confused w/ the term "MTM"

[JohnYandell]

TB,

Truly a sublime moment in pop tv culture with multiple possible symbolic analogies to repetitive mantras in this thread and others...the only caveat--not sure which way Stewie should be turning the gun...

[5263]

Originally Posted by JohnYandell

Well thank god you didn't actually crash one. I can sleep now. .

Yes, some actually believe the things you post, so I was asked to clear that up by some other posters.
Does show how loose you play with the facts & details.

[bad_call]

Originally Posted by Ash_Smith

aw jeeze - get a room you two

me thinks Ashe wants to watch...lol

[mntlblok]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Read the expert Rod Cross here and learn the facts before arguing:

http://www.racquetsportsindustry.com..._tennis_f.html

Warning: This is way too long. Don't start it if yer concerned about having yer eyes glaze over. . .

Had never bothered to look into MTM before, but just (finally) made it all the way through this thread. Glad I did. There's lots of interesting stuff, some pretty intelligent folks involved in it, and, believe it or not, I thought more reasonable discussion than what is often seen in online forums.

I *do* think that I've picked up a few "errors" or at least some things that aren't as clear as they might be, and thought that I'd throw in what I think might be some "clarifications", and maybe even a new idea (or, at least, opinion) or two.

The above article by Rod Cross didn't say anything about the "sweet spot" nor its size. Rather, it explained that the spin window (don't think he used that term in the article) is enough larger with a ten inch wide racket than a wooden, nine inch wide racket so that one wouldn't routinely frame the ball with the use of the swing paths, speeds, and face angles that can be used with the modern, lighter materials. He notes in the article
"Give a 9-inch graphite racquet to a player today and the result would be some serious clipping of the frame every few shots. . ."

Toly was exactly right about the perspective from which "sidespin" should be observed and described when speaking of "clockwise-ness". The axis for sidespin is vertical, so you gotta look at the clock face from either above or below. From above, Rafa's forehand sidespin - at least on the "high" ball in the thread, would be counterclockwise.

When Rafa "hooks" one, which I'm pretty certain is only going to happen off a "low" ball, the sidespin would be clockwise.

I don't know what all is actually part of the MTM thing, but the "across" part, as presented in this thread, and what I saw in the video with Mr. Wegner, ain't exactly right. While the the "wiper" follow through does go across, and the "grazing" of the ball by the strings would be (partly) in that direction on a high ball, it *wouldn't* be in that direction on a low ball, but rather, the opposite. That same vertical axis would be spun about in the opposite direction, and the flight of the tennis ball would be seen to curve in the opposite direction.

The cool still photo that Toly posted with Rafa's racket almost vertical was excellent for demonstration of what happens for sidespin on a high ball. I'm betting that a similar photo could be found of Roddick with a near vertical racket, but with the head pointing to the ground, for one of his "hooking" forehands off a low ball. I swear I've seen him "waiting" for a ball to drop low enough so that he could spin it counterclockwise () off his righty low ball.

I've loved all the photos in this thread where many stages of the racket positions have been shown in one shot. I've been wanting to see these "rainbows" of the "before" contact section of the swing for a long time. I remember one from years ago of the "after", and recall practically begging the guy who posted it (maybe even on tennisplayer.net, with "rainbow" in the description).

My current theory about teaching topspin is that you can put these two rainbows together and come sorta close to laying a pain of glass against the ball striking areas of same, and have both the grip and the stringbed lying against it (the pane). For a righty forehand, I tell folks to imagine a large window pane whose bottom edge runs approximately between their feet (which are in a neutral stance, straddling the baseline) and that same bottom edge lies right on top of the baseline, but with the top of that window pane leaning well forward. These edges are both basically perpendicular to the intended target line.

Next, (and I know this is an over-simplification and isn't exactly accurate) I have them have their racket hand *and* the stringbed make that big "rainbow" move - both before and after contact (and during) - whilst keeping those two parts of the racket lying against that window pane (and pretty much facing the target).

