Turn-Step-Hit

[VaBeachTennis]

Maybe some people can educate me and/or enlighten me as to what is wrong with "turning", "stepping", and then "hitting"?

It only makes sense that if the ball is coming toward your forehand side, you turn your torso to the left (right for righties), take an adjustment step or steps towards or away from the ball and hit the damn thing.

Here's an example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONp2-AREFbw
He's turning,stepping, and hitting.
And again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ImeQ...eature=channel
And again, this time Nadal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soADA...eature=channel
And again this time Verdasco, turn, step, and hit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LetxC...eature=channel
And again this time with Djokovic, turn, step, and hit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk1eq...eature=channel

Maybe someone can post an example of the "turn-step-hit" that they are against?

[teachestennis]

I've addressed this issue on other threads. "Turn" in conventional tennis terminology or should I say traditional given BB might jump all over me again for referring to conventional, refers to turning both feet sideways to the net, not turning your torso. Federer hits almost every ball from his FH entirely with an open stance even in your video you provided. He only turns his torso and steps out to the ball with his right foot, he does not turn both his feet sideways. Maybe you are not old enough to understand that until a couple years ago, even the PTR only taught to turn into a neutral stance, take adjusting steps forward into the ball, and finish with the racket down the target line. So we are talking about a misunderstanding in definition. In modern tennis coaching, we teach to keep the ball in front of you by pointing to it as long as possible and then turn your shoulders and torso to get under and blast across the ball, stepping out with the right foot in most cases, though you might have to step forward or fall back depending on what the ball does.

The USPTA switched to load and explode a few years ago to mean that you load the weight on the right outside foot and then explode up and into the ball so they have a decent teaching visualization though it does have a built in timing mechanism such as "when" to explode or "when to load."

Look at the USTA quickstart manual which I posted on my website in Part III of History of Tennis Instruction to see (if you don't have a manual) how Quickstart shows each child "turning" their feet sideways to the net and then hitting through the target line per the old hit five balls in a line theory. Try turning your feet sideways to the net as recommended by the USTA and then hitting up and across the ball with a complete finish...it's not easy and it builds incorrect muscle memory.

That must be part of your your confusion, you younger guys see a lot of accurate analysis from FYB and BB and didn't grow up with all the old terminology we did, such as a closed stance actually being a neutral stance. Even the grip terminology is confusing, as you can read two different names from prominent sites for the same grip.

[Bungalo Bill]

Originally Posted by teachestennis

I've addressed this issue on other threads. "Turn" in conventional tennis terminology or should I say traditional given BB might jump all over me again for referring to conventional, refers to turning both feet sideways to the net, not turning your torso. Federer hits almost every ball from his FH entirely with an open stance even in your video you provided. He only turns his torso and steps out to the ball with his right foot, he does not turn both his feet sideways.

You have got to be kidding me. Ever hear of the step-out? We explain that here. Ever here of the neutral stance? Federer also hits with that stance also, You are isolating a stance of Federer and blanketing it over all strokes. There is a place and a time for various stances.

Players can learn open stance, closed stance (1hnders), neutral stance, an semi-open stances. Federers game is a classic game that uses both current methods and methods used in the past.

Maybe you are not old enough to understand that until a couple years ago, even the PTR only taught to turn into a neutral stance, take adjusting steps forward into the ball, and finish with the racket down the target line. So we are talking about a misunderstanding in definition. In modern tennis coaching, we teach to keep the ball in front of you by pointing to it as long as possible and then turn your shoulders and torso to get under and blast across the ball, stepping out with the right foot in most cases, though you might have to step forward or fall back depending on what the ball does.

So are you saying that every single coach in the PTR only taught a neutral stance? LOL!!!!! And you said you are a Christian? Aren't Christians suppose to tell the truth? Without exaggeration? Let your yes's be yes's and you no's, no's? Why would you exaggerate a bunch of junk?

The USPTA switched to load and explode a few years ago to mean that you load the weight on the right outside foot and then explode up and into the ball so they have a decent teaching visualization though it does have a built in timing mechanism such as "when" to explode or "when to load."

