On the forehand: Early take back vs. continuous loop

[FrisbeeFool]

Originally Posted by 5263

Very nice find here, thanks for the ref.
Nice Pic here of what we call stalking-
http://legacy.tennis.com/articles/ar...forehand_1.jpg
Especially the 1st one.

Stan does a good job of course, but few things to notice,
I'm not a grip zealot, but is it a sw grip? Many say Eastern.
Someone got the pics out of sequence right? for a reason?

Where he says "Federer is turning his shoulders as he’s moving to the ball.
Notice how his left hand is on the racquet even though he’s well into his preparation.
This forces him to turn his shoulders" This is not just exactly right.
The shoulders have NOT really turned from the body, or done much prep by coiling.
At that point he is really still just running to intercept the ball with everything pointing
the way he is running except his face as it watches the ball come in. His feet, hips,
shoulders are all facing the direction he is running, with the racket still in both hands,
in front of his chest/body/shoulders,(I call stalking) very much like in the ready position.
It's a instant later where he gets some shoulder turn to load and coil his core
for the shot.

I Think the pictures are out of sequence because tennis magazine has changed their website, and it is an older article. I don't know I'm not a computer expert.

The only reason I posted the Stan Smith article is because he discusses Federer's modern takeback vs more old school players. I'm really not interested in getting into another MTM debate. All I will say on that matter, is if someone told me to stalk the ball, I would have no idea how they wanted me to prepare, coil, turn etc. In my view it's best to describe what is going on with more concrete language. MTM has as much connection to "modern tennis" as "Scientology" does to science.

There's really no point in these forums if someone can't discuss something simple like preparation, coiling, unit turn, takeback whatever you want to call it, without the MTM police showing up. Ok it's not preparation. It can only be called stalking, whatever that means.

"Modern" players generally take the racket head back higher than players in previous eras. That's what creates the loop backswing. It's something that's readily apparent if you watch much tennis or play at all. Good players in all eras prepare early. It's blatantly obvious if you watch or play tennis. I thought issues like these were germane to the original topic of the thread.I guess I'm not allowed to talk about any of this in a concrete fashion. I can't talk about preparation on groundstrokes. No preparation happens, only stalking. It's impossible to have a productive discussion in here about even the most basic aspects of the game.

[arche3]

Deleted due to tapatalk sucks

[arche3]

Originally Posted by FrisbeeFool

I Think the pictures are out of sequence because tennis magazine has changed their website, and it is an older article. I don't know I'm not a computer expert.

The only reason I posted the Stan Smith article is because he discusses Federer's modern takeback vs more old school players. I'm really not interested in getting into another MTM debate. All I will say on that matter, is if someone told me to stalk the ball, I would have no idea how they wanted me to prepare, coil, turn etc. In my view it's best to describe what is going on with more concrete language. MTM has as much connection to "modern tennis" as "Scientology" does to science.

There's really no point in these forums if someone can't discuss something simple like preparation, coiling, unit turn, takeback whatever you want to call it, without the MTM police showing up. Ok it's not preparation. It can only be called stalking, whatever that means.

"Modern" players generally take the racket head back higher than players in previous eras. That's what creates the loop backswing. It's something that's readily apparent if you watch much tennis or play at all. Good players in all eras prepare early. It's blatantly obvious if you watch or play tennis. I thought issues like these were germane to the original topic of the thread.I guess I'm not allowed to talk about any of this in a concrete fashion. I can't talk about preparation on groundstrokes. No preparation happens, only stalking. It's impossible to have a productive discussion in here about even the most basic aspects of the game.

There is also besides the height of the take back something else. The modern guys wait a split second longer to initiate the loop. To preserve the continuous loop. From unit turn to contact. Older era might wait with the racket behind them more often. I'm not even sure if the term unit turn is appropriate for the older era closed stance fhs.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by 5263

So now where have we heard all this ?? Seems like a fellow named Oscar tried
to share with you how the Pros hit one way, but often spoke of it quite different
than what they actually did in matches. This was one of the big motivations to
write his books...to point this out like you just did.

So then why are you quoting him in support of whatever if that did not really happen?

