confused w/ the term "MTM"

[5263]

Originally Posted by Hi I'm Ray

Can you say a bit more about these modern slices, volleys, and serves? I wasn't aware that there was a "modern" version of those.

You are not alone on this
Most just focus on the Fh and the TS Bh to a lesser extent. I thought my slice
and volley needed no help and was amazed at how much they improved with
modern technique. Volley is just the middle portion of the slice imo.

It is pretty much the same idea though, as it is still about using the hand to
align with the ball, leading with the handle.... from above for the slice...
then near contact, starting to work down and across the shot line, opposed to
classic, which has you attempt to extend thru contact along the target line.
As the hand works across the shot line, centrifugal force and to a greater extent,
the hand position brings the racket face to bear for contact.
The hand dragging the racket is key, as you can't just work across the ball, and you
need the alignment phase of the swing to make the across part work right!

There will often be a side aspect to the underspin and just like with TS has, you
can have a lot or a little spin on the shot depending on your intent.
We do get sideways and often can used closed or neutral for slices as well,
leading with the hitting shoulder on the Bh slice,
and it can help to move thru the slice, using momentum to adjust power for the
shot. When approaching net, I mostly use a modern slice if my approach forces
me to continue strongly thru the shot, but if contact point is higher and I can
pause, I will likely use TS for the approach to net.

[Roforot]

I'm late to the club... I used to believe the conventional thinking of hitting through 3-4 balls in a row and I found Oscar's videos odd looking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...DHegz98#t=137s

I happened to see Doug King's video on TennisOne about orienting to the ball and talking about angular momentum when something clicked. Here was a normal American coach (not MTM affiliated as far as I know) basically describing a similar shot as Oscar.

I went to the wall and it clicked even more. In the past, I'd feel like I was hitting the ball really well, but I couldn't build on it because I'd eventually try to frame the shot w/ the goal of hitting through 3-4 balls in a line rather than deflecting and accelerating.

This isn't a bad shot and has gotten me to 4.0, but I feel that I can hit the ball just as consistent and w/ more spin w/ his method.

Back to the videos of Oscar, I think he may be exaggerating the motion? I initially dismissed it b/c I thought he was just arming the ball over the net...

I have his book now. I think the next level of the club will be "stalking the ball." This again seems odd to me. But on thinking about it, I note that I sometimes hit my best groundies returning a flat serve. If I have enough time to do that then I shouldn't be late on a groundstroke.

[5263]

Originally Posted by Roforot

I have his book now. I think the next level will be "stalking the ball." This again seems odd to me. But on thinking about it, I note that I sometimes hit my best groundies returning a flat serve. If I have enough time to do that then I shouldn't be late on a groundstroke.

Welcome aboard to modern methods. Sorry but I removed the part of the quote
I think is offensive.

Stalking is a very small part of the process to describe how you turn to and go to
the ball and just helps you to have the racket in place for the next stage.
Most instructions seems to skip over moving to the ball and just start with
a unit turn, which is fine if the ball is coming right to you. I like how MTM
includes the move to the ball stalking aspect.

[Roforot]

Originally Posted by 5263

Welcome aboard to modern methods. Sorry but I removed the part of the quote
I think is offensive.

Stalking is a very small part of the process to describe how you turn to and go to
the ball and just helps you to have the racket in place for the next stage.
Most instructions seems to skip over moving to the ball and just start with
a unit turn, which is fine if the ball is coming right to you. I like how MTM
includes the move to the ball stalking aspect.

Offensive? Do you mean the "cult". If so I apologize; it's meant to be self-depricating humor as I'm part of it as well!

One other thing I find is that it seems more anatomic to pull across on the 1h-BH. I find more confidence to use topspin BH recently whereas in the past I limited to slice BH. Again, I'd shoot myself in the foot trying to hit 3-4 balls in a row and struggled w/ consistency except on slower balls.

[5263]

Originally Posted by Roforot

Offensive? If so I apologize; it's meant to be self-depricating humor as I'm part of it as well!

One other thing I find is that it seems more anatomic to pull across on the 1h-BH. I find more confidence to use topspin BH recently whereas in the past I limited to slice BH. Again, I'd shoot myself in the foot trying to hit 3-4 balls in a row and struggled w/ consistency except on slower balls.

No offence taken from you on that comment and maybe you are smart to
embrace it that way.
I just try to avoid that mentality as much as I can, and not repeat their high
school name calling routines.
And yes, it is amazing how when you have an open mind and learn to work
across the ball ...how well it works!

