Originally Posted by 10isfreak
The difference between a philosopher and a scientist is slim, though it is significant: the scientists bothers to verify his claims.
While Oscar might have a point in trying to bring results through visual cues or figurative speech, it is very uncertain whether he actually knows what he is talking about in the first place... I am ready to believe anything and am willing to let Oscard justify himself, but if JY is right and Oscar cannot back up his claims with scientific research or propose a meta-analysis of many researches as a justification, then anyone‘s words are as good as his.
With his reputation, I would expect that he‘d be thoughtful enough to answer this criticism properly... so, I‘ll let him reply to John. Leave your visual cues home and use a precise vocabulary to answer our doubts. Go through several of your key advices and demonstrate your points one by one.
That‘s how we should be proceeding every single time...
Agreed the scientific approach is really he way to have intelligent conversation/debate/resolution. People can talk until they exhaust themselves. I'll read it all since I'm not lazy and desire to learn.
For those who claim tennis is easy. Sure you can get a guy who has never left the farm, never watched tv, and still play well.
You can also have a guy who has never played on a court but has extensively studied books, videos and watched others who could play well in short order.
people are on forums for a plehora of reasons.
Bragging of wins
Sulking over beat-downs
Yet the vast majority here are here to LEARN! As such the method of addressing ideas/issues and grinding them down to small details if of great value if they are validated with research or some reasonable proof. Without the "proof" it becomes a, "I heard..." From maybe a kid who just picked up a racquet last month. We ALL were THAT GUY at one time and learned a ton since... May the wise bring us knowledge (with sources)!