty,

yes I would not want to be in box with...well a few people on this board.

5263:

Great idea! Discussion of issues. When do you propose to start with that?

Hey I'm all for it. I'd just ask that you not describe MTM stroke methods, as
that is not your area.
I refer to classic, as was my area before for many years, but I don't ever seek
to refer to what Jy teaches. I don't even know if you have a set way.
I do refer to your book, as I find it an excellent reference for classic strokes.

JohnYandell
01-01-2013, 05:00 PM
Not describe mtm strokes? Really? That's gonna limit discussion don't you think?

5263
01-01-2013, 06:39 PM
Not describe mtm strokes? Really? That's gonna limit discussion don't you think?

Well I honestly don't know what to do about it. Unfortunately you don't address
them correctly, so it leads to confusion.
Maybe you can focus on how you would teach and approach it.

oldschoolrules
01-01-2013, 07:47 PM
I enjoyed your analysis and agree that Borg, Vilas, Arias, Solomon and a few others were playing the modern game back in the 70s and early 80s.

But, I disagree that rec players and beginners don't have the strength or skill to learn using Oscar's method. I am not a certified pro but taught my adult kids mostly based on Oscar's progressions. They found it easier and the results were better. Waiting on the ball with both hands on the racket, touching the bottom of the ball, and pulling up and across to finish with the hand touching the opposite shoulder helped them both learn the forehand. My daughter remarked "this new stroke is a lot easier". I don't see any issue with teaching the MTM basics to beginners and don't think it has any limit at the top end of the skill level either.

I apologize for my traditional v. modern commentary morphing into the debate over teaching methods - it really wasn't intentional. I just wanted to say that there is no bright line one can point to between the techniques used in today's game and the one employed by players 40 years ago. But with regard to my criticism of Oscar and MTM, I was only trying to point out that I believe their approach to generally be too narrow and, ultimately, of limited use. Now, I'm mainly talking about his ideas on groundstroke mechanics - I actually like his pieces on movement/footwork and much of the early prep via stalking/unit turn stuff - but the forehand/backhand methods he stresses, i.e. pulling across/falling back, as the fundamentals, while arguably useful at some juncture, should be relegated to later in a student's development or at least until after they learn to make solid contact with and hit through the ball. It is only after one understands the basics of "square" racquet to ball contact does it make sense to so heavily emphasize the use of spin. Otherwise they can never really grasp the importance of be able to employ varying degrees of spin depending on court position, opponents, score, etc. I have, in fact, seen a few kids practice and play who appear to have been taught solely via MTM (or similar approach) and while they were very consistent from the backcourt, they struggled at least on the forehand side dealing with both low skidding balls and those landing well short of the baseline. Additionally, they did not have the ability to "up the ante" and either step in to and flatten out their shot or the strength to significantly increase the spin rate of their ball enough to turn their regular stroke into a winner when they had the advantage of an open court. In short, I got the impression there had been no attempt to teach them anything but Oscar's up and across with as much racquet head speed as possible, leaving them helpless against an opponent who clearly saw that way of hitting the ball as merely one of many available options.

JohnYandell
01-01-2013, 07:51 PM
5263:

I've seen a lot of Oscar's stuff, videos, books, posts etc. I think I understand the main points well. I don't think his approach accurately describes pro tennis and isn't conducive to good tennis at all levels.

So far as I am concerned you can say the same about my beliefs. I can certainly agree to disagree. But that seems to be the problem. Unlike other coaches with whom I have discussed and debated, there is an insistence that a revolution is necessary promlugating this system, that other coaches aren't producing results, and the reason is they don't teach mtm. And then there are the claims of influence that have been challenged in some cases by the very people who were supposedly influenced.

That's different than just saying here is what I think and I think it's good. Coaching isn't a matter of orthodoxy and this is why you guys run into so much conflict on this board as well as in the larger coaching community.

No one has a monopoly on truth and the best coaches are always learning and evolving. That's what I aspire to myself and have dedicated my work to achieving. If I were you guys I'd be all over the high speed archives testing my theories against the actual reality of the pro game.

5263
01-01-2013, 08:08 PM
I have, in fact, seen a few kids practice and play who appear to have been taught solely via MTM (or similar approach) and while they were very consistent from the backcourt, they struggled at least on the forehand side dealing with both low skidding balls and those landing well short of the baseline. Additionally, they did not have the ability to "up the ante" and either step in to and flatten out their shot

I have reason to doubt broad general comments this that are based on a person
thinking someone might have been solely taught......etc...

but even if it were true, it would only relate to that player and their instructor,
since MTM covers all those situations strongly and I would expect a well coached
player with MTM to be the BEST at attacking short balls effectively.

