confused w/ the term "MTM"

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by JohnYandell

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.

Simple reason for it - money. I have not seen many ads claiming that a product is old. "Modern" is a good term to market something.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by toly

What exactly I have to do to hit across the ball. I’ve never was able to comprehend MTM explanations.

Many of the terms are made up. That is why there is no explanation behind them. They are of the type that they cannot be contradicted but are not useful either, because they are just too vague or generalized, or not fundamental but the result of something else.

For example, if the arm remains attached to the body and swings in an arc, at some point it has to start turning back! Otherwise the arm must keep growing longer and longer, or must become separated from the body! However, the statement that pros pull back at contact is not correct because it gives the impression of conscious action. When you point that out, the reply is that the arm does come back, doesn't it? So you see how it is useless trying to argue this kind of thing.

[tennisfan69]

One cannot totally discard MTM. For a kid to start with from scratch, it may be really really helpful. They have broken down stuff into easy small steps. Guess the name throws a lot of people off.

[Ash_Smith]

^^^one should never totally discard any teaching method or system until one has tried it and understands it.

cheers

[MikeyBigShot]

Originally Posted by tennisfan69

One cannot totally discard MTM. For a kid to start with from scratch, it may be really really helpful. They have broken down stuff into easy small steps. Guess the name throws a lot of people off.

I agree! Although my biggest complaint is that Oscar doesn't really define any true fundamentals or clear steps to developing the forehand. I really like how he teaches volleying, the serve, and I find his style of backhand very useful.

Ultimately, I believe MTM is a victim of its own hyperbole.

In defense of MTM:
My mother had to have lymph nodes removed for her arm, and she has been instructed to keep active so that she doesn't develop any serious complications. She has taken up tennis, and I find that Oscar's way of teaching the newest of newbies to be a great way. She immediately understood the concepts, and she is able to rally. His lift and pull across method is good for her condition.

How to progress from the lift and pull across technique to what we see on the ATP tour --- I'm not sure.

Perhaps the MTM forehand is its own animal...

[5263]

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

wonderful post outlining how you don't understand the MTM TS Fh and great
indication that you have little understanding of TS Fh in general.
If you stay with the forum long enough to improve that understanding, it
will be entertaining to watch you attempt to rectify your above comments
(which I will save for you in case some are able to do their usual thing to
get this thread deleted), with what you come to learn about the TS Fh stroke
in time to come. Will you be the rare one to admit his mistake?
Too much misinfo to address in your post, but I'll just leave it
that until you gain the understanding of the importance racket working with
a side element to the topspin (from hitting across), your Fh will be lacking a
key principle in it's ability to control a rally....even if you are gaining the spin
by accident. Understanding it is a key in using it tactically as well as creating
it on the shots, so not understanding this principle is likely holding you 2 steps
behind.

[5263]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Otherwise the arm must keep growing longer and longer, or must become separated from the body!

While I agree the racket can never be swung on a straight line, do you actually
not understand how classic instruction attempts to do so thru several aspects
of it's training? So I guess you would also not understand what those aspects
are where the classic training attempts this, if you don't see how it attempts to
hit out thru 3-5 balls on a line to the target?

[5263]

Originally Posted by MikeyBigShot

I agree! Although my biggest complaint is that Oscar doesn't really define any true fundamentals or clear steps to developing the forehand. I really like how he teaches volleying, the serve, and I find his style of backhand very useful.

Ultimately, I believe MTM is a victim of its own hyperbole.

In defense of MTM:
My mother had to have lymph nodes removed for her arm, and she has been instructed to keep active so that she doesn't develop any serious complications. She has taken up tennis, and I find that Oscar's way of teaching the newest of newbies to be a great way. She immediately understood the concepts, and she is able to rally. His lift and pull across method is good for her condition.

How to progress from the lift and pull across technique to what we see on the ATP tour --- I'm not sure.

Perhaps the MTM forehand is its own animal...

Thanks for the kind words to MTM training, but interesting comments for sure.

you say he shares no true fundamentals, then go on to list a few?
you say no clear steps but even with your weak background in it, were able
to share with another beginner?
you say MTM is a victim, but share it's easy success?

and at last you speak of how good it is for a beginner, but think there is a gap
from it to the pros that you don't know how to bridge?
I ask you... how do you bridge a gap that does not exist?
If you you recognize a gap...what is it? other than more training and
experience?