Look at the USTA quickstart manual which I posted on my website in Part III of History of Tennis Instruction to see (if you don't have a manual) how Quickstart shows each child "turning" their feet sideways to the net and then hitting through the target line per the old hit five balls in a line theory. Try turning your feet sideways to the net as recommended by the USTA and then hitting up and across the ball with a complete finish...it's not easy and it builds incorrect muscle memory.

That must be part of your your confusion, you younger guys see a lot of accurate analysis from FYB and BB and didn't grow up with all the old terminology we did, such as a closed stance actually being a neutral stance. Even the grip terminology is confusing, as you can read two different names from prominent sites for the same grip.

Well, thank you for your blessing Father. However, I dont know of a coach new or old that gets the manual out and teaches from it. In fact, in sunny Southern California, I saw it all taught. Volleys, stances, forehands, wipers, backhands, you name it. Nobody needed Oscar. Was there a problem in St. Louis? What, you guys didnt get it?

[Bungalo Bill]

Originally Posted by VaBeachTennis

Maybe some people can educate me and/or enlighten me as to what is wrong with "turning", "stepping", and then "hitting"?

It only makes sense that if the ball is coming toward your forehand side, you turn your torso to the left (right for righties), take an adjustment step or steps towards or away from the ball and hit the damn thing.

Here's an example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONp2-AREFbw
He's turning,stepping, and hitting.
And again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ImeQ...eature=channel
And again, this time Nadal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soADA...eature=channel
And again this time Verdasco, turn, step, and hit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LetxC...eature=channel
And again this time with Djokovic, turn, step, and hit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk1eq...eature=channel

Maybe someone can post an example of the "turn-step-hit" that they are against?

They are simply trying to make their method "look" modern by promoting the open stance over all stances.

Bottom-line is there is nothing wrong with either way to teach so long as the coach understands what he is trying to do with each and to keep in mind what the stances are mainly used for.

The main point to turning the shoulder no matter what stance is taught, is that it needs to happen BEFORE the ball bounces on the players side of the court. This is something that Oscar has changed his tune on since being landslided with evidence against his prepare at the bounce garbage.

Open stance, semi-open stance, etc....is fine.

If you are teaching a neutral stance, you are teaching a more "come forward" type stance. If you teach the open stance, you are teaching a more "stay stance" or baseline stance. In either stances you need to train for lateral movement or forward movement in the form of sprints.

So, as an example, if you have a player and his goals are primarily to play doubles or he wants to be a serve and volleyer, neutral stances favor this type of game. If this person is going to be a singles player and pretty much wants to play baseline, an open stance will be more appropriate. As the player gets better, he may need to make adjustments to his stances and learn new ones or just get better with the ones he has learned. Most of the time, players just naturally learn open stances, etc....as I and a zillion others have learned.

This is what doesn't make sense about TeachesTennis stuff. He doesn't tell you why certain stances are taught and only paints it as old. That is because he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Here is the deal. Very few of us will become pros. There are many different successful types of games at the lower levels being played. Each player needs to prepare their goals and build an instruction program around that.

Players can be successful playing in a variety of ways at the club levels.

[Bungalo Bill]

Oh, the turn step and hit? It is confused stuff. MTM followers want you to think that everyone that teaches tennis outside of MTM, teaches old stuff. They also fail to leave out that on certain balls, a player needs to turn, step, and hit. Otherwise it would be weird.

Here is an exert to show that TeachesTennis, 5263, have no clue what they are talking about and often throw all coaches with the bath water when the use blanket terms like PTR, and USPTA.

(read step and hit: http://books.google.com/books?id=FXv...%20hit&f=false). It is on volleys here, but you will get the picture.

This is from my library and a book I recommend. It also shows that the "coaches" in the USPTA have moved on a long long time ago from the manual he keeps trying to bring up. He likes to show his instruction and compare it to a book that is rarely used by instructors. he then falsely associates current coaches to this book to promote his stuff.

