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

[tennisfan69]

Originally Posted by 5263

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.

Ok got it. so basically teaching what the current top players play. thanks

[5263]

Originally Posted by tennisfan69

Ok got it. so basically teaching what the current top players play. thanks

Sort of, but really the best tourny players have hit this way to one extent or
another since the early years of the game.
Just no one much TAUGHT this way.
It was considered too hard, but turns out it is actually easier when taught well.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by tennisfan69

Ok got it. so basically teaching what the current top players play. thanks

No, the instruction that he is referring to does not teach what top players play, nor has any top pro been produced by that system who can be verified. It teaches things like count to 5 after the bounce before hitting the ball, a very short and late backward and forward swing which produces no power, pulling back at contact which is never done by the pros, etc. It also does not address the things they really do and the complexities in that, but instead has some vague phrases which are of no use like feeling the ball.

Don't get taken in by any of this.

[5263]

Originally Posted by sureshs

No, the instruction that he is referring to does not teach what top players play, nor has any top pro been produced by that system who can be verified.

All from the guy who says all instruction is basiclly the same... but you don't need an instructor.
Pretty good contradiction in above and his usual saying that modern is really almost nothing different, lol.
Probably don't want to be taken in by a non-instructor 3.5 player.

[tennisfan69]

most of the instruction videos or coaches i have spent time and my kids have spent time learning always say :
"you hit your forehand like this, you hit your serve like this, you play volley like this, you hit your backhand like this etc: because that is how the top pros hit and play"

now the question is who teaches the top pros? it is kind of chicken first /egg first question right?

[5263]

Originally Posted by tennisfan69

now the question is who teaches the top pros? it is kind of chicken first /egg first question right?

likely its more like the pros hit so many balls that their body finds the way.

Old master black belt told student who wanted to learn best "reverse punch",
Hit bag with 1000 rev punches in the morning and then again 1000 in the evening.
After 10 yr of doing this..come back and show ME proper reverse punch.

we hope in tennis that good instruction can speed up the process some.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by tennisfan69

most of the instruction videos or coaches i have spent time and my kids have spent time learning always say :
"you hit your forehand like this, you hit your serve like this, you play volley like this, you hit your backhand like this etc: because that is how the top pros hit and play"

now the question is who teaches the top pros? it is kind of chicken first /egg first question right?

It is like everything else. The student learns from the master, and then he becomes the master. He comes up with his own variations on top of what he has learnt, and if they are good, the next generation learns from him.

But to be frank, apart from the forehands of the top men, very little has changed stroke-wise. The changes have been more in fitness and focus on baseline play for slower surfaces. Even on the forehand, it is only the Federer and Nadal forehands which are given as examples of innovation, and the Nadal one had its big following among coaches and students till a year ago, but now people are questioning his whole style of play and what it does to the body.

Watch some of the lower-level pros. They still lose because of UEs, lapse of concentration, or not trying hard enough. And they still can't hit forehands like Fed or Nadal.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by Sumo

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?

Not IMO. A beginner should learn correct technique from the beginning. Good to see you have an interest in this "garbage."

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by sureshs

It is like everything else. The student learns from the master, and then he becomes the master. He comes up with his own variations on top of what he has learnt, and if they are good, the next generation learns from him.

But to be frank, apart from the forehands of the top men, very little has changed stroke-wise. The changes have been more in fitness and focus on baseline play for slower surfaces. Even on the forehand, it is only the Federer and Nadal forehands which are given as examples of innovation, and the Nadal one had its big following among coaches and students till a year ago, but now people are questioning his whole style of play and what it does to the body.

Watch some of the lower-level pros. They still lose because of UEs, lapse of concentration, or not trying hard enough. And they still can't hit forehands like Fed or Nadal.

Hahaha! Sureshs thinks that if he repeats the same nonesense often enough it will suddenly be magically transformed into the truth. This reminds me of BevilDevil's crusade to prove than a modern 2hb really isn't primarily a left handed forehand. He just can't let it go.

