Should I take lessons from a coach who teaches traditional strokes?

[goober]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

However, I do think that a full Eastern or SW grip with a WW finish and an open stance, ala Guillermo Vilas or Bjorn Borg, although not swung with the velosity or the steep swing path of today's pros, was demonstrably superior technique to that used by virtually everyone up until that point.

Yet players like Jmac and Connors could beat Vilas and Borg (especially on nonclay surfaces) with demonstrably inferior technique?

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by goober

Yet players like Jmac and Connors could beat Vilas and Borg (especially on nonclay surfaces) with demonstrably inferior technique?

On their respective forehands, yes. But, there was very little traditional technique in either Connors' or Mac's forehands or backhands.

[5263]

Originally Posted by goober

How can you say that classic instruction was NEVER correct. Do you really think if modern tennis was taught in the era of 65 sq. inch wood racquets, people it would have been a dominant method of technique? Tennis instruction is constantly in evolution, there is no such thing as absolute correctness for teaching methods. Advances in racquets and strings since the wooden era have allowed for different styles of hitting and grips.

Are you suggesting that we have reached the peak of tennis instruction and there is nothing else to learn? 50 years from now tennis instructors may be looking back on this era and saying how wrong everything was taught. Can you not concede this possibility?

Yes, I will start with agreeing that I can concede that 50 yrs from now they may
say that .......and hope they are right when they do. Yes....tennis evolves.

Difference is that classic never had a time when it was really much on track.
Decades went by with players learning classic, but having to evolve before
being much good! Limpin is right that is most obvious with the Fh, but to some
extent with other strokes as well.

If you learn good modern strokes now, you will have very little adjustment to
make if you have the talent to make a touring pro, and you will not be held back
by technique if you are just another good player. Your limitations will be yours.
With classic instruction you were starting with a limitation out of the gates.

Yes, Oscar was teaching modern in 72 with wood, and observed them from best strokes
of current and past pros like Santana. I also can play with modern strokes using
wood, as do my sons...met one of my sons in the finals of a woody tourny just
a few years back with some jokingly suggesting that my game lost nothing with
the wood, some saying my serve was better than usual. I realize that was
due to their diminished returns though, lol. Later in the day I stayed with the
wood and played friends with their modern sticks with no problems.
Modern strokes work great with wood rackets if you know how to do it properly.

[5263]

Originally Posted by goober

Yet players like Jmac and Connors could beat Vilas and Borg (especially on nonclay surfaces) with demonstrably inferior technique?

JMac won on modern serve and strokes more modern than you think.
His slice and volley were very modern too.
You are confusing that a certain grip is modern or not, which is just as wrong as saying
certain stances are modern or not.

Connors strokes held him back to an extent, but he dialed them back some to
keep from missing, so it became more of a war of position and will.

[sureshs]

Too much emphasis on the forehand.

There is hardly any difference in backhands, volleys, serves and smashes, especially for a 1 handed BH player.

It is pretty easy for anyone to learn to put some top spin on the forehand. In fact, with a SW grip, it would be difficult not to.

Not worth all these discussions when the player is likely to be limited by other factors.

[5263]

Originally Posted by sureshs

There is hardly any difference in backhands, volleys, serves and smashes, especially for a 1 handed BH player.

Really ??
So maybe you want to explain what you know of the modern Volley, slice, serve, and Bh?
From the above comments it seems quite a bit is missing.

Even though I though I was a good slicer and volleyer before modern, after learning Modern,
I felt the slice and volley may have benefited even more than the TS strokes.

[sureshs]

I found that I could easily put top spin on FHs with 65 sq inch wood.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by 5263

Really ??
So maybe you want to explain what you know of the modern Volley, slice, serve, and Bh? From the above comments it seems quite a bit is missing.

There is not much difference. Any coach can teach you that. If you think landing on both feet is a modern serve, that is not the big issue for a beginner. One handed BH may have more top spin on it, but it is easy to do, even with wood. Other differences are what you deliberately amplify because you have an axe to grind about a methodology which is lacking on anything other than a few obvious comments on the forehand which every junior has been doing for a long time.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by 5263

Yes, Oscar was teaching modern in 72 with wood, and observed them from best strokes
of current and past pros like Santana.

That is a long time. Which pros has he produced that we can verify?

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Too much emphasis on the forehand.

There is hardly any difference in backhands, volleys, serves and smashes, especially for a 1 handed BH player.

It is pretty easy for anyone to learn to put some top spin on the forehand. In fact, with a SW grip, it would be difficult not to.

Not worth all these discussions when the player is likely to be limited by other factors.

Tell that to Federer and Nadal who will run to the outside of the backhand doubles ally to hit a forehand, and who would hit only forehands for an entire match, if they could.

[5263]

Originally Posted by sureshs

There is not much difference. Any coach can teach you that. If you think landing on both feet is a modern serve, that is not the big issue for a beginner. One handed BH may have more top spin on it, but it is easy to do, even with wood. Other differences are what you deliberately amplify because you have an axe to grind about a methodology which is lacking on anything other than a few obvious comments on the forehand which every junior has been doing for a long time.

