Discussion in 'Tennis Tips/Instruction' started by MikeyBigShot, Sep 22, 2012.
Really?? I remember him getting the better of Agassi from the baseline in many of their big matches.
He gives the exact same account you just gave. Strange isn't it? That same account that is contradicted by Sampras's own autobiography.
Federer is not traditional, no way.
Remember, this methodology he talks about has produced 0 top pros who can be verified. The only way he can inject it into the discussion is by pointing out faults in others, because there is no achievement to show. So while you spend your energy trying to argue, keep that is mind. Other coaches go about their business and those who want to hire them can do so. They will have their plus and minus points like everyone else in any field. What 5263 does is looks for flaws in them, or in pros when they lose (when they win he will twist it the other way), and keep saying that his methodology is superior. Instead of that, he can just name the top pros that have been produced by the system and we can verify whether they acknowledge that or have even heard about it.
Yea, that's the one i referring to when i said he's changed his fh technique.
This has been discussed in another thread. Don't even bother.
Yeah you're right.
No. Sorry, but this makes it clear that you don't know the difference between traditional and modern technique.
When he wins, he is modern. When he loses, he is traditional and could really use some modernization.
Don't bother arguing with these folks. There is a commercial interest lurking behind it.
He's a very good player with lot's of tournament experience. But, in his age group, 60+, I doubt he has to face much, if any, modern technique.
What's my commercial interest, sureshs?
That says it all. I remember when the modern tennis police were opining that Federer didn't play "modern" enough in his loss to Berdych at the US Open.
When he was winning wimbledon earlier in the summer, the same people thought his game was the height of modernity. Whichever player du jeur happens to be most popular at the moment is held up as being an exemplar or "modern tennis."
who is obsessed? lol
How many post have you made trying to twist things to the same point like
rain man. You hardly even change the words.
so motivated to make a point, but frustrated since you are wrong and full
of false info.
Notice that Nadal has declined in popularity as the poster boy for modern tennis. It was stated that hitting safely over the net with high clearance and topspin and a short ball was the reason for his success. What was not stated was that every pro can do that, but such balls would be killed. So they take the risk with slightly flatter strokes and deep balls. Nadal takes a risk - only elsewhere. The risk is in the racket head acceleration. To be able to swing that fast and yet put spin, pace and direction on the ball is a skill only he has. Of course if the ball comes back, he is running more and more, and in every match.
In any case, now that he states that he is worried that he can even walk again like a normal person, the "safe play" model of his is no longer being mentioned as a great modern example. The bandwagon has moved on to Djokovic and Murray.
Not you of course
What says it all is how confused you and sureshs are
You act like you want a serious conversation, but quickly revert to childish tactics like "modern tennis Police".
You post incorrect info like making it sound that Oscar wrote that reference on Pete. Yes, it is Oscar's blog
but written by another, hahaha
There is a reason it sounds alot like what I've been saying, but I'm not John
Carpenter so, I'll let you try and figure it out since you like to root around and
focus on Modern tennis so much.
You say it is exactly the same as what I'm saying, but that ref is talking of quotes
from Pete on the running Fh, when my comments were more about his rally Fh,
with only a passing mention of the runner, which is clearly not of RL.
RL admits he learned that from Pete and didn't like it for a long while. I believe
Pete mentioned getting more TS on his normal Fh and maybe JC got that wrong, but
I don't still have that book.
Your misinfo piles higher and higher, but don't think I'll be answering anymore
of your biased questions, since it is clear you are not curious, but only looking
to distort good info. Your comments go into the sureshs pile where I only answer if it
promotes better understanding for others by highlighting your many mistakes
like the ones above.
He is also in the same methodology, isn't he? Seems only those who lavishly praise the leader and put down others can get into the inner circle.
Yes, they were killed so often he became #1 in the world and most dominant force EVER on clay, only been sidelined due to congenital bone problem in his foot that has always given him
problems (I read).
THanks for a glimpse into your garble.
