confused w/ the term "MTM"

[5263]

You can't just start at the tip of one of the rackets and draw a straight line thru
where you want it to go as it passes thru more of the rackets and does not
stay at the tip...then say the racket travels in a straight line. lol
I'm saying this even though your mis-info is mostly inline with what I'm saying!

The fact that this segment travels near a straight line as you align with the ball
for contact,
is what I have been sharing all along.

I guess you keep leaving out the across part of the stroke at and after contact for
some reason?

and we still have no outward ball path, right?

and the Main thing is your pic is pretty clear how the hand, the main MTM reference, is working
across prior to contact to such an extent that we can tell that is likely true even without the
outward target line.

[Cheetah]

5263, why don't you tell toly where you would like the lines placed etc so that he could draw that up so we could see?

[toly]

Originally Posted by 5263

You can't just start at the tip of one of the rackets and draw a straight line thru
where you want it to go as it passes thru more of the rackets and does not
stay at the tip...then say the racket travels in a straight line. lol
I'm saying this even though your mis-info is mostly inline with what I'm saying!

The fact that this segment travels near a straight line as you align with the ball
for contact,
is what I have been sharing all along.

I guess you keep leaving out the across part of the stroke at and after contact for
some reason?


and we still have no outward ball path, right?

and the Main thing is your pic is pretty clear how the hand, the main MTM reference, is working
across prior to contact to such an extent that we can tell that is likely true even without the
outward target line.

First of all give us definition of horizontal “across aspect”. Then explain in what frame exactly before impact Nadal starts producing “across aspect”. I asked you many times already and never got the answer. I just cannot talk about undefined term.

I’m pro in interpolation and approximation. You even cannot imagine what I know about this stuff.

[Orion3]

Question for 5263 - slighlty off (current) topic - but a bit closer to the OP's topic

Hands up - I know very little about MTM, Oscar etc.

Looking at some of his video's though the MTM forehand looks incredibly similar to Couriers - one of the first pro's I recall hitting a WW finish.

So to the question - is Couriers forehand typical of the MTM forehand? Albeit he finished across his body rather than over his shoulder.

[Ash_Smith]

Originally Posted by 5263

and the Main thing is your pic is pretty clear how the hand, the main MTM reference, is working
across prior to contact to such an extent that we can tell that is likely true even without the
outward target line.

Loving this discussion!

My "issue" such as it is with the "working across prior to contact" as an instruction is that if you look at Toly's image, whilst you can see that Rafa's hand is moving across his body in those frames (it has too because it is attached to his arm!), it still maintains the same distance from his body throughout. With an instruction of "working across prior to contact" there is a big danger (imo) of players literally pulling the hand across and therefore closing the distance and likely causing the elbow to rotate out and consequently losing stability.

cheers

[toly]

Originally Posted by Ash_Smith

Loving this discussion!

My "issue" such as it is with the "working across prior to contact" as an instruction is that if you look at Toly's image, whilst you can see that Rafa's hand is moving across his body in those frames (it has too because it is attached to his arm!), it still maintains the same distance from his body throughout. With an instruction of "working across prior to contact" there is a big danger (imo) of players literally pulling the hand across and therefore closing the distance and likely causing the elbow to rotate out and consequently losing stability.

cheers

The picture below absolutely clearly shows that there is no special horizontal “across aspect” due to the racquet tip constantly moves to the left. Thus, it can create clockwise sidespin or no sidespin at all. But, according to Wegner there should be significant counterclockwise sidespin.

[5263]

Originally Posted by Orion3

Question for 5263 - slighlty off (current) topic - but a bit closer to the OP's topic

Hands up - I know very little about MTM, Oscar etc.

Looking at some of his video's though the MTM forehand looks incredibly similar to Couriers - one of the first pro's I recall hitting a WW finish.

So to the question - is Couriers forehand typical of the MTM forehand? Albeit he finished across his body rather than over his shoulder.

Not knowing much about it is fine and why I'm on here.
Courier's Fh, like most of today's top pros is has many elements of MTM. I have
not studied him much and don't have a lot of good vid on him to do so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-dYn...etailpage#t=2s

Simply he does work from slightly below the contact to pull up and across
the shot. The basic over the shoulder finish is just the starting point for MTM,
and you can finish using the other types as well. I'm not really on board with
defining shots by a finish anyway.

[5263]

Originally Posted by toly

But, according to Wegner there should be significant counterclockwise sidespin.

I'm beginning to believe you are not an engineer, but just trolling.
Even surehs and other anti Oscar folks have agreed the stroke has "across aspect"

FROM CONTACT & AFTER.

Is that too hard for an engineer to see? You keep showing pics prior to contact
which is irrelevant to this point. Why?? Is this language difficulty?

As to Wegner's comments about sidespin...I expect if he said what you claim,
he was talking about a right hander, but would need a reference to that comment
to be more sure what that is about.

Either way, the pic above is not even addressing the issue.
I'm sorry, toly, but we have done this issue over and over with you seeming
to be the only one who doesn't get it. You might as well post a dog or cat for
evidence of your claims, as you keep showing the wrong part of the swing.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by Ash_Smith

Loving this discussion!