So you think players should land on 2 feet when serving?
How is "ANY Coach" going to teach the differences in modern and classic, when
most know very little if any modern.

You just likely think it's about the Fh because that is the only place you see most
traditional coaches make an effort with modern and the area where most can see
their needs to improve to keep up. Not having the experience to see the "lack" in
other areas of their game does not make it correct.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by 5263

So you think players should land on 2 feet when serving?
How is "ANY Coach" going to teach the differences in modern and classic, when
most know very little if any modern.

You just likely think it's about the Fh because that is the only place you see most
traditional coaches make an effort with modern and the area where most can see
their needs to improve to keep up. Not having the experience to see the "lack" in
other areas of their game does not make it correct.

No I meant both feet leave the ground.

There is nothing modern in any stroke other than the forehand and you know it. Open stance 2 handed and 1 handed BHs maybe, but they are not to be emphasized as they lead to lazy play, plus they are trivial to learn.

All the hullabaloo is about adding a little topspin on the forehand which the player can pick up by watching any match on TV or from the 1000s of free videos.

[5263]

Originally Posted by sureshs

There is nothing modern in any stroke other than the forehand and you know it.

All the hullabaloo is about adding a little topspin on the forehand which the player can pick up by watching any match on TV or from the 1000s of free videos.

No,.. so wrong...what I know is this shows a pretty extreme lack on info on modern strokes.

Modern strokes far more than "a little more topspin". lol

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by 5263

No,.. so wrong...what I know is this shows a pretty extreme lack on info on modern strokes.

Modern strokes far more than "a little more topspin". lol

They may add more topspin, but a little topspin will do for a beginner. Then he can work his way up on his own.

No need to spend money on that.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by sureshs

No I meant both feet leave the ground.

There is nothing modern in any stroke other than the forehand and you know it. Open stance 2 handed and 1 handed BHs maybe, but they are not to be emphasized as they lead to lazy play, plus they are trivial to learn.

All the hullabaloo is about adding a little topspin on the forehand which the player can pick up by watching any match on TV or from the 1000s of free videos.

I would agree that the difference between an old school and modern topspin 1hb are minor, mostly grip and swing path (don't get me started on the 1hb slice), and that the technique for volleying, serving and smashing are virtually the same. But, the forehand is significantly different, as is the 2hb since it has evolved to be basically a left handed forehand with some assistance with eye-hand coordination from the right hand.

[Sumo]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

It is true that when you are swinging a soft, flexible, heavy, wood racquet with a 65sq. in. head and a 2.5 inch sweet spot, you have to make a more controlled, level, swing in order to hit the sweet spot consistently.

I can't comment on the "modern vs traditional" garbage you guys are arguing about, because it really will never matter to my game.

But........isn't the thought process I've bolded the most important thing for a beginner? Especially an adult beginner?

[tennisfan69]

Originally Posted by 5263

No,.. so wrong...what I know is this shows a pretty extreme lack on info on modern strokes.

Modern strokes far more than "a little more topspin". lol

Why do we call any thing "Modern Stroke". Is "Current Stroke" or "Current technique" more apt. because modern is a time dependent term and time changes and techniques changes. you cannot teach someone a techniques that will be played 10 years from now. because then they cannot play today's game with future technique. So what ever is played TODAY is always Modern.

just wondering what this modern stands for?

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

I would agree that the difference between an old school and modern topspin backhand are minor, grip and swing path (don't get me started on the 1hb slice), and that the technique for volleying, serving and smashing are virtually the same. But, the forehand is significantly different, as is the 2hb since it has evolved to be basically a left handed forehand with some assistance with eye-hand coordination from the right hand.

That is what I said. For a beginning 1 hander, there is nothing new except a little more topspin and open stance on the forehand.

It is good you smashed the myth that volleys, serves and smashes and 1 handed BHs are different. That is just marketing nonsense.

The 2 handed BH issue is really interesting. Many older coaches today are 1 handers, but their junior students are all 2 handers. I know some of them actually teach the 2 hander, while others seem to let the student pick it up by osmosis from other students and then fine tune it a bit.

[5263]

Originally Posted by tennisfan69

Why do we call any thing "Modern Stroke". Is "Current Stroke" or "Current technique" more apt. because modern is a time dependent term and time changes and techniques changes. you cannot teach someone a techniques that will be played 10 years from now. because then they cannot play today's game with future technique. So what ever is played TODAY is always Modern.

just wondering what this modern stands for?

If you don't like the term, don't use it. I also call them tournament strokes if that
suits you better, because they have been used thru the years by most of the
best tournament players.
Modern is the name of one of the 1st instructional methods to teach tournament
strokes. Before Modern Instruction was developed, most taught a flawed classic
stroke.

[5263]

Originally Posted by sureshs

It is good you smashed the myth that volleys, serves and smashes and 1 handed BHs are different. That is just marketing nonsense.

He didn't smash anything, but just mainly agreed with your point, although
I doubt that limpin goes along with the push/punch/bunt method used in classic
volley instruction.
While the difference on the 1hander viewed is subtle, the difference in result is
quite dramatic...so don't expect many to get it.