Traditional vs Modern: It's Freakin' Obvious

Discussion in 'Tennis Tips/Instruction' started by TimothyO, Dec 29, 2012.

  1. TimothyO

    TimothyO Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    3,592
    Location:
    Baseline
    Who would you believe, me or your lying eyes?

    :)

    In another thread an industry marketing rep asserted that there's no real distinction between "traditional" tennis and "modern" tennis. He said the distinction is artificial.

    Here for your consideration are two videos. The first is Laver vs Roche at the 1969 A0.

    The second is Djoker vs Nadal at the 2012 AO.

    I'm sorry, but there's no way to put this delicately. To assert that there's no distinction between these two styles of play one must be a blind or seriously incapable of even rudimentary critical thought.

    I asked my 12 year old to review the two films and he immediately ticked off numerous differences between the two styles of play.

    And this ain't even high speed film!

    Laver vs Roche: Traditional Tennis 1969
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHaN2h21ANs

    Djoker vs Nadal: Modern Tennis 2012
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Urn4a2VgvgI

    Strokes, pace, shot selection, patterns of play, movement: they're all very different.

    Maybe that marketing rep was confused since both videos involve two men hitting a ball over a net with racquets?
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2012
    #1
  2. arche3

    arche3 Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Messages:
    5,389
    Its obvious its not the same. The only similarity is they all had tennis rackets. Traditional has much more of a forward component in all strokes. Modern has so much rotational across aspect on the fh they are leaving the ground due to the speed of the rotation. Its violent and fast. Its a different stroke between the two. You can see how the game progressed by watching two videos but to say they are the same is not true.
     
    #2
  3. luvforty

    luvforty Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2012
    Messages:
    1,294
    yes and no.

    on surface they look different... but if you put nadal and nole on fast grass and give them 65in woodie and tell them that they can't leave the ground during serve.... then they will play very much like roche and laver.
     
    #3
  4. arche3

    arche3 Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Messages:
    5,389
    Its not just the serve. Everything is different. Might be because of the new rackets but the technique is different now.
     
    #4
  5. luvforty

    luvforty Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2012
    Messages:
    1,294
    technique is different because of the conditions... athletes have been using a circular motion to propel linearly since our ancestors had to hunt for food... discus, shot put, hammer throw, you name it.... it doesn't take scientists to figure out you can generate speed by rotation.

    give today's players old conditions - fast grass with lots bad bounces, wood rackets with gut string, they will play the same way laver and roche played.. simply a survival of the fittest.

    if you pull to the left or even pull backwards, you will never get to the net in time.

    if you hit across the ball, it will be shanksville.

    like Ash Smith said, modern tennis exists just like modern art exists... there is nothing new under the sun... just what style makes money.
     
    #5
  6. OHBH

    OHBH Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2009
    Messages:
    590
    Their shot selection is dictated by the surface. Their is really only one way to hit a tennis ball. The modern rackets allow todays players to swing bigger and more violently but the are all the same in the impact zone
     
    #6
  7. 10isfreak

    10isfreak Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2012
    Messages:
    566
    I would take the time to ask what someone EXACTLY means when he says there is no difference between both before criticizing his ideas... and, well, besides this, I would bother analysing high speed videos carefully before saying anything about this subject.

    With the naked eye, Nadal and Federer are very different. Using high speed videos, we can determine that their forehand present the EXACT same micromovements: it‘s 40 or more specific moves that they both perform. And, just to make it clear: it‘s not all pros who hit the same forehand. They, however, hit a nearly identical stroke anatomically speaking.

    Accuracy is important.
     
    #7
  8. luvforty

    luvforty Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2012
    Messages:
    1,294
    a rotational stroke would be inferior in laver's days because -

    1) little momentum to the net
    2) a finish with right shoulder pointing at the opponent, requires an extra move to recover to square, to cover the volley

    actually if you look at the golf swings in the similar era... ben hogan and george knudsen would be in the 'swing to the left' category, while moe norman and byran nelson more in the 'swing down the line' class, with sam snead somewhere in between...

    back then they already knew the options to generate power.
     
