confused w/ the term "MTM"

[5263]

Originally Posted by Roforot

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.

MTM is NOT against early shoulder turn,

It teaches not to stick the racket way back behind you way early like many use to teach (and some still do).

[5263]

Originally Posted by arche3

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.

I know, but don't understand his efforts except he likes to focus on MTM as a
target. Must think he can get on a winning effort and look more knowledgeable,
since there has been a history on this site of bashing modern strokes?

It's really only recently that the lifting rotational type swing of MTM has gained
widespread acceptance on here. Only just about 3 yrs ago that was being denied.

[sureshs]

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. 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.

Well, I have seen literally hundreds of adults whose game has improved zilch with lessons. True many of them takes doubles lessons only, but even the singles ones have not improved. Maybe they have maintained their level and that itself is an achievement, I do not know. But I see them making the same mistakes over and over again, using wrong grips, and then asking an intricate question about doubles positioning.

Also, I am not talking about tennis "students" in general, but adult players.

Just this afternoon I was at the club and after playing a set of old man doubles which went into a tiebreak, one guy tells me a story of a coach from Bermuda who once had a foursome of women in a clinic. He asked them to put their rackets down, and for half an hour made them do dancing steps to improve their footwork. It became legendary.

Would I pay for it? No.

Another thing that amazes me is that these adult lesson takers wait for 10 minutes for a lesson, when the coach is teaching a junior. The junior is hitting massive top spin and looks like a mini Nadal. Then these guys walk into the court and do they even wonder, hey maybe I should also hit with topspin? No. Instead they are "warming up" for 10 minutes service line to service line thinking it is a great lesson.

These guys could certainly use a dose of MTM to wake them up.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by 5263

MTM is NOT against early shoulder turn,

It teaches not to stick the racket way back behind you way early like many use to teach (and some still do).

It also seems to teach to count till 5 from the bounce before hitting, which is ridiculous.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by Roforot

That being said, I will return to Newks and enjoy their drills though I will ignore their suggestions about hitting through the ball.

That suggestion is to address the scores of club players who hit tentative strokes, which become even more tentative during a match. Telling them to obey the finish of the follow through as a key stroke point does not often help. This way, they have something concrete to aim for (no pun).

The fallacy lies in thinking that these guys who learnt tennis in their late thirties are otherwise going to be generating massive RHS and finishing like Fed and Nadal, making precise contact with the high bouncing away incoming topspin, with the correct mixture of up, forward, and across movement to achieve the desired CC or DTL stroke. Not!

[MikeyBigShot]

I guess this video sort of answers my MTM back swing question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tozo_eNQqEQ

I don't see the wind up of the shoulders that is typical on the ATP (not that everyone should try to clone ATP tour players).

Is the pulling across motion suppose to make up for the lack of a deep shoulder turn?

Earlier this summer, I was literally mimicking the forehand that Oscar shows here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk0VWHh2OmI

[sureshs]

LOL that is the infamous MIT video which caused a lot of embarrassment in a famous deleted thread. Push the ball, slap the ball, and throw it over the net? Really? This is one of the few videos which actually shows the technique being taught and practiced - as you can see, there is no power in the shots.

Instead of answering this, you will find a lot of videos of Fed and Nadal thrown at you, as if they have something to do with this.

[sureshs]

LOL the second video is even more ridiculous. No shoulder turn, and an abrupt arming and muscling of the ball just before contact followed by going out of balance - just like the horrible club players I see every day. Not only will there be no pace, it will also cause injuries.

[bhupaes]

Originally Posted by 5263

MTM is NOT against early shoulder turn,

It teaches not to stick the racket way back behind you way early like many use to teach (and some still do).

Feel free to correct me if I'm off, 5263 - here's my take.

Although I am not the best practitioner , I think I understand how the shoulder turn works. For the FH, there is a partial turn when the player is stalking the ball with the racquet in front. The full hip turn happens when the player plants the back foot, which happens when the ball is relatively close, possibly after the bounce or near it. The full shoulder turn completes just before the backswing is complete, which is usually when the ball is approaching closer. This sequence, if done right accomplishes many things, IMO - the most important items being the timing of the kinetic chain, and the ability to track the ball well after the bounce. IMO, nothing should happen too early except stalking the ball with a partial turn.

