confused w/ the term "MTM"

Discussion in 'Tennis Tips/Instruction' started by mr_fro2000, Sep 28, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 5263

    5263 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    10,390
    He means get the shoulders sideways, surely not talking about stance.
     
  2. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    34,698
    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.
     
  3. Cheetah

    Cheetah Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Messages:
    3,847
    Location:
    San Diego
  4. 5263

    5263 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    10,390
    Really??
    Great post Cheatah.
    LOL,:), you never give up do you sureshs?

    Now you come up with "pure" open stance??
    Sure someone may have said that before, and you can use adjectives how you
    like, but open stance is open. Feet parallel, rt foot more forward, left foot more
    forward, or whatever you like; It's all open stance if it's not neutral or past
    that to closed. IMO neutral is part of closed, but just more descriptive and semi-open
    is just one variation of Open stance; also more descriptive.
    Now you have brought up "pure" open which I guess is some version of open
    you have decided??

    Either way, I can step up with my right foot closer to net than my left, for an
    Open stance Fh ( would you call that Hyper Open stance, lol)
    and still get my shoulders sideways...and I'm 52 yrs old.

    Last of all for the 100th time for you....everyone hits thru the ball to some extent or
    it doesn't go anywhere. The question is more about the path of the racket as it
    goes thru the ball;
    not whether it goes thru the ball or not. Any player should realize this and it
    is quite odd that you would continue to mention the most obvious thing in tennis.

    What is not so obvious (clearly not Obvious since it has been explained so many times
    and some are still confused; so clearly it should be taught in some manner) is that the racket
    does not go thru the ball directly towards the target on that imaginary line, but
    instead on some path "across" that imaginary line...
    at least for good consistent Fhs anyway.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2012
  5. Avles

    Avles Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    1,505
    Location:
    The Peak of Good Living
    I'm not really sure what you mean by a "pure open stance" here, but it's entirely possible to have your feet pointing one way and your torso another. This is because humans have the ability to rotate their upper bodies.

    It is thus quite possible to turn the shoulders sideways in an open stance, as Cheetah's photos show.

    Honestly, you wasted both your time and Peliwo's if you expected some sort of revelation about stroke mechanics from him.
     
  6. sundaypunch

    sundaypunch Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    1,638
    As others have mentioned, he's referring to the unit turn, not stance. Just look at Youtube videos of him playing and you will see that he hits open stance like every other pro.



    This is a perfect illustration of the "load and explode" concept.
     
  7. arche3

    arche3 Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Messages:
    5,389
    I would pay to see Suresh hit a ball. Your so out of the loop of actual tennis. Watch a video of the kid. He is hitting open stance.
     
  8. chico9166

    chico9166 Guest

    LOL, give it up Suresh....
     
  9. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    34,698
    Dudes everyone can turn the upper body and still be pure open stance (feet lined up parallel to the baseline). That is not how pros hit powerful forehands. They usually have their right foot behind the left foot before they start their swing, which gives them more space and power. That is what is called being sideways.

    Even the great open stance artist Nadal has the left foot slightly behind:

    [​IMG]

    See how Roddick starts off with both feet aligned parallel to baseline but the right foot is back before he hits:

    [​IMG]

    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.

    5263 has no answer to it that is why he is quibbling about open stance positions.

    I will be going with what the pros say and do. That is why I got the clarification. Some pros may not be able to articulate well, but this guy is not like that. Hit through the ball is NOT hit across the ball. Those are real words from a real high-level player, not some vague made-up phrases from someone who has never played the pro game.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2012
  10. 5263

    5263 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    10,390
    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.
     
  11. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    34,698
    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. That is why thanks, but no thanks. I will go with him and his time wastage than someone like you who has never seen a high level ball. You can keep your precious time to yourself, I won't be needing it.
     
  12. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    34,698
    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.
     
  13. 5263

    5263 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    10,390
    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.
     
  14. arche3

    arche3 Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Messages:
    5,389
    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.
     
  15. 5263

    5263 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    10,390
    There are a lot of ways to think about it and who can say what is better for
    a given player. Maybe thinking of thru it can be a good way for many, but
    I think it is important also for many, that it is noted that is NOT on a line out
    to the target. Some who are the most coachable will trip over that misinfo.
     
  16. Avles

    Avles Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    1,505
    Location:
    The Peak of Good Living
    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.
     
  17. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    34,698
    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.
     
