confused w/ the term "MTM"

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by toly

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 the string bed) of the racquet velocity. In frame 12 the racquet velocity has zero tangential component, so Federer could hit pure flat FH and really is able to hit at least through one - two balls.

The hitting through the ball is what the #1 junior in the world also says, one who hits with Raonic and Cilic. But that doesn't count over here. If he had said "hit across the ball" after "stalking" and "finding it with the hand," he would have become a hero here.

[toly]

Originally Posted by sureshs

The hitting through the ball is what the #1 junior in the world also says, one who hits with Raonic and Cilic. But that doesn't count over here. If he had said "hit across the ball" after "stalking" and "finding it with the hand," he would have become a hero here.

That’s why we have so much fun here and MTM threads are so attractive.
I think Rod Cross thread will be very boring.

[5263]

Originally Posted by toly

Thus, Federer could hit pure flat FH and really is able to hit at least through one or two balls.

So now it's hit thru 1-2 balls

I guess even the worm on the hook continues to squirm.
I suppose to have to say sorry and admit that MTM was right on this all
along, while you came up with effort after effort, only to have these efforts
end up showing the across aspect, would be too great a loss.
Others see it, you have admitted as much and we could be done with it, but
you will try to sneak in your misinfo on some unrelated thread.
whatever, lol.

[toly]

Originally Posted by 5263

So now it's hit thru 1-2 balls

I guess even the worm on the hook continues to squirm.
I suppose to have to say sorry and admit that MTM was right on this all
along, while you came up with effort after effort, only to have these efforts
end up showing the across aspect, would be too great a loss.
Others see it, you have admitted as much and we could be done with it, but
you will try to sneak in your misinfo on some unrelated thread.
whatever, lol.

Can you go back to my post #389 and give me an answer please?

[5263]

Originally Posted by toly

Can you go back to my post #389 and give me an answer please?

I think if you really care,
it is as easy for you as it is for me,
to go back and find where you stated incorrectly that the Nadal Fh,
which was an I/O Fh, would spin counter clockwise.
Somehow during the thread you seemed to slip around to the correct
understanding that Nadal's I/O Fh would be clockwise.

[toly]

Originally Posted by 5263

I think if you really care,
it is as easy for you as it is for me,
to go back and find where you stated incorrectly that the Nadal Fh,
which was an I/O Fh, would spin counter clockwise.
Somehow during the thread you seemed to slip around to the correct
understanding that Nadal's I/O Fh would be clockwise.

So, you again refuse to give me unambiguous answer. I really don’t know how to communicate with you.

[5263]

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.

Ok, to be nice, here is one where you say Wegner expects counter clockwise and
mistakenly say there is none.
Wegner would expect clockwise, which you will get, vs none as you say.

[5263]

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

Ok, I've done your work of finding your work for you, lol

here again, your are backwards on this.
Wegner expects Fed to hit counter clockwise, but you
have gone from denial of the side spin with Nadal,
to getting it backwards and thinking Fed,
a righty, will hit clockwise sidespin vs the counter clockwise he gets..
Later with Nalbanian you get the spin correct.
What is the excuse now?

[toly]

Originally Posted by 5263

Ok, to be nice, here is one where you say Wegner expects counter clockwise and
mistakenly say there is none.
Wegner would expect clockwise, which you will get, vs none as you say.

Nadal’s racquet moves constantly to the left. So, it absolutely clear there will be (from above view) boll’s clockwise sidespin!!!

[5263]

Originally Posted by toly

Nadal’s racquet moves constantly to the left. So, it absolutely clear there will be (from above view) boll’s clockwise sidespin!!!

Why would you look at sidespin from above??
sidespin would only seem relevant as it relates to hitters view imo.
What is boll's sidespin??

before you said Nadal had no sidespin, right??
so why does his Fh curve so much?
do you really want to find something meaningful or just debate and confuse?

[toly]

Originally Posted by 5263

Why would you look at sidespin from above??
sidespin would only seem relevant as it relates to hitters view imo.
What is boll's sidespin??

before you said Nadal had no sidespin, right??
so why does his Fh curve so much?
do you really want to find something meaningful or just debate and confuse?

Ball rotation about vertical axis is sidespin. It is common practice to define direction of the sidespin from above or below view.

[5263]

Originally Posted by toly

Ball rotation about vertical axis is sidespin. It is common practice to define direction of the sidespin from above or below view.

That may be common for when you deal with sidespin as the primary rotation,
But we are not talking about a pure type sidespin, but more of a side aspect to
topspin ;
something like the canted axis for the earth.
I specified several times from the hitter's perspective.
Maybe to make it simple for you, we can address it as which way it will curve;
tail off to left or right.
Nadal's lefty I/O Fh will tend to tail off to the left.
Fed's righty I/O Fh will tend to tail off to the right.
Does that make sense to you?