    #8
  9. ShoeShiner

    ShoeShiner Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2012
    Messages:
    165
    Good comparison, really obvious.
     
    #9
  10. martini1

    martini1 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2008
    Messages:
    3,173
    Are you saying Nadal would all of sudden be able to hit with a continental grip on his forehand?? He won't be able to a single ground stroke at all.

    These guys would still swing the only way they know but with the woodies they won't be able to do much pace or spin.

    There is vid of Safin vs Haas (?) hitting with woodie. They did not change so much that they looked like Laver or even Borg.
     
    #10
  11. luvforty

    luvforty Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2012
    Messages:
    1,294
    no... survival of the fittest doesn't happen overnight.
     
    #11
  12. luvforty

    luvforty Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2012
    Messages:
    1,294
    if ATP were to announce that starting 2014 we'll play on fescue grass with 65in wood only, then you watch.
     
    #12
  13. arche3

    arche3 Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Messages:
    5,389
    I dont think its a question if laver can play and compete now. I happen to agree laver and past pros can and would play like the current pros play. The question is if the pros actually play differently now, I think they do. The technique is geared towards the current conditions.
     
    #13
  14. martini1

    martini1 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2008
    Messages:
    3,173
    Just watch any sports over the past 50 years. Technique changes, equipment changes, mentality changes, game plan changes.
    You simply cannot ask an athlete from a certain era to play like what's a generation before or after. You cannot reprogram one's body once they have matured. They can adjust a little bit but no way they can transform, unless they are only 10.
     
    #14
  15. tlm

    tlm Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2004
    Messages:
    7,454
    Couldn't agree more, it is amazing that people will debate that there is no difference.
     
    #15
  16. NLBwell

    NLBwell Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    7,072
    Of course there is a difference in the way the matches look.
    You can not point to a day that tennis changed from traditional to modern.
    Also, traditional players did hit with open stances, "reverse forehands," two-handed backhands (a few guys), big topspin, etc.
    However, they did not normally play this way or hit these shots because they were not optimal to the equipment and conditions. (Oscar Wegner's teaching was based on watching how guys like Laver actually hit the ball.) The game was serve-and-volley in 1969. Low bad bounces were the norm and were difficult to contact cleanly with a wood (or metal) racket.
    These people weren't stupid - they played the optimal game for the situation.

    Nobody in the modern game can move into the net and volley nearly as well as these guys. There isn't much advantage to it anymore, so why should they do it a lot?


    The swinging volley is a good example. Of course, in 1969 guys hit swinging volleys, but it was not a good play. Picking a moving ball out of the air and hitting the sweetspot of a wood racket so that you would get enough power and placement, was a difficult thing to do. Andre Agassi and his ilk popularized the swinging volley. Of course he used a Prince Oversize racket. The technology changed the way the game was played.


    .
    Tennis has morphed from badmitton to ping-pong.
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2012
    #16
  17. JW10S

    JW10S Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,891
    Which is why someone claiming they were teaching 'modern' tennis back in 1968 is blowing smoke...
     
    #17
  18. Larrysümmers

    Larrysümmers Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    3,990
    Location:
    1313 Mockingbird Lane.
    it is pretty much the same. these days the players have lighter, bigger rackets and poly strings allowing them to take huge cuts, and put massive power on the ball compared to then.
    the laws of the game haven't changed, though. It's was and still is get under the ball, and swing follow through.
    There's a book from the late 20s and it is filled with "modern tennis" ideas, but they are wielding around 15?+ OZ of wood around, so their swings look different than ours nowadays.
    The author was all about hitting topspin CC and using angles.
     
    #18
  19. arche3

    arche3 Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Messages:
    5,389
    I dont really care what oscars claims are. I am a pretty decent tennis player although I didn't play on the tour. Just college. When I see these two videos I just don't understand how some people can say there is no such thing as modern tennis.