So, the first part of this "rainbow" swing along the "window pane" is actually "left-to-right", with the butt of the racket leading the way, with the stringbed lagging well behind. I don't know that it's universal, but I've watched a *lot* of super slo-mo's of pro forehands (both on YouTube *and* on the various online tennis instruction sites *and* on the cool DVD's {were they "CD's" back then?} that I bought from JY years ago) and I've concluded that the stringbed only catches up with the hand (the long axis of the racket becomes parallel to the ground) at about breast height. Below that height, the player's hand is always above the ball at contact. Above that height, the middle of the stringbed is above the player's hand.

Another relationship that changes with location on the "rainbow" is how far the ball is from the player's body. At the extremes of height, both low and high balls, human anatomy dictates that the ball must be closer to the body. (I haven't thought through the ramifications of whether one uses a bent or straight elbow for these balls).

And, since the window pane leans forward, the higher the contact point, the further out in front contact must in order to maximize the "hit". So, a high ball will be contacted both close to the body line and well out in front. A low ball is contacted close(ish) to the body and much less "out front".

It *may* even be that the rainbow "bows over" a bit more near its top, as I've seen stills of pros with some very closed racket faces way out yonder.

Key to keeping both the hand (grip of the racket) and the stringbed lying "flat" on this pane of glass is that the wrist must be "laid back" (extension?). I was very happy to learn of the "double bend" from JY many years ago. I feel that this position is far too often ignored by the teaching pros that I watch giving lessons - at least, as someone in the thread mentioned - to adults.

One of the reasons that I like to use the "pane of glass" concept rather than a "plane" is that I can describe which part of the racket would cause the pane of glass to "break" if the player changes the plane of his stringbed as it comes counterclockwise around this "rainbow" of a "leaning" clock face from something like six o'clock to twelve o'clock.

If the player "loses his layback" or "flexes" his wrist, then the tip of the racket breaks the glass(and he misses the shot wide).

If he "closes" the racket face beyond what his grip has set up (rolling the face in an attempt to "help" with the topspin), then the top edge of the racket breaks the glass (and he misses the shot into the net).

If he "opens" the face in an attempt to "help" the ball over the net, then bottom edge of the racket breaks the glass (and the ball goes long).

Part of my theory is that the longer the racket face is facing the target (on this "window pane plane"), the greater the margin for error is for "timing" the shot, for both direction and trajectory. One of the online instructors tells me that his coach said pretty much the same thing to him decades ago.

My quest to get at the bottom of what makes a topspin forehand work stems from *many* years of hitting an extremely inconsistent one, myself. Many lessons from many different pros failed to nail down the primary problems. It took a visit to Brian Gordon when he had his operation in Cincinnati a number of years ago to start getting it figured out.

Interestingly, getting hooked up to his wires and his (then) magnets (rather than today's infrared cameras) only exposed *part* of the problem - too steep an upward swing path (with the hand), especially on high balls. *But*, a second serious issue only showed up the next day during the "lesson" part of the program when I was trying to clarify something he was telling me and I demonstrated my backswing "loop" in slow mo and he noticed that I was *opening*, rather than "closing" the face, which, it turns out, then cause me all kinds of problems with trying to get back "on plane" for the forward swing.

BTW, I believe I read in another thread recently that Dr. Gordon can't actually "hit" a tennis ball. Fact is, he can knock the **** out of one on an amazingly flat and controlled trajectory. When I last saw him down in Boca Raton, IIRC, he was thinking about starting to enter some age group tournaments (50's?), in spite of his arthritis issues.

(continued in next post)

[mntlblok]

Unfortunately, now that I *think* I'm figuring out how topspin forehands are hit, I can no longer try it, myself - can't lay the arthritic wrist back, anymore. Had a dandy topspin one-handed backhand, but turns out that I used a lot of flexion and extension with that shot, and can't do *that* anymore, either.

Encouragingly, using these same window pane/rainbow swing thoughts, I've been able to teach myself a two-handed backhand. It seems that the theory is robust enough that it works for that shot, too - if I remember to use the left hand for the "spin" part. Unfortunately, I remain stuck with a very ugly-looking, though somewhat effective, batch of slice forehands.