I counter that all the true fundamental for strokes are there, but agree that
the progressions of steps to learning MTM are not available to those who
have not trained to be an instructor.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by Ash_Smith

^^^one should never totally discard any teaching method or system until one has tried it and understands it.

cheers

It is not possible to try and understand every system out there. No one has the time or the money.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by tennisfan69

One cannot totally discard MTM. For a kid to start with from scratch, it may be really really helpful. They have broken down stuff into easy small steps. Guess the name throws a lot of people off.

Yes, the success stories we have heard are like the one above of the "newest of newbies" who has to take some medical precautions, and supposedly a 70 year old man who has been playing for ever but did not know topspin.

As far as kids go, I have seen many go from scratch to advanced junior players with state and national rankings over the years that I have been playing, and not one of them has studied with a coach of this supposed methodology.

I think any success that this method has with adults is due to the following: adult coaching is horrible in general. Coaches make adults do drills which lead to no improvement. They make them pick up balls during the coaching hour. They do not correct the most basic of grip problems. Instead of teaching strokes, they teach strategy, because that is what the players want to hear about. Year after year passes as the student faithfully attends lessons, but no improvement. From an MTM standpoint, these people are ideal targets. Throw in a comparison with their older lessons, and to them, this method can seem the ultimate in instruction - simply because someone is actually pointing out their mistakes!

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by 5263

While I agree the racket can never be swung on a straight line, do you actually
not understand how classic instruction attempts to do so thru several aspects
of it's training? So I guess you would also not understand what those aspects
are where the classic training attempts this, if you don't see how it attempts to
hit out thru 3-5 balls on a line to the target?

I never said hitting 3-5 balls on a line is a great idea either. No one thinks black and white all the time, like you.

[Ash_Smith]

Originally Posted by sureshs

It is not possible to try and understand every system out there. No one has the time or the money.

There aren't that many complete teaching systems and I make it my job to learn as much about those I come across as I can. I owe it to my athletes. You never know, something I pick up might make the difference between a player going from no medal to a medal or even from a medal to a gold. At the highest level the margins are so fine, I'm looking for any advantage we can get! If that means I have to study some and try some things out i'm willing to do it.

cheers

[Hi I'm Ray]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Coaches make adults do drills which lead to no improvement. They do not correct the most basic of grip problems. Instead of teaching strokes, they teach strategy, because that is what the players want to hear about. Year after year passes as the student faithfully attends lessons, but no improvement. From an MTM standpoint, these people are ideal targets. Throw in a comparison with their older lessons, and to them, this method can seem the ultimate in instruction - simply because someone is actually pointing out their mistakes!

Sorry but this seriously points to a lack of any real experience or understanding, it sounds totally made up. Leaving the whole "MTM" debate out of this. Most coaches hardly talk about strategy, most are focused on stroke production, and they constantly point out mistakes. Coaches definitely talk about grips. Drills are very important practice, saying they lead to no improvements is pure crap. How many ppl here are going to believe that the majority of tennis "students" are more concerned about strategy than stroke production? Just Zero credibilty.

[treblings]

Originally Posted by Hi I'm Ray

Sorry but this seriously points to a lack of any real experience or understanding, it sounds totally made up. Leaving the whole "MTM" debate out of this. Coaches hardly talk about strategy, most are focused on stroke production, and they constantly point out mistakes. Coaches definitely talk about grips. Drills are very important practice, saying they lead to no improvements is pure crap. How many ppl here are going to believe that the majority of tennis "students" are more concerned about strategy than stroke production? Just Zero credibilty.

totally agree. that´s exactly how it is in the real world.

[treblings]

Originally Posted by Ash_Smith

There aren't that many complete teaching systems and I make it my job to learn as much about those I come across as I can. I owe it to my athletes. You never know, something I pick up might make the difference between a player going from no medal to a medal or even from a medal to a gold. At the highest level the margins are so fine, I'm looking for any advantage we can get! If that means I have to study some and try some things out i'm willing to do it.

cheers

that´s the way i see it as well. i look for tips, drills, any small things maybe that can make a difference to a student. i don´t care where that comes from

[5263]

Originally Posted by treblings

that´s the way i see it as well. i look for tips, drills, any small things maybe that can make a difference to a student. i don´t care where that comes from

I agree, well said by you and ash.