    I don't make a living from tennis. I am simply a player. I don't have a reason to doubt peoples claims about their coaching resume.

    And I hope more pro coaches would actually post useful info on here as I am coaching my young son now. I will go as far to say if any person who calls themselves a tennis coach sees no difference between these two videos they should just pack it up right now. There are so many difference in everything.
     
    #19
  20. dominikk1985

    dominikk1985 Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,362
    traditional vs. modern doesn't exist.

    but to say the technique stayed the same is also wrong. technique evolved over the years. there is no cut off for modern tennis.

    there always have been rotational WW FHs but with the modern rackets that style became less diverse since those strokes are the most effective way to hit balls.

    I also think that style is natural consequence of the modern rackets. a lot of kids are never taught thus and still do it because they imitate the pros in TV and other kids. the use of rotation to generate speed has been used for 100 years in baseball (babe ruth swings exactly like modern players). it is just that you can use it better with modern rackets and also tennis was a polite sport were you weren't supposed to jump and twist around.

    that has changed and now players are jumping, screaming and wearing their cap with the shield back:).
     
    #20
  21. TimothyO

    TimothyO Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    3,592
    Location:
    Baseline
    John Yandell vs John Yandell

    Sorry John, the film evidence says you're wrong. Even on elements such as a wrap finish you're wrong. There's nothing as consistently extreme in the 1969 film as in the 2012 video.

    There is a very hard distinction between those two films, between old school and modern tennis.

    I would argue that what we see today is a product of changes in frame and string technology, fitness, and a better understanding of tennis physics driving technique (eg increasing emphasis on spin and its effect on stroke paths).

    I don't believe the change was binary. It was evolutionary over many years. There was a feedback loop between technology, fitness, and technique.

    I think it's clear you're just looking to argue and to attack an industry competitor.

    Anyone viewing those two films can see the extraordinary differences in play: pace, strokes, movement, shot selection are all very different. There is a very HARD contrast between the two. One is dominated by low pace angle shots, generally from midcourt to the net. The other is dominated by high pace baseline rallies using extreme topspin.

    That doesn't mean that current players never come to net. Nor does it mean that baseline rallies never happened in the 60s. But even those exchanges are different, especially the baseline rallies.

    To assert that there's no hard distinction between old school tennis and modern tennis is just crazy.

    But if your company, TennisPlayer.net, believes that there's no hard difference then the solution to this extended argument is simple: go to your co-workers and customers and tell them that the '69 film is all you need to play tennis today. Changes in frames, strings, and fitness have not had a hard effect on stroke technique or shot strategy. You can simplify your product catalog by striping it down to the 60s.

    In fact, take your quote:

    and place it as a banner ad on the TennisPlayer.net home page.

    If you really believe that incredible statement and all the other needlessly argumentative drivel you've inflicted on Tennis Talk then posting your own thesis statement as the banner ad on your home page should not be a problem.

    On the other hand, if you find it as idiotic as the rest of us, you won't post it and will instead disavow it as you just did. In any case, you're arguing with yourself, again.
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2012
    #21
  22. treblings

    treblings Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,406
    Timothy,

    interestingly enough, the industry competitor you speak of, Oscar to us, tells us that the pros of Lavers times were playing modern tennis, and he learned that by watching them hitting across and preparing late, etc
    That the coaches of that era neglected to teach it and he was the first to do so.
     
    #22
  23. onehandbh

    onehandbh Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,028
    To everyone:
    Do you think there is a big difference between 1980's tennis and the current
    tennis today as well? What things do you think are different today vs
    the 1980's, which was about 23-33 years ago?
     
    #23
  24. TimothyO

    TimothyO Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    3,592
    Location:
    Baseline
    That's sort of my point too. There IS a hard distinction between classic nd modern tennis but there were subtle changes over time that fed one another.

    If you read Oscar closely it's not like he's asserting that Laver was hitting like Nadal and that nobody noticed. That would be just as silly as John's assertion that there's no hard distinction between classic and modern tennis.

