Discussion in 'Tennis Tips/Instruction' started by mr_fro2000, Sep 28, 2012.
He means get the shoulders sideways, surely not talking about stance.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
LOL, give it up Suresh....
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:
See how Roddick starts off with both feet aligned parallel to baseline but the right foot is back before he hits:
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 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.
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.
That’s why we have so much fun here and MTM threads are so attractive.
I think Rod Cross thread will be very boring.
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.
Can you go back to my post #389 and give me an answer please?
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.
So, you again refuse to give me unambiguous answer. I really don’t know how to communicate with you.
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.
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?
Nadal’s racquet moves constantly to the left. So, it absolutely clear there will be (from above view) boll’s clockwise sidespin!!!: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?
Ball rotation about vertical axis is sidespin. It is common practice to define direction of the sidespin from above or below view. :shock:
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
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?
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.
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...
^^^ "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.
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.
Either terms...you had it backwards.
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.
Is this our 5263 teaching?
Looks like a version of hit thru 3-5 balls to me, so clearly not what I teach.
He is trying to help beginners he says, but is likely ruining them instead.
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.
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.
Of course, she is one of the more traditional hitters on tour, as
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.
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.
Actually my record playing college players, future and former pros would surprise you. But continue to dream.
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.
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...
^^^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)
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.
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
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?
Separate names with a comma.