confused w/ the term "MTM"

[JohnYandell]

Yes. Shut up and that will be fine.

[Ash_Smith]

and we were doing so well... delete thread...

[treblings]

FrisbeeFool,

i haven´t found anything on footwork from mtm, but contrary to you i´m not mad at them for it.
maybe i haven´t looked closely enough or in the wrong places or should just buy some of their dvds
with my advanced players i´m obviously doing movement drills
lots of excellent info available on the internet like the one you mentioned.
with a lot of seasoned players who come to me hoping to improve their game it´s more a process of unlearning bad habits.
i find that in the past, too much emphasis has been put on teaching ´proper´footwork to beginners, thereby confusing them. some people move so awkward on a tennis court, like they would never do on a soccer field, for example.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by bhupaes

I would put equipment at the bottom of the heap from the point of view of defining modern tennis,

These are not scientific terms to be "defined." It is well commented on by many pros (verified ones LOL) who have become commentators that larger heads with more sweetspot area, poly strings, and new lighter materials have revolutionized the game. There is no point is pretending that it did not happen because Laver could hit topspin in 1965. In fact, in his book, Oscar explains the concept of a "modern sweetspot" which was almost as big as the head itself. Now, you may laugh at that claim and rightfully so (we all did), but the point is he explained his "hitting on the lower half" idea using the expanded sweetspot (and you explained it again properly LOL). So it is clear that you have not understood his teachings regarding equipment.

[TennisCJC]

Now boys this has really gotten ugly. Lift it up a notch OK.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by sureshs

I didn't suggest that in the manner you describe. Quite a few people were posting and it seemed improbable that the TV broadcasts influenced Nalbandian. There were jokes made about influence through electromagnetic waves.

He also said that the former Yugoslavia was showing his broadcasts when Djoko was growing up, remember?

When I said I learnt from TV, I meant from watching the pros. Frankly, I have not benefited from the 1-minute clinic segments on Tennis Channel.

What a rip off! My Tennis Channel disappeared last night. Turns out it has been moved to a higher package on ATT Uverse. Since I cannot live without the channel, I agreed to pay $15 more a month and get a bunch of more channels which I will never watch.

These guys kill any bill in Congress which mandates that viewers choose their channels and pay per channel.

[5263]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

From my view, there is no chicken and egg debate. A degree of the modern technique being used today was being used by many players (some more than others), before modern racquets were developed. By degree, I mean the amount and speed of upper body rotation, the amount of arm supination/pronation, the severity of the ascending swing path, the racquet speed, the grip, etc. But, the technique being used in 1970, which incorporated these elements, continued to evolve to the degree they are being used today as the racquets got bigger, lighter and more rigid, and the strings able to impart more spin.

I agree this is a better way to state it and agree this make a lot of sense.

[bhupaes]

Originally Posted by sureshs

These are not scientific terms to be "defined." It is well commented on by many pros (verified ones LOL) who have become commentators that larger heads with more sweetspot area, poly strings, and new lighter materials have revolutionized the game. There is no point is pretending that it did not happen because Laver could hit topspin in 1965. In fact, in his book, Oscar explains the concept of a "modern sweetspot" which was almost as big as the head itself. Now, you may laugh at that claim and rightfully so (we all did), but the point is he explained his "hitting on the lower half" idea using the expanded sweetspot (and you explained it again properly LOL). So it is clear that you have not understood his teachings regarding equipment.

I recognize it is beyond my expressive powers to get my point across to you in this forum, so I won't even try. Sorry! On the plus side, I believe I just saved everyone a barrage of redundant verbiage...

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by bhupaes

Indeed, that is the point. So much so that if I were to prioritize the characteristics of modern tennis going from the most important to the least, I would say that the path of the racquet relative to the ball is the primary distinguishing feature of modern tennis. The next prominent feature is an enormously improved awareness, and use, of body kinetics in stroke making. I would put equipment at the bottom of the heap from the point of view of defining modern tennis, but it is significant in that the resulting increase in speed and spin has fostered new tactics and forced players to achieve ungodly fitness levels.

I don't agree. The equipment is what has allowed the game to evolve as far as it has. The degree of departure from traditional strokes to the modern strokes we see today would not be a practical way to hit the ball with wood racquets. Did you know that the sweet spot on a traditional wood racquet is barely the size of a tennis ball?

