Technical question on the one-hander?

Discussion in 'Tennis Tips/Instruction' started by Montana Realty, Apr 23, 2004.

  1. Montana Realty

    Montana Realty New User

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    50
    I have a question on the one-handed backhand. How do you keep your arm loose when you have to keep a firm wrist forming the "L" shape when executing this stroke?
     
    #1
  2. linli101

    linli101 New User

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2004
    Messages:
    38
    Your arm is loose during the preparing period, when you contact the ball your arm should be straight and firm.
     
    #2
  3. Bungalo Bill

    Bungalo Bill G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,885
    But not too firm! There is still a little give in the arm. Concentrate more on the fixed position of the wrist and to some extent the arm, not how hard or tight you need to have it.

    Timing is the key for the onehander to not feel so rigid or forceful, allowing your racquet head to go through the ball.

    Some people do not maintain such a strong "L" as Nick B.'s video indicates. There is nothing wrong with either way. You want to put your wrist in a position that feels right for you but at the same time provides strength and support.
     
    #3
  4. Montana Realty

    Montana Realty New User

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    50
    You're right B.Bill. I noticed when Guga hits his backhand that he doesn't always use as strong as an "L" wrist as say a Justine Henin. That said I think the backhand can be just as effective strong "L" wrist or not.
     
    #4
  5. Datacipher

    Datacipher Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,611

    I find this mainly is dependant on grip and individual flexibility. So many players try to force the 'L" when in reality, it is artificial and uncomfortable for that particular player and causes tension and awful problems. I believe it is best when players lay back their wrists to the point that is comfortable and strong for them. Usually it's reasonably close to the "L"....

    And please people anyone who reads this...read/watch Bollettierri with a grain of salt, the videos are entertaining but full of misguided instruction and sometimes downright factual error....
     
    #5
  6. Bungalo Bill

    Bungalo Bill G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,885
    Datacipher,

    I think you are very wrong about Nick B.'s videos as being technically wrong or awful. I am thinking of forwarding your reply to Pat Dougherty. In fact I will.

    It is difficult to express everything on a video. Your comments above render the video useless. I think you are wrong as there is a lot of good information that can be used in stroke development. Most videos just like this board need further explanation on information presented to various people.

    Your comments are too strong and posters should ignore your comments.
     
    #6
  7. Datacipher

    Datacipher Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,611
    First I never said they were awful. They were in fact as I pointed out entertaining. They also have some value for players who are for example 3.5 who wish to become 3.6 and then stay at that level forever.... for players wishing to become 5.0 or better these videos will do much more harm than good.

    These videos are a prime example of someone analyzing(with seemingly VERY little scientific rigour) the mechanics of current top players (as opposed to using scientific principles to develop an ideal model). Then developing their own methodology to describe/teach this movement.

    The problem of course is:

    1.The mechanics of top players changes with time and trend. While the overall standard of tennis has improved, this is not to say mechanics have always improved. Many times extraneous movements and sometimes counterproductive movements and focus become part of the current teaching trend and even the mechanics of top players. The serves of Gonzales, Tanner, Mcenroe, Sampras and now Roddick have/will influence entire generations. The variety in these serves as well as a study of what contemporary gurus were saying about them at the time stands alone as testimony to the unfortunate haphazard method of biomechanical analysis tennis is plagued by.

    2. Almost inevitably, the monkey wrenched method tennis teachers (read Bollettieri) come by to now teach these movements are abolutely nothing like how the original strokes were developed by the pros.

    It is akin to if I as a car enthusiast (without ever looking inside the car or even analyzing it scientifically) say "wow, that car is awesome, it is the best/fastest in the world" Then I simply watch it drive around, listen to the sound and say "OK, I'll make a car just like it!" Then I go to a whole bunch of people (who have almost no knowledge of cars) and describe to them how I think you could make a car like that, then they from my description and picture of the car try to make their own! It's laughable. Of course, the original manufacturer did it totally differently, and wasn't thinking any of the things we would be thinking. And of course the innards of the car wouldn't even be close.

    In some ways it's unfortunate to me that the videos are slickly produced and as a result will superficially appeal to people. While they pick up tips like "point your butt cap at the ball like a flashlight! " guaranteed to prevent development of truly great/natural strokes.

    Finally I do not believe my words were to harsh. THE VIDEOS CONTAIN FACTUAL errors. There is no other way to say it and there is no excuse for it.

    It strikes me as odd that you who hold yourself as a tennis expert would so zealously defend the videos. Funny only yesterday a former satellite pro who recently won a national title(he teaches now) returned "killer forehand" to me. I asked him what he thought...he agreed with me completely....I assumed just about anyone with advanced playing ability would see this....

    Feel free to forward this to Pat Dougherty, I'm not sure what that means...is he coming to my house to shut me up?! I don't know what his specific role was as far as content of the video is concerned, if he had a role in that, I would love to talk to him about some of the misinformation presented in the videos. As for teaching methods, well I'll assume that he and Bol actually believe that the teaching method in the video is sound.

