Discussion in 'Tennis Tips/Instruction' started by mr_fro2000, Sep 28, 2012.
Are you one of those people I mentioned?
pretty well said. and closed stance is not something biomechanically inferior or incorrect as some MTMers believe. any pro who uses E grip style can hit a fh in closed stance just as well as they do in open stance. fed and berdych are good examples. SW grip is good in generating lots of topspin but only in open stance and is quite limited to that.
It's actually the same principle how 2hbh is hit in closed stance.
um yeah, so im going to stop defending myself... i've already mentioned where i'm coming from multiple times. I literally heard the term for the first time in my life a few weeks ago, so I asked a simple question. I didn't even know it was so controversial, which is retarded considering people have been playing with this "methodology" (why the f is it a 'methodology' anyway) for like 20-30 years.
and i agree this discussion is getting ridiculous.
Why should Limpin be thankful? While he acknowledges MTM has some good attributes,
he has never thought of himself as a MTM'er that I know of. I appreciate his
willingness to admit our good points and also to challenge the ideas he differs on.
Limpin, of course correct me If I'm wrong on this.
I on the other hand, have thanked the guys like sureshs many times, as he and
others make many comments that allow me to illustrate how it works and can
help player's games to improve. I like that they keep up the conversation, not
because of any financial reasons, but that I get the chance to share better tennis
with others that come here to look for tips and instruction. That is what this forum
is for, right? If someone buys a book from Nick, Vic, Oscar, or Dave because of
the discussion,...good for the seller whoever that is. I just like to hear about
those enjoying and playing better tennis.
It would be better if you don't try to speak on what MTMers believe unless
you have it right. Otherwise you are just sharing mis-info like this post ^^.
MTM is NOT stance dependent and if a comment was correctly made about
something wrong with closed stance, it was context dependent. I may have
made some comments that you took that way related to how traditional uses
that stance, but have stated many more times that MTM is NOT stance dependent.
SW grip is not limited to open stance even in MTM and I use that quite a bit in
I actually thought I was responding to you 5263, cause I was responding on my phone and didn't notice the name on the small screen. I just noticed now I responded to Limp.....d'oh! My bad
Impossibru? I don't know what that means, but, the pic is kinda creepy.
PS: But, I still credit you with introducing me to MTM. Hahaha!
You are likely right that he doesn't get it,....but
Hey, I think he inadvertently got a lot right in the quotes from him below.
**They are basically hacks who survive at the 4.0 level with dinky strokes, craftiness, quick reflexes, and excellent court sense and mental strength (not choking).**
Yes, basically hacks that tried to make classic work as actually taught and often
too disciplined to make the adjustments required to make it work. I mean, the
crafty player, with quick reflexes and excellent court sense/mental strength is
clearly quite an athlete who does more than survive. Me for example, played
several undefeated seasons at 4.0 & A level ALTA before getting bumped to
4.5 and then playing 2 for 2 undefeated seasons at 4.5 in one of the toughest
regions of the country. All this was done before getting USTPA certified or
hearing of MTM...where my game really took off...well into my 40s!
He goes on to say
*I think a person who can play correct classical strokes can easily incorporate more topspin, SW grip, open stance, across finish, baseline grind *
Yes, maybe because this is a person who has shown the ability to make the required
adjustments over time playing as a Jr or maybe just more of a visual learner vs
the actual instruction of classic.
*will think that "modern instruction" is great as compared to their "classical" style . And they will become fans about the improvement of the game due to the teaching.*
Yes, this group can now actually have instruction that can be followed to
successful result without contradicting itself, gross adjustment and is quite impressed
the simplicity of it all; especially after years of frustration with poor instruction. Yes, I shortened his comments to remove the worse mistakes and
All in all, as sureshs tried to insult MTMers as hard learners, but he illustrates that
even hard learners can do well in MTM! so just think how it can help those he
considers more talented or that learn differently.
Well I have thanked sureshs and others several times for the chance to contrast modern teaching
with what he posts.
Now I do credit the traditional strokes as forcing me to learn soooo much about
strategy, position, and tactics, as winning with classic instruction took a ton
of effort in every other aspect of my game. With classic instruction, I was only
a slightly above avg hitter, but thanks to Modern tennis, that really changed and
I became able to hit people off the courts at times. Yes, that impressed me in
my 40's after I figured to be on the down hill slide in that area, so I have become
quite a Fan!
Maybe when sureshs has some break out years at 4.0 and then
has some great 4.5 seasons he will be a fan of something as well. Think that
will happen as he fights to prove he knows more and better??