Which reminds me, I've been able to teach a number of folks how to hit topspin forehands off my massively underspun, low-skidding slices. Really good players can already handle them, but even some of the high level, local juniors couldn't get it. The key is using that same "hook" swing that Roddick likes to use - exaggerating the "across" to the right with the racket head way below the hand. BTW, without telling anyone to use a "reverse" finish with this shot, it generally naturally results from that swing.

Which also reminds me, what goes along with the rainbow/window pane stuff is that I like to differentiate between the "hand path" and the path of the racket head or stringbed. I almost think that they have to be thought of as two different beasts.

To me, the "hand path" is what determines how "flat" a swing is and how much "hit" there will be to the shot (ball speed).

The "low-to-highness" of the stringbed is largely, I theorize, the result of how fast the wrist and forearm (and whatever else might be involved) make the racket head move "in the plane of the stringbed". That rate is what Cross and Lindsey tell us is responsible for most of the "spin" (as opposed to "hit") that happens with a tennis ball.

(I know that the "slippery" poly strings are touted highly, but I've yet to see it demonstrated just how *much* additional spin they can add). I *do* know that *I* can, with my $16 per *reel*, fifteen gauge nylon can cause enough underspin with my slices that the fist bounce after it hits is *still* underspin - and *really* ****es off my opponents when warming up for a doubles match. I always explain that that's all I can do and offer to let them try to play in my wrist brace.

I'm sure this has been more than enough, but one last thought. For a topspin forehand in a "comfortable" hitting zone, I suspect that one could strike it with pretty much "pure" topspin, with little or no sidespin, having the strings strike pretty much a "straight up" path during the short time that the ball is "dwelling" on the strings. Although, it *would* be fun to talk about how "short" the "across-ness" time is of the string/ball contact that causes the "sidespin". . .

Kevin
Savannah

[treblings]

Originally Posted by mntlblok

Unfortunately, now that I *think* I'm figuring out how topspin forehands are hit, I can no longer try it, myself - can't lay the arthritic wrist back, anymore. Had a dandy topspin one-handed backhand, but turns out that I used a lot of flexion and extension with that shot, and can't do *that* anymore, either.

Encouragingly, using these same window pane/rainbow swing thoughts, I've been able to teach myself a two-handed backhand. It seems that the theory is robust enough that it works for that shot, too - if I remember to use the left hand for the "spin" part. Unfortunately, I remain stuck with a very ugly-looking, though somewhat effective, batch of slice forehands.

Which reminds me, I've been able to teach a number of folks how to hit topspin forehands off my massively underspun, low-skidding slices. Really good players can already handle them, but even some of the high level, local juniors couldn't get it. The key is using that same "hook" swing that Roddick likes to use - exaggerating the "across" to the right with the racket head way below the hand. BTW, without telling anyone to use a "reverse" finish with this shot, it generally naturally results from that swing.

Which also reminds me, what goes along with the rainbow/window pane stuff is that I like to differentiate between the "hand path" and the path of the racket head or stringbed. I almost think that they have to be thought of as two different beasts.

To me, the "hand path" is what determines how "flat" a swing is and how much "hit" there will be to the shot (ball speed).

The "low-to-highness" of the stringbed is largely, I theorize, the result of how fast the wrist and forearm (and whatever else might be involved) make the racket head move "in the plane of the stringbed". That rate is what Cross and Lindsey tell us is responsible for most of the "spin" (as opposed to "hit") that happens with a tennis ball.

(I know that the "slippery" poly strings are touted highly, but I've yet to see it demonstrated just how *much* additional spin they can add). I *do* know that *I* can, with my $16 per *reel*, fifteen gauge nylon can cause enough underspin with my slices that the fist bounce after it hits is *still* underspin - and *really* ****es off my opponents when warming up for a doubles match. I always explain that that's all I can do and offer to let them try to play in my wrist brace.

I'm sure this has been more than enough, but one last thought. For a topspin forehand in a "comfortable" hitting zone, I suspect that one could strike it with pretty much "pure" topspin, with little or no sidespin, having the strings strike pretty much a "straight up" path during the short time that the ball is "dwelling" on the strings. Although, it *would* be fun to talk about how "short" the "across-ness" time is of the string/ball contact that causes the "sidespin". . .