The 2HBH would be similar, except the final turn and backswing will be coincident with the step to the front (if hitting from the front foot).

Best not to overthink this, IMO... a few simple cues a la Oscar should make the right things happen!

[treblings]

Originally Posted by MikeyBigShot

I guess this video sort of answers my MTM back swing question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tozo_eNQqEQ

I don't see the wind up of the shoulders that is typical on the ATP (not that everyone should try to clone ATP tour players).

Is the pulling across motion suppose to make up for the lack of a deep shoulder turn?

Earlier this summer, I was literally mimicking the forehand that Oscar shows here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk0VWHh2OmI

i can understand why people watching this videos would be confused.
those examples don´t look like anything you see on the ATP tour

[MikeyBigShot]

Originally Posted by treblings

i can understand why people watching this videos would be confused.
those examples don´t look like anything you see on the ATP tour

Perhaps this is the ATP version of an Oscar influenced stroke?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW2He3mWk-g


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMd2f8udFsg

[treblings]

Originally Posted by MikeyBigShot

Perhaps this is the ATP version of an Oscar influenced stroke?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW2He3mWk-g


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMd2f8udFsg

nice footage of Guga, thanks

my point is, people watching those wegner instruction videos will likely be trying to copy exactly what they see. and what they see in these videos is not a pro like fh. these videos are illustrating the concept of pulling across but missing the take-back and follow-thru of a pro like fh, imho

[mr_fro2000]

Wow lots of feedback here… thx! While I have not watched every video and read every thread in painstaking detail, I think I’m getting the idea/concepts of what has happened the past 10 yrs.

I think my conclusion from all this is that there is really no ‘new’ way to play tennis… the strokes that are being taught in the wenger videos have been around since I was a junior. Perhaps these kinds of strokes were not actively taught to stone-cold new players in the past… and maybe they are now.

In any case, many of the arguments seem silly and I personally don’t think 1 ‘methodology’ is really better than the other. Regarding forehand strokes, I think it might be best to figure out ‘naturally’ what works best for a new student and then build off of that. Some may find eastern grip forehands more natural, while others may find a semi-western strokes easier to hit. Both grips/strokes have advantages and disadvantages.
I’ll continue to explore the topic, but it seems like I’m not changing a thing about how I play nor will I be radically changing the way I will teach (my kids) when they are ready to learn the game. Thx again everyone!

[MikeyBigShot]

Originally Posted by treblings

nice footage of Guga, thanks

my point is, people watching those wegner instruction videos will likely be trying to copy exactly what they see. and what they see in these videos is not a pro like fh. these videos are illustrating the concept of pulling across but missing the take-back and follow-thru of a pro like fh, imho

I've always been confused by the takeaway, but I suppose the 2nd MIT video shows the takeaway.

Maybe an expert will chime in.

I've hit some nice forehands using MTM concepts, but I've never felt completely comfortable with it. I always felt like I was missing something.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by MikeyBigShot

Perhaps this is the ATP version of an Oscar influenced stroke?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW2He3mWk-g


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMd2f8udFsg

Don't believe the influence on Guga based on claims. I have not seen convincing proof.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by treblings

nice footage of Guga, thanks

my point is, people watching those wegner instruction videos will likely be trying to copy exactly what they see. and what they see in these videos is not a pro like fh. these videos are illustrating the concept of pulling across but missing the take-back and follow-thru of a pro like fh, imho

That is why one must not be misled by pro videos unless there is verified proof of them being coached under this system.

Sticking to the actual instruction videos, there are so many things missing, as you point out, that this kind of play cannot be called pro strokes and will be ineffective.

Be careful not to get diverted into a discussion of other coaches or entering into a contrived debate about pros like Fed, Nadal or Del Potro.

