confused w/ the term "MTM"

[5263]

He means get the shoulders sideways, surely not talking about stance.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by 5263

He means get the shoulders sideways, surely not talking about stance.

A pure open stance has both feet lined parallel to the baseline, so the shoulders cannot be sideways.

Notice how he emphasizes hitting through the ball. That is how pros do it.

[Cheetah]

[5263]

Originally Posted by sureshs

A pure open stance has both feet lined parallel to the baseline, so the shoulders cannot be sideways.

Notice how he emphasizes hitting through the ball. That is how pros do it.

Really??
Great post Cheatah.
LOL,, you never give up do you sureshs?

Now you come up with "pure" open stance??
Sure someone may have said that before, and you can use adjectives how you
like, but open stance is open. Feet parallel, rt foot more forward, left foot more
forward, or whatever you like; It's all open stance if it's not neutral or past
that to closed. IMO neutral is part of closed, but just more descriptive and semi-open
is just one variation of Open stance; also more descriptive.
Now you have brought up "pure" open which I guess is some version of open
you have decided??

Either way, I can step up with my right foot closer to net than my left, for an
Open stance Fh ( would you call that Hyper Open stance, lol)
and still get my shoulders sideways...and I'm 52 yrs old.

Last of all for the 100th time for you....everyone hits thru the ball to some extent or
it doesn't go anywhere. The question is more about the path of the racket as it
goes thru the ball;
not whether it goes thru the ball or not. Any player should realize this and it
is quite odd that you would continue to mention the most obvious thing in tennis.

What is not so obvious (clearly not Obvious since it has been explained so many times
and some are still confused; so clearly it should be taught in some manner) is that the racket
does not go thru the ball directly towards the target on that imaginary line, but
instead on some path "across" that imaginary line...
at least for good consistent Fhs anyway.

[Avles]

Originally Posted by sureshs

A pure open stance has both feet lined parallel to the baseline, so the shoulders cannot be sideways.

I'm not really sure what you mean by a "pure open stance" here, but it's entirely possible to have your feet pointing one way and your torso another. This is because humans have the ability to rotate their upper bodies.

It is thus quite possible to turn the shoulders sideways in an open stance, as Cheetah's photos show.

Honestly, you wasted both your time and Peliwo's if you expected some sort of revelation about stroke mechanics from him.

[sundaypunch]

Originally Posted by sureshs

A guy has shown up in the Pro Player section. He was in the finals of all the Junior Slams this year, and won the W and USO, and is the #1 ITF junior now. He is inviting questions.

See below. Note use of "through the ball" not once but twice. Note the importance of sideways too (i.e. not standing open stance facing the net).

As others have mentioned, he's referring to the unit turn, not stance. Just look at Youtube videos of him playing and you will see that he hits open stance like every other pro.

Originally Posted by sureshs

Quote:
Originally Posted by sureshs
Filip, hope you don't mind a technical question.

What tips can you give about hitting a topspin forehand with the right balance of spin and pace (depending on the situation), and the control over the direction (down the line or cross court), even though the swing motion is approximately the same? In other words, what is the difference you consciously make to achieve a particular speed/spin mix and direction compared to another combination?


Technical questions are tough to answer without physically demonstrating it, but I will do my best.

Basically you need to get under the ball with your racket and legs, transferring your weight up and through the ball, in order to keep the pace and depth.

As for changing direction, you need to be turned sideways as preparation, (this applies to every stroke) and use your weight transfer and hand/racket manipulation to direct the ball. Pretty much all you have to do is guide your racket and weight through the ball in that direction.

Again, these are difficult to answer, as it is a lot easier to learn if you actually see somebody demonstrate it in person.

This is a perfect illustration of the "load and explode" concept.

[arche3]

Originally Posted by sureshs

A guy has shown up in the Pro Player section. He was in the finals of all the Junior Slams this year, and won the W and USO, and is the #1 ITF junior now. He is inviting questions.

See below. Note use of "through the ball" not once but twice. Note the importance of sideways too (i.e. not standing open stance facing the net).

I am also impressed with his mention of hand and racket manipulation. I have noticed conscious direction control among the pros, which is not just by a different swing path. I notice them "forcing" a direction and am glad that I was correct. It is not about hitting "across the ball" at all.

5263 will be sending me a check for $1000 for revealing the truth to him.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sureshs
Filip, hope you don't mind a technical question.

What tips can you give about hitting a topspin forehand with the right balance of spin and pace (depending on the situation), and the control over the direction (down the line or cross court), even though the swing motion is approximately the same? In other words, what is the difference you consciously make to achieve a particular speed/spin mix and direction compared to another combination?


Technical questions are tough to answer without physically demonstrating it, but I will do my best.

Basically you need to get under the ball with your racket and legs, transferring your weight up and through the ball, in order to keep the pace and depth.

As for changing direction, you need to be turned sideways as preparation, (this applies to every stroke) and use your weight transfer and hand/racket manipulation to direct the ball. Pretty much all you have to do is guide your racket and weight through the ball in that direction.

