confused w/ the term "MTM"

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by arche3

No-one here is paying for it. Its a discussion on the coaching itself. Why do you keep trolling?

There is a coaching "system" which is being discussed here which is commercial. There was even a thread started to promote it which was deleted by the mods. Don't you even know that after all this time or are you just pretending to be ignorant?

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

criticizing Wegner for not having something that you now say has no practical value?

What does he not have which does not have practical value? Can you get rid of the double negatives and state your question?

[toly]

Originally Posted by arche3

Really? I'm not even saying Oscars methods should be deliberate but the swing mechanics of this montage shows to a t what Oscar is saying.
Racket accelerates as it approaches contact. Right after contact the arm pulls across as the biceps is contracted as forearm pronates.

I think I know what Oscar is getting at. He is trying to instill a mental picture of what should happen. I have read his small book and while simplistic it paints certain pictures of positions and movements you achieve in certain parts of tennis strokes. His is meant to guide your stroke. The big picture allowing for individual nuance.

You have to remember when Oscar was first applying his methods the majority of tennis coaches world wide were adamant about closed stance fh and hitting in the direction of the balls intent. The hit through 5 balls thing. Finishing into the line of the shot as long as possible. What Oscar proposed was pretty different.

Now, it is hard to distinguish Oscars methods from other modern coaches because people are using the same fundamental principles. But it does not diminish the fact that Oscar could of been the first to try to dissect the archetypical type of modern tennis mechanics and coaching.

Here is on more picture of Federer forehand.



Figure 1. Federer I/O forehand

This is a typical Federer FH. It is his bread and butter.

1. He starts hard acceleration from image #3, not in the end of the forward swing as Wegner explains. The maximum acceleration you can see in my post 137. So, about acceleration Wegner is completely wrong.

2. Around impact images 7 and 8 the end of handle moves along of perfect circuit due to the arm is straight, thus the radius of rotation is constant, and center of rotation is stable, images 7 & 8. There is no special sideway motion and change in the arm path. Wegner is wrong again.

3. Before impact the racquet moves to the right and cannot produce clockwise sidespin, but only counterclockwise, not like Wegner says.

4. Images from 1 to 7 make obvious that Federer straightens the elbow and he begins bending elbow long after impact, see image 11. But, Wegner explains that we should bend elbow before contact point.

Thus, practically all Wegner explanations about Federer FH are misleading!!!

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by toly

Here is on more picture of Federer forehand.



Figure 1. Federer I/O forehand

This is a typical Federer FH. It is his bread and butter.

1. He starts hard acceleration from image #3, not in the end of the forward swing as Wegner explains. The maximum acceleration you can see in my post 137. So, about acceleration Wegner is completely wrong.

2. Around impact images 7 and 8 the end of handle moves along of perfect circuit due to the arm is straight, thus the radius of rotation is constant, and center of rotation is stable, images 7 & 8. There is no special sideway motion and change in the arm path. Wegner is wrong again.

3. Before impact the racquet moves to the right and cannot produce clockwise sidespin, but only counterclockwise, not like Wegner says.

Thus, practically all Wegner explanations about Federer FH are misleading!!!

LOL are you surprised by that?

[toly]

Originally Posted by sureshs

LOL are you surprised by that?

I am surprised very much that a lot of people cannot or don’t want to see that, unbelievable.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by toly

I am surprised very much that a lot of people cannot or don’t want to see that, unbelievable.

They prefer to live in their illusions and try to find meaning in vague phrases by twisting them to their pleasure and then argue about their vague ideas about the vague phrases as if they really know something. Present them with evidence and they get upset because they cannot think on their own but feel comfortable with the vague phrases given to them.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by sureshs

What does he not have which does not have practical value? Can you get rid of the double negatives and state your question?

Read my entire post and give it another try:

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Sureshs, you have personally criticized Wegner on dozens of occasions for not inventing the modern tennis stroke and for not inventing modern tennis instruction. Why did you spend all that time writing all of those posts, wasting everyone's time, criticizing Wegner for not having something that you now say has no practical value?

[bhupaes]

Originally Posted by toly

I am surprised very much that a lot of people cannot or don’t want to see that, unbelievable.

Okay toly, why don't you breakdown this picture for my benefit, so I can be sure of what your position is. At present, all I know is that you think Wegner is wrong. For example, where does the acceleration start, where is it maximum, at what point does the hand start pulling in and what motions are used, when does the wrist become active, etc. Thanks.

[sureshs]

toly, don't waste your time re-posting the acceleration and speed graph etc again for people who are looking for magic bullet phrases and improvement in 2 hours etc. You will be told that they know that Federer in his head decided to something intentionally because of their psychic powers.