[5263]

Originally Posted by FrisbeeFool

"Modern" players generally take the racket head back higher than players in previous eras. That's what creates the loop backswing. .

The problem is you start with a couple of false premises.
First, a higher tk back just makes a bigger loop and has little to do with
making a loop; just affects the size of it. Lower tk back makes a nice smaller
loop. Actually there is a certain modern move towards being more compact &
making loops smaller currently.
Second, you never show an connection between your high tk back and making
a bigger loop to the OP's idea of "loop vs early". Only relation seems to be that
your bigger loop will take more time and require earlier prep, but you never even
mention it that I saw. Seems you just want to talk about big loops and saw loops in
a topic along with a chance to insult other instructional approaches that actually
address the issues of the op

[sureshs]

A higher takeback is more suitable for today's high bouncing surfaces because it is easier to bring it down below the level of the ball compared to starting low and then meeting it up. I have seen this explained in some video which I don't have a link to. But it also depends on the player.

[5263]

Originally Posted by sureshs

So then why are you quoting him in support of whatever if that did not really happen?

One of your better questions!
I did it because I knew this is where we would end up and
you would either say what you did, YOU confirming what we have been told on this issue,
or possibly you miss that point, blinded by the usual claimed trust of any big name
like Smith, and we could just deal with the good point Stan make about what is
happening in Fed's game today, with the wt of Stan on the issue.
Either way you went with it, if forces you to deal with the misinfo in your posts.
This way, you had to deal with both of them

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by 5263

One of your better questions!
I did it because I knew this is where we would end up and
you would either say what you did, YOU confirming what we have been told on this issue,
or possibly you miss that point, blinded by the usual claimed trust of any big name
like Smith, and we could just deal with the good point Stan make about what is
happening in Fed's game today, with the wt of Stan on the issue.
Either way you went with it, if forces you to deal with the misinfo in your posts.
This way, you had to deal with both of them

So you said somebody was right even though he was wrong because I would come back and point it out and you were waiting for it? Am I that important?

It just doesn't make any sense. Why not just keep it simple?

[5263]

Originally Posted by 5263

Nice of Stan to point this out as well_

Where do I say he is right...LOL..
I just note it was nice for him to point this out and give me this opportunity!

[FrisbeeFool]

Originally Posted by 5263

The problem is you start with a couple of false premises.
First, a higher tk back just makes a bigger loop and has little to do with
making a loop; just affects the size of it. Lower tk back makes a nice smaller
loop. Actually there is a certain modern move towards being more compact &
making loops smaller currently.
Second, you never show an connection between your high tk back and making
a bigger loop to the OP's idea of "loop vs early". Only relation seems to be that
your bigger loop will take more time and require earlier prep, but you never even
mention it that I saw. Seems you just want to talk about big loops and saw loops in
a topic along with a chance to insult other instructional approaches that actually
address the issues of the op

You're right having a compact backswing is a good idea. In one of of my earlier posts in this thread I talked about the compact backswing. I am a big believer in having a compact backswing and a long followthrough. That is the way I was taught. It's frustrating because with you everything is black vs white traditional vs modern one thing vs the other.

Take any modern player you want. I will use wawrinka as an example. On his backhand side he has a higher takeback of his racket head than more old school players, he has an early takeback and he has a compact takeback, where he takes the racket back with a unit turn and without extraneous arm motion. It's all there. Most real life coaches are in agreement on these things.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by FrisbeeFool

It's frustrating because with you everything is black vs white traditional vs modern one thing vs the other.

He can see everything only one way or the other, and also thinks others are the same way. The second is more frustrating, actually. He expects you to be like him and argue with him, when you really are not thinking in that fashion at all.

Either he is really like this, or he is acting in order to promote a commercial system, I can't tell for sure. No other coach on this board is like that, so it is quite surprising. One would think it is coaches who would have a much broader view than players.

He has now even started playing games like quoting someone to prove his point, then turning around and claiming that the person was wrong and the quote was put out there for someone to contradict it.

[5263]

Originally Posted by FrisbeeFool

It's frustrating because with you everything is black vs white traditional vs modern one thing vs the other.