    As for you saying posters should ignore my comments. That is fine, you are entitled to your opinion. I would suggest posters ignore your comment to ignore my comments and use their own mind to freely take in information and decide for themselves. If they disagree with me that is there right, I would warn them though that arbitrarily picking a side and without hearing all the arguments is not a wise choice. But that is their loss.
     
    #7
  8. Montana Realty

    Montana Realty New User

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    50
    I personally found Nick B's videos to be quite inciteful myself.
     
    #8
  9. Datacipher

    Datacipher Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,611
    HA HA, OK, I'll bite...what exactly did you find insighful? In addition to the factual errors(which I know no defenders will want to touch and wisely so). I certainly found little original or new information.....
     
    #9
  10. Bungalo Bill

    Bungalo Bill G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,885
    Why don't you name the factual errors and delight us with your found wisdom.

    Pat Dougherty is the brains behind the videos and has done a lot of research on pros strokes. I might add, much more then you or I have. I find the videos not only entertaining but also full of good information. The use of the arm as a lever on the onehander is great for people to visualize what they are trying to do. Many players at the club level lead with their elbows to hit the onehander.

    Bollistic Backhand comes from the stance of leverage and placing the wrist in a strong position - hence the L. What is wrong with that? I see the L used all the time when I study pro film. Granted not everyone does it but a lot do! But it doesnt render the video bad or with errors.

    I also side with you that it is "missing" some key information but I dont side with you that they are bad videos that are misguided and damaging to players. That is where I differ with you.

    I see his videos covering footwork, racquet preparation, stroke mechanics, and instilling the confidence to "go for it" on your strokes. Again, what in the world is wrong with that?
     
    #10
  11. Datacipher

    Datacipher Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,611
    First of all let's get something straight here. I don't appreciate your snide remarks or condescending attitude. If you think I have nothing better to do than joust with an internet tennis expert you are incorrect. I realize that this is threatening to you, for your own good if you really want to learn the game, I suggest you keep a more open mind and listen to what others have to say even if you had not considered the possibilities before.

    Further, do not presume to tell me how much research I have done on pro strokes, you know nothing about my background. If you did you'd probably be quite surprised. But you've already made up your mind haven't you! lol.

    If you had read my previous post you would understand some of the difficulties I have with the entire teaching methodology used in the videos. In my opinion it is harmful for a top level open player and will ultimately limit the lesser player.

    Now as far as factual errors go, the question is where to start? I cannot/will not analyze the entire collection of videos for someone who is hostile and has already made up their mind.

    But off the top of my head, here's a couple things for you to think about (bear in mind these are errors in knowledge...I'm not even going to touch the actual type of instruction/learning provided in the videos)

    Let's start with something simple.
    In Sonic Serve the intro says that "only a handful of players have exceeded 140 mph in match play competition...it then lists 6 players: Max Miryni, Mark Phillipoussis, Goran Ivanisevic, RIchard Krajicek and Marc Rosset" It even lists these players as in the 140+ club! Bollettieri even goes so far in his book to point out that Pete Sampras has not gone this fast.

    Out of curiosity can you tell me when and where Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Rosset and Miryni have exceeded 139 mph in match play competition? HMMMMMM....Surely such a well researched video would not make a mistake in something they specifically point out and put in print both on video and in the book....

    Now let's take an example from mechanics:

    In Killer Forehand, Nick displays an obsession with staying down throught the hit. Over and over he chastises the student, to STAY DOWN, then we see the abominable scene in which he hooks a physical contraption to the student and yells at her to stay down, complimenting her when she starts and finishes in a very low body position.

    Anyone who knows biomechanics knows that in efficient topspin strokes using the body properly, the body rises through the stroke. As a matter of fact scientific biomechnical analysis shows that Agassi and other players lift their center of gravity at the same angle as the stroke itself. This is natural and all good players do it. Here, the videos confuse the error of pullling off with the racquet/head for lifting the body.

    When in fact you attempt to stay down while swinging up, you must actually recruit muscles to exert a downward force to counterbalance the upward force of the swing. This is both inefficient and potentially stressful for the body. It will also rob you of a great deal of power potential.

    Well I've written more than enough. Do as you please. These are VERY simple concepts there are much more complex problems inherant in the videos if Pat Dougherty has responses to this, he should feel free to message me.
     
    #11
  12. C_Urala

    C_Urala Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    Messages:
    480
    Guys, please, stay constructive. You are at the edge ..
     
    #12
  13. Datacipher

    Datacipher Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,611
    True. My apologies Urala. I felt the need to defend myself as my original comments(which were meant to be statements and not inflamatory) were attacked. But now I am done with it...
     
    #13
  14. Datacipher

    Datacipher Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,611
    True. My apologies Urala. I felt the need to defend myself as my original comments(which were meant to be statements and not inflamatory) were attacked. But now I am done with it...
     