[5263]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Not IMO. A beginner should learn correct technique from the beginning. Good to see you have an interest in this "garbage."

and just think if he stays with the forum and playing, this guy will be on here
telling everyone how to hit modern in 6 months

[NLBwell]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

IMO, the OP is better off learning modern technique from the resources available online and a good video recorder, than he would be learning obsolete technique from a personal coach.

You finally gave a clear answer. I totally disagree with this, but at least it is an answer instead of an argument. I believe it is valuable to have someone knowledgeable look at your game and give advice, regardless of their style, you don't.

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

If you have, in fact, been playing tennis longer than I have, as you claim, then it would appear that you are still playing tennis the same way you did in the 1960's. If you knew modern technique, you wouldn't have made this statement which is objectively, demonstrably, false. The "traditional way," as you put it, cannot be reconciled with modern technique. There are fundamental differences in "obsolete" old school technique that, once learned, must be painstakingly unlearned in order to execute modern technique properly.

OK, show me some part of the modern game that I don't have in my game (other than a young body). Nothing has to be unlearned. New shots just need to be added.

[treblings]

Originally Posted by MikeyBigShot

My area has more tennis courts than players, and even fewer tennis pros. I just want to play good recreational tennis and join a league next year. Is there really any good reason why I shouldn't take lessons from a coach who teaches traditional strokes.

His lessons are really cheap $45 for an hour. I'm thinking about taking lessons 2-3 times a week.

sounds like an interesting place where you live. instruction cheap at 45,- and you start your lessons in autumn. does that mean you can play outdoors all year or are you adding indoor court time 2-3 time a week.

and who told you that the coach is teaching traditional strokes? is he advertising that?

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by NLBwell

You finally gave a clear answer. I totally disagree with this, but at least it is an answer instead of an argument. I believe it is valuable to have someone knowledgeable look at your game and give advice, regardless of their style, you don't.

All answers that contain any measure of explanation are argument. I believe it is detrimental to have a coach teach obsolete technique that limits upside potential.

Originally Posted by NLBwell

OK, show me some part of the modern game that I don't have in my game (other than a young body). Nothing has to be unlearned. New shots just need to be added.

I know nothing about your game. Maybe you are so talented that you can master both at the same time.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by NLBwell

Nothing has to be unlearned. New shots just need to be added.

That is what is true most of the time. We need to constantly learn and improve. There is no need to buy into scare tactics and also no need to take any coach's words as the absolute truth and follow it blindly.

[5263]

Originally Posted by sureshs

There is no need to buy into scare tactics

Likely you are the only one scared by new and better instruction, but I know
change is tough for many

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by 5263

Likely you are the only one scared by new and better instruction, but I know
change is tough for many

Why don't say something concrete instead of resorting to insults when you are questioned? Most of the stuff taught by any tennis coach is enough for most club players, and anything extra can be learnt by the student as he progresses.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Why don't say something concrete instead of resorting to insults when you are questioned? Most of the stuff taught by any tennis coach is enough for most club players, and anything extra can be learnt by the student as he progresses.

I think your expectations of coaches and students is somewhat lower than it is for most others, sureshs.

[MikeyBigShot]

Perhaps Coach Mauro has an enlightened view of traditional vs modern?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbqZKc66wUY

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by MikeyBigShot

Perhaps Coach Mauro has an enlightened view of traditional vs modern?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbqZKc66wUY

Never heard of coach Mauro before. But, other than the fact that modern angular momentum generates more power and spin than old school linear momentum, I disagree with everything he said. In particular, his assertion that an old school forehand is better for hitting dtl and a modner forehand better for hitting cross court is exactly 180 degrees wrong. It's just the opposite.

[tlm]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Fantastic.

I am better than any adult in several clubs around here who takes lessons (and started tennis as an adult).

Really it must be really weak then. What is your level 3.0? I only wish I lived closer to you so I could wipe your butt right off the court with my top spin.