[Hi I'm Ray]

Originally Posted by 5263

You are not alone on this
Most just focus on the Fh and the TS Bh to a lesser extent. I thought my slice
and volley needed no help and was amazed at how much they improved with
modern technique. Volley is just the middle portion of the slice imo.

It is pretty much the same idea though, as it is still about using the hand to
align with the ball, leading with the handle.... from above for the slice...
then near contact, starting to work down and across the shot line, opposed to
classic, which has you attempt to extend thru contact along the target line.
As the hand works across the shot line, centrifugal force and to a greater extent,
the hand position brings the racket face to bear for contact.
The hand dragging the racket is key, as you can't just work across the ball, and you
need the alignment phase of the swing to make the across part work right!

There will often be a side aspect to the underspin and just like with TS has, you
can have a lot or a little spin on the shot depending on your intent.
We do get sideways and often can used closed or neutral for slices as well,
leading with the hitting shoulder on the Bh slice,
and it can help to move thru the slice, using momentum to adjust power for the
shot. When approaching net, I mostly use a modern slice if my approach forces
me to continue strongly thru the shot, but if contact point is higher and I can
pause, I will likely use TS for the approach to net.

Would you have any links to vids illustrating this? Not sure if I am picturing the shot differently.

I just recently started slicing "offensively" as opposed to slicing only on defense. It has been pretty effective for preventing an attack and soliciting a weak return. I'm not sure if I'm hitting it in a classic or modern way, but my main priority is driving the ball and keeping it low with a flat trajectory, I'm still putting aggressive spin on it but maximizing spin hasn't been the main priority, and there is some sidespin. I get the feeling that it is skidding a bit on the bounce.

Before, I tried hitting slices a lot of spin, both underspin and sidespin. The shot was fairly slow, travelled in a arc (up/down) and also with a sidespin arc. However, this shot sat up too much after the bounce, the sidespin didn't bother the better players much, and they could hit a pretty good shot off of it. Which is why I previously stopped slicing from the baseline if I could avoid it.

[tennisfan69]

5263..which one of the following will be a true statement if one has answer the op in a simple way..

1. MTM is not a new discovery or invention of any new technique or methodology. But it is a compilation of simple steps that was put together by observing the top elite players play the shots, so everyone can follow and benefit out of it.

2. MTM is collection of new techniques/methodology that some one figured out on his/her own and put together as a way to LEARN how to play the game including top players and club level players.

3. Or is it something else, if so please help us understand.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by Roforot

I'm late to the club... I used to believe the conventional thinking of hitting through 3-4 balls in a row and I found Oscar's videos odd looking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...DHegz98#t=137s

I happened to see Doug King's video on TennisOne about orienting to the ball and talking about angular momentum when something clicked. Here was a normal American coach (not MTM affiliated as far as I know) basically describing a similar shot as Oscar.

I went to the wall and it clicked even more. In the past, I'd feel like I was hitting the ball really well, but I couldn't build on it because I'd eventually try to frame the shot w/ the goal of hitting through 3-4 balls in a line rather than deflecting and accelerating.

This isn't a bad shot and has gotten me to 4.0, but I feel that I can hit the ball just as consistent and w/ more spin w/ his method.

Back to the videos of Oscar, I think he may be exaggerating the motion? I initially dismissed it b/c I thought he was just arming the ball over the net...

I have his book now. I think the next level of the club will be "stalking the ball." This again seems odd to me. But on thinking about it, I note that I sometimes hit my best groundies returning a flat serve. If I have enough time to do that then I shouldn't be late on a groundstroke.

Hopefully the few videos we have access to of this method being actually played by teacher and student (as opposed to the example videos of pros who have never been taught by this method) are exaggerations and not about how tennis should actually be played.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by tennisfan69

5263..which one of the following will be a true statement if one has answer the op in a simple way..

1. MTM is not a new discovery or invention of any new technique or methodology. But it is a compilation of simple steps that was put together by observing the top elite players play the shots, so everyone can follow and benefit out of it.

2. MTM is collection of new techniques/methodology that some one figured out on his/her own and put together as a way to LEARN how to play the game including top players and club level players.

3. Or is it something else, if so please help us understand.

I like these points. To me, the "someone" is not the obvious suspect. The person who has provided real examples of the evolution of the game and has studied subtle differences between old and new is 5263. As I have said before, I think he is a great coach and one who continues to learn. Other coaches may also be great, but they are not necessarily fixated on the old-new comparisons. It is clear to me he is far superior to the leader, and instead of muddying the waters, he should strike out on his own. Otherwise he will be constantly fighting remarks like a poster made above of the videos showing ridiculous ways of playing, and defending someone else. I never got any specific answers or any useful observations from the leader in the famous deleted thread, just a lot of hand-waving when people probed the claims.