Again, these are difficult to answer, as it is a lot easier to learn if you actually see somebody demonstrate it in person.

I would pay to see Suresh hit a ball. Your so out of the loop of actual tennis. Watch a video of the kid. He is hitting open stance.

Originally Posted by sureshs

A pure open stance has both feet lined parallel to the baseline, so the shoulders cannot be sideways.

Notice how he emphasizes hitting through the ball. That is how pros do it.

LOL, give it up Suresh....

[sureshs]

Dudes everyone can turn the upper body and still be pure open stance (feet lined up parallel to the baseline). That is not how pros hit powerful forehands. They usually have their right foot behind the left foot before they start their swing, which gives them more space and power. That is what is called being sideways.

Even the great open stance artist Nadal has the left foot slightly behind:



See how Roddick starts off with both feet aligned parallel to baseline but the right foot is back before he hits:



The other important point is hitting through the ball. It is not about hitting across the ball, but hitting through it. And the role of racket manipulation in fixing the direction - it doesn't come by the same swing and some different contact point in a risky tangential collision with the ball. It comes by planned contact and hitting through the ball.

5263 has no answer to it that is why he is quibbling about open stance positions.

I will be going with what the pros say and do. That is why I got the clarification. Some pros may not be able to articulate well, but this guy is not like that. Hit through the ball is NOT hit across the ball. Those are real words from a real high-level player, not some vague made-up phrases from someone who has never played the pro game.

[5263]

Originally Posted by sureshs

The other important point is hitting through the ball. It is not about hitting across the ball, but hitting through it. And the role of racket manipulation in fixing the direction - it doesn't come by the same swing and some different contact point in a risky tangential collision with the ball. It comes by planned contact and hitting through the ball.

Not sure what hitting thru the ball or tangential collisions mean to you, but racket travels
on an arc as it moves thru the ball...not the imaginary line towards the target,
as proposed in traditional instruction.

Really the only interesting discussion about this is how sharp is the arc and where does it
get sharper, along with how does that relate to the path of the hand.
This straight line towards the target is a myth that is dead.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by Avles

Honestly, you wasted both your time and Peliwo's if you expected some sort of revelation about stroke mechanics from him.

I would say he has revealed couple of things of immense importance which are simply beyond the scope of most people here - the importance of hitting through the ball and the importance of racket manipulation for direction.

That is really the difference between you and him - you think he has wasted his time but he doesn't think so. It is always like that. The people who are good are always willing to share - it is the low level people who are cynical, like you think you are qualified to speak on his behalf when you are basically a nobody. That is why thanks, but no thanks. I will go with him and his time wastage than someone like you who has never seen a high level ball. You can keep your precious time to yourself, I won't be needing it.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by 5263

Not sure what hitting thru the ball or tangential collisions mean to you, but racket travels
on an arc as it moves thru the ball...not the imaginary line towards the target,
as proposed in traditional instruction.

Really the only interesting discussion about this is how sharp is the arc and where does it
get sharper, along with how does that relate to the path of the hand.
This straight line towards the target is a myth that is dead.

Don't change the subject. He said nothing about straight line to the target. Not even your Stan Smith that you quoted was doing it. It is your strawman - don't drag him to every place.

[5263]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Don't change the subject. He said nothing about straight line to the target. Not even your Stan Smith that you quoted was doing it. It is your strawman - don't drag him to every place.

Not a strawman at all. That traditional myth I debunk on here daily is in print in
many references.
The fact that you try many angles to find fault with the "across the ball" concept, does not change that and we have you here admitting as much I
guess since you are stating that the thru the ball down the target line is a
Strawman!
Finally we have an admission of this important issue.

[arche3]

Originally Posted by 5263

Not a strawman at all. That traditional myth I debunk on here daily is in print in
many references.
The fact that you try many angles to find fault with the "across the ball" concept, does not change that and we have you here admitting as much I
guess since you are stating that the thru the ball down the target line is a
Strawman!
Finally we have an admission of this important issue.

Praise Jesus! Suresh admits thru the 5 balls thing is not valid? Can it be?

And the motion is across because most pros hit at full extension now. Only place left is across. But the intent is to hit through the ball. Just not in the way Suresh thinks of.

[5263]

Originally Posted by arche3

Praise Jesus! Suresh admits thru the 5 balls thing is not valid? Can it be?

And the motion is across because most pros hit at full extension now. Only place left is across. But the intent is to hit through the ball. Just not in the way Suresh thinks of.

There are a lot of ways to think about it and who can say what is better for
a given player. Maybe thinking of thru it can be a good way for many, but
I think it is important also for many, that it is noted that is NOT on a line out
to the target. Some who are the most coachable will trip over that misinfo.

[Avles]

Originally Posted by sureshs

I would say he has revealed couple of things of immense importance which are simply beyond the scope of most people here - the importance of hitting through the ball and the importance of racket manipulation for direction.