The turn is with your shoulders and it helps prepare the racquet before the bounce.

The step? Should be with your inside foot. That stance a player chooses (see above).

[teachestennis]

Originally Posted by Bungalo Bill

You have got to be kidding me. Ever hear of the step-out? We explain that here. Ever here of the neutral stance? Federer also hits with that stance also, You are isolating a stance of Federer and blanketing it over all strokes. There is a place and a time for various stances.

Players can learn open stance, closed stance (1hnders), neutral stance, an semi-open stances. Federers game is a classic game that uses both current methods and methods used in the past.

So are you saying that every single coach in the PTR only taught a neutral stance? LOL!!!!! And you said you are a Christian? Aren't Christians suppose to tell the truth? Without exaggeration? Let your yes's be yes's and you no's, no's? Why would you exaggerate a bunch of junk?

Well, thank you for your blessing Father. However, I dont know of a coach new or old that gets the manual out and teaches from it. In fact, in sunny Southern California, I saw it all taught. Volleys, stances, forehands, wipers, backhands, you name it. Nobody needed Oscar. Was there a problem in St. Louis? What, you guys didnt get it?

Bill, lots of us didn't get it and actually read the manuals and literature that we paid for with our certifications. We listened to our superiors who passed on what they believed. Video analysis was not available ten years ago like it is today. You think they print that stuff because they don't believe it. I will admit that the PTR coaches often admitted that they were teaching different than the "Standard Method" but what message does that send new young coaches.

And yes, the mid west is last to change, usually. I was shocked at how open minded and modern coaching was prevalent in California when I spent 2007 there and yet when I started twenty four freshman girls in tennis in 2007 for Laguna Beach HIgh School, we had to teach most of them their first open stances and Jimmy Gleason and I built quite an impressive program from nothing there in a short time. That young team would make the state quarters the next year with only two seniors and mostly sophomores. In San Diego, it was very old school at the grassroots, Ben Press even attacking Coco Vandewegh who won a futures tournament at 14 with a big western grip he just hated and had to criticize as ruining junior tennis rather than be happy for a local kid breaking through (she is still one of our top hopefuls behind Oudin). Open stance and all stances are what I teach, Bill, and MTM does not only teach an open stance, we just emphasize finding the ball first and then the feet do what they need to do to maintain optimal balance. I have made that clear to VaBeach on another thread, or maybe this one.

[5263]

Originally Posted by Bungalo Bill

The main point to turning the shoulder no matter what stance is taught, is that it needs to happen BEFORE the ball bounces on the players side of the court. This is something that Oscar has changed his tune on since being landslided with evidence against his prepare at the bounce garbage.

Open stance, semi-open stance, etc....is fine.

If you are teaching a neutral stance, you are teaching a more "come forward" type stance. If you teach the open stance, you are teaching a more "stay stance" or baseline stance. In either stances you need to train for lateral movement or forward movement in the form of sprints.

yada yada yada,
Oscar has not changed his tune and still states this in the manner most good pros do it and as it is in the first book. just cause can't understand it is another matter.
The book you cite in your next post doesn't even concur with your conventional "stay stance" lingo. You need to pull it back out and brush up. It cites the open stance as better for approach shots.

[VaBeachTennis]

Originally Posted by teachestennis

I've addressed this issue on other threads. "Turn" in conventional tennis terminology or should I say traditional given BB might jump all over me again for referring to conventional, refers to turning both feet sideways to the net, not turning your torso. Federer hits almost every ball from his FH entirely with an open stance even in your video you provided. He only turns his torso and steps out to the ball with his right foot, he does not turn both his feet sideways. Maybe you are not old enough to understand that until a couple years ago, even the PTR only taught to turn into a neutral stance, take adjusting steps forward into the ball, and finish with the racket down the target line. So we are talking about a misunderstanding in definition. In modern tennis coaching, we teach to keep the ball in front of you by pointing to it as long as possible and then turn your shoulders and torso to get under and blast across the ball, stepping out with the right foot in most cases, though you might have to step forward or fall back depending on what the ball does.

