confused w/ the term "MTM"

[5263]

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.

good questions here, but matters little if you think about the across as deliberate
or that it is a consequence of the swing...that is really the same. You deliberately
swing so that the racket works across the ball, as a consequence of that swing.

Your son is being coached wrong imo unless he is only hitting the last of the 3 balls.
you can swing near straight to the last ball thru 3-5, but hit and
work across the last one.
I really don't like that teaching in any way I've seen it though, but just trying
to make some sense of it.

[5263]

Originally Posted by sureshs

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.

No, no more than say what happens after does not matter. None of it is without
the other. In this case, they are clearly connected by contact.

[5263]

Originally Posted by Ash_Smith

Loving this discussion!

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

glad you love the discussion and I agree, it is a good issue to explore, as so
many seem to misunderstand it.

Pretty sure it is not a big danger, as I've never run into that problem.
I'm thinking the "finding the ball" alignment segment sets things up so
that does not happen. It is all related as a unit and looking at one part
separate does not always make the process more clear. We don't teach
in pieces and I only deal with it this way here due to the questions on here.

[5263]

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

I like your vid here, but the angle is not the best. I still think anyone can see
how the hand is working across if they have an open mind to the concept.
You can also see he could extend the bend in his elbow or step more into the
ball if his goal was to extend on the target line past contact; clearly would NOT
have to stretch his arm as some have suggested.

[5263]

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

Not perfect, but a better angle here for seeing the across as well as the open
stance picked when he has time to get set vs the closed or neutral stance many
suggest for stepping in on short ball attacks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xog5U...tailpage#t=18s
and here is one on a recovery Fh I like-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rIGD...tailpage#t=24s
see how he works across.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

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?

Still waiting for an answer to this one.

[5263]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Still waiting for an answer to this one.

Isn't that just the consequence of Nadal's pronounced racket drag leading to the
hand covering where the handle goes in the following pics?

[ga tennis]

All your questions can be answered for free by someone who has trained several pros from 8 to the tour. Its funny reading alot of this nonsense people put on this site. If you need heart surgery do you go to someone who says they know how to do it but has no track record or do you go to someone who has a proven solid track record? Go to www.virtualtennisacademy.com and all your questions will be answered.

[5263]

Originally Posted by ga tennis

All your questions can be answered for free by someone who has trained several pros from 8 to the tour. Its funny reading alot of this nonsense people put on this site. If you need heart surgery do you go to someone who says they know how to do it but has no track record or do you go to someone who has a proven solid track record? Go to www.virtualtennisacademy.com and all your questions will be answered.

Yep, Oscar fits that description, but actually your avg guy on tour is not usually
aware of most of these details.
Your analogy is more like asking the guy details who just got the heart surgery,
It's not him that did the study... it's the doc and he learned it from study, then
practice in OR...not the other way around.

[ga tennis]

Originally Posted by 5263

Yep, Oscar fits that description, but actually your avg guy on tour is not usually
aware of most of these details.
Your analogy is more like asking the guy details who just got the heart surgery,
It's not him that did the study... it's the doc and he learned it from study, then
practice in OR...not the other way around.

Too funny!!! If you are just starting tennis im sure Oscar or V.Braden will be very helpful.

[5263]

Originally Posted by ga tennis

Too funny!!! If you are just starting tennis im sure Oscar or V.Braden will be very helpful.

Since you are familiar with that site...is Heath still teaching to get the racket
back facing the back fence as you run to the ball? Maybe that is related to the
work on WTA?
Either way, most posters on here are more beginner 3.5-low 4.0 status, even if your comment
was valid.

[Cheetah]

Originally Posted by 5263

Since you are familiar with that site...is Heath still teaching to get the racket
back facing the back fence as you run to the ball? Maybe that is related to the
work on WTA?
Either way, most posters on here are more beginner 3.5-low 4.0 status, even if your comment
was valid.

Heath used to teach that? Are you sure? I've seen every vid on his site numerous times and most of the big forehand videos are 4-5 years old and he doesn't teach racquet facing the back fence in those. He's pretty adamant about the racquet facing the side more or less with a neutral wrist in all his vids and articles.
Was that a long time ago you are referring too?

[5263]

Originally Posted by Cheetah

Heath used to teach that? Are you sure? I've seen every vid on his site numerous times and most of the big forehand videos are 4-5 years old and he doesn't teach racquet facing the back fence in those. He's pretty adamant about the racquet facing the side more or less with a neutral wrist in all his vids and articles.
Was that a long time ago you are referring too?

