Originally Posted by 5263
Now when it comes to classic tennis instructions, it tends to be a bit cut and dried
due to books and ref material that provides guidance. I realize you don't make use
of these items and like to wing it, giving your on ideas about classic, so your
confusion is not surprising. I would think you would catch on after while and
realize your personal views on classic hold little sway and don't hold up, despite
what you think someone told you one time or another.
Is classic instruction the same thing as traditional instruction? Do you consider coaches who teach students the unit turn in preparation for groundstrokes to be offering traditional, classic, or modern advice? What are the differences between stalking and the unit turn?
In the old days, coaches had their students emulating players like Connors and Evert with lower takebacks. Today, coaches have their players emulating players like Federer, Murray, Tsonga, or any of the other top 100 players that use a higher takeback, and then lower the racket back down to the height of the ball or lower, creating a loop backswing. I figured this was a straight forward observation we could all agree on. I thought it might even appeal to your sensibilities since it contrasts older, you might even say "traditional" instruction with more "modern" instruction.
As far as i can tell your problem with my point is that I don't use the MTM approved term "stalking" to describe what is going on in the backswing. It also seems you have some kind of problem with the term "unit turn." Coaches in my area use this and other terminology all the time to describe how students should turn their shoulders and coil in preparation for their groundstroke. Do you have a problem with the term "unit turn", because a lot of good coaches are using it.