    Oscar has said that certain aspects of certain players from many years ago were clearly advantageous on the court. Those techniques were the exception and not the rule when it came to teaching. That teaching was constrained to some degree by technology and cultural inertia (happens in other sports too...hitting your head hard on the frozen ground when I played football as a kid in the late 70s/early 80s is treated differently today!)

    Over the last 20-30 years feedback between teaching pros such as Oscar, technology, and yes, films by guys like John, have changed the game dramatically.

    Given that John is now walking back his comment is a relief but also revealing. I've said in the past that he can contribute a lot if he stays constructive but instead he keeps choosing to be combative in the face of the obvious such as those films.
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2012
    #24
  25. TimothyO

    TimothyO Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    3,592
    Location:
    Baseline
    That's and excellent question that goes to the rate of change over the years.

    After reading John's thread I also looked at some women's tennis from the 70s and 80s and compared it to WTA matches in 2012. The ferocity of athletes today such as Li Na and Schivione (sp?) is very different from those days.
     
    #25
  26. arche3

    arche3 Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Messages:
    5,389
    (This is not about John Yandel or his slow mo videos)

    The majority of 60s tennis was trying to get to net in this video. The majority of modern tennis between djoko and nadal looked an awful lot like ping pong as already stated. Classic tennis does not look like ping pong. Of rather table tennis. The assumption that tennis evolved is an obvious truth that does not need to be proven via slow motion video or scientific methods. It is that obvious. Glaring in your face obvious if you watch the videos in this thread,

    All you have to do is count the number of volleys per point for one.
     
    #26
  27. luvforty

    luvforty Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2012
    Messages:
    1,294
    these discussions are boring.

    honestly.
     
    #27
  28. treblings

    treblings Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,406
    i´m fighting with my own personal language barrier here, since english is a second language for me:)
    i have to confess, reading JY´s thread starting post, that what he meant was, that it is not either one or the other, classical vs modern, but rather an evolution that has taken place over the decades. and that you can see ´modern´elements even going back a long time, and that many ´classic´elements of the game still have value today. that is how i understood Johns post in his ´does modern tennis exist´-thread.
     
    #28
  29. arche3

    arche3 Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Messages:
    5,389
    I think its less distinct for sure. But one example is how agassi and pistol Pete would step into the drive fhs. Driving the force in the direction of the shot. Now you will see pros just as often wrap the same shot. Less step in. More around the body to bend the ball to different places on the court, the court is bigger for the wrapper fhs and drive fhs. Percentage wise they hit deeper during 80s, they hit shallower and more angle now. But just as hard.
     
    #29
  30. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,743
    I have not folowed the debate closely. But is it a question of that it is not either/or, but both/and? So people of differing camps could exchange views respecting other peoples views and their preferences as to how to express them. Sorry if it is a bit hippie-like...
    But still I understand that it is a bit annoying if someone calls his method "modern", thereby implying that all others are obsolete. That is a bit unconstructive to me, and sounds more like marketing and a little disrespectfull perhaps.
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2012
    #30
  31. luvforty

    luvforty Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2012
    Messages:
    1,294
    the debate seems pointless.. just a bunch of people killing time during the off season.
     
    #31
  32. arche3

    arche3 Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Messages:
    5,389
    This is life or death man.
     
    #32
  33. Relinquis

    Relinquis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2012
    Messages:
    4,336
    Location:
    On the courts; hard & clay ...
    i don't know what you are comparing. the strokes in the 69 clip were mostly volleys and one handed backhands (hardly any forehands apart from block return of serve which is similar). in the 2012 video they are baseline rallies with two handed backhands. you're comparing apples to oranges.

    nadal's one handed slice backhand looks very similar to the guys in the 69 video. as do the volleys and block return of serve.

    so, for the strokes that are comparable like-for-like, there isn't much of a difference between 1969 and 2012!
     