    #14
  15. C_Urala

    C_Urala Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    Messages:
    480
    Yeah, I know. Sometime, it's difficult to cast aside the husk and to concentrate on the main point of a discussion.

    BB can sound too ironic sometimes but he really knows the business and it's always interesting to know his opinion, especially when he reveals the foundation of it.

    Hope, it didn't sound menial... :roll:
     
    #15
  16. brijoel

    brijoel Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2004
    Messages:
    277
    i really think that you judging those videos solely in the sense they were meant for high level players in themselves is a huge mistake. while the idea of something like staying down might be exaggerated, you as a knowledgable person should know that an exaggeration is many times needed to get a player to begin to understand the point. nor to mention the fact that trying to correct someone popping up too early before the proper moment in a stroke generally takes an extreme method to show the pupil the difference. while teaching ideals may differ from pro to pro, i hardly see these types videos as being useless on all levels. personally, i hate the idea of students fashioning their strokes solely after a pro for the simple reason that there is more going on than they can generally begin to comprehend. so i'll give you that much. i also agree with you in the sense that each player must develope their own style do to varying mechanical situations between players, BUT there is nothing wrong with giving tips to help point a player in the correct direction that help to adjust certain problems they may have. for someone so familiar with body mechanics im amazed you havent gone off on them for even bothering with the forehand since it technically is not a true natural movement, none the less something like a heavy semi western or full on western grip.
     
    #16
  17. Bungalo Bill

    Bungalo Bill G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,885
    Well we wont disagree that a player should rise through the stroke - that is something I preach. And not too long ago got in a huge argument with a certain poster who insisted that pros dont rise. Actually some rise very unnoticeably.

    You're right I already have made up my mind on your ability to analyze players. I have also made up my mind on your understanding of tennis from a teaching perspective! You should know there are many ways to teach tennis. Nick B's video's are one way and it doesnt make them wrong. I agree with a lot of things you said, but I dont agree that the videos are full of errors - and you are the expert to tell us this.

    What makes you the judge of errors? Because you had one satellite pro send you a video?

    No snide remarks from me, I respect you as a person, just stating a fact that you're not a teaching expert to downplay a video that much that was produced by very knowledgable people.
     
    #17
  18. Datacipher

    Datacipher Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,611
    [quote="Bungalo Bill]

    Well we wont disagree that a player should rise through the stroke - that is something I preach. And not too long ago got in a huge argument with a certain poster who insisted that pros dont rise. Actually some rise very unnoticeably.

    You're right I already have made up my mind on your ability to analyze players. I have also made up my mind on your understanding of tennis from a teaching perspective! You should know there are many ways to teach tennis. Nick B's video's are one way and it doesnt make them wrong. I agree with a lot of things you said, but I dont agree that the videos are full of errors - and you are the expert to tell us this.

    What makes you the judge of errors? Because you had one satellite pro send you a video?

    No snide remarks from me, I respect you as a person, just stating a fact that you're not a teaching expert to downplay a video that much that was produced by very knowledgable people.[/quote]

    Well this doesn't make much sense to me Bill. You acknowledge that the videos are incorrect on the point of staying down. Again, this is a serious flaw, it is biomechanically inefficient and potentially hazardous to the player. You don't mention the simple factual errors about he service speeds, so I assume you know that the video is also in error on that point. Yet you then say that you disagree the video has errors and that I am the expert to tell you this? Well, I just did.

    Further, I never self appointed myself to be "the expert". I merely originally pointed out that the videos should be taken with "a grain of salt"(a critical eye) as they contain errors! You then seem to say I am not allowed to make judgements about the video....I guess the question is who is qualified then? When I make factual errors that can be proven wrong then present them to the public for profit, I think anyone who can find the errors has a legitimate right to state they are wrong and advise other people of the problems.

    It's also very bizarre that you suggest I realize there are many ways to teach tennis. This is self evident. If there were not, we would not be talking about this right now. There are also many styles of learning. I believe there are simply some methods that much more effective in producing long term results and unleashing the full potential of the player, the videos are to me a step backward in that the way in which they convey information is not the way in which top players truly develop their strokes.

    Nonetheless if you want to try to learn tennis that way(and it is the conventional method of teaching-hammer the student with tips models, axioms, covering all facets of the stroke), that is your right. I taught and played that way for quite some time myself.

    You say you've already made up your mind as to my ability to analyze players. How odd! If you had made up your mind as to my ability to analyze video or teaching methods, at least I could understand this. How you arbitrarily feel you can possibly judge my ability to analyze players based on no data at all...is beyond me.

    However, that sums it up in a nutshell. You have made up your mind. I am glad you are honest and sincere enough to say this up front, it means neither of us will have to waste a lot of time in discussion as dialogue is pretty much useless.

