He means get the shoulders sideways, surely not talking about stance.
Really??A pure open stance has both feet lined parallel to the baseline, so the shoulders cannot be sideways.
Notice how he emphasizes hitting through the ball. That is how pros do it.
A pure open stance has both feet lined parallel to the baseline, so the shoulders cannot be sideways.
A guy has shown up in the Pro Player section. He was in the finals of all the Junior Slams this year, and won the W and USO, and is the #1 ITF junior now. He is inviting questions.
See below. Note use of "through the ball" not once but twice. Note the importance of sideways too (i.e. not standing open stance facing the net).
Quote:
Originally Posted by sureshs
Filip, hope you don't mind a technical question.
What tips can you give about hitting a topspin forehand with the right balance of spin and pace (depending on the situation), and the control over the direction (down the line or cross court), even though the swing motion is approximately the same? In other words, what is the difference you consciously make to achieve a particular speed/spin mix and direction compared to another combination?
Technical questions are tough to answer without physically demonstrating it, but I will do my best.
Basically you need to get under the ball with your racket and legs, transferring your weight up and through the ball, in order to keep the pace and depth.
As for changing direction, you need to be turned sideways as preparation, (this applies to every stroke) and use your weight transfer and hand/racket manipulation to direct the ball. Pretty much all you have to do is guide your racket and weight through the ball in that direction.
Again, these are difficult to answer, as it is a lot easier to learn if you actually see somebody demonstrate it in person.
A guy has shown up in the Pro Player section. He was in the finals of all the Junior Slams this year, and won the W and USO, and is the #1 ITF junior now. He is inviting questions.
See below. Note use of "through the ball" not once but twice. Note the importance of sideways too (i.e. not standing open stance facing the net).
I am also impressed with his mention of hand and racket manipulation. I have noticed conscious direction control among the pros, which is not just by a different swing path. I notice them "forcing" a direction and am glad that I was correct. It is not about hitting "across the ball" at all.
5263 will be sending me a check for $1000 for revealing the truth to him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sureshs
Filip, hope you don't mind a technical question.
What tips can you give about hitting a topspin forehand with the right balance of spin and pace (depending on the situation), and the control over the direction (down the line or cross court), even though the swing motion is approximately the same? In other words, what is the difference you consciously make to achieve a particular speed/spin mix and direction compared to another combination?
Technical questions are tough to answer without physically demonstrating it, but I will do my best.
Basically you need to get under the ball with your racket and legs, transferring your weight up and through the ball, in order to keep the pace and depth.
As for changing direction, you need to be turned sideways as preparation, (this applies to every stroke) and use your weight transfer and hand/racket manipulation to direct the ball. Pretty much all you have to do is guide your racket and weight through the ball in that direction.
Again, these are difficult to answer, as it is a lot easier to learn if you actually see somebody demonstrate it in person.
LOL, give it up Suresh....A pure open stance has both feet lined parallel to the baseline, so the shoulders cannot be sideways.
Notice how he emphasizes hitting through the ball. That is how pros do it.
The other important point is hitting through the ball. It is not about hitting across the ball, but hitting through it. And the role of racket manipulation in fixing the direction - it doesn't come by the same swing and some different contact point in a risky tangential collision with the ball. It comes by planned contact and hitting through the ball.
Honestly, you wasted both your time and Peliwo's if you expected some sort of revelation about stroke mechanics from him.
Not sure what hitting thru the ball or tangential collisions mean to you, but racket travels
on an arc as it moves thru the ball...not the imaginary line towards the target,
as proposed in traditional instruction.
Really the only interesting discussion about this is how sharp is the arc and where does it
get sharper, along with how does that relate to the path of the hand.
This straight line towards the target is a myth that is dead.
Don't change the subject. He said nothing about straight line to the target. Not even your Stan Smith that you quoted was doing it. It is your strawman - don't drag him to every place.
Not a strawman at all. That traditional myth I debunk on here daily is in print in
many references.
The fact that you try many angles to find fault with the "across the ball" concept, does not change that and we have you here admitting as much I
guess since you are stating that the thru the ball down the target line is a
Strawman!
Finally we have an admission of this important issue.
Praise Jesus! Suresh admits thru the 5 balls thing is not valid? Can it be?
And the motion is across because most pros hit at full extension now. Only place left is across. But the intent is to hit through the ball. Just not in the way Suresh thinks of.
I would say he has revealed couple of things of immense importance which are simply beyond the scope of most people here - the importance of hitting through the ball and the importance of racket manipulation for direction.