Pathetic. No, I don't have my own words for 'pulling backwards', 'hitting off-center', 'ignoring the importance of footwork', 'count to 5', 'find the ball', or any of the other things I've read about on this site--as I said, I don't use them at all. And no, I don't teach to swing down the target line, nor do I teach to 'pull across'. In typical MTM fashion you seem to believe it can only be one or the other--but you're so wrong. As I've said many times there is more than one way to effectively hit a tennis ball, some of which you apparently know nothing about.
No, not hacks who were actually taught, but hacks who either were not taught or took lessons with no result, but just for the sake of taking them (and maybe to get fit or whatever, nothing wrong with that). Only people who do not have any form are unable to adapt to anything, even if they have been seeing it around them for 20 years. That, plus a complete lack of curiosity. I actually knew a woman who had been taking lessons for 3 years but would not slice because her coach told her she was not ready to learn it. She actually believed it.
In this particular case of the guy who approached me for instruction in topspin, he has purchased a $1600 ball machine and gotten "serious." Apparently, his seriousness was driven by observing the daughter of the other guy who has gone off to college last month on a tennis scholarship. He finally realized that people are not hitting forehands the way he is doing it.
I didn't tell him, but I should have said: Haven't you played against me a 100 times over the years? Did you not see that every shot I hit is with topspin? Go take some lessons from 5263 who will package it under modern tennis and you will have the pleasure of paying him
Just run to the ball like a child and be one with it.
why use yours where you just were calling for urgent help against a young jr?
No, Pathetic is coming on a tips site and never sharing...especially from one who
claims to know so much. No much good to tell what is wrong if you can't say
what is right.
Of course if you actually share something, everyone can see that you likely have
nothing as special as you claim while slinging insults to others from the sidelines.
Again you give more mis-info that I "think it can be done only one way".
I just mentioned in another post how there are many ways to hit the ball.
I had you figured for someone who claimed to be a version of modern.
I'd love to see if you have anything of note as would others who come here to learn.
I share a lot here and learn much as well.
Really, so even though I coached my son to #3 in the state etc and played
well enough to trounce these jrs with my classic strokes, along my having lessons
from an Emory Hall of Fame player/instructor, along with my USPTA cert and training....
that is the lack of training and seriousness you are talking about?
you believe the MTM got your son where he is in tennis which could be true but you can't say for sure some other more sophisticated method could not have gotten him much farther like world #3, can you?
Read closer....I said we did all that before I learned of MTM and we were working
very traditional at those times.
Learning of MTM, both our games took a big leap from there.
What is your sophisticated method of choice?
Sorry, as you say, didn't read too close. I don't know if there is a method that we can choose as in multiple choice question. And every student has different background and path to improvement so it's kinda silly to identify such a thing. I was thinking more like a method you develop or improve upon on top of something like MTM specifically tailored for your son.
Here are pictures of Federer forehand with different camera speed.
Figure 1. Federer forehand - high speed camera
Like Nadal, Federer rotates relevant parts of his body very smoothly and without abrupt sideway acceleration.
Figure 2. Federer forehand - low speed camera
The last three frames of fig.2 demonstrate extreme wrist activity and arm pronation. It is absolutely clear that Federer and Nadal don’t follow Wegner instructions.
More photographic agitprops from Toly. Please specify what you think these photographs "clearly" show.
I think you need to show at contact to finish. Not drop to contact. Then you can really see the across and finish. The way you have it doesn't show anything remotely related to Oscars claims. It cannot because you omit the part of the video that Oscar instructions talks about. It only proves Oscar says to aim the butt cap at the ball. Not the finish.
Not sure what you are saying here. The hacks I was referring to where the club players I see (like the one who approached me for help with the forehand), not coaches. It had nothing to do with you, so what are you talking about?
Also I have said many times that I think you are a good coach who studies all the modern developments. It has nothing to do with MTM. That is why I suggested you branch off and start MTM2 where you need not be defensive about the MIT video, count till 5 etc. but can just pursue your passion.
It has become addictive. It is so much fun. The Fedal wars have almost ended, the big-small racket wars have almost ended, the legendary BP-NoBadMojo fights are no more - there is really nothing much to look forward to in life. This thing provides a small daily dose of entertainment, before it too ceases to amuse.
Such is life.
The most entertainment I had on this site was when a poster said Peter Polansky was at a 4.0 level. I avoid the General Player Talk Forum, I can't drop my IQ low enough to be able to read those threads in there.
I'll just accept that as a nice compliment and say thanks, but I do relate strongly to
the hacks you mention before I got more into coaching and learning MTM, being
one of those who found it and appreciated it so.
But your point is well taken that my personal and early coaching result were too
solid to be of your example.
And also like you sometimes mention, those of us who were playing traditional for
years often to migrate over to many on these principles of modern strokes. I guess
I just have more appreciation for this system as being quite complete with regards
to stroke technique and filled in some holes what I had learned (even though I
had studied Nick, Vic, Jy, RL, Macci, Evert, USTPA, etc...).