  18. 5263

    5263 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    10,390
    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.
     
  19. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    34,698
    C'mon you know very well I was responding to your ridiculous claim of hitting across the ball as being some great thing and through the ball was directed at that. This guy does not know the context and jumps in, trying to show that a real player is not making any relevant comment LOL.

    It is often the case that those who know are willing to share freely while those who don't, limit themselves to criticism of the knowledgeable people like the pros.

    Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that you are wrong and what you say as well as your methodology has no correlation with how pros actually play.

    And are you still claiming you quoted Stan Smith as correct because he was wrong so that I would respond that he was wrong so that you could then say that he was actually wrong even though you said he was correct LOL.

    Instead of all this, why don't you learn from real players like Stan and Filip?
     
  20. toly

    toly Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,993
    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.

    [​IMG]

    In frame 5 Federer creates maximum tangential component (maximum brushing motion), but small normal component (to string bed) of the racquet velocity. In frame 12 the racquet velocity has zero tangential component, but maximum normal component. Thus, Federer could hit pure flat FH and really is able to hit at least through one or two balls.:)
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2012
  21. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    34,698
    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.
     
  22. toly

    toly Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,993
    That’s why we have so much fun here and MTM threads are so attractive.:)
    I think Rod Cross thread will be very boring. :(
     
  23. 5263

    5263 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    10,390
    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.
     
  24. toly

    toly Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,993
    Can you go back to my post #389 and give me an answer please?:confused:
     
  25. 5263

    5263 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    10,390
    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.
     
  26. toly

    toly Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,993
    So, you again refuse to give me unambiguous answer. I really don’t know how to communicate with you. :(
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2012
  27. 5263

    5263 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    10,390
    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.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2012
  28. 5263

    5263 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    10,390
    Ok, I've done your work of finding your work for you, lol

    here again, your are backwards on this.
    Wegner expects Fed to hit counter clockwise, but you
    have gone from denial of the side spin with Nadal,
    to getting it backwards and thinking Fed,
    a righty, will hit clockwise sidespin vs the counter clockwise he gets..
    Later with Nalbanian you get the spin correct.
    What is the excuse now?
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2012
  29. toly

    toly Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,993
    Nadal’s racquet moves constantly to the left. So, it absolutely clear there will be (from above view) boll’s clockwise sidespin!!!:shock:
     
  30. 5263

    5263 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    10,390
    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?
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2012
  31. toly

    toly Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,993
    Ball rotation about vertical axis is sidespin. It is common practice to define direction of the sidespin from above or below view. :shock:
     
  32. 5263

    5263 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    10,390
    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?
     
  33. toly

    toly Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,993
    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. 
     
  34. Avles

    Avles Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    1,505
    Location:
    The Peak of Good Living
    I can verify that I'm a complete nobody. Nonetheless I'm pretty sure that focusing on the wording pros use when they discuss their strokes will not magically lead to adoption of pro techniques.

    My sense is that these arguments about "up and across" vs. "through the ball" tend to turn out pretty sterile and pointless, because:

    1. Every player hits "through the ball" to some extent (so the ball goes forward)

    2. Every player hits "up" to some extent (if not they couldn't apply topspin)

    3. Every player hits "across" the ball (they follow through in the direct of their non-dominant hand)

    From what I can see, these phrases aren't objective biomechanical descriptions of the forehand stroke. They aren't magic formulas. And they aren't antithetical, mutually exclusive concepts. They are, at most, mental cues which can help produce good strokes when mediated by the human brain.

    My uneducated guess is that:

    --Some players will benefit from thinking "through the ball" (e.g. if they need to focus on penetration or effective weight transfer into the court)

    --Some players will benefit from thinking "up and across" (e.g. to increase topspin, or to reinforce the windshield wiper concept).

    --Some players will probably derive little benefit from either of these mental cues.

    For this reason, going to the mattresses about whether "up and across" or "through the ball" is correct seems futile to me. It's like the debate about whether the serve involves a "wrist snap" or not. The actual point is not whether the wrist really does snap or not, but whether thinking about a "wrist snap" can help lead to a good serve. I think results will vary from player to player.

    FWIW, from a nobody! Feel free to ignore it and generate another 1000 posts on whether "through the ball" or "up and across" is correct...
     
  35. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    34,698
    ^^^ "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.
     
  36. Avles

    Avles Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    1,505
    Location:
    The Peak of Good Living
    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.
     