[5263]

Originally Posted by sureshs

I never said hitting 3-5 balls on a line is a great idea either. No one thinks black and white all the time, like you.

Oh but I don't...not all the time.
Classic is well documented, as is MTM and The advanced foundation
...so they have many well documented elements with reference.
You have made it clear you know little of either.

Then there are things like, "Trail braking" with motorcycles and the myriad of
hybrid strokes, which are more gray, without clear source and reference, and
are evolved terms that mean different things to different people. This seems to
be your ground of choice. Yes, these are is interesting and innovative, where much
creative play will originate, but it is also a space of opinion to a large degree,
and will just be speculation for years to come. I rather enjoy this
area too, and like to share my opinions where they fit. So from here, you can mostly
either express your opinions for helpful discussion or just try to rile up controversy
for those who are not well versed in the documented ideas.
Quite a shame you use your natural curiosity for the latter, when you could
contribute so much using the former!

Now to get on the topic you sought to obfuscate with your black and white comment,
about hitting across on an arc...
If you are using the classic method of trying to extend down the target line
thru 3-5 balls, there are documented ways in classic instruction to put a rather
straight segment into and past the contact point (which you deny) instead of
what I agree should be a curving arc across the shot line.
So either you are agreeing that the swing should be an arc across the shot
line, or classic extension methods should be used....or do you have a 3rd
undocumented idea that you speculate is better?

[Roforot]

As a tennis consumer of instruction, I don't really care about who invented what first. I read John Yandell's post with interest, as I believe he runs Tennisone? Which is where I came across Doug King's "Orientation & Swingpath." Again, I'm not sure if Mr Yandell reviews or stamps approval on each/every article.

Having taken clinics at Newcombe's ranch (probably the most traditional clinic I've experienced where they'll feed you low balls to get you to stay down and step into the ball) I definitely find Wegner's methods to be unique in that he recommends pulling the forehand up and across rather than following through in the direction (hitting 5 balls in a row). BTW, I've been told the "5 balls in a row" in California and Florida clinics where they were more friendly feeding to western grips and open stances.

The other point that seems unique is his emphasis on finding the ball specifically not taking the racquet back early. Again all the other clinics/coaches come down hard on this. I'll be honest that this last point is something I'm not sure about... it's part of my routine.

What I'm not sure about is whether MTM argues against an early shoulder turn on FHs? Even on slower balls, I find if I delay the shoulder turn, I feel rushed hitting the ball. I also notice that I usually don't need a bigger backswing than what the shoulder turn provides.

On the overhead for example, we can agree that every pro turns right away. This does not seem to hinder them from finding the ball.

Having done clinics and lessons w/ non-MTM coaches, I'm curious to try an MTM coach. That being said, I will return to Newks and enjoy their drills though I will ignore their suggestions about hitting through the ball.

[5263]

Originally Posted by Roforot

I read John Yandell's post with interest, as I believe he runs Tennisone? .

He does not currently.

[arche3]

Originally Posted by 5263

Oh but I don't...not all the time.
Classic is well documented, as is MTM and The advanced foundation
...so they have many well documented elements with reference.
You have made it clear you know little of either.

Then there are things like, "Trail braking" with motorcycles and the myriad of
hybrid strokes, which are more gray, without clear source and reference, and
are evolved terms that mean different things to different people. This seems to
be your ground of choice. Yes, these are is interesting and innovative, where much
creative play will originate, but it is also a space of opinion to a large degree,
and will just be speculation for years to come. I rather enjoy this
area too, and like to share my opinions where they fit. So from here, you can mostly
either express your opinions for helpful discussion or just try to rile up controversy
for those who are not well versed in the documented ideas.
Quite a shame you use your natural curiosity for the latter, when you could
contribute so much using the former!

Now to get on the topic you sought to obfuscate with your black and white comment,
about hitting across on an arc...
If you are using the classic method of trying to extend down the target line
thru 3-5 balls, there are documented ways in classic instruction to put a rather
straight segment into and past the contact point (which you deny) instead of
what I agree should be a curving arc across the shot line.
So either you are agreeing that the swing should be an arc across the shot
line, or classic extension methods should be used....or do you have a 3rd
undocumented idea that you speculate is better?

Suresh pretends to misunderstand on purpose to stir the pot. You would think by his posts he can barely get the ball over the net 2 times in a row.