No, we have always stated that nearly every male pro on tour and most WTA hits
modern most of the time. You seem to again confuse tactics and hitting
technique. Yes this includes DJ, Fed and most all of them, even Murray who
in the past was less modern than most with his Fh, is still mostly modern.
nice try though
What circle is this? I guess I have not given enough praise, cause I know of no
what is my commercial interest?
just here to help those looking to learn and learn a bit myself, but
I pulled up this vid-
and can see where it would be helpful. His volley instruction is way better
than most imo, but I don't really think he understands his carving movement
so well. If you can understand what he is getting at there, it's pretty good info.
thanks for the ref
That is why the term modern has no significance. Every pro and coach is doing it. Also, that is the definition of modern - what is happening today.
Here you go, FF. Classic Eastern drives (both sides), by Don Budge, the man who invented them.
Budge's technique was absolutely flawless and perfect for his 16oz., 65sq.in., wood frame, with a 5 1/4" wood handle with a leather strip at the end for a butt cap.
Are these guys hitting pull strokes, or is it push strokes?
I love it when you expose your bias like you have over the last 2-3 pages.
Makes it so clear to anyone who does not share your axe to grind, how little
you care for getting the info correct. You can talk till you are blue, but that
does not change what happens on the court; like with my new 70 yr old student
who has been a A player most of his life, and wants to know why other pros
don't teach modern strokes. He can't believe the difference and ease in how
he can now produce more powerful shots with strong spin after just 3 short
lessons. He won't be like you needing urgent Fh help.
When did the tipping point happen. What was the first year when more than 50 percent of the ATP was playing "modern tennis" All the players I asked about from the 90's have been approved as modern. What about the 80's? were more than 50 percent of professional men's players in the 80's playing modern tennis?
Burn! Epic quote. This conversation is bringing me back to the Oscar at fair days.
So the top pro your system has produced is this person?
Again, I don't see what your student has to do with me. He is willing to spend money and wants to improve. He may have seen topspin on TV or he may not have. He may have been busy with other things in his life and not tried it out himself. He may want to post on the Internet and see how people can help him for free, or he may be uncomfortable with the idea. What can I do about it?
Also, what has all this that got do with the OP's question that he has only one coach in town and should he go to him or not? Do you not want other coaches to survive unless they agree with you? Or are you proposing that you will relocate to coach him?
MTM produced Djokovic, remember?
I remember that. It was hilarious LOL
Yes, me too, hahaha, that was soooo funny. Highlight of the season. You guys should be on the tonite show, lol.
one of my hitting partners is a very good player and he often would criticize the coaches that he saw on the courts. he would tell me, the students shouldn't learn how to hit a shot like the coaches do, they should learn from watching Federer instead.
He is such a good player that he would see flaws in those coaches' strokes.
Cool story bro. I have this one friend who has a huge forehand. When he goes elephant hunting, he doesn't bring an elephant gun. He brings his forehand.
Your friend should play with that hitting partner of mine. to me, his forehand is like Ivan lendl's in term of pace
At the courts where I play, there are many good players with unorthodox styles.
there is this one guy who would usually play with beginners. So one day, that hitting partner of mine told me that guy was the best player on these courts. I told him I didn't believe it.
One day a 4.5 level guy asked that guy to play a couple of sets. He beat the 4.5 guy pretty easily like 6-2 and 6-1. So my hitting partner was right when he remarked about how good that guy was.
I saw the coach this morning, and he wasn't completely old school. He seems to teach more of a Sharapova style forehand, but we also talked about windshield wiper forehands. A lot of it was from a neutral stance, but he did show me how to better use an open stance when I'm stretched wide or have to chase down a ball.
I'm happy with what I learned, and immediately put it to use hitting around after the lesson.
I'm thinking traditional and classic means different things to different people. I'm going to start labeling forehands like this:
Great Grandfather: Close stance forehand drive
Grandfather: Neutral stance extend down the line (Brent Abel style)
Father: Sharapova style
Kid: Windshield wiper
Seems good. The pure open stance (both feet lined up almost parallel to the baseline throughout the stroke) does not generate much power and is used when pros are on the run and short of time, as your coach pointed out. For power, there is always a sideways turn. Many rec players do not have enough sideways turn and try to arm the ball in a pure open stance.