It is time for MTM2 run by 5263.

[MikeyBigShot]

My biggest problem with Oscar's teaching is that it is incomplete. I watched his instant stream videos online, and after 2 months it seemed like he left out a lot of important information about how to execute his style of forehand. I'm really good at learning physical motion, but he simply does not provide enough information.

I'm not the only person who has said this.

The best video he has available for streaming is the 53 drills video, and the best aspect of that video is when John Frausto is teaching.

[dominikk1985]

Originally Posted by 5263

You are not alone on this
Most just focus on the Fh and the TS Bh to a lesser extent. I thought my slice
and volley needed no help and was amazed at how much they improved with
modern technique. Volley is just the middle portion of the slice imo.

It is pretty much the same idea though, as it is still about using the hand to
align with the ball, leading with the handle.... from above for the slice...
then near contact, starting to work down and across the shot line, opposed to
classic, which has you attempt to extend thru contact along the target line.
As the hand works across the shot line, centrifugal force and to a greater extent,
the hand position brings the racket face to bear for contact.
The hand dragging the racket is key, as you can't just work across the ball, and you
need the alignment phase of the swing to make the across part work right!

There will often be a side aspect to the underspin and just like with TS has, you
can have a lot or a little spin on the shot depending on your intent.
We do get sideways and often can used closed or neutral for slices as well,
leading with the hitting shoulder on the Bh slice,
and it can help to move thru the slice, using momentum to adjust power for the
shot. When approaching net, I mostly use a modern slice if my approach forces
me to continue strongly thru the shot, but if contact point is higher and I can
pause, I will likely use TS for the approach to net.

I believe the across part is incredibly incorrect. wegner is not a biomechanics guy at all, I would not call him a modern coach. although his movements at least mimic the modern style (I never heard him talking about the kinetic chain though).

the across comes from the rotational swing path and the pronation but there is no point in trying to hit across the ball.

wegner seems to believe that what happens with the racket during contact greatly influences the ball (he states that you swing to the ball slowly and then accelerate to "push" the ball. he even calls this double hit).

biomechanical studies have shown that this is wrong. the contact time is actually so short that nothing matters after the strings first touch the ball since the vibrations reach the hand after the ball has left the strings. you could actually release the racket before impact and have the same result (won't work in practice of course).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxUPDHegz98

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by MikeyBigShot

My biggest problem with Oscar's teaching is that it is incomplete. I watched his instant stream videos online, and after 2 months it seemed like he left out a lot of important information about how to execute his style of forehand. I'm really good at learning physical motion, but he simply does not provide enough information.

I'm not the only person who has said this.

The best video he has available for streaming is the 53 drills video, and the best aspect of that video is when John Frausto is teaching.

The incompleteness was pointed out by a couple of people who then used his ideas but struck out on their own pitching a complete method (in the UK).

The way forward for MTM2 led by 5263 should be:

Lose the philosophical aspects - no need to be profound about simple issues

Build a complete system of all strokes and footwork - not harp on the forehand and then try to bolt on other stuff from here and there

Lose the criticism of other coaches and the psychological baggage of ancient fights

Pitch it as a teaching method for beginning to advanced club players which incorporates pro aspects, and lose any tenuous links to pros which can be questioned

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by dominikk1985

the across comes from the rotational swing path and the pronation but there is no point in trying to hit across the ball.

The poster called Cheetah has been getting me to incorporate body rotation and it is working, though I need to work on it more. That is where the effortless force comes from. It also removes arming of the ball. Hitting across the ball gives the impression of a conscious swing and emphasizes the arm, which is not good.

[tlm]

Originally Posted by mr_fro2000

No troll here... like i said, i've been away for a while and am surprised/fascinated to find that there's this "new way to play tennis" that I had never heard of before.

I think you are getting some great advise on what mtm represents from many here and if you give it a chance I think you will find it very useful. The only good advise I can give you is to not pay any attention to sureshs, this guy is stuck at 3.5 level for life and does nothing but bash mtm teaching.

He actually had a chance to take a lesson with Oscar but was to stupid to follow through with it. I think he would have had to eat his words then so that is why he did not take the lesson. He lives to knock mtm or anything about Oscar Wegner.

[sureshs]

^^^ Still upset that the hero-worship thread was deleted by the mods?

Why don't you make some constructive suggestions about the game instead of being angry all the time?