Laver was probably the hardest hitter, with fastest racquet speed, the biggest supination/pronation, the steepest ascent, and the heaviest topspin in the history of tennis with a wood racquet. But, Laver's stroke wasn't half of what today's players are doing in those respects. It couldn't be, even with Laver's amazing talent and freakishly oversized left arm. You just can't swing at the ball like that, with such a steep swing path, with a heavy wood racquet, and consistently hit the tennis ball size sweet spot, much less generate the racquet speed of todays game.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by bhupaes

I recognize it is beyond my expressive powers to get my point across to you in this forum, so I won't even try. Sorry! On the plus side, I believe I just saved everyone a barrage of redundant verbiage...

You need to get it across to Oscar, not me, because he was the one who pointed out the role of the modern sweetspot in current frames and its role in topspin. It is OK if you don't agree with him and think that it is easy to hit with topspin with a 65 sq inch frame. Actually, I was able to do it too, but probably not at the pro level.

[bhupaes]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

I don't agree. The equipment is what has allowed the game to evolve as far as it has. The degree of departure from traditional strokes to the modern strokes we see today would not be a practical way to hit the ball with wood racquets. Did you know that the sweet spot on a traditional wood racquet is barely the size of a tennis ball?

Laver was probably the hardest hitter, with fastest racquet speed, the biggest supination/pronation, the steepest ascent, and the heaviest topspin in the history of tennis with a wood racquet. But, Laver's stroke wasn't half of what today's players are doing in those respects. It couldn't be, even with Laver's amazing talent and freakishly oversized left arm. You just can't swing at the ball like that, with such a steep swing path, with a heavy wood racquet, and consistently hit the tennis ball size sweet spot, much less generate the racquet speed of todays game.

Agreed, absolutely! Equipment has influenced the evolution of the modern game. But my point is, when you are trying to define what the modern game is, where would you fit in equipment? Let's say you watch a Laver/Rosewall game and a Federer/Nadal game and are asked to point out what the differences are. Where would equipment come in, in your description? One can play modern tennis with older equipment, and one can play classical tennis with new equipment. That's why I believe that equipment is not a defining characteristic of modern tennis, although it is a primary enabler. Maybe I am just quibbling and we are all actually in agreement...

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

I don't agree. The equipment is what has allowed the game to evolve as far as it has. The degree of departure from traditional strokes to the modern strokes we see today would not be a practical way to hit the ball with wood racquets. Did you know that the sweet spot on a traditional wood racquet is barely the size of a tennis ball?

Laver was probably the hardest hitter, with fastest racquet speed, the biggest supination/pronation, the steepest ascent, and the heaviest topspin in the history of tennis with a wood racquet. But, Laver's stroke wasn't half of what today's players are doing in those respects. It couldn't be, even with Laver's amazing talent and freakishly oversized left arm. You just can't swing at the ball like that, with such a steep swing path, with a heavy wood racquet, and consistently hit the tennis ball size sweet spot, much less generate the racquet speed of todays game.

Chris Evert has said that most of the attention in her time went into making solid contact with a tiny sweetspot leaving little room for anything else. I guess Bhupaes knows more than her though I personally will go with what real pros say.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by bhupaes

One can play modern tennis with older equipment, and one can play classical tennis with new equipment.

Your premise is wrong, that is the problem.

"One" is too vague. Surely one person like Laver can hit with a lot of topspin. But it is extremely difficult for most people, even pros, to play the modern game with old equipment. As has been pointed out before, Djokovic has confirmed it. Chris Evert said that a long time ago. JMac has said it a hundred times. Wayne Bryan tried to prevent his sons from playing a wood expo before the USO out of fear of injury.

Read the expert Rod Cross here and learn the facts before arguing:

http://www.racquetsportsindustry.com..._tennis_f.html

[treblings]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Your premise is wrong, that is the problem.

"One" is too vague. Surely one person like Laver can hit with a lot of topspin. But it is extremely difficult for most people, even pros, to play the modern game with old equipment. As has been pointed out before, Djokovic has confirmed it. Chris Evert said that a long time ago. JMac has said it a hundred times. Wayne Bryan tried to prevent his sons from playing a wood expo before the USO out of fear of injury.

Read the expert Rod Cross here and learn the facts before arguing:

http://www.racquetsportsindustry.com..._tennis_f.html

i love that article by rod cross
rosewall and hoad barely breaking a sweat.
players grunting and screaming and reaching for their towel because of the demands of the modern game.
do post that in the former pro forum

[toly]

Here is very good analysis of the typical Nadal FH racquet path http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...-Forehand.html.

The picture 1, clearly demonstrates that around impact, frames from #5 to #7, there is no “special” horizontal across motion at all. It occurs after impact, frame #9.



The picture 2 shows that during contact racquet’s path is almost straight forward. IMO, it must be this way if we want to hit powerful FH.

There also is no compact swing and sudden, 3” before impact, racquet acceleration.