Well, I think MTM is a excellent foundation of the basics of the modern strokes,
and we have done what you mention. We use my "Smart Targets" combined
with a special focus on mid court attacks, interval training, and top notch serving mechanics.
Good suggestions, thanks
^^^5263 - do you deliberately mention "MTM excellent foundation strokes" and "top notch serve mechanics" as separate entities? I ask because my experience of MTM leaves me cold as to its teaching of the serve when compared to the forehand or single handed backhand (i'm not overly thrilled with its handling of the two hander either). Your referencing above leads me to think that you have similar reservations - or have I read too much into it?!?!?
You and I are seeing things very differently! This is very similar to the Nadal sequence, and the principle of pulling the racquet across (inwards) is even more starkly visible in this sequence. Notice how the wrist is laid back at a constant angle most of the way as Federer pulls the racquet almost linearly towards the ball, and the ISR close to contact that pulls the hand in and whips the racquet head. At this point you can also see the wrist release. Thank you toly, it confirms everything I said - your pictures are the best!
It's a little bit of both really. I don't think there is mis-info or something wrong
with MTM's serve and/or 2 hander, but especially on the serve where I have
coached my son to one of the biggest servers around even at the D1 level, some
of my approach is ahead of the curve a bit imo.
I think all the basics are there in MTM and it comes to getting into the finer
details for it to matter. 95% of players will likely never get the basics well enough
to benefit from these subtle things.
I get your point though and I'll look at the 2hander info again.
this really comes to his thoughts on use of the wrist it seems.
If you are using the hand/wrist to push the racket head with his "active wrist"
technique, of course you won't understand or get the feel for a proper swing
and pulling of the racket.
I don't think there was anything about the serve or the backhand other than some stuff made up on the fly as a response to postings here.
The forehand instruction also seems either trivially generalized or not in line with what the pros are doing as shown by video evidence.
We need to see someone actually trained by this method instead of looking at Federer and Nadal who have nothing to do with the system.
I'm not going to offer any subjective comments about any system...But, Sureshs has an important point that I made years ago about another tennis teaching "method:"
The validity of any methodology, with key identifying points that are clearly unique within that technique, will be ultimatly determined by the number of high level players produced using the specific nature of that method.
I'm not necessarily saying they have to become top five in the world...however, if a method is truly valid, it should be able to produce top level juniors, college players, club adults, and yes a number of players that make it to the pros. (At the pro level, the dividing nature is seldom technical...but a combination of strengths that carry the individual over the threshold of not just being a "good" pro but becoming a "great" pro.)
I have seen so called world-renowned instructors who insist on certain patterns of play...yet, not one significantly high level junior, college player, club player (at 4.5 or above), or pro has been produced through this pro's methodology. Yet, we have people swearing that he knows what he is talking about!
Thus, I use this criteria as a litmus test. Some might deride Bolletteri, Landsdorp, or Macci...yet those pros and their 'systems' have produced more top level pros than any other that I'm aware of.
Lesser know pros also have done many things well and produce a number of top level players.
Yet, if a specific system can't lay claim to at least a relatively high percentage of high level and accomplished students, then the system may be flawed...or, it may be the delivery of the system too. (I've seen correct methods so poorly administered that students fully capable of achievement failed to acquire said methods!)
Anyway, that is something to think about. I may be wrong, but it is what I believe is the tell-tale test.
The proof is in the pudding
The correct maxim is "the proof of the pudding is in the eating."
Wow, can't believe you are supporting this position. First this would only be true
if the coach were to plant himself and run a system in one location for the years
it takes to get that results, but Not when a instructor approaches things in much any other way
like a focus on coaches who intend to rightlyfully take the credit for the kids they then develop.
....Especially with the haters here. They don't want to give
Oscar credit unless he got them from the cradle on till he trotted around on tour
with them. The fact that Guga was in a program he had, that he worked with many
coaches that were successful with their players & children, and helped maybe the greatest
clay courter (Borg) regain much of his form where other Nick's academy failed miseralbly,
means nothing to them. Never mind anyone can poke the same holes in most
if not all the people who came thru Nick's, Macci's, and Evert's, even though they
ran academies in place for decades. Lots of fingers in all those pies.
Really hate to see your comments play into that nonsense.
Good point and I take that to mean for each to eat and decide for themselves vs
having a pudding contest to let someone else decide what works for them.
Yup, I was waiting for someone to correct me! I like to use the dumbed down version....
I understand and see your point. I've just been on the side of seeing other methods touted but seldom seen them in production at the higher levels. No question that a coach can instill certain qualities in a player and obviously never receive recognition. However, I still say that if a methodology has merit, we should see a large percentage of players using specifically that technique with relatively high success among peers, or, at least having a large number of successful players give those who shared their wisdom with them credit.