    You ask what makes me "the judge of errors". Well I never called myself this, there may be errors I have not seen. All I can say is that I have seen errors, you asked for example, I gave you 2. I was correct. I never called myself an expert, I have been learning about tennis for 20 years and continue to do so. I have been fortunate to discuss tennis teaching with some much more experienced than I....Vic Braden, Oscar Wegnar.... yes, I have been fortunate to talk with and play with (not just 1 satellite pro..I think you misunderstood my line about that anyway...he was returning my video) a number of satellite pros. I have a lot of great tennis experiences as do I'm sure many on these boards, I have avoided listing my credentials or identity as I prefer to my anonymous in such a public forum. And you know...it really shouldn't matter, either what I said is true or it is BS when it comes to factual matters. Any who read it can decide for themselves. As far as matters of opinion go(which I have tried to avoid in this topic) well all I can do their is provide the basis of my opinion and again let people decide what they think.

    And incidently, I happen to like Bollettierri, who I have never met. I always thought much of the criticism of him has been unfair and I think he is a great pro coach, in terms of motivation and to some extent strategy. I enjoyed reading his autobiography of which I have 2 copies in front of me as I speak. I like his teaching philosophy of working with individual styles and technique(which he seems to have gotten away from slightly). But my final opinion is that they are tennis candy. Appealing, nice pictures of some great players, basic information, correct much of the time, but not presented in a way that will help a person develop great strokes, rather presented in a way that will help keep a person trapped in the ineffective tennis teaching pardigm which has plagued us all. And keeps sincere genuine adult players trapped year after year after year with very little real improvement....even if the optimist inside keeps saying...wow, my (insert stroke here) is really improving now that I found (insert tip here)...it's all in the (insert body part here)....they play with a bit more confidence for a few weeks then a year later...they're still playing the same people/level/league etc.....so remember...get in that athletic stance...use the drop step...get to the ball...open stance...loop bakswing....get that V on the right bevel...point that butt cap at the ball....then let go off the towel....remember to come straight out...yay! ;-)
     
    #18
  19. Datacipher

    Datacipher Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,611
    Hi brijoel.

    The problem I have with staying down is not that I think the point is exaggerated...but that it doesn't and shouldn't happen at all. This is not arbitrary form that I or another teacher picked but a kinesiological reality. Yes, you must/should get low for a low ball but then you should be lifting up with the body, assuming you are hitting with an upward swing. So getting initially low is one thing, staying down through the stroke is quite another. I have rarely seen someone shift up too early. Usually they either(and I"m sure you have seen this to):

    1.didn't get the racquet low enough in the 1st place, so they swing from high to even higher, failing to get topspin and sometimes failing to hit the ball cleanly at all(as they know instinctively that something is wrong and try to compensate)

    2.pull off the swing with the racquet head resulting in a mishit and lack of control/power....this is often because of a subconscious movement of the head to look where the ball is going, of course when you move your head, the racquet follows. The key here is to keep your head down and still.

    Getting down and staying down may in fact help to correct these! But you're replacing one faulty procedure with another(and 1 which is unnatural and limiting)! One needs to address the real issues here. It most certainly does not help to give out faulty information....the student may still do the flaws above and add the flaw of staying down. Further, people who do not have these 1st 2 flaws may also try to stay down.

    More disturbing, Nick and the video truly seem to believe this, they do not present it as correcting some other problem but as the correct form itself.

    Now, I AGREE COMPLETLY with a student fashioning his strokes off a strict model. It is not the Bollettierri model I disagree with. If I have a student who ends up serving like Max Miryni, fantastic! I wish I could! But this is where a big part of the problem lies, when you try strict imitation of complex human motion and particularly when you enforce with this with a load of verbal cues, movement becomes stunted and mechanical. Visual cues are better particularly for visual learners but still are not the best way to develop ones strokes. I'm sure you've seen this many times in beginners taking lessons. Now as time goes on...they get more natural LOOKING and superfically mimic the pros better...still in their head is a bunch of cues about their form which they think is the key to their strokes but is actually holding them back. As a result the stroke breaks down periodically as one of the cues is forgotten or misinterpreted.

    Now if you take that same person and teach them from the beginning about the only important thing, how the racquet contacts the ball and about the feel of contact and how to make the ball do what you want. Amazingly, other aspects...the backswing, the stance, the weight transfer, the weight shift, the spin, the follow through, take care of themselves the vast majority of the time! Progress is extremely rapid! The person owns the strokes because that stroke is uniquely theirs and is being produced by their own athletic intuition. The true athlete is unleashed and you find out that average people are much more coordinated and have much more potential to play tennis than ever believed. Unfortunately conventional teaching short circuits this and turns players into mechanical puppets directed by the rules and ideas their minds are filled up with....ironically the more motivated students who want badly to learn are the ones who get more of this teaching and are held back most of all! Great strokes are natural and unique to that player. A great teacher will help give you the important keys and let your stroke come out.