So far I see zero correlation between Wegner recommendations and real professional game. That’s why virtually nobody can comprehend MTM. We cannot see what is not there.

[5263]

Originally Posted by toly

The picture 1, clearly demonstrates that around impact, frames from #5 to #7, there is no “special” horizontal across motion at all. It occurs after impact, frame #9.

The picture 2 shows that during contact racquet’s path is almost straight forward. IMO, it must be this way if we want to hit powerful FH.
.

Are you serious?? That is what you see when you look at that?
Pic 2 bears little resemblance to pic one to start with.

You really can't see how the arc starts at #6 and is very heavy by #7 on to 8?
Wow. That explains a lot about your observations.
Not sure what a "special horizontal across motion" is?
But it is clearly across.
Doesn't the greater gap between #s indicate more speed?
And it's only from 2D perspective right?
Are you the one who did that pic 2? which seems to have come from an
entirely different observation.

[toly]

Originally Posted by 5263

Are you serious?? That is what you see when you look at that?
Pic 2 bears little resemblance to pic one to start with.

You really can't see how the arc starts at #6 and is very heavy by #7 on to 8?
Wow. That explains a lot about your observations.
Not sure what a "special horizontal across motion" is?
But it is clearly across.
Doesn't the greater gap between #s indicate more speed?
And it's only from 2D perspective right?
Are you the one who did that pic 2? which seems to have come from an
entirely different observation.

Why have you never read messages from other parties carefully? The picture 2 has come from The New York Times video, see please post 135.
I didn’t insert all frames in picture 1 in order to demonstrate the ball’s path clearly. So, you cannot evaluate speed and acceleration of the racquet.

About arm speed and acceleration see my old post.

I analyzed Federer inside out hard FH on the APAS System http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPLmCqGIotM

There are data about his arm speed and acceleration around the wrist during forward swing.


Figure 1. Speed and acceleration of the arm

The picture demonstrates that Federer is able to increase acceleration/force of the arm from frame #1 to #9. The magnitude of the force declined after frame #9. Around impact, frame #24, acceleration decreased more than 70%.

So, he is not able to accelerate the arm significantly near impact. But, this is very hard FH and without doubt he is trying to produce maximum acceleration/force.

Question: What is wrong with Federer?

There is figure from http://sanderroosendaal.wordpress.co...raction-speed/


Figure 2. Muscle force versus muscle contraction speed

Figure 2 shows the muscle force versus muscle contraction speed. It’s a very important graph because it marks where classical mechanics stops and exercise physiology starts. Note that the graph is idealized, with no absolute values on the axis. Each athlete will have a slightly different graph, which will probably also change as a result of training.

This fundamental property of muscle has numerous biomechanical consequences, including limiting racquet speed and force around impact.

So, there's nothing wrong with Federer. It's just a biomechanical law that he must unquestioningly obey!

If you don’t like my analyses, please reveal your own, enough already useless words without any proof.

[nabrug]

Toly,

Why do you want to convince 5263 (and other amatures)? He is a very part time teacher. I am a full time professional who can hit almost every pro stroke. All your observations about the serves and ball trajectories are correct. The MTM observations (up, across and ?) are so naive. Maybe that happens but is so general that you can maybe help an intermediate player. It is not describing the far more complex arm and racket action of the pro's. I am making models of these actions. It is as naive as the Smart Targets System which is already a system and what you can buy next year.

I like your thoughts and studying. Please continue. Answer people like 5263 once and than let them think what they want to think.

[Off The Wall]

Originally Posted by toly

Here is very good analysis of the typical Nadal FH racquet path http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...-Forehand.html.

The picture 1, clearly demonstrates that around impact, frames from #5 to #7, there is no “special” horizontal across motion at all. It occurs after impact, frame #9.



The picture 2 shows that during contact racquet’s path is almost straight forward. IMO, it must be this way if we want to hit powerful FH.

There also is no compact swing and sudden, 3” before impact, racquet acceleration.

So far I see zero correlation between Wegner recommendations and real professional game. That’s why virtually nobody can comprehend MTM. We cannot see what is not there.

IMO, given the target path (DTL) and his arm extension, there cannot be a lot of horizontal motion, but some will be there because of his wrist movement. His big controlling spin is TS, and lots of it.

[5263]

Originally Posted by nabrug

The MTM observations (up, across and ?) are so naive. Maybe that happens

Maybe?
You mean a super pro of inner systems like you who can hit nearly every shot
isn't sure or doesn't know?
You have been talking inner characteristics for over 5 yrs now and I've never
seen anyone who had a clue what you are saying, despite numerous request
for you explanations by full time coaches, so really can't wait to hear of your
advanced models, lol.