My "issue" such as it is with the "working across prior to contact" as an instruction is that if you look at Toly's image, whilst you can see that Rafa's hand is moving across his body in those frames (it has too because it is attached to his arm!), it still maintains the same distance from his body throughout. With an instruction of "working across prior to contact" there is a big danger (imo) of players literally pulling the hand across and therefore closing the distance and likely causing the elbow to rotate out and consequently losing stability.

cheers

Isn't that what Federer does?

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by toly

The picture below absolutely clearly shows that there is no special horizontal “across aspect” due to the racquet tip constantly moves to the left. Thus, it can create clockwise sidespin or no sidespin at all. But, according to Wegner there should be significant counterclockwise sidespin.

There is something fishy about this picture. Why does Nadal's racquet handle disappear, and then reappear, during the swing? It seems to me that his racquet path does not match his hand path. Toly?

[sureshs]

Prior to contact is the most important, because that is when the velocity is being gathered and the direction set to hit the ball. It is useless to say that what happens before impact does nothing to the ball. Of course it doesn't, but the path before contact is responsible for the contact.

Clearly Nadal is meeting the ball in an arc which approaches the direction to target as the contact gets closer. That determines how the ball will be impacted.

What happens after impact is really unimportant but it is a natural consequence of the stroke and should not be under-emphasized. Just like sprinters don't come to a standstill after a 100m race, it is a physical and psychological aspect of humans.

The closing of the racket around the body also helps in recovery for the next shot. That may be a key reason which I have not seen discussed before. If you keep the racket more out in front, you are off-balance. If you turn it around, you have made yourself more compact and balanced with no floating limbs. An earlier version of this was the advice to catch the racket with the left hand after the swing, though it may not be advisable with today's swing speeds.

[tennisfan69]

Let me know if this kind of video capture helps in analyzing the swing path analysis. i just used 250fps video from JY website and used the arrow keys to go back and forth.
i can do this for FEd,nadal, djo, agassi sampras, etc.
thanks John for the videos.
http://youtu.be/YPiEfGA7zkQ

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by tennisfan69

Let me know if this kind of video capture helps in analyzing the swing path analysis. i just used 250fps video from JY website and used the arrow keys to go back and forth.
i can do this for FEd,nadal, djo, agassi sampras, etc.
thanks John for the videos.
http://youtu.be/YPiEfGA7zkQ

tf69, What is this video supposed to demonstrate?

[tennisfan69]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

tf69, What is this video supposed to demonstrate?

i thought there was a swing path analysis discussion going on in this thread. so we can isolate the just before contact and post contact swing path and see what is going on at the top level.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by tennisfan69

i thought there was a swing path analysis discussion going on in this thread. so we can isolate the just before contact and post contact swing path and see what is going on at the top level.

What pre and post contact swing path conclusions can you reach from that video?

PS: Could you reach the same conclusions from this video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCm6OIjbPr4

PPS: How about this video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...x2zqpp0rI&NR=1

[tennisfan69]

that is up for discussion. but from analyzing various videos like this of top players, the question to be answered is if the pulling across is a deliberate action or it is a consequence of the swing.
the concept of hitting thru 3-5 balls as being coached at where my sons get coached, i am interested from experts here is it correct. so i dont have any conclusion, but more questions.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by tennisfan69

that is up for discussion. but from analyzing various videos like this of top players, the question to be answered is if the pulling across is a deliberate action or it is a consequence of the swing.
the concept of hitting thru 3-5 balls as being coached at where my sons get coached, i am interested from experts here is it correct. so i dont have any conclusion, but more questions.

If that's your question, then, IMO, the notion of hitting through 3-5 balls "after contact" is obsolete. That's not the way to hit with the power and the heavy topspin being used by the top players today.

Having said that, IMO, the swinging across aspect of the swing path is not so much a result of purposely pulling across. (Some here disagree about that). Rather, IMO, it is a function of the correct contact point being so far out front that there's no where else for the arm to go, and of the upper body rotation inherent in a modern stroke before and after contact. If you make contact at the correct point, it would be very awkward, if not impossible, to continue to swing toward the target for 3-5 balls. That is the typical instruction for a traditional forehand hit with a neutral or closed stance where the contact point is between the feet, in front of the chest while the chest is facing the side fence. With a modern forehand, the upper body has rotated before contact so that the chest should be facing the target before contact, and continues to rotate until it faces the other side fence at the finish. That's why an open stance is generally required to fully execute a modern forehand.

[Ash_Smith]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Isn't that what Federer does?

no it isn't

[tennisfan69]

Does bent elbow vs locked/straight elbow play any role in contact point? it seems if you play bent elbow then the contact point seems closer to the body and the pulling across is more pronounced or seems deliberate. if straight/locked elbow then the contact point is so far in front the arm just comes in as a consequence..is this what you observe.

[5263]

Originally Posted by Cheetah

5263, why don't you tell toly where you would like the lines placed etc so that he could draw that up so we could see?

Have I not been clear for him that we are talking ...from contact on... with the racket?

His pics do show how the hand starts to lead the across before contact which
leads to the racket head catching up as he points out.

He should be consistent also with where his lines ref the racket.
Stay tangent to the tip is the best or
next if using the contact point, to keep working thru the successive rackets
at the same spot on the racket.
Does that help?