It is also good to know that you did not fall for the propaganda here. Some would rather that you learnt nothing than something, if they don't like the coach. Of course they knew next to nothing about your coach but were still urging you not to go. Totally irrational.
the whole dilemma starts with the OP who labels a coach as traditional who he has never met and worked with before.
in the thread he than continues to prove that he doesn´t really know the difference between traditional and modern(he´s not alone in that)
it would have been much better to watch the coach at work and maybe talk with some of his other students.
See post #3. He posted after he saw him teach.
Why should he agree or prove something to your satisfaction and only use your artificial labels, which are basically bogus?
Ask him if he understands the importance of angular momentum vs. linear momentum.
I am 100% sure Nadal will not be able to answer your question. Such litmus tests are bogus and prove nothing.
he´s a player who just wants to join a league next year, see post no.1
but he´s quick to label the coach as traditional. i can tell you from experience that not a lot of rec players outside of this forum care about labels like traditional or modern.they care about whether the coach can help them or not.
do you understand what i´m trying to say? he started the discussion and of course people voice their opinions. in the end he did the only sensible thing that he should have done from the beginning. take a lesson and see for himself.
Actually, if you go back and read the posts, people were telling him NOT to take a lesson as he would struggle to get back on track after being misled. LOL.
And he had observed the coach before posting, which you said he had not done. He even came up with a video close to what he saw.
he said it clearly in post 184. when he finally saw the coach he realized that he wasn´t totally old school after all. they were talking about different stances and windshield wiper fhs. so he didn´t observe very closely, video or not, or he would have realized that sooner.
instead he starts a thread about traditional vs modern, and the inevitable happens. we get a heated discussion between the ´usual suspects´.
Is there really a dilemma? Many of the guys who battled in this thread always seem to clash. I, on the other hand, appreciated all the commentary. I don't take Internet beef that serious. It's actually entertaining and sometimes informative when everyone shares their knowledge.
(1) I labeled the coach as traditional after seeing him teach a kid an old fogey looking forehand. To the coaches credit, the kid looked athletically challenged, and totally uninterested in learning tennis.
(2) I believe I know what a 'modern" forehand is, but I do not believe that there is one style of forehand that can be called classic or traditional.
i don´t take these discussions too serious myself,
and the battle will go on in another thread one of these days
hope your coach can help you with your game
Bingo. Agreed 100 percent. In real life, most people don't walk around trying to label groundstrokes as traditional or modern. It's only a debate I see happening here.
I took lessons for awhile from a guy that played for the University of Texas. He had what people on this forum would call a windshield wiper forehand. When I asked him about how to hit the windshield wiper forehand in our first lesson, he said he didn't like the term and thought it confused people about what was going in the forehand.
He said when he was learning the forehand he focused on things like compact backswing, hitting out towards his target, hitting the ball in his strikezone, staying relaxed, etc.
There are so many fundamental aspects of strokes that you just don't see discussed here, because people are so obsessed with attacking the straw man or aunt Sally of "traditional tennis".
Most people here would be better served learning to stay relaxed and hit a sound, repeatable stroke, than by worrying about windshield wiping the ball.
Traditional techniques work fine. The best player I know in my area was telling me the other day, that he was taught to hit his forehand by catching the throat of his racket out in front of him. He was a great junior player, and could have played in college if he had wanted too. Today he has what people might refer to as the modern windshield wiper finish, but he was taught in progressions like a lot of people.
Angular momentum has linear components. They are not diametrically opposed forces in opposition to one another. In math and science the terms are related. In math, students, usually study linear movement first , because it helps them understand the components of angular movement, later on down the road.
Understanding angular movement does not mean that you abandon linear movement, because if you break down angular movement into it's component parts those components can be expressed as linear movements.
Please spend at least 10 minutes educating yourself about the geometry of circles before you lecture others about linear vs angular momentum.
Yes, of course, only you know. Only your arrogance equals your ignorance on this board. I feel sorry for all those who mistake your verbosity for actual knowledge.
Separate names with a comma.