    #33
  34. Relinquis

    Relinquis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2012
    Messages:
    4,336
    Location:
    On the courts; hard & clay ...
    just as an aside, the 1969 clip was fun. reminded me of rafter vs. sampras type matches. we need a couple of fast surfaces on tour / in slams for variety's sake.
     
    #34
  35. luvforty

    luvforty Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2012
    Messages:
    1,294
    yeah - tennis is boring to watch unless fed or tsonga is playing..... back in the days, even 2nd tier guys like rudseski or ivanesavic were worth watching.
     
    #35
  36. dominikk1985

    dominikk1985 Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,362
    I think that the material and the polite background of tennis is the main reason why swing technique changed so much.

    in baseball and discus throwing technique didn't really change in the last 50 years. they always use rotational strokes.

    only in tennis there was a big change.
     
    #36
  37. Cindysphinx

    Cindysphinx G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    15,067
    Yep, this is really the beginning and end of it.

    Once you call your thing "modern" and everything else "traditional" or "classic," you are clearly suggesting your brand is The Hot New Thing That Will Revolutionize Everything and everything else is rubbish. Marketers have been using that technique forever in an attempt to differentiate their brand.

    Regarding tennis (and sports in general), it is slowly and continuously evolving. You cannot draw a bright line and call this "traditional" and that "modern." There is too much overlap.

    I think if Wegner had called his method of teaching the "Wegner" approach and dropped the adjective "modern,", half of the objections to it would fall away. But so would the subtle ability to denigrate the teaching of others by calling them "traditional."

    Personally, I consider that type of marketing to be a turn-off. If someone's method is good enough, they will not need to sell it by claiming it is revolutionary when others are teaching the same stuff and the stuff being taught has evolved over decades.
     
    #37
  38. JackB1

    JackB1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Messages:
    13,903
    Location:
    Atlanta GA
    I have never heard or read ANYONE say there's "no difference between modern and traditional tennis". Could you provide a quote or a link?
     
    #38
  39. maverick66

    maverick66 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,137
    Location:
    Valhalla
    This is what made me really dislike them as well. We got the everyone is dumb but us attitude from them and questions where not met with answers but rather insults or subject changes.

    Also games evolve nobody argues that. However to make claims like his book sold once in Serbia so clearly he is responsible for Djoker is a hard one to accept. I have no doubt he might know a good amount of legends of the game but that doesnt make him a good coach or really even a good tennis person. That just means he was in the right place at the right times.

    As for people defending him as hard as they are I dont understand it. Unless you have your career linked to him why the hard line approach to the fights I dont get.

    Also I wish I could be there if Yandell and Wegner ever ran into each other at a tennis conference or tournament. Talk about awkward moments.
     
    #39
  40. TimothyO

    TimothyO Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    3,592
    Location:
    Baseline
    From the thread, "Does Modern Tennis Exist"

    http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=449122
     
    #40
  41. TimothyO

    TimothyO Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    3,592
    Location:
    Baseline
    Yes, I mostly agree, and that's my point. John just seems to want to argue or at least berate an industry competitor. He seems to implicitly acknowledge that there is such a thing as modern tennis but just can't bring himself to openly admit it.

    So he makes hyperbolic declarations like there's no hard distinction between classic and modern tennis and post provocative thread titles such as, "Does Modern Tennis Exist?", a clear jab at Oscar.

    I think the two of them agree more than not in some ways.

    Oscar saw things back in the 60s that he incorporated into his teaching, things that have come to define the modern game.

    John admits that there have been changes over time and that things that existed back then still have value. What he can bring himself to do is admit that while there are common elements between classic and modern tennis there are more differences than similarities and that those differences are truly at the core of Oscar's teachings. I think it annoys him that Oscar figured this stuff a long time ago.

    As for Cindy's point about marketing, I agree there too and have made the same observation in previous threads.

    At this point I think the question is this: rather than attacking Oscar why isn't John content with simply discussing his own observations? Why does he feel compelled to belittle Oscar? Video analysis is extremely valuable.