No, if I saw things a clear black vs white as you say, I would make a statement
like you did,
"Modern" players generally take the racket head back higher than players in previous eras. That's what creates the loop backswing."

That is the kind of incorrect, partial understanding you and suresh deal in, that leads to
misunderstanding and confusion.

Now when it comes to classic tennis instructions, it tends to be a bit cut and dried
due to books and ref material that provides guidance. I realize you don't make use
of these items and like to wing it, giving your on ideas about classic, so your
confusion is not surprising. I would think you would catch on after while and
realize your personal views on classic hold little sway and don't hold up, despite
what you think someone told you one time or another.

[5263]

Originally Posted by sureshs

He has now even started playing games like quoting someone to prove his point, then turning around and claiming that the person was wrong and the quote was put out there for someone to contradict it.

I can see how that trap you walked right into stung, but telling lies about it won't
take you out of checkmate

You are the one who claimed Stan Smith was incorrect...not me, and
you are the one who puts so much weight in who played on tour and what
they say. I've seen very few who played on tour and could speak well on the
details of what they do. They mostly know how they think of it and what works
for them; rarely being good coaches themselves.

Sad how you have to try to link in with Frisfool since you are faring so poorly with
your own posts.

[HunterST]

Alright, I've been experimenting with this a little.

The continuous loop does seem to get more spin, but it's much harder to time. Against hard hitters, it seems likely to break down.

I personally haven't seen a definitive answer on what pros do from tapes.

[5263]

Originally Posted by HunterST

Alright, I've been experimenting with this a little.

The continuous loop does seem to get more spin, but it's much harder to time. Against hard hitters, it seems likely to break down.

I personally haven't seen a definitive answer on what pros do from tapes.

good you are trying some different approaches to find what works for you.

[LeeD]

Read post 4 again.
Some players play right handed. Some left.
Some play the net. Other's stay back.
Some use 2hbh. Other's 1hbh.
Some leap off the ground to serve, while other's stay grounded.
Some where shorts, while other's wear long pants.
What works for you?

[HunterST]

Originally Posted by LeeD

Read post 4 again.
Some players play right handed. Some left.
Some play the net. Other's stay back.
Some use 2hbh. Other's 1hbh.
Some leap off the ground to serve, while other's stay grounded.
Some where shorts, while other's wear long pants.
What works for you?

There's a lot of truth in this. There's a lot of variation among pros, so we know there's many paths to excellence.

[LeeD]

And then there's MarionBartoli style of tennis....

[Cheetah]

A continuous loop doesn't give you 'much more topspin'. What it gives you is a higher rhs. What you do with that rhs is up to you (pace or spin). The ball doesn't care if you did a loop or not. It cares how it was struck and how fast it was struck.

[FrisbeeFool]

Originally Posted by 5263

Now when it comes to classic tennis instructions, it tends to be a bit cut and dried
due to books and ref material that provides guidance. I realize you don't make use
of these items and like to wing it, giving your on ideas about classic, so your
confusion is not surprising. I would think you would catch on after while and
realize your personal views on classic hold little sway and don't hold up, despite
what you think someone told you one time or another.

Is classic instruction the same thing as traditional instruction? Do you consider coaches who teach students the unit turn in preparation for groundstrokes to be offering traditional, classic, or modern advice? What are the differences between stalking and the unit turn?

In the old days, coaches had their students emulating players like Connors and Evert with lower takebacks. Today, coaches have their players emulating players like Federer, Murray, Tsonga, or any of the other top 100 players that use a higher takeback, and then lower the racket back down to the height of the ball or lower, creating a loop backswing. I figured this was a straight forward observation we could all agree on. I thought it might even appeal to your sensibilities since it contrasts older, you might even say "traditional" instruction with more "modern" instruction.

As far as i can tell your problem with my point is that I don't use the MTM approved term "stalking" to describe what is going on in the backswing. It also seems you have some kind of problem with the term "unit turn." Coaches in my area use this and other terminology all the time to describe how students should turn their shoulders and coil in preparation for their groundstroke. Do you have a problem with the term "unit turn", because a lot of good coaches are using it.