I'm not discrediting Oscar or anyone else. I believe he has influenced a great number of players through both his longevity as well as through his dedicated passion to the sport.
I feel I'm in the same boat...having developed players and teams and then moving on (due to circumstances that had nothing to do with tennis), and watching those players and teams I built go on to greatness and others getting the credit!
But, I know what influence I had, and usually those players also let me know what role I had in their success. But, in the global sense, no one else knows!
I still say that the patterns of success can be traced, somewhat, to those who had influence on their success in some way.
And, as I said before, I could be wrong.
Here is Federer FH full path of the racquet forward swing.
Figure 1. Federer forehand full racquet path - high speed camera
Figure 2. Federer forehand full racquet path - medium speed camera
Figure 3. Federer forehand full racquet path - low speed camera
Maybe you can clarify Wegner explanations? I definitely cannot.
Maybe because you have little to no understanding of his method?
Hard to believe you can't see the greater spaces showing accel along with
the much stronger curve/arc from contact across that is so clear to me
in these pics.
I appreciate your clarifications above.
I also believe that seeing your work go on to be included on a widespread basis,
whether it was your doing or not, is a noteable achievement!
I developed aero bars for bicycles about
8 yrs before they came out on the market. I can't say I was the 1st to do so
but was the 1st I know of using them. The bike shops I showed them to said
cycling was too traditional for this type change. What they didn't account for
was how triathlons would affect cycling!
While I likely had nothing to do with the millions sold around the world and made
no m $$ from it, I still have quite a satisfaction of knowing I built and used them
at 14, before they were ever sold or known of to my knowledge. I didn't build
or use under outside influence, but developed and invented them for my own
use and like MTM, rejected by the traditional stalwarts.
Really? I'm not even saying Oscars methods should be deliberate but the swing mechanics of this montage shows to a t what Oscar is saying.
Racket accelerates as it approaches contact. Right after contact the arm pulls across as the biceps is contracted as forearm pronates.
I think I know what Oscar is getting at. He is trying to instill a mental picture of what should happen. I have read his small book and while simplistic it paints certain pictures of positions and movements you achieve in certain parts of tennis strokes. His is meant to guide your stroke. The big picture allowing for individual nuance.
You have to remember when Oscar was first applying his methods the majority of tennis coaches world wide were adamant about closed stance fh and hitting in the direction of the balls intent. The hit through 5 balls thing. Finishing into the line of the shot as long as possible. What Oscar proposed was pretty different.
Now, it is hard to distinguish Oscars methods from other modern coaches because people are using the same fundamental principles. But it does not diminish the fact that Oscar could of been the first to try to dissect the archetypical type of modern tennis mechanics and coaching.
Then it is good material for a museum exhibit. Why would anyone pay for it today?
No-one here is paying for it. Its a discussion on the coaching itself. Why do you keep trolling?
Sorry if this is a bit off topic but as this thread seems to have a lot of MTM followers, I'm hoping to get feedback. Two things I'm having trouble with are returns and hitting on the rise. On these shots, I find myself trying to drive the ball back (vs. ground strokes or 2nd serves where I have time to find the ball and pull across it). This results in inconsistent shots. I'm trying to get out of this habit.
I have Oscar's Play better in 2 hours book, if it is permitted may I ask which DVD set you'd recommend. I group hitting on the rise w/ return of serve as it's a shot where I'm often rushed. The other topic, I'm curious about is what he says about the serve. His book to touch on the basics of the serve... If TW doesn't want discussion of other DVDs, pls. send me a PM. Thanks.
The bold is an excellent observation imo.
I take it one step further, based on my fortunate experience of having a son
who was hitting 125+ serves on a reg basis.
I look at them like a half volley when hit really well and hard. Not sure where
Oscar covers it, but as usual you are looking to find the ball with your hand,
(not working to find it from above or below much in this case)....then just enough
pull to bring the racket face to meet the ball pretty square. Very much like a
modern volley (why it's a half volley) but just a bit more swing like a stoke.
In this case I would not have as much racket drag like on a stroke, but again
more like a volley. Imo the thing that really sets it apart from the longer modern
volley used for slower balls, is that you come to it (find it) sort of with a flat path,
not from above or below. The rising bounce with power gives it the lift to clear
the net. If you swing up, you are likely to hit long and can't find it from above
like a volley due to the strong rise from the bounce. You may even have to slightly
close the face on real hard hit shots.
One more thing is the follow thru is shorter like a longer modern volley.
Hope this helps and should not be a problem with TW as we are just sharing
Sureshs, you have personally criticized Wegner on dozens of occasions for not inventing the modern tennis stroke and for not inventing modern tennis instruction. Why did you spend all that time writing all of those posts, wasting everyone's time, criticizing Wegner for not having something that you now say has no practical value?
Separate names with a comma.