    This is how 5.0+ players play. It's also the reason why the vast vast majority of adult beginners no matter how avidly they play never reach this level. It remains the domain of people who grew up playing and developed their strokes in a natural manner(including all the pros) or those lucky few who manage to rise above conventional teaching. It is not a directly dependant on "talent". Though that will ultimately be a factor in how far you go beyond 5.0....where everyone plays very well and it's just a matter of who can do things a bit better....

    As far as the forehand goes. I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to. Many would say that the backhand is a more natural stroke. I would agree in that less movement in less bodyparts is required. I think it also "feels" more natural. I do think a good forehand can be biomechanically sound. As far as grip goes, this obviously alters the mechanics of the other body parts but again I think that with any of the grips between continental and Western a sound stroke can be developed. Albeit the modern western forehand involves acceleration of such a magnitude that it can be quite stressful on th ebody....
     
    #19
  20. Bungalo Bill

    Bungalo Bill G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,885
    Well Datacipher,

    The difference I guess between you and I is discussing tennis with Vic Braden and actually teaching at his tennis college. I know all about Vic Bradens tennis teaching being a coach myself at his college. I have watched a lot of films with him and have learned a great deal from him. He does know a lot but not everything.

    Usually tennis teaching is ineffective because a person cant implement what is taught. It could be that you dont know how to implement Nick. B's methods. But that doesnt mean they are wrong.

    The pulling of the butt cap has been around for sometime - Nick's video's are promoting it more. Bolleterri is not a great coach, that we can agree on - he is a very good marketer/promoter. But he does have very knowledgeable people that surround him that know a lot about biomechanics and tennis. including the person that did the videos.

    Where the video is incomplete but not wrong (in my opinion) is HOW you pull the butt cap toward the ball. However, the butt cap toward the ball as a stand alone is correct. It is not a "wrong" method of teaching as you have indicated. Pointing the butt cap toward the ball or toward the net (whichever helps you) prevents a lot of things especially on a wide ball such as a too long of a backswing.

    Helping a person develop great strokes is a very relative term. Most of the stuff in Nick B.'s videos is towards the modern game. I am also a member of EASI, we have done extensive research on this pointing the butt cap toward the ball and it is correct.

    I dont think your wrong about your insights to how to hit the ball, but it is one way. Vic Braden is one way and he provides a lot of good fundmental knowledge on how to hit strokes.

    You make comments like adults being "trapped" which isnt true again. In fact, I have used many of Nick B.'s stuff to further illustrate what a person is trying to do, I am not afraid to mix methods to get the player to perform.

    Let me ask you a question and see what you think:

    We used to teach a person how to retreive a lob over his head. The lob is deep. Doesnt matter where it lands. As soon as he sees the lob, he turns his back to his opponent and darts for the back fence, he is then suppose to "sense" where the ball is going to land, turn around and hit his overhead. Is this correct? What do you think happens when you turn around and run to the back fence while "sensing" where the ball is in the air and will land, then turn around as soon as you hear it bounce and hit an overhead?


    Again, I agree with your stroke development, but I dont agree with you on that the video is wrong. There is a lot of good information that players can benefit from. And just because it doesnt work for you doesnt mean it doesnt work for someone else.
     
    #20
  21. Datacipher

    Datacipher Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,611
    I don't feel like you are really reading my replies Bill. I addressed many issues in my lengthy posts and you do not reply directly to them.

    I'm glad you have a lot of experience with Braden, I thought he was a gentleman and a great great contriubtor to tennis. i also learned a lot from him and his contributions in research stand on their own. But I never said anything about him. I don't advocate his way...nor do I think he knows everything as you suggest. Nor do I think that because you taught for him you are superior to me as you imply.

    Nor do I care about the butt cap pointing. Other than being another example of a teaching cue that is not particularly helpful in the teaching/learning style I advocate.

    I am glad you say you are not afraid to mix and match teaching styles...that is surprising because to me you have come across as very defensive and judgemental.

    I would like to answer your question about the lob, but quite frankly, I can't make much sense of it. First off, I don't know what you mean by "sense". If you mean predict where the ball will land based on it's initial trajectory and the hitting swing, then all people do this automatically...an experienced player will do this better than a beginner. I do not instruct any student to turn his back and run. I tell them to get to the ball. Each student does this differently. If a great deal of ground must be covered quickly a student will tend to turn and run rather than shuffle or backpeddle. This is natural and will happen automatically, it should not be taught unless for some reason an individual has a great deal of difficulty with it. Telling them exactly how to run has the effect I described of making the game mechanical and taking focus away from the most important thing which is to actually find the ball and hit it.