  37. 5263

    5263 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    10,390
  38. arche3

    arche3 Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Messages:
    5,389
    What our very own Suresh exaggerating?
    If nick bolleteris pet dog barked at through the ball more than across the ball Suresh would be on here with proof because the dog barked more for through the ball.
     
  39. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    34,698
  40. 5263

    5263 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    10,390
  41. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    34,698
    The sad part is most guys till the 4.0 level do not even have the control to do what he is teaching to a beginner. That is why topspin is a waste for their game. As someone pointed out in the comments below the video, he is showing what should happen just before and after impact, i.e., solid contact. Unless you can do that, it is useless to add more stuff. Sure you stand out and people even come and congratulate you on your topspin, and the women in mixed dubs gasp and squeal about the spin, but deep inside you know something is missing.
     
  42. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    34,698
    Through the ball - again!

    Twice in 2 days. First the #1 junior in the world mentions it twice, and now I pick up the latest issue of Tennis rag err mag and what do I see but Rick Macci's analysis of Li Na's forehand. Selected excerpts below. (5263: don't even bother to do your usual thing of picking up a small side issue and ignoring everything else - just give up already.)

    Photo 4: ..... Li's racquet is still going forward through the ball and toward her target.

    Photo 5: This is major-league extension. Look how far her right shoulder and arm go into the court, toward her target. When people watch forehands on television, the speed of the shot deceives them. Though it looks like players don't extend into the court and just whip across the ball, they don't. It is impossible to hit a great forehand that way. (My note: a few months ago former touring pro Peter Burwash said the same thing as I had pointed it out then.)

    Photo 6: ..... Now comes the follow-through, which wraps around the body.
     
  43. 5263

    5263 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    10,390
    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.
     
  44. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    34,698
    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.
     
  45. 5263

    5263 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    10,390
    Actually my record playing college players, future and former pros would surprise you. But continue to dream.
     
  46. 5263

    5263 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    10,390
    Is mentioning your lack of speed a fact or insult? If I am wrong it is a mistake.
    You must take your speed into account for tactics.
     
  47. Lovingit007

    Lovingit007 New User

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2012
    Messages:
    13
    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. Credit to MTM as well for developing such staunch followers...
     
  48. Ash_Smith

    Ash_Smith Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Messages:
    3,852
    Location:
    A green and pleasant land
    ^^^Credit also to Sureshs for trying to avoid in anyway he can actually bothering attempting to understand anything about the MTM teaching system.

    As I have stated many, many times, my opinion of the MTM system is from having studied courses in it - some bits of the system I like and use, others I don't and don't! Those who wish to detract should at least have the decency to try before they slate it.

    Sureshs - you stated that "players get coached by other systems and become #1 juniors and pros go on to win Slams" - what are these other systems? (genuine question)

    cheers
     
  49. FrisbeeFool

    FrisbeeFool Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    377
    Li Na a traditional ball striker???????? This is why I'm so confused about your definitions of traditional, classic, and modern, 5263. Comments like this. Li Na has great extension, just like almost all the pros on tour. Her strokes are also Modern. It's time for you to accept that the modern pros have great extension on their groundstrokes, and quit wasting everyone's time. If Li Na is trying to go the traditional route, why did she hire Carlos Rodriguez to coach her. She'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.
     
  50. 5263

    5263 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    10,390
    Funny thing about you clowns, lol
    One minute I'm seeing MTM in every pro,
    but then when I state that
    a player tends to be more traditional, you guys can't deal with that either.
    This is like another example of where you guys on one hand said MTM does nothing
    special because everyone teaches it, then you would say how wrong MTM is, lol.
    Which is it? wrong or everyone does it? You guys are just chasing your tails while I
    just keep helping those who are interested in modern strokes and laughing at your
    confusion.


    Sure she has some good results, as that is part of being spotty or streaky, right ??LOL
    I guess that she has some good results and I don't find her strokes as good modern examples
    just proves how you haters are so wrong about MTM taking credit for every good pro.

    And you are not confused by my definitions; you are confused by any definition, for you have
    no idea what constitures traditional or modern. That is why you and surehs are always confused
    on this topic. You have to know something to get started. You guys don't understand either side
    of it, so you surely can't start to understand the many blends you see.


    And you make it worse with your improper quotes above. I didn't say she was a traditional ball
    striker. Why do you lie? Your points not good enough without it?
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2012
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page