[toly]

Originally Posted by dominikk1985

I believe the across part is incredibly incorrect. wegner is not a biomechanics guy at all, I would not call him a modern coach. although his movements at least mimic the modern style (I never heard him talking about the kinetic chain though).

the across comes from the rotational swing path and the pronation but there is no point in trying to hit across the ball.

wegner seems to believe that what happens with the racket during contact greatly influences the ball (he states that you swing to the ball slowly and then accelerate to "push" the ball. he even calls this double hit).

biomechanical studies have shown that this is wrong. the contact time is actually so short that nothing matters after the strings first touch the ball since the vibrations reach the hand after the ball has left the strings. you could actually release the racket before impact and have the same result (won't work in practice of course).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxUPDHegz98

Absolutely agree with you. Thanks for excellent post.

Originally Posted by sureshs

The poster called Cheetah has been getting me to incorporate body rotation and it is working, though I need to work on it more. That is where the effortless force comes from. It also removes arming of the ball. Hitting across the ball gives the impression of a conscious swing and emphasizes the arm, which is not good.

What exactly I have to do to hit across the ball? I’ve never was able to comprehend MTM explanations.
Btw, it seems the pros really hit downward while serving (your idea), see please thread http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=440128.

[JohnYandell]

There are many teachers and teaching methodogies. What to call "modern" is an argument that has many sides and has provoked a lot of disagreement here.

Everyone has the right to believe as they wish and follow what ever approach works for them. And to state their opinion as well.

Here's mine:

There is too much made of the distinctions between classical and modern. The word classical is often used as an insult or a sign that a coach doesn't understand what is "really" happening.

The fact is that in the history of tennis all the things we now associate with "modern" tennis--more underneath grips, open stances, heavy topspin, windshield wiper finishes, reverse finishes--all those things were used by the great players of the past. They weren't "invented" in the modern era.

What has changed is the frequency and predominance of shots and technical elements that were more the exception in the past. Borg started this change probably.

But interestingly, huge flat groundstrokes dominated the era after Bjorn. Agassi and Sampras and before them Connors. Well into the 90s serve and volley tennis was equally viable: Edberg, Becker, and McEnroe were truly dominant players.

The guys of that era who played what we think of as "modern" style--heavy topspin, deep court positions, long grueling attrition driven matches--these guys while obviously great were the second tier players except on red clay.
Guys like Bruguera, Muster, Courier.

The graphite rackets were obviously universal at this point but what really changed it for good was the combination of the rackets and poly string. They killed serve and volley.

So that's one thing that is important to understand. But does that mean there is one thing that is "modern tennis?"


Is Federer for example, a "modern" player technically speaking? He has an eastern grip on his forehand--and combines that with more wiper finishes than anyone. He can hit heavy spin, but really he wants to stand in, take the ball early and just crush people by attacking the open court. Really the player he is most like in this sense is probably Connors. And like Connors he mixes in the net. Unlike the vast majority of modern players he has a one-handed backhand with a classic eastern backhand grip and hits a much higher percentage of slice than any top player. Is that modern or some hybrid?

Is there a quintessential modern player? Nadal? Is anyone really surprised at his injuries and mental exhaustion considering his style? If that is modern extreme is it in any way a model for even a very small number of players?

Is it Novak? What is fascinating is he has taken the baseline war of attrition to a new level by playing it from nearly as close in as Fed. His spin rates are almost indentical to Fed and 20% less than Nadal. And the arc of his ball is also much flatter than Nadal--more like Fed.

Murray? Delpo? JoWillie? How about Raonic? OK we can keep going down the list. All these champions play differently.

The point is I don't think we can say that there is some unitary entity called modern tennis. There are too many complexities and variations to say there is one way to play the "modern" game.

Which leads to the next questions: how do "modern" teaching methods actually correspond to the variety of things modern players do? And which of them are applicable to whom at what level and with what result?

[tlm]

Originally Posted by sureshs

^^^ Still upset that the hero-worship thread was deleted by the mods?

Why don't you make some constructive suggestions about the game instead of being angry all the time?

Not angry at all just giving the op some good advise.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by toly

Absolutely agree with you. Thanks for excellent post.




What exactly I have to do to hit across the ball. I’ve never was able to comprehend MTM explanations.
Btw, it seems the pros really hit downward while serving (your idea), see please thread http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=440128.

Not on second serves. They do that on the serves which are more flat. It is a complex issue related to the timing when they catch the ball, the dwell time, and the time the ball actually leaves the strings.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by tlm

Not angry at all just giving the op some good advise.

Dude you pop up every time and abuse me. Why do you keep up the pretense of not being angry?