    When you ask "What do you think happens when you turn around and run to the back fence while "sensing" where the ball is in the air and will land, then turn around as soon as you hear it bounce and hit an overhead?" I don't understand this as you have fully described the scenario. I assume what will happen is what you describe since you developed the scene....if you are asking me do I think this will be effective for most players consistently. I doubt it. It is the exact opposite of what I teach...there are many variable that will go into the exact landing location and bounce of the lob....most people will not consistently know exactly where the ball will be so they can whirl around and hit it instantly. Again...since I teach finding the ball and contacting as of primary importance..the student can focus ALL his attention on the ball and not worry about footwork and body positioning and simply track the ball so he can make the contact he needs. Usually even running backward... a peripheral view of the ball can be kept so that the student can get to the specific location by any means he can. Tennis is not a complex game of learned movement and biomechanics. DESCRIBING it is complex.

    I am intrigued by your EASI tennis reference. I had gone to the sight initially only to find that instead of the revolutionary method they had teased...I found the same old description of pro techniques done in even more mechanical basis. The forehand segment alone was broken down into countless substeps! But I must confess I didn't go far as I discovered the founders Ray and Becky Brown was it? Misleading lies about their background and results so offensive that I wrote them off.
     
    #21
  22. Bungalo Bill

    Bungalo Bill G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,885
    Hmmmm...now people are liars about themselves but you have never really talked to them. They have countless steps to hit a forehand but you have never really looked into it. Actually, I only counted five and two of those are the main ones. Pretty simple to me. But I am sure you will never accept that and consider it the "wrong way" to play tennis where a player will be forever demonized into a blackhole not ever knowing what to do and crying out for help when no one will hear - until of course you come around.

    Oh and dont let me forget, everyone should throw away all of those Nick B. videos. They are worthless and they will corrupt your minds as well as your childrens minds. You will play 3.5 tennis forever. If you live in a small town build a bonfire and burn em, they will ruin you!

    Well, I guess you got me, I cant figure out if your just a frustrated tennis player or the next person to write a book on how to play "real" tennis! LOL
     
    #22
  23. C_Urala

    C_Urala Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    Messages:
    480
    Bungalo Bill, with due respect, I think you overreact. just a tiny bit..
    :)


    Datacipher,
    Let's imagine, I came to you and asked to teach me to hit a onehand backhand. (this thread is about this one after all)

    What would you suggest?
    (Well, let's suppose also we've agreed about the price :wink: )
     
    #23
  24. Datacipher

    Datacipher Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,611
    You're right I did get you. I think it's pretty obvious who the frustrated tennis player is. You attacked me and I was willing to discuss it with you, but instead of responding to my points as I do to yours, all you have in reply in anger and venom. I backed up everything I said, all you did was make snide comments and run off on tangents with no follow up.

    I suspect you're a guy who has watched some videos and read some tennis books and now wants to play tennis pro on the internet. If you are a real tennis pro I think you just start acting like a professional and not a 12yr old on a tirade because his bluff has been called.

    As far as Becky Brown goes, ONCE AGAIN I stand by what I said. I found the claims they make about their credentials and results purposely misleading. Since you are part of their circle, I assume you know exactly what I'm talking about. Becky and Ray have a habit of saying "Using the new training methods
    developed in research with the author, Becky Brown went from a USTA NTRP
    tennis rating of 3.5 to a professional world ranking of 1,069 in less than
    four years."
    Yes, I will post how she got that ranking if I have to, but I know you wouldn't want me to do that, would you?

    AS I STATED, I did peruse their site, however, I was not impressed with the teachings they show, and I most certainly will not pay to see all of it. Particularly when I find their integrity questionable.

    Lastly, in answer to your insults, I am not writing a book. Nor do I expect to profit in any way from these postings! It shows how illogical your ranting is when you are the one who made this thread into what it is, based on 1 sentence of advice I placed at the end my original post. I am actually somewhat reluctant to go further with advice because:

    1.it takes a lot of time!

    2.I dont' know anybody here, nor will I ever know them....why would i waste potentially hours a day giving advice to people who may or may not want it or listen to it

    3.I don't want to be selfish, but yes, as long as their are tennis teachers teaching this way, it makes what I have to give more valuable. It also prevents open tournament draws I may enter from getting too crowded! ;-)

    Which is why until you attacked me...I only made small spur of the moment advice postings involving simple technical facts, avoiding any conversation about teaching methodology. You should have kept your insults to yourself and I would have let you continue to post your " teachings" unimpeded. I know from your posting that you have figured out not to debate or push me on real content. That is wise,I have no agenda and I can back up what I say.
     
    #24
  25. Datacipher

    Datacipher Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,611
    Urala, i tried to private message you but it says I cannot. Your request is not easy as describing in words how I teach is much more difficult and may not truly convey how I teach. But mainly, it would also be a lot of work...and I've already spent a lot more time on this board then I would like so if you're just mildly curious or trying to make peace...well let's just forget it. :)

    If you are genuinely interested in some of the ideas/methods I use, I will certainly talk with you about it as one tennis player to another if you have an email I can send to.
     