    Oscar has become John's Moby Dick and that obsession could damage his ship, TennisPlayer.net, if he keeps proclaiming stuff like there's no hard distinction between classic and modern tennis when the VIDEO evidence clearly shows a vast chasm between the two.
     
    #41
  42. JohnYandell

    JohnYandell Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,665
    Mick,

    I can't really disagree with anything you say above. The rackets and strings have skewed the game in the direction of tendencies and techniques that always existed.
     
    #42
  43. JohnYandell

    JohnYandell Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,665
    TO,

    Thanks once again for your attempts advice and direction. However the video evidence shows nothing of the kind, as I believe I have explained. And I feel confident that I can make my own decisions about the right course for my posts, business etc. without your input.
     
    #43
  44. oldschoolrules

    oldschoolrules New User

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2012
    Messages:
    81
    First, I must say that while I have posted very little on the board I "visit" quite frequently and thoroughly enjoy reading the various posts/contributions - particularly those by the various instructors and "students" of the game. But, truth be told, this modern versus traditional thing is a bit silly. Wegner and the MTM guys are marketing a product (which I personally don't believe will ultimately help very many players advance far beyond hitting a nice rally ball from the baseline) with Oscar himself pushing his own "history" as a selling point a bit too hard. John, as well as some of the anti-mtm-at-all-costs guys, ultimately just seem to egg them on, however. Whether that it due to their pushing a competing set of instructional videos/websites or because they really disagree with the fundamentally different approaches presented is sometimes is a bit difficult to discern.

    While the only thing I can point to as "credentials" are my sort of "nerdy" love of a game that I have played for over thirty years (my first "good" racquet was a Wilson Kramer Pro Staff) and a little teaching experience, I would like to offer the following: "modern" technique (like others have already indicated) is merely evidence of the evolution in the way the game is played basically due to three, what I think are overwhelming obvious factors - 1) the now-favored use of the semi-western and western forehand grip among both professional and recreational players; 2) the speed of the game as influenced by better athletes at the higher levels and changes in racquet/string technology; and 3) the increasing uniformity of surfaces on which the game is played.

    When I was a kid, players like Borg, Vilas, Clerc, Solomon, Arias, etc. all hit with semi-open to open stance forehands. Why is that significant? Well, all of them played with semi-western to western forehand grips which made it very difficult for them to make good contact with the ball from a close-stance position as they had to hit it so much further out in front of their body compared to those who employed eastern or continental grips. Initially, this approach to the forehand seemed to be confined more to the so-called clay-court specialists of the day who could sit back on the baseline and, while taking a big cut at the ball, hit topspin forehands landing around the service line that would often bounce above the heads of their opponents on the opposite side of the court. Borg (and a few others) with the more semi-western grips, however, could also flatten their stroke out pretty effectively when necessary and thus hold their own on faster surfaces as well. It was this ability to hit both with more, naturally-generated topspin (due to the swing path necessitated by the grip) as well as to flatten the ball out when needed that heralded the significant rise in popularity of the semi-western forehand. Probably one of the best examples of this shift to the becoming-more-prominent semi-western and open to semi-open stance forehand and also arguably of the advent of the "modern" power-baseline game among the pros was seen with the rise of Ivan Lendl to the top tier of the sport. Lendl's hammer of a forehand, with his semi-western grip and abbreviated elbow-first small loop take-back, made him a dominant force in the game and influenced the technique of many future hall-of-fame players who followed including, among others, Pete Sampras. As the semi-western grip became more common among the pros, it naturally began to supplant the teaching of the traditional eastern forehand at the recreational level and, by extension, the closed-stance approach. Now, by this time we also have graphite, larger headed racquets starting to relegate wood frames to the dustbin of history. These larger but less cumbersome racquets made it easier to hit the ball as well as generate pace and, by extension, the speed of the game began to change. So now you have people both hitting the ball harder and having less time to set-up (as the ball is coming at them at a higher speed), making it even more necessary for them to generate additional spin to keep the ball in play and do so, timing-wise, from a more open stance. Fast-forward a couple of years and slower, more uniform surfaces have made it nearly impossible to serve/volley on the pro tours as it is now so much easier to rip passing shots off just about anything other than the biggest serve or perfect approach. More extreme western grips are also now being used by significantly more players - primarily to generate more topspin so that they can keep the ball in play and increasingly swing harder. At least at the professional level, it has become a game of trying to push the opponent as far behind the baseline or from the center of the court as possible so one can smack an acute angle winner or drive the ball through the open court. No more finesse (aside from the occasional drop shot), very little variety, and bigger, faster, stronger competitors with larger, more powerful equipment, plying their trade on surfaces that perpetuate that mode of play. Evolution.

