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

[5263]

Originally Posted by Djokovicfan4life

Here's a list of "traditional" things my coach has taught me (all of them helped my very "modern" game tremendously:

1. Hit through the ball (yes, I said it, MTMalites, deal with it).

2. Step into the ball [(mostly to get me used to transferring my weight forward. I have a tendency to pull off to the side and mishit the ball (sound familiar?)].

3. Adjust my grip very slightly depending on the height of the ball, to keep my wrist in a strong position (he doesn't subscribe to the "one grip for everything" BS.

4. Concentrate on the arm motion until I could get it down perfectly with no hitches, and a decent toss to boot (yes, I don't bend my knees all that much, that's still a work in progress).

Just a few examples.

5

Only thing I see on your list that is traditional is #2. step into the ball.
Or I should say the others can be included in modern, with even #2 as
acceptable in certain situations.

By the way, I've been waiting for someone to mention how pulling off the ball
makes them mishit. Yes, you can step in more and change to different problems, or
you can work to keep your head over towards the contact side.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5rWS...tailpage#t=20s

Mild version, but stop the vid as soon as it hits 21 secs and look how Fed's
head is over his outside foot, but body forms a small bow from head to foot,
as he pull off the shot slightly. I will look for a more obvious example as well.

[Frank Silbermann]

Originally Posted by MikeyBigShot

I'm thinking traditional and classic means different things to different people. I'm going to start labeling forehands like this:

Great Grandfather: Close stance forehand drive

Grandfather: Neutral stance extend down the line (Brent Abel style)

Father: Sharapova style

Kid: Windshield wiper

Bill Tilden taught the closed stance forehand drive, with both heel and knuckle of the hand on bevel 3. He was credited with being the originator of modern tennis technique. (Before Tilden there were probably at least as many continental and western grips as eastern.)

I saw an article by Jack Kramer written around 1960 in which he described what he called the modern eastern forehand (heel of the hand on bevel 2, index knuckle on bevel 3 near bevel 2). This was essentially the Brent Abel style. So that would be the modern forehand.

The Sharapoval and windshield-wiper styles would have to be called post-modern, because they more or less have replaced the modern forehand (the one described in the article by Jack Kramer). Or, one can call them "incorrect" forehands, since the majority of tennis coaches over the past century taught that the "shake-hands" grip was the correct way to hold the racket for a forehand, and that one should strive to hit one's ground strokes flat with a closed or square stance (admitting that, in practice, most forehands will carry a touch of topspin and most good backhands a touch of under-spin).

With today's equipment and court surfaces, the incorrect techniques seem to be superior. My current style is to strive to hit a forehand that is moderately incorrect (open stance, index knuckle at the bottom of bevel 3, and a conscious attempt to swing up at the ball for topspin), and go to a forehand that is incorrect in the other direction (i.e. near-continental) for balls that are very wide or low.

Originally Posted by FrisbeeFool

How ironic, that you are calling me a flat-earther, but you don't understand the basic geometry of a circle. You think the most important distinction between modern and old-school technique is linear vs angular momentum? Yet, you have no idea what those terms mean. When someone is using angular momentum, they are also using linear momentum. Any angular movement has linear components.

When Raphael Nadal hits a forehand, he is using both linear and angular momentum. It is not a case of either or.

If you want to break it down even more, it's also stance and situation dependent. All the top pros like Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Murrary, etc. excel in a variety of situations. Depending on the shot they are returning, and the shot they are executing, their strokes will have varying amounts of angularity or linearity.

It's never been a case of Linear vs Angular. It's a case of linear and angular. Ironic that you Limpinhitter, are calling me a flat-earther, but you insist on seeing things in such black and white terms. It you're going to throw around the terms linear and angular momentum in so many threads, maybe you should sit down and take some time to understand what they actually mean.

You my friend, are correct....There are linear and angular componants to all swings..it's never been a case of either/or. The Mtm guys just use this as a straw man to differentiate there teaching style...It's much ado about nothing.

[sureshs]

^^^ Awesome post and directly addressing the main issue

[5263]

Originally Posted by chico9166

You my friend, are correct....There are linear and angular componants to all swings..it's never been a case of either/or. The Mtm guys just use this as a straw man to differentiate there teaching style...It's much ado about nothing.

Your post is mostly correct except the part about how mtm guys use it.
It in no way addresses MTM instructional style and
I don't think MTM focus on that at all unless you are speaking of a particular
aspect of a swing.
We all realize our MTM swing is very linear as we line up for contact and
also that classic strokes use a bit of angular as well.
Sorry, but that part is just more of the mis-info propaganda.
nice try though,

[5263]

Originally Posted by sureshs

^^^ Awesome post and directly addressing the main issue

Super...glad you think that is the main issue, since it clearly proves our point.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by 5263

Limpin, feel free to correct me, but it seems to me you are just using the common
lingo of the board to communicate with the folks who post here. While I agree
that technically Fris is correct, I'm not sure how useful his distinction is to the
discussion. The terms seem to represent the predominant view and forces involved.

That's correct. I'm using the terms commonly used in tennis, here and elsewhere, to distinguish between the linear weight transfer of a traditional stroke and the upper body rotation associated with a modern stroke. FF is just looking for something to argue about.

[5263]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

That's correct. I'm using the terms commonly used in tennis, here and elsewhere, to distinguish between the linear weight transfer of a traditional stroke and the upper body rotation associated with a modern stroke. FF is just looking for something to argue about.

Yes, thanks.
Then they go on the claim this is MTM lingo. I'm like you, that if I stated it that
way, it was due to the common usage of the posters here....not from MTM terms.