It's been quite a few years around 2000, and he was/is a pretty good coach, but I mainly
mention it because that poster (who may be Heath) is poking fun at Oscar & vic.
2000 has been a few years, but Oscar knew better than that a decade or
so before 2000. I don't think there is anything in the millennium Fh that the
modern Fh needs and it also had an overemphasis on extension back in the day.
Imo virtual academy seemed to borrow heavy from Oscar's system with some their
own adjustments that were off a bit. Maybe he developed it mostly on his own and
just got sort of close to what Oscar did 15+ yrs before?? don't know.

[Cheetah]

ok. just checking. i just know it's not there now. no biggie.

Not sure what you mean by "don't think there is anything in the millennium Fh that the modern Fh needs". That fh is pretty good i think. That vid teaches a good ready position, unit turn, takeback, racquet position, some ssc in there, contact point, swing path, follow through and several finishes. It looks just like fh's of today if you ask me. He coaches his wife who is still on the tour and played in the u.s open this year and she has a henin type swing. swings like a guy.

[toly]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Still waiting for an answer to this one.

The following pictures show the initial movements of Nadal forward swing.



He applies arm supination and wrist extension. That’s why tip of the racquet moves backward relative to his left leg, but arm and racquet’s handle travel forward. Compare pic.1 and pic.3.

Maybe next picture can reduce optical illusion.



You also can check JY tennisplayer.net original video http://www.tennisplayer.net/public/t...wing_path.html.

[bhupaes]

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.

This is a crucial observation - that the tip of the racquet is actually moving to the left, while the hand is actually pulling the racquet to the right.

What is happening is that Nadal is rotating his upper arm, as in internal shoulder rotation. This causes the racquet that is pointing downwards to become more horizontal, and the tip moves outwards faster than the hand is moving in. This is the real effect of pulling across - it whips the racquet outwards, forwards and upwards, due to the leverage of the arm structure. This is the purpose of pulling in - it is not for adding sidespin.

In general, the racquet is pulled in using two movements - internal shoulder rotation, and the biceps. Those with bent arm forehands use the biceps more than those who use straight arms. Nadal clearly is an extreme sort of guy , and seems to be using only ISR.

Sidespin can happen, however. If the grip is more western, the pulling in of the racquet causes the head to rise up more vertically, which is what this particular stroke sequence is showing. If the grip is more eastern, I think there will be more forward and sideways movement, as I suspect happens in Federer's stroke.

One more thing - the pulling in starts a little before contact. It is a deliberate move, and not something that happens because the arm is moving in a circle.

You can do shadow swings and experience what happens first hand... that's how I came to my conclusions.

[5263]

Originally Posted by toly

The following pictures show the initial movements of Nadal forward swing.

do you see the greater spacing of rackets prior to impact.
Does that not show accel?

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by bhupaes

This is a crucial observation - that the tip of the racquet is actually moving to the left, while the hand is actually pulling the racquet to the right.

It is not a crucial observation at all, but a fundamental characteristic of circular motion.

The hand is not consciously pulling the racket to the right, it is providing the centripetal force which keeps the racket moving in an arc. When you swing a string with the stone at the end, you don't say that you are pulling rightwards when the stone is on the left, leftwards when it is on the right, backwards when it is in the front, and forwards when it is in the back. To maintain the curved path of the stone, you always need to exert a central force, otherwise the stone will fly off at a tangent.

It has nothing to do with consciously pulling something in a particular direction (which changes every instant). Any claim that that there is an abrupt backwards or sideways pull just before contact is wrong.

[5263]

Originally Posted by Cheetah

ok. just checking. i just know it's not there now. no biggie.

Not sure what you mean by "don't think there is anything in the millennium Fh that the modern Fh needs". That fh is pretty good i think.

I guess I should have said anything the modern Fh is lacking or does not already
have. I also have not looked at his work in years, so he has likely made adjust-
ments to it as well.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by 5263

No, no more than say what happens after does not matter. None of it is without
the other. In this case, they are clearly connected by contact.

The motion before contact is what impacts the contact. It is a build up to contact.

Your claims about a deliberate across swing have been shown to be wrong when the intention is to hit solidly and not in a grazing fashion. It is due to body rotation into the ball. The claim of an abrupt pull back before contact has been shown to be wrong.