That is really the difference between you and him - you think he has wasted his time but he doesn't think so. It is always like that. The people who are good are always willing to share - it is the low level people who are cynical, like you think you are qualified to speak on his behalf when you are basically a nobody.
As far as I can tell "Hitting through the ball" is a not a specific, objective description of a particular technique. Every tennis player "hits through the ball" to some extent-- otherwise the ball wouldn't go forward. So I think we all agree that you need to hit through the ball!
But what the phrase "hitting through the ball" actually means in practice is up for debate, and in fact has been debated ad nauseam on this forum. So without a little more detail, I'm not sure what the revelation is there.
"Racquet manipulation for direction" sounds like a truism. Of course you manipulate the racquet to direct the ball.
The question seems to be how you manipulate it. I didn't see any info on that in Peliwo's post-- perhaps because as he said himself, these things are more effectively taught by demonstration.
So once again, I don't think Peliwo's comments were particularly revelatory, and though I don't actually want to speak on his behalf, I doubt he intended them to be particularly revelatory.
Hey, if you choose to think that "hit through the ball," "get sideways" and "manipulate the hand/racquet for ball direction" are holy secrets that only high-level pros can impart, you're welcome to think that!
For myself I feel like these are generalities which one hears frequently. The issue is translating them into correct action. Reading them on a message board, no matter who posts them, won't get us there.
As far as I can tell "Hitting through the ball" is a not a specific, objective description of a particular technique. Every tennis player "hits through the ball" to some extent-- otherwise the ball wouldn't go forward.
Hey, if you choose to think that "hit through the ball," "get sideways" and "manipulate the hand/racquet for ball direction" are holy secrets that only high-level pros can impart, you're welcome to think that!
For myself I feel like these are generalities which one hears frequently. The issue is translating them into correct action. Reading them on a message board, no matter who posts them, won't get us there.
Good post and right on target for these issues.
suresh calls you a nobody, & puts his faith in real pros who blah, blah.....unless it
that Pro is Stan Smith or any other pro he disagrees with, lol.
Praise Jesus! Suresh admits thru the 5 balls thing is not valid? Can it be?
And the motion is across because most pros hit at full extension now. Only place left is across. But the intent is to hit through the ball. Just not in the way Suresh thinks of.
In our context, across motion is tangential horizontal component of the racquet velocity that coincides to the racquet string bed. This across motion creates boll’s clockwise spin.
Let’s again analyze Federer FH.
In frame 5, Federer creates maximum tangential component (maximum brushing motion), but small normal component (to the string bed) of the racquet velocity. In frame 12 the racquet velocity has zero tangential component, so Federer could hit pure flat FH and really is able to hit at least through one - two balls.
That’s why we have so much fun here and MTM threads are so attractive.The hitting through the ball is what the #1 junior in the world also says, one who hits with Raonic and Cilic. But that doesn't count over here. If he had said "hit across the ball" after "stalking" and "finding it with the hand," he would have become a hero here.
Thus, Federer could hit pure flat FH and really is able to hit at least through one or two balls.
Can you go back to my post #389 and give me an answer please?So now it's hit thru 1-2 balls
I guess even the worm on the hook continues to squirm.
I suppose to have to say sorry and admit that MTM was right on this all
along, while you came up with effort after effort, only to have these efforts
end up showing the across aspect, would be too great a loss.
Others see it, you have admitted as much and we could be done with it, but
you will try to sneak in your misinfo on some unrelated thread.
whatever, lol.
Can you go back to my post #389 and give me an answer please?
So, you again refuse to give me unambiguous answer. I really don’t know how to communicate with you.I think if you really care,
it is as easy for you as it is for me,
to go back and find where you stated incorrectly that the Nadal Fh,
which was an I/O Fh, would spin counter clockwise.
Somehow during the thread you seemed to slip around to the correct
understanding that Nadal's I/O Fh would be clockwise.
The picture below absolutely clearly shows that there is no special horizontal “across aspect” due to the racquet tip constantly moves to the left. Thus, it can create clockwise sidespin or no sidespin at all. But, according to Wegner there should be significant counterclockwise sidespin.
Ok, I've done your work of finding your work for you, lolHere is on more picture of Federer forehand.
Figure 1. Federer I/O forehand
This is a typical Federer FH. It is his bread and butter.
3. Before impact the racquet moves to the right and cannot produce clockwise sidespin, but only counterclockwise, not like Wegner says.