Originally Posted by 5263

Your post is mostly correct except the part about how mtm guys use it.
It in no way addresses MTM instructional style and
I don't think MTM focus on that at all unless you are speaking of a particular
aspect of a swing.
We all realize our MTM swing is very linear as we line up for contact and
also that classic strokes use a bit of angular as well.
Sorry, but that part is just more of the mis-info propaganda.
nice try though,

I was talking principally about linear and angular usage of body....not racquet/path...Anyway since you feel inclined to "grade" everyone's answer, can you please explain how this works.

[5263]

Originally Posted by chico9166

I was talking principally about linear and angular usage of body....not racquet/path...Anyway since you feel inclined to "grade" everyone's answer, can you please explain how this works.

I'm not inclined to explain things for you and don't grade answer's, but
do correct the mis-info improperly attributed to MTM. There is a difference.
It would be better for you to share what you think you know and avoid speaking
for MTM.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by chico9166

I was talking principally about linear and angular usage of body....not racquet/path...Anyway since you feel inclined to "grade" everyone's answer, can you please explain how this works.

Really? How is your use of linear vs. angular use of the body differ from my use of it, since you concurred in FF's criticism of my use?

Originally Posted by 5263

I'm not inclined to explain things for you and don't grade answer's, but
do correct the mis-info improperly attributed to MTM. There is a difference.
It would be better for you to share what you think you know and avoid speaking
for MTM.

LOl, that's kinda what i thought.

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Really? How is your use of linear vs. angular use of the body differ from my use of it, since you concurred in FF's criticism of my use?

Because linear and angular momentum of body are not mutually exculsive.....pretty simple. One doesn't have to to own a PHD in biomechanics to give there opinion here, but when you come across as an expert, you should have a decent idea of how these two componants work. You're a smart guy though, so I'll give you a hint. The body's use of linear momentum is present in all strokes past or present, old school/modern, across stance permutations, etc etc.

[5263]

Originally Posted by chico9166

You're a smart guy though, so I'll give you a hint. The body's use of linear momentum is present in all strokes past or present, old school/modern, across stance permutations, etc etc.

Thanks, but your hint is not needed. Just because I'm not inclined to explain it
for you does not mean I'm not schooled up on that info.
It also seems you confuse how something is expressed for Math vs what it actually is.
The linear momentum in angular momentum is just a component
of expressing angular momentum or a result of it.
Nice try though.

Originally Posted by 5263

Thanks, but your hint is not needed. Just because I'm not inclined to explain it
for you does not mean I'm not schooled up on that info.
It also seems you confuse how something is expressed for Math vs what it actually is.
The linear momentum in angular momentum is just a component
of expressing angular momentum or a result of it.
Nice try though.

No kidding,,,, that's why I would never use the linear vs angular distinction.

[sureshs]

Linear momentum and angular momentum are ANALOGOUS in Physics between translation and rotational motion, like displacement<->angle, linear velocity<->angular velocity, linear acceleration<->angular acceleration, linear momentum<->angular momentum, force<->torque.

Angular momentum can be expressed in terms of linear momentum for a single particle in circular motion in a straightforward way, but not for a rigid body (angular momentum is MOI*angular velocity, linear momentum in mass*linear velocity of center of mass).

A purely rotating body (with no movement of its center of mass) has angular momentum but no linear momentum. A body with center of mass moving in a straight line has linear momentum and no angular momentum. For cases in between, a body has both kinds of momentum, but they are independent and have NO connection with each other.

In summary, angular momentum has really nothing to do with linear momentum.

[5263]

" that's why I would never use the linear vs angular distinction." -quote

your choice, but it is the common lingo on this forum, so sort of leaves you
out of the discussions you like so much.

Originally Posted by sureshs

Linear momentum and angular momentum are ANALOGOUS in Physics between translation and rotational motion, like displacement<->angle, linear velocity<->angular velocity, linear acceleration<->angular acceleration, linear momentum<->angular momentum, force<->torque.

Angular momentum can be expressed in terms of linear momentum for a single particle in circular motion in a straightforward way, but not for a rigid body (angular momentum is MOI*angular velocity, linear momentum in mass*linear velocity of center of mass).

A purely rotating body (with no movement of its center of mass) has angular momentum but no linear momentum. A body with center of mass moving in a straight line has linear momentum and no angular momentum. For cases in between, a body has both kinds of momentum, but they are independent and have NO connection with each other.

In summary, angular momentum has really nothing to do with linear momentum.

Suresh, so are you saying that linear momentum cannot act as a catalyst to increase end point angular output? If so, i disagree.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by chico9166

Suresh, so are you saying that linear momentum cannot act as a catalyst to increase end point angular output? If so, i disagree.

It can act as a catalyst, just like footwork can also act as a catalyst in any stroke. But angular and linear momentum are two different things, and your "piecewise linear" approximation of a circle as a series of chords is not relevant to it.

If you are saying that there is a huge difference between staying still and rotating your racket, and moving your upper body forward and leaning on the ball and rotating your racket, you are right.

[FrisbeeFool]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

That's correct. I'm using the terms commonly used in tennis, here and elsewhere, to distinguish between the linear weight transfer of a traditional stroke and the upper body rotation associated with a modern stroke. FF is just looking for something to argue about.

Most people that use these terms understand what they mean, though. It's fine to use those terms. However, if you're running around telling everyone that modern tennis has abandoned the use of linear momentum, you clearly don't understand what these terms mean. There is nothing wrong with the terminology, only with your understanding of the terminology.

As usual Limpinhitter, you have missed the point, and carried on with your facile, black vs white approach to the world.