5263
01-01-2013, 08:42 PM
5263:

I've seen a lot of Oscar's stuff, videos, books, posts etc. I think I understand
the main points well. I don't think his approach accurately describes pro tennis
and isn't conducive to good tennis at all levels.

Coaching isn't a matter of orthodoxy and this is why you guys run into so much
conflict on this board as well as in the larger coaching community.


I appreciate the nice tone of this post and there is a lot of good stuff to discuss here.
I agree you are familiar with MTM, but that is not the same as functioning
knowledge. Each comment you make about it shows you don't have that.
I'm quite familiar with many aircraft, but not allowed to
fly them without approved training and demonstrating a working useful
knowledge of them. I can't come from outside and say those aircraft don't fly right
when they are working well for others. It's on me if I can't fly them up to
standards. I can only say from what I know of them, they are not for me.
Just like some jets, I have many hours in both MTM and Classic, with both of them
working well as a player and instructor. Even though I probably have 3 times
the hours in classic, Modern comes way more natural and functional in my
experience.

Now I'm not saying you are classic, since you have clearly evolved quite a
bit from your early classic days; so I'm not putting what you do now in any
kind of box to comment on. I expect it would be a moving target anyway,
due your constant study and evolution. I don't presume to make bold statements
about what you are doing now and don't think you should do it with MTM for
the same reason.

Traditional coaching has very much been about orthodoxy over the years, and
that is what we are working to change. MTM just offers a basic & general
approach to strokes with tons of room for individual style.

sureshs
01-02-2013, 12:35 PM
Here is something I heard from a surfing coach last week about his philosophy of teaching:

Foundation + Flexibility

Teach the sound fundamentals of surfing (or else you could be limited to 1 minute of Stand Up Paddling before toppling over, like me) and give the flexibility to each student to evolve his own style.

I can imagine a tennis coach adopting this as a mission statement and trademarking "F&F Coaching."

Interestingly, the Surfing Channel program I was watching was showing a pro surf event on the Oahu North Shore, and two ex-surfers who were commentating ended up arguing whether a certain surfer was showing off his own style, or was it just the regular orthodox teaching that he was following!

5263
01-02-2013, 07:06 PM
Here is something I heard from a surfing coach last week about his philosophy of teaching:

Foundation + Flexibility

Teach the sound fundamentals of surfing (or else you could be limited to 1 minute of Stand Up Paddling before toppling over, like me) and give the flexibility to each student to evolve his own style.

I think this is an excellent philosophy.

CoachingMastery
01-02-2013, 07:30 PM
Here is something I heard from a surfing coach last week about his philosophy of teaching:

Foundation + Flexibility

Teach the sound fundamentals of surfing (or else you could be limited to 1 minute of Stand Up Paddling before toppling over, like me) and give the flexibility to each student to evolve his own style.

I can imagine a tennis coach adopting this as a mission statement and trademarking "F&F Coaching."

Interestingly, the Surfing Channel program I was watching was showing a pro surf event on the Oahu North Shore, and two ex-surfers who were commentating ended up arguing whether a certain surfer was showing off his own style, or was it just the regular orthodox teaching that he was following!

Not that I want to get involved in this discussion per se, this is my--and has been my--contention for decades. (And what led to my writing Tennis Mastery and my idea of an "Advanced Foundation"...

You can teach 1000 player exactly the same methodology and no two players will play exactly the same after a period of time.

The main issue I have with ANY philosophy is the idea of foundation. If the foundation is indeed flawed for 1000 players, they will still all play different, but most all will also fall far short of reaching their true "playing potential."

Playing potential is defined by the athleticism, desire, opportunity, and "education" that a player is offered or is blessed with. Education is this idea of foundation. I've seen thousands of players who had the other three elements but either were self taught poorly or were given a poor foundation by ignorant or ineffective pros or coaches. Thus, these otherwise potentially great players hacked, dinked, pushed, or otherwise used minimal technique which was all they knew.

I have found that nearly 100% of my players which I offer my own form of MTM or whatever iconic name you want to give it, (I call mine an "advanced foundation"), that prescribes the elements of ALL top-level strokes with the understanding that all players will indeed EVOLVE this foundation, reach extremely high levels of skilled play. With an advanced foundation, this evolotionary component is almost always complementary to the foundation because it is self-or naturally--curing. However, the foundation elements are in many cases not a natural occuring aspect. For example,continental grips on serves and
volleys, topspin strokes, and some footwork patterns don't initially feel comfortable or competent for many.

However, these are the very elements that make up an advanced foundation for any player and must be MADE to feel comfortable and competent through training.