    #25
  26. JohnThomas1

    JohnThomas1 Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    977
    You have perked my curiosity too Datacipher. I am new in the board but have read all the archive articles and must say that Bill gives excellent advice and is always willing to go to great length to answer most questions. I am curious to see your take on the one hander as i try to take in all the info i can and filter it from there. It is also a shot i am continually working on. The Becky Brown slant also has my interest. Tennis lover that i am i have even enjoyed some of you and bill's banter here, there might be a gem or two in all that :)
     
    #26
  27. C_Urala

    C_Urala Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    Messages:
    480
    Although, 'trying to make peace' is important for me, my highest priority is, of course, to get some new information on making all those shots. And the backhand is one of them.
    My e-mail: alex200g@mail.ru but I would ask you to post here, because I believe that I'm not the only one who is interested in it (the last post proves it too).
    Thank you in advance.
     
    #27
  28. Bungalo Bill

    Bungalo Bill G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,885
    Actually, for someone who says other people are making strokes sound too difficult you should be able to help simplify Urala's request. After saying EASI has "countless" steps to learn a forehand you should enlighten us with your wisdom on how to teach tennis strokes. So lets hear it!
     
    #28
  29. Bungalo Bill

    Bungalo Bill G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,885
    C_Urala,

    Hopefully you will read this long winded post.

    You are absolutely right about my stance. However, it is not overreacting, it is ridiculous exaggeration that I am doing. I have no disagreements from D on how he teaches strokes. What I have a problem with is how he disrespects other peoples work (Dougherty's, EASI) and makes himself as to be the authority to tell us all that he is the one that needs to tell us how bad everyones work is.

    I have never steared anyone wrong with my suggestions and comments on this board. I have provided many different ways to hit the ball so people can get past their mental and physical mental blocks to improve their games. When you email me, I use EASI' s video (I have permission to use them) to help people understand WHY they are hitting a certain way and what they are suppose to do to learn the "modern" stroke the fastest and easiest way. I will take the time to help you. Also, you will benefit further because EASI makes it very easy to analyze a pros strokes. You will know what to look for and it will be clear to you how the biomechanics of a stroke is truly working. Also, watching pros takes on a whole new dimension. You will see what the pros are doing and it will MATCH what you're learning with your own strokes to speed up learning even faster.

    I have used material from almost all respected authorities (and continue to do so) and hopefully will never appear to be someone who has "invented" the real way to play tennis. I have made lots of mistakes along the way and have learned a great deal about tennis. I also know when someone is full of it and is giving out misleading information.

    No one on this board has invented anything - it is all learned by people who work hard to help this game - the researchers. Braden was more of a researcher then a coach. That is not to say I wont disagree with certain attributes or elements of a persons research, but to discard things the way "D" did - is ludicrous.

    D is absolutely wrong that the above contributors to tennis are wrong in their methods or approach to tennis. I have used (not just looked at the site) EASI's tennis instruction to see if I really can teach a student to hit a modern forehand quicker and easier (as the site guarentees and challenges) and the answer is YES! This is not something that is dreamed up but is taken to the courts for true live testing. In fact, I have left behind some of my "Braden" ways that I used to teach on stroke development. Now I am using EASI's stroke development as the main source to improve students play and mixing it with other researchers information. You know what? It works.

    Tennis is still a very young sport as far as research is concerned. It is still evolving, without the foundational work that Braden and others have done we would be regressing back to learn what they have founded years ago to be fundamental. But some things have changed and I am always open minded to take things from other researchers so I can learn as much as I can to help people learn tennis from different angles.

    As I stated before, my degree is in human learning theory. So I know that one method or wording to you may mean all the difference to you then if I said it or demonstrated it another way. People learn differently and people HAVE BENEFITED FROM NICK B's VIDEOS!!!

    Here is an example: Before I teach anything that is in theory I will make sure I can do it first. Remember the argument that I had with Japanese Maple about the "in the chair drill"? He said that that drill was not transferring real learning to normal hitting. That it was a waste of time because he couldnt do it. He also went as far as saying professionals do not lift their center of gravity when they are hitting. That is hogwash. The "in the chair drill" and the learning does tranfer to the court, but it takes time to get the sensation down. But as Braden said, "it is a lesson worth a million dollars"!

    Getting back to my example: When Pat Dougherty re-emphasized the hip stretch concept I didnt believe it was the major portion of thrust to help generate racquet head speed and upward movement. I have a very good serve, and never did I consciously feel my hip stretch to generate power. I just didnt think about it.

    So as a coach I am not going to risk my reputation on someones theory. I have to put it into practice. For months, I argued back and forth with Pat (through email). He finally told me to do something that (again this was not conscious to me - it was simply natural movement) would help me feel what he was saying better. So I went back on the court to try his recommendations. You know what - it works - I got the sensation that I took for granted. Now I incorporate his teaching in my serving instruction - but I know what my student is suppose to do and feel! I can help my student get the feel.

    You see I dont watch a video and then downplay it because I cant teach it nor do it. I will try hard to do it and if it works for me it will works for someone else. But the biggest difference is I know what it feels like. I know it is valid.