:
Nadal’s racquet moves constantly to the left. So, it absolutely clear there will be (from above view) boll’s clockwise sidespin!!!:shock:Ok, to be nice, here is one where you say Wegner expects counter clockwise and
mistakenly say there is none.
Wegner would expect clockwise, which you will get, vs none as you say.
Nadal’s racquet moves constantly to the left. So, it absolutely clear there will be (from above view) boll’s clockwise sidespin!!!:shock:
Ball rotation about vertical axis is sidespin. It is common practice to define direction of the sidespin from above or below view. :shock:Why would you look at sidespin from above??
sidespin would only seem relevant as it relates to hitters view imo.
What is boll's sidespin??
before you said Nadal had no sidespin, right??
so why does his Fh curve so much?
do you really want to find something meaningful or just debate and confuse?
That may be common for when you deal with sidespin as the primary rotation,Ball rotation about vertical axis is sidespin. It is common practice to define direction of the sidespin from above or below view. :shock:
There is no need to invent new rotational terminology. Everything about that was defined hundreds years ago. In general, I explained the matter in thread http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=436086. The most complicated case, Twist serve, I described in article http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=440128. There are also hundreds of SystemicAnomaly posts about this topic.That may be common for when you deal with sidespin as the primary rotation,
But we are not talking about a pure type sidespin, but more of a side aspect to
topspin ;
something like the canted axis for the earth.
I specified several times from the hitter's perspective.
Maybe to make it simple for you, we can address it as which way it will curve;
tail off to left or right.
Nadal's lefty I/O Fh will tend to tail off to the left.
Fed's righty I/O Fh will tend to tail off to the right.
Does that make sense to you?
No problem. No one will bother to ask you for your suggestions, so your time will not be consumed.
Meanwhile I will go with what real pros say, thanks a lot. You need not ask them because no doubt you are an accomplished player already, maybe only unknown to anybody else. I will go with verified people, thanks.
^^^ "these arguments about "up and across" vs. "through the ball" tend to turn out pretty sterile and pointless"
And you did not come up with this before. Why? Why did you first pick on "through the ball" and now claim to be disgusted with "across the ball" also? Because I called you out, that is why. If you had been truly neutral, you would have adopted your superior tone much before.
There is no need to invent new rotational terminology. Everything about that was defined hundreds years ago. In general, I explained the matter in thread http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=436086. The most complicated case, Twist serve, I described in article http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=440128. There are also hundreds of SystemicAnomaly posts about this topic.
Not sure why my motivations are relevant, but, no I don't have a dog in the MTM fight. I don't think Oscar is a savior and don't think he's a total fraud either, overstated though many of his claims seem. Bottom line is he's one of many teachers trying to make a buck who probably have some potentially useful things to say.
So, no agenda. I just popped into this thread because I was curious about why it hadn't yet been deleted, and noticed that you were (IMO) mischaracterizing and exaggerating the significance of Filip Peliwo's comments on his technique.
And any WTA player would wipe the court with you.
What a pathetic attempt at personal insults
What a pathetic attempt at personal insults when shown to be wrong repeatedly! And any WTA player would wipe the court with you. That is why the world has passed you by as players get coached by other systems and become #1 juniors and pros go on to win Slams while your methodology needs to keep a thread prolonged for anyone to even know what it is.
You should continue to teach the 70 year old man who has never heard of topspin.
Of course, she is one of the more traditional hitters on tour, as
stated before.
Also one of the more spotty with results and tends have a lot of UEs;
and even then she still works across the target line to a lesser extent,
so it's not so obvious. I would not model a WTA Fh and if I had to, hers
would be one of the last, so pick what you like out there. Suresh, maybe
you can learn her high risk game. Since you are slow, it may help you.
One thing you need to give credit to 5263 is his ability to see thru every top pro the hidden MTM techniques. No matter what, he can identify a MTM aspect in ever successful top pro. ...
This is like another example of where you guys on one hand said MTM does nothingLi Na a traditional ball striker???????? This is why I'm so confused about your definitions of traditional, classic, and modern, 5263. Comments like this.
Sure she has some good results, as that is part of being spotty or streaky, right ??LOLShe's a French Open champion, and a top 10 player!!! I'll take those "spotty results" any day.
Best player in a country with over a billion people. But 5263 says she has spotty results. Too Funny. that made my day.
And you are not confused by my definitions; you are confused by any definition, for you haveI'm so confused about your definitions of traditional, classic, and modern, 5263.
Li Na a traditional ball striker??.