[toly]

Originally Posted by 5263

That may be common for when you deal with sidespin as the primary rotation,
But we are not talking about a pure type sidespin, but more of a side aspect to
topspin ;
something like the canted axis for the earth.
I specified several times from the hitter's perspective.
Maybe to make it simple for you, we can address it as which way it will curve;
tail off to left or right.
Nadal's lefty I/O Fh will tend to tail off to the left.
Fed's righty I/O Fh will tend to tail off to the right.
Does that make sense to you?

There is no need to invent new rotational terminology. Everything about that was defined hundreds years ago. In general, I explained the matter in thread http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=436086. The most complicated case, Twist serve, I described in article http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=440128. There are also hundreds of SystemicAnomaly posts about this topic. 

[Avles]

Originally Posted by sureshs

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.

I can verify that I'm a complete nobody. Nonetheless I'm pretty sure that focusing on the wording pros use when they discuss their strokes will not magically lead to adoption of pro techniques.

My sense is that these arguments about "up and across" vs. "through the ball" tend to turn out pretty sterile and pointless, because:

1. Every player hits "through the ball" to some extent (so the ball goes forward)

2. Every player hits "up" to some extent (if not they couldn't apply topspin)

3. Every player hits "across" the ball (they follow through in the direct of their non-dominant hand)

From what I can see, these phrases aren't objective biomechanical descriptions of the forehand stroke. They aren't magic formulas. And they aren't antithetical, mutually exclusive concepts. They are, at most, mental cues which can help produce good strokes when mediated by the human brain.

My uneducated guess is that:

--Some players will benefit from thinking "through the ball" (e.g. if they need to focus on penetration or effective weight transfer into the court)

--Some players will benefit from thinking "up and across" (e.g. to increase topspin, or to reinforce the windshield wiper concept).

--Some players will probably derive little benefit from either of these mental cues.

For this reason, going to the mattresses about whether "up and across" or "through the ball" is correct seems futile to me. It's like the debate about whether the serve involves a "wrist snap" or not. The actual point is not whether the wrist really does snap or not, but whether thinking about a "wrist snap" can help lead to a good serve. I think results will vary from player to player.

FWIW, from a nobody! Feel free to ignore it and generate another 1000 posts on whether "through the ball" or "up and across" is correct...

[sureshs]

^^^ "these arguments about "up and across" vs. "through the ball" tend to turn out pretty sterile and pointless"

And you did not come up with this before. Why? Why did you first pick on "through the ball" and now claim to be disgusted with "across the ball" also? Because I called you out, that is why. If you had been truly neutral, you would have adopted your superior tone much before.

[Avles]

Originally Posted by sureshs

^^^ "these arguments about "up and across" vs. "through the ball" tend to turn out pretty sterile and pointless"

And you did not come up with this before. Why? Why did you first pick on "through the ball" and now claim to be disgusted with "across the ball" also? Because I called you out, that is why. If you had been truly neutral, you would have adopted your superior tone much before.

Not sure why my motivations are relevant, but, no I don't have a dog in the MTM fight. I don't think Oscar is a savior and don't think he's a total fraud either, overstated though many of his claims seem. Bottom line is he's one of many teachers trying to make a buck who probably have some potentially useful things to say.

So, no agenda. I just popped into this thread because I was curious about why it hadn't yet been deleted, and noticed that you were (IMO) mischaracterizing and exaggerating the significance of Filip Peliwo's comments on his technique.

[5263]

Originally Posted by toly

There is no need to invent new rotational terminology. Everything about that was defined hundreds years ago. In general, I explained the matter in thread http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=436086. The most complicated case, Twist serve, I described in article http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=440128. There are also hundreds of SystemicAnomaly posts about this topic. 

Either terms...you had it backwards.

[arche3]

Originally Posted by Avles

Not sure why my motivations are relevant, but, no I don't have a dog in the MTM fight. I don't think Oscar is a savior and don't think he's a total fraud either, overstated though many of his claims seem. Bottom line is he's one of many teachers trying to make a buck who probably have some potentially useful things to say.

So, no agenda. I just popped into this thread because I was curious about why it hadn't yet been deleted, and noticed that you were (IMO) mischaracterizing and exaggerating the significance of Filip Peliwo's comments on his technique.

What our very own Suresh exaggerating?
If nick bolleteris pet dog barked at through the ball more than across the ball Suresh would be on here with proof because the dog barked more for through the ball.

[sureshs]

Is this our 5263 teaching?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtOsr...eature=related

[5263]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Is this our 5263 teaching?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtOsr...eature=related

Looks like a version of hit thru 3-5 balls to me, so clearly not what I teach.
He is trying to help beginners he says, but is likely ruining them instead.