    The same is true with EASI. I am always looking for ways to teach tennis better. I stumbled on this site and investigated it. But I dont stop with the content on the internet. I call them and talk to them. I aks them questions, I challenge their theories and pose tough questions. I want to see if it their stuff will transer to the courts. I am probing to find out - DOES IT WORK!

    I have to understand it and use it and feel it in order to teach it. Even if it is a better system. But I will never say it is wrong or harmful - and base this decision without giving it time to use it or see it from the researchers eyes.

    So for three months I practiced the methods and key points on EASI, my stroke is already developed but the focus points where a tad different so it produced a different feel. I wanted to see if I could communicate it and most of all could the student feel it.

    You know what? They are right! It works. It has not only improved the speed of learning tennis but also the level of the player. It has helped me convey and improve my tennis teaching to students and they are thankful.

    The bottom-line: I dont discount anyones contribution to this game. It is all good - it is a matter whether you understand it and most importantly - can you demonstrate it.

    I am not against D's comments on strokes - I am only against his approach and words towards other researchers contributions to the game. That is where we part ways.
     
    #29
  30. VJH

    VJH New User

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    78
    I am certainly not trying to stir up the pot here, but I'd like to share with you what I gleaned from the Killer Forehand video:

    (For the record, I am a 5.0 player. My USTA team won the 2003 Nationals in Palm Springs)

    Creating any tennis video is a difficult endeavor. Not only does one need to cover the building elements of proper stroke mechanics, but proper movement to the ball (and around the court in general) needs to be clearly documented. I'm sure there are many people who would line up to purchase an "Explosive/Modern day/Spanish Red Clay forehand video (select the title you prefer). I am also certain that many fewer would be interested in purchasing a video that discussed movement exclusively....**Yawn**

    Although I recognize the importance of movement around the court and how it impacts ones ability to strike the ball cleanly (with control and power) and execute any particular strategy, I'm not likely to plunk down $$ to watch people take angular paths to the ball, or drop step to begin their movement to the ball, or how about a backwards cross over step to assist in running around the backhand to crank that forehand....There is only so much movement information that I'd be willing to pay for at one sitting.

    It is obvious that what the folks did with the Bolliettieri videos was to try to incorporate some of the movement information into each of the stoke development tapes. I found that I was given just enough movement information to keep my interest....any more and I'd likely fall asleep with the remote on my chest.

    When Nick puts the belt on his student, my take was that he was trying to provide the sensation of keeping a wide base while moving around the court ("like a farrari" as the narrarator puts it). The intent here is to try to teach people to "glide" around the court, as opposed to stampeding around the court. Many feel that this light footedness can't be effectively taught, however, the characteristics of those that do "glide" around the court are established while wearing the belt: Stance slightly wider than shoulder width, Head still, not bobbing, Athletic height about a foot shorter than standard height.

    I did not get the sense that Nick was preaching that one ought to eliminate any upward movement during the swing phase of the stroke. Instead, what I think that belt is trying to promote is entering your stroke stance in a balanced manner, while maintaining an athletic posture....After you strike the ball, you will have risen from this stance, but you should return to your athletic posture in a controlled, balanced manner in order to best respond to your opponents reply. I believe that wearing the belt helps provide this sensation.

    The real value of the Killer forehand video in my opinion is based on its importance of controlling the center of gravity during movement and stroke production. An uncontrolled center of gravity negatively impacts balance which has exponential negative effect on stroke production. Again, in my opinion, that belt can help create this feeling.

    Take a look at the open stance forehand as an example. Those that hit this stroke without control or power move there center of gravity in such a manner that their balance is disturbed, robbing themselves of controlled racket head speed. Their center of gravity moves "outside their stance" which negatively impacts balance.

    What do I mean by outside of their stance" Picture a person standing in a doorway. Pretend that person were to lean towards the left doorjamb (so that their feet are in the center of the doorway and their shoulder is leaning against the jamb). This person is technically outside of their stance. How do we know this for sure? Were the left doorjamb to magically disappear, they would tumble to their left.

    In tennis, our legs act as the doorjamb, we must fight to keep our center of gravity between our stance. Granted our legs move as does our gravity center while playing tennis. That is why the challenge is to maintain this balance/strong posture while we are gliding across the court.

    Anyway, just my 2 cents.
     
    #30
  31. JC

    JC New User

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Messages:
    12
    I dont want to stir the waters either, but I bought some of Nick B's videos and do remember Pat D. on this board clarifying his findings on the Sonic Serve and other strokes. We have benefited from these videos which we can watch over and over again. On the Bollistic Backhand video my son like the key points on the twohander and how different grips affect the top/bottom hand dominance. They also serve as good reminder. However, I have been in communication with BB and if those videos he sent me were from EASI, all I can say is keep em coming - they and BB together are awesome. I have learned an awful lot reading BB's emails to me and have improved my tennis game without him ever directly teaching me on the court!

    That is coaching talent!
     
    #31

Share This Page