View Single Post
Old 12-29-2012, 05:44 PM   #105
Wegner's Avatar
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 113
Default Fact or slanted opinion, you'll be the judge.

It's it interesting how the author of "Does Modern Tennis Exist?" contradicts his own position back and forth. He is further agreeing with some of the tenets that I published in 1989, that is 23 years ago, longer than the quote "I've spent about 15 years studying these various permutations" he declares. I venture that I was coaching modern tennis before he was even born, starting in 1968 with Pancho Segura at the Beverly Hills Tennis Club. And of course I saw with my own eyes the ball slow down, losing more than half the speed. It was a given on the tour, always accepted by the touring players who stalked the ball. Not a precise measurement, but awareness non-the-less.

For those interested in comparing what he says in the thread Does Modern Tennis Exist? with my publications, check out my free 1989/1992 book:

I personally don't understand why he comes to this thread to argue non-sequitur with other posters, unless he feels threatened by the array of technical data addressed here, feeling that it could be helpful to the reader and thus improve my status as a coach on TalkTennis, and wants this thread to be removed.

Wouldn't you agree that it is better if he posts in his own thread his conclusions and opinions? Wouldn't it be beneficial to the visitor if other great coaches such a Nick Bollettieri, Paul Anacone, Rick Macci, and more would open their own thread and post some of their knowledge?

I agree that my techniques, books and DVDs are the most radical departure from conventional coaching ever seen. Why have I adopted and published them?

Because they work !!!!!! Over 30,000 coaches and players have bought my DVDs, and more my books.

How does an individual wanting to be scientific ever fail to be so? He fails to be scientific by failing to apply logic. When one of his considerations fails to be a fact the whole string falls apart. It is one thing for a premise to be counter-intuitive, it is another thing for a premise to be false. This happens in tennis coaching as well.

I identified in my 1989 book 21 misconceptions that derail performance in this beautiful game. Some of them, as I see even from my detractors, have been overcome. Still, the industry has failed to make the game as simple as it can be. Rather than throwing false data overboard, justifications and compensations run galore.

An unfortunate result is that better players are counseled to compensate as well, in order to find invisible solutions to the equally invisible but frustrating failures to advance to the level they seek.

So, what is the solution?

Part of the answer lies in identifying and utilizing the so-called scientific method* accurately, with objective observation and experimentation unclouded by pre-conceived theory or agenda. Another contributing solution is having more positive, more famous coaches posting on TalkTennis. They may differ in opinion, but I say: "Bring It On".


scientific method - a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.
Oscar Wegner

Last edited by Wegner; 12-30-2012 at 07:59 AM.
Wegner is offline