Some pros avoid that which is uncomfortable in fear of losing the player. But this is the worst thing that a pro can do because once a player begins to play tennis using any particular pattern, they will not want to change because now it not only feels uncomfortable, but now they feel like they will LOSE with this new technique. Thus, they revert back over and over and over.

John and Oscar both have concepts I'm fully in favor of...ideas that I've used in my own teaching to help convey my "advanced foundation". THAT is the value of both pros to me. Hopefully, both of them--and many others--have used some of my own ideas within their teaching to convey their own methods or idea. While I know John doesn't necessarily agree with all my own points of view, I think he agrees that I know what I'm talking about. Oscar too. I believe both pros know what they are talking about...however, each interpret both approaches--and subsequent ideologies--with a level of subjective--and in many cases, objective--overviews.

I personally try to avoid argumentative injunctions here, in favor of trying to gain from--or convey to--any readers here a positive or contributing comment or idea and not try to attack someone for thier position.

Believe me, I've not agreed with everyone here in some cases. But, I want to keep an open mind more, and try to gain from each person rather than simply disagree.

That said, I understand why people disagree with each other here...very easy to do. And, certainly, within such a forum, it is easy to attack or be attacked. One thing at the very least, everyone should recognize, is that John, Oscar, and myself included, we use our real names here, knowing that others can indeed attack us in the cloak of a fake user name.

Some may attack me for these sentiments. However, I hope that instead, people who may disagree with me will objectively offer ideas that support such disagreement...something that I can gain from and others too, who read these posts.

Happy New Year to all!

tlm
01-02-2013, 07:36 PM
Not that I want to get involved in this discussion per se, this is my--and has been my--contention for decades. (And what led to my writing Tennis Mastery and my idea of an "Advanced Foundation"...

You can teach 1000 player exactly the same methodology and no two players will play exactly the same after a period of time.

The main issue I have with ANY philosophy is the idea of foundation. If the foundation is indeed flawed for 1000 players, they will still all play different, but most all will also fall far short of reaching their true "playing potential."

Playing potential is defined by the athleticism, desire, opportunity, and "education" that a player is offered or is blessed with. Education is this idea of foundation. I've seen thousands of players who had the other three elements but either were self taught poorly or were given a poor foundation by ignorant or ineffective pros or coaches. Thus, these otherwise potentially great players hacked, dinked, pushed, or otherwise used minimal technique which was all they knew.

I have found that nearly 100% of my players which I offer my own form of MTM or whatever iconic name you want to give it, (I call mine an "advanced foundation"), that prescribes the elements of ALL top-level strokes with the understanding that all players will indeed EVOLVE this foundation, reach extremely high levels of skilled play. With an advanced foundation, this evolotionary component is almost always complementary to the foundation because it is self-or naturally--curing. However, the foundation elements are in many cases not a natural occuring aspect. For example,continental grips on serves and
volleys, topspin strokes, and some footwork patterns don't initially feel comfortable or competent for many.

However, these are the very elements that make up an advanced foundation for any player and must be MADE to feel comfortable and competent through training.

Some pros avoid that which is uncomfortable in fear of losing the player. But this is the worst thing that a pro can do because once a player begins to play tennis using any particular pattern, they will not want to change because now it not only feels uncomfortable, but now they feel like they will LOSE with this new technique. Thus, they revert back over and over and over.

John and Oscar both have concepts I'm fully in favor of...ideas that I've used in my own teaching to help convey my "advanced foundation". THAT is the value of both pros to me. Hopefully, both of them--and many others--have used some of my own ideas within their teaching to convey their own methods or idea. While I know John doesn't necessarily agree with all my own points of view, I think he agrees that I know what I'm talking about. Oscar too. I believe both pros know what they are talking about...however, each interpret both approaches--and subsequent ideologies--with a level of subjective--and in many cases, objective--overviews.

I personally try to avoid argumentative injunctions here, in favor of trying to gain from--or convey to--any readers here a positive or contributing comment or idea and not try to attack someone for thier position.

Believe me, I've not agreed with everyone here in some cases. But, I want to keep an open mind more, and try to gain from each person rather than simply disagree.

That said, I understand why people disagree with each other here...very easy to do. And, certainly, within such a forum, it is easy to attack or be attacked. One thing at the very least, everyone should recognize, is that John, Oscar, and myself included, we use our real names here, knowing that others can indeed attack us in the cloak of a fake user name.

Some may attack me for these sentiments. However, I hope that instead, people who may disagree with me will objectively offer ideas that support such disagreement...something that I can gain from and others too, who read these posts.

Happy New Year to all!

Excellent post and everyone could use more of this attitude!