[bhupaes]

Toly, ignore sureshs and please do what I requested.

[sureshs]

toly, ignore bhupaes and don't do it

[bhupaes]

Toly, note that we have already talked about the information in your post #137. So there is no need to post charts, etc. Just reference the APAS sequence you posted to give me the information I asked for. And don't be intimidated by sureshs!

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by toly

Here is on more picture of Federer forehand.



Figure 1. Federer I/O forehand

This is a typical Federer FH. It is his bread and butter.

1. He starts hard acceleration from image #3, not in the end of the forward swing as Wegner explains. The maximum acceleration you can see in my post 137. So, about acceleration Wegner is completely wrong.

2. Around impact images 7 and 8 the end of handle moves along of perfect circuit due to the arm is straight, thus the radius of rotation is constant, and center of rotation is stable, images 7 & 8. There is no special sideway motion and change in the arm path. Wegner is wrong again.

3. Before impact the racquet moves to the right and cannot produce clockwise sidespin, but only counterclockwise, not like Wegner says.

Thus, practically all Wegner explanations about Federer FH are misleading!!!

More photographic agitprops by toly.

[JW10S]

What happens just prior to contact is of far more relevance to where the shot goes than what happens after contact. What happens after contact is usually just a byproduct of what happened prior to contact. Where the racquet ends up doesn't really tell you much about where the ball went.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by JW10S

What happens just prior to contact is of far more relevance to where the shot goes than what happens after contact. What happens after contact is usually just a byproduct of what happened prior to contact. Where the racquet ends up doesn't really tell you much about where the ball went.

I think you're overlooking something. You said that what happens with the racquet before contact is more important than what happens after contact, and, what happens after contact is a byproduct of what happened before contact. If that's so, then what happens after contact can be a good indicator of what happened before contact was executed correctly.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by JW10S

What happens just prior to contact is of far more relevance to where the shot goes than what happens after contact. What happens after contact is usually just a byproduct of what happened prior to contact. Where the racquet ends up doesn't really tell you much about where the ball went.

It is so obvious and in accordance with the principles of physics, that is why I cannot believe that I have argued with 5263 about it. He tried to muddy the waters by saying both are relevant (of course they are), that they are both connected by contact (of course), but just will not admit that the velocity, spin and direction are dictated by the build-up prior to contact. I frankly think I should follow the advice of some of the guys here and call it quits. I feel like I am banging my head against a brick wall explaining simple physics. They are looking for silver bullets which will transform their game and are willing to read whatever they want into vague statements and expand on them.

[JW10S]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

I think you're overlooking something. You said that what happens with the racquet before contact is more important than what happens after contact, and, what happens after contact is a byproduct of what happened before contact. If that's so, then what happens after contact can be a good indicator of what happened before contact was executed correctly.

True, and the opposite can be said as well, what happens after contact can be a good indicator that what happened prior to contact was executed incorrectly--as we see in the many vids posted here by players looking for advice. But not always. I said it is 'usually' a byproduct--interesting you chose to leave that out. I see players who try to finish over their head like Nadal, but certainly don't have the same result because they're not doing what he does prior to contact.

Considering the very short time the ball is in contact with the strings, in order to 'hit up and across', a phrase used much more often in these threads than 'pulling up and across', the right to left across movement (for a righty) would have to start before contact, not during or after, to have any effect on the ball.

[Cheetah]

I'm not for nor against MTM.
That's an inside-out fh. Roger's i/o fh's have sidespin.
That's only 1 stroke. Surely Roger doesn't put the same spin on every shot. Maybe that shot had sidespin. Maybe it didn't. We don't know because that's from the APS vid and we don't have the actual vid of the shot correct? Or do we? Do we know if Roger hit the inside of the ball? (which would create sidespin)

[toly]

Originally Posted by bhupaes

Okay toly, why don't you breakdown this picture for my benefit, so I can be sure of what your position is. At present, all I know is that you think Wegner is wrong. For example, where does the acceleration start, where is it maximum, at what point does the hand start pulling in and what motions are used, when does the wrist become active, etc. Thanks.

I wanted to right the article about wrist and others arm’s part motions. I prepared almost everything, but unfortunately I drowned in Photoshop. This application is much, much, ... worse than any drugs. It consumes all my time now. I cannot quit posting all these crazy pictures. I’m sorry. So, wait please a little bit.

[toly]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

More photographic agitprops by toly.

I cannot discuss agitprop in public forum, because that will be very dangerous for you.