As far as I can tell "Hitting through the ball" is a not a specific, objective description of a particular technique. Every tennis player "hits through the ball" to some extent-- otherwise the ball wouldn't go forward. So I think we all agree that you need to hit through the ball!

But what the phrase "hitting through the ball" actually means in practice is up for debate, and in fact has been debated ad nauseam on this forum. So without a little more detail, I'm not sure what the revelation is there.

"Racquet manipulation for direction" sounds like a truism. Of course you manipulate the racquet to direct the ball.

The question seems to be how you manipulate it. I didn't see any info on that in Peliwo's post-- perhaps because as he said himself, these things are more effectively taught by demonstration.

So once again, I don't think Peliwo's comments were particularly revelatory, and though I don't actually want to speak on his behalf, I doubt he intended them to be particularly revelatory.

That is really the difference between you and him - you think he has wasted his time but he doesn't think so. It is always like that. The people who are good are always willing to share - it is the low level people who are cynical, like you think you are qualified to speak on his behalf when you are basically a nobody.

Hey, if you choose to think that "hit through the ball," "get sideways" and "manipulate the hand/racquet for ball direction" are holy secrets that only high-level pros can impart, you're welcome to think that!

For myself I feel like these are generalities which one hears frequently. The issue is translating them into correct action. Reading them on a message board, no matter who posts them, won't get us there.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by Avles

As far as I can tell "Hitting through the ball" is a not a specific, objective description of a particular technique. Every tennis player "hits through the ball" to some extent-- otherwise the ball wouldn't go forward. So I think we all agree that you need to hit through the ball!

But what the phrase "hitting through the ball" actually means in practice is up for debate, and in fact has been debated ad nauseam on this forum. So without a little more detail, I'm not sure what the revelation is there.

"Racquet manipulation for direction" sounds like a truism. Of course you manipulate the racquet to direct the ball.

The question seems to be how you manipulate it. I didn't see any info on that in Peliwo's post-- perhaps because as he said himself, these things are more effectively taught by demonstration.

So once again, I don't think Peliwo's comments were particularly revelatory, and though I don't actually want to speak on his behalf, I doubt he intended them to be particularly revelatory.



Hey, if you choose to think that "hit through the ball," "get sideways" and "manipulate the hand/racquet for ball direction" are holy secrets that only high-level pros can impart, you're welcome to think that!

For myself I feel like these are generalities which one hears frequently. The issue is translating them into correct action. Reading them on a message board, no matter who posts them, won't get us there.

No problem. No one will bother to ask you for your suggestions, so your time will not be consumed.

Meanwhile I will go with what real pros say, thanks a lot. You need not ask them because no doubt you are an accomplished player already, maybe only unknown to anybody else. I will go with verified people, thanks.

[5263]

Originally Posted by Avles

As far as I can tell "Hitting through the ball" is a not a specific, objective description of a particular technique. Every tennis player "hits through the ball" to some extent-- otherwise the ball wouldn't go forward.

Hey, if you choose to think that "hit through the ball," "get sideways" and "manipulate the hand/racquet for ball direction" are holy secrets that only high-level pros can impart, you're welcome to think that!

For myself I feel like these are generalities which one hears frequently. The issue is translating them into correct action. Reading them on a message board, no matter who posts them, won't get us there.

Good post and right on target for these issues.
suresh calls you a nobody, & puts his faith in real pros who blah, blah.....unless it
that Pro is Stan Smith or any other pro he disagrees with, lol.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by 5263

Good post and right on target for these issues.
suresh calls you a nobody, & puts his faith in real pros who blah, blah.....unless it
that Pro is Stan Smith or any other pro he disagrees with, lol.

C'mon you know very well I was responding to your ridiculous claim of hitting across the ball as being some great thing and through the ball was directed at that. This guy does not know the context and jumps in, trying to show that a real player is not making any relevant comment LOL.

It is often the case that those who know are willing to share freely while those who don't, limit themselves to criticism of the knowledgeable people like the pros.

Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that you are wrong and what you say as well as your methodology has no correlation with how pros actually play.

And are you still claiming you quoted Stan Smith as correct because he was wrong so that I would respond that he was wrong so that you could then say that he was actually wrong even though you said he was correct LOL.

Instead of all this, why don't you learn from real players like Stan and Filip?

[toly]

Originally Posted by arche3

Praise Jesus! Suresh admits thru the 5 balls thing is not valid? Can it be?

And the motion is across because most pros hit at full extension now. Only place left is across. But the intent is to hit through the ball. Just not in the way Suresh thinks of.

In our context, across motion is tangential horizontal component of the racquet velocity that coincides to the racquet string bed. This across motion creates boll’s clockwise spin.

Let’s again analyze Federer FH.



In frame 5 Federer creates maximum tangential component (maximum brushing motion), but small normal component (to string bed) of the racquet velocity. In frame 12 the racquet velocity has zero tangential component, but maximum normal component. Thus, Federer could hit pure flat FH and really is able to hit at least through one or two balls.