The USPTA switched to load and explode a few years ago to mean that you load the weight on the right outside foot and then explode up and into the ball so they have a decent teaching visualization though it does have a built in timing mechanism such as "when" to explode or "when to load."

Look at the USTA quickstart manual which I posted on my website in Part III of History of Tennis Instruction to see (if you don't have a manual) how Quickstart shows each child "turning" their feet sideways to the net and then hitting through the target line per the old hit five balls in a line theory. Try turning your feet sideways to the net as recommended by the USTA and then hitting up and across the ball with a complete finish...it's not easy and it builds incorrect muscle memory.

That must be part of your your confusion, you younger guys see a lot of accurate analysis from FYB and BB and didn't grow up with all the old terminology we did, such as a closed stance actually being a neutral stance. Even the grip terminology is confusing, as you can read two different names from prominent sites for the same grip.

I wish that I was one of the "younger guys". I grew up playing tennis in the 70's from 5 years old on..............I went to Welby Van Horn's tennis camp from 9 years old to 13 years old every summer. I also evolved with the game and started using an extreme eastern grip from about the age of 14 or 15 onward, my Dad was the one who suggested to make my grip a little more "extreme" and hit the ball a little further out in front of me.

If the PTR only taught the "neutral stance" and to move only forward into the ball, then that's pretty limited teaching. I think that there has to be more to it than just that.

I grew up with the same terminology, one of those videos show the players hitting out of open, semi open, neutral, and closed stances. My main point, is that a player will tend to play in any of the above stances depending on the situation. It's being fluid instead of rigidly staying in one stance, be it open or closed, etc.
Here's Roddick in a closed stance forehand:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxC4sM2PTWY&NR=1

[VaBeachTennis]

Originally Posted by Bungalo Bill

They are simply trying to make their method "look" modern by promoting the open stance over all stances.

Bottom-line is there is nothing wrong with either way to teach so long as the coach understands what he is trying to do with each and to keep in mind what the stances are mainly used for.

The main point to turning the shoulder no matter what stance is taught, is that it needs to happen BEFORE the ball bounces on the players side of the court. This is something that Oscar has changed his tune on since being landslided with evidence against his prepare at the bounce garbage.

Open stance, semi-open stance, etc....is fine.

If you are teaching a neutral stance, you are teaching a more "come forward" type stance. If you teach the open stance, you are teaching a more "stay stance" or baseline stance. In either stances you need to train for lateral movement or forward movement in the form of sprints.

So, as an example, if you have a player and his goals are primarily to play doubles or he wants to be a serve and volleyer, neutral stances favor this type of game. If this person is going to be a singles player and pretty much wants to play baseline, an open stance will be more appropriate. As the player gets better, he may need to make adjustments to his stances and learn new ones or just get better with the ones he has learned. Most of the time, players just naturally learn open stances, etc....as I and a zillion others have learned.

This is what doesn't make sense about TeachesTennis stuff. He doesn't tell you why certain stances are taught and only paints it as old. That is because he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Here is the deal. Very few of us will become pros. There are many different successful types of games at the lower levels being played. Each player needs to prepare their goals and build an instruction program around that.

Players can be successful playing in a variety of ways at the club levels.

I agree, excellent points. This is why I have been posting videos of the pros hitting in a variety of stances and not just open stance. I posted videos of students from the Sanchez-Casal academy hitting in a ...................variety of stances.
People learn to play from a variety of different cues, it can't just be one "cookie cutter" or "fast food" , one size fits all approach. For example the "hit through five balls" teaching aid, I don't think it's a bad thing if the person lacks power or is hitting their balls too shallow, in my opinion it's just making their stroke a little more horizontal.
Then if you have a player like me, who played at a high level in handball (where we hit through many balls), telling me to "hit through 5 balls isn't necessary", it would be better to tell me to "hit up and across the ball" thus making my stroke more vertical and giving me more spin and control. Which is why, if I see myself lacking control, I tell myself to "play ping pong".