[MikeyBigShot]

A bit off topic, but my favorite stroke videos are:

(1) Tennis Guru's Restrung In 24 Hours DVD: http://www.**********.com/

(2) Millennium Forehand: http://www.virtualtennisacademy.com
(Not a fan of the straight arm or how the lady turns her head as she does the unit turn, but it's ok.

For Footwork:

I like Jeff Salzensteins work. I was able to immediately use what I watched, and my positioning immediately improve. Other players commented how I seemed faster... His total tennis membership is only like $10: http://www.jeffsalzensteintennis.com

[5263]

Originally Posted by treblings

i can understand why people watching this videos would be confused.
those examples don´t look like anything you see on the ATP tour

You can't really expect to see a full on atp stroke unless it is in match conditions,
of course, depending on what you are looking for.
Watch some of Fed's warm up vids and the strokes often look worse than any
good Jr.
On the other hand, for one who knows what to look for, those vids show the
fundamental aspects of the stroke or part of the strokes they are meant to
demo. There are progressions to account for and Oscar's audience is not the
bunch of doubting Toms like sureshs, but players and instructors who come to learn from a
former pro with an excellent system. You can accomplish little by answering every
question from beginniners and are much more effective leading thru progressions
and letting them feel aspects of the stroke as you put it together.

[5263]

Originally Posted by mr_fro2000

I think I’m getting the idea/concepts of what has happened the past 10 yrs.

I think my conclusion from all this is that there is really no ‘new’ way to play tennis… the strokes that are being taught in the wenger videos have been around since I was a junior. Perhaps these kinds of strokes were not actively taught to stone-cold new players in the past… and maybe they are now.

In any case, many of the arguments seem silly

I think you reach some pretty good conclusions here. Only thing new about this over
the last 10 yrs is far broader acceptance across the US. You are right that
Oscar has been teaching like this since 72, although you likely never heard about
it back then. Also you are correct that more instructors are now using this modern
approach to teach new students.
And yes, the arguments from the usual 3.5 suspects are quite silly.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by 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?

Here are my observations. Let me know what you think.

IMO, there are two fundamental differences between the two styles of hitting. Both of these differences are made possible by the size of modern tennis racquets which have much, much bigger sweet spots than wood racquets allowing players to swing with more racquet head speed and a much steeper angle of ascent to contact, and still consistently hit the ball in the sweet spot. Players like Hoad, Laver, Vilas, Borg, Okker and Nastase were so frikkin' talented, that they could hit with some measure of these modern characteristics with 14oz+, 65sq.in., wood racquets, and still hit cleanly, most of the time. But, they were the exceptions.

The two big differences that I see are: (1) the change from linear to angular momentum, and (2) the WW swing. These two characteristics of the modern swing work best together.

Angular momentum is achieved through the rotation of the body from the legs and hips, to the shoulders, arm and racquet, commonly referred to as the kinetic chain. Angular momentum generates more RHS than linear momentum which results in more power, and more spin if you combine it with the WW swing (described below). Such a kinetic chain and upper body rotation is easiest to achieve with an open stance, unless you pivot on your front foot after contact and bring your back foot forward. It also recqires that contact be made futher forward, closer to the target, in order to hit at the peak of acceleration, which in turn requires either a SW grip, or a laid back wrist ala Federer, so that the racquet face is facing the target causing the ball to travel to the target even though the circular swing is across the target line.

I use the term "WW swing" rather than WW finish just to make the point that a true WW finish starts before contact in the supination part of the forward swing where the racquet head drops well below the hand and the ball. Without that drop, the WW finish is meaningless. From there, the steep ascent of the racquet through contact into the familiar WW finish is what generates the heavy spin that characterizes the modern forehand and what controls the additional power of both the longer strings of modern racquets, the extra force generated by angular momentum, and the additional racquet head speed of the WW swing itself. But, this technique only works with the forward contact point associated with the upper body rotation described above.

This technique, which has evolved gradually over the past 30+ years, was just not accessable to most of the wood racquet era players.