    Okay - got that off my chest :) Now, the problem with approaches like Oscar's is how it tries to teach amateurs to "play like the pros" when most rec players do not have the strength or skill to ever be able to generate the amount of racquet-head speed that the pros hit with - whether they are pulling/jerking across or hitting through the ball toward the target. As such, instead of producing a heavy, penetrating topspin forehand the student ends up with spinny, lower paced rally ball that sits up a little too much. This kind of approach to the game ignores the fact that it is still necessary to teach/learn how to hit through the ball while moving forward in order to reach a more advanced level of play. It is absurd to suggest that at the professional level (whether ATP or WTA) or the highest amateur levels that players do not still, at least on occasion, hit through the ball with forward momentum/movement. To say otherwise would actually amount to approaching the game in a more one-dimensional way than the more traditional teaching methods that Oscar and the mtm pundits deride. With but a few exceptions, almost everyone who plays at the higher levels of the game at least occasionally still hits an "semi" old school" forehand like a Borg/Lendl/Sampras. That fact, and the history/reason for development of same, should be taken into account when teaching the game today. Bottom line is that you can't have one without the other as they are linked/tied to each other in such a way that makes its silly to say one can draw a direct distinction between them and still succeed in teaching/learning this great sport.

    Thank you for putting up with my rant. Happy New Year!
     
    #44
  45. JohnYandell

    JohnYandell Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,665
    old,

    Actually well said. According to some who post here I've done damage to my business by trying to explain my own views and the fundamental problems with the "modern" approach of Wegner...so no. I just think it's important to stand up at some point to bad information--not to mention inaccurate marketing hype.
     
    #45
  46. JackB1

    JackB1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Messages:
    13,903
    Location:
    Atlanta GA
    #46
  47. JohnYandell

    JohnYandell Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,665
    Jack,

    You took the time to read it! Thanks.
     
    #47
  48. TimothyO

    TimothyO Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    3,592
    Location:
    Baseline
    Jack,

    You missed some posts by Yandell in which he openly admitted to deliberately stalking Wegner as a "hobby". He claims that Wegner insulted him in the 90s and stole his work. Thus his stalking hobby (Yandell used the word "hobby".)

    It looks like Yandell then had the mods delete those posts when I noted that such accusations against Wegner may be actionable if he can't prove that Wegner stole his work and that California has pretty strict anti-stalking laws.

    Since the posts were removed it would seem that Yandell feels free to continue his stalking hobby.

    Yandell simply can't admit that, yes, modern tennis does exist. His blind rage and jealousy of Wegner's success prevents him from doing so explicitly even though he does admit it implicitly as you note.

    He probably hates the fact that major networks handed Wagner high profile gigs while he was ignored by the media. He's simply green with envy.
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2012
    #48
  49. TimothyO

    TimothyO Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    3,592
    Location:
    Baseline
    Great to see you admit that mdoern tennis does exist distinct from classic tennis. You owe Oscar an apology.
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2012
    #49
  50. arche3

    arche3 Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Messages:
    5,389
    I read the posts where yandel said he made fun of or ridiculed oscar for sport.
    I think it is because oscar didn't credit yandel with saying the ball slowed down 50 percent on the bounce. Or oscar stole the idea from him.
     
    #50

Share This Page