Kevin
Savannah

i had the same problem myself, still suffering from time to time.
putting everything in one looooooong post

has an upside too, you won´t get critizised a lot, cause not a lot of people will make it thru the post

btw, i like your comparison with breaking the window. nice image to tell to players to make a point

[mntlblok]

Originally Posted by treblings

i had the same problem myself, still suffering from time to time.
putting everything in one looooooong post
has an upside too, you won´t get critizised a lot, cause not a lot of people will make it thru the post

Thanks. It *did* come with a warning. And, I'm used to not being heard. Just happy to share my thoughts if anyone *should* find it of interest. I figured this thread, itself, pretty well weeds out *most* readers.

Kevin

[treblings]

Originally Posted by mntlblok

Thanks. It *did* come with a warning. And, I'm used to not being heard. Just happy to share my thoughts if anyone *should* find it of interest. I figured this thread, itself, pretty well weeds out *most* readers.

Kevin

weeds me out lots of times
i often have trouble finding the practical use of the theoretical discussion
if you´re used to not being heard, that probably means you´re a teacher

[5263]

Originally Posted by mntlblok

Which also reminds me, what goes along with the rainbow/window pane stuff is that I like to differentiate between the "hand path" and the path of the racket head or stringbed. I almost think that they have to be thought of as two different beasts.

To me, the "hand path" is what determines how "flat" a swing is and how much "hit" there will be to the shot (ball speed).

The "low-to-highness" of the stringbed is largely, I theorize, the result of how fast the wrist and forearm (and whatever else might be involved) make the racket head move "in the plane of the stringbed". That rate is what Cross and Lindsey tell us is responsible for most of the "spin" (as opposed to "hit") that happens with a tennis ball.

(I know that the "slippery" poly strings are touted highly, but I've yet to see it demonstrated just how *much* additional spin they can add). I *do* know that *I* can, with my $16 per *reel*, fifteen gauge nylon can cause enough underspin with my slices that the fist bounce after it hits is *still* underspin - and *really* ****es off my opponents when warming up for a doubles match. I always explain that that's all I can do and offer to let them try to play in my wrist brace.

I'm sure this has been more than enough, but one last thought. For a topspin forehand in a "comfortable" hitting zone, I suspect that one could strike it with pretty much "pure" topspin, with little or no sidespin, having the strings strike pretty much a "straight up" path during the short time that the ball is "dwelling" on the strings. Although, it *would* be fun to talk about how "short" the "across-ness" time is of the string/ball contact that causes the "sidespin". . .

Kevin
Savannah

Yes, and this may be part of why MTM has it's focus on the path of the hand.
As to the "across-ness", it is my opinion that the across aspect plays a large
role in the trajectory or net clearance.

[mntlblok]

Originally Posted by 5263

As to the "across-ness", it is my opinion that the across aspect plays a large
role in the trajectory or net clearance.

Interesting. Can't imagine "why". I recall asking a question in a tennis forum early on in my quest about whether trajectory was controlled by racket face angle or by swing path. I was surprised to learn that essentially nobody on the forum seemed to know.

Turns out that it's both, as well as some other factors. I didn't learn about it until reading Chapter 4 in "Technical Tennis" - the best chapter ever written on tennis, IMO. And, if one *really* wants to learn about trajectory, there's nothing better than this: http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/cgi-...tory_maker.cgi

Anybody know if "TW University" is done by the same guys who wrote "Technical Tennis"?

Kevin

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by mntlblok

The above article by Rod Cross didn't say anything about the "sweet spot" nor its size. Rather, it explained that the spin window (don't think he used that term in the article) is enough larger with a ten inch wide racket than a wooden, nine inch wide racket so that one wouldn't routinely frame the ball with the use of the swing paths, speeds, and face angles that can be used with the modern, lighter materials.

I don't know what all is actually part of the MTM thing, but the "across" part, as presented in this thread, and what I saw in the video with Mr. Wegner, ain't exactly right.

The article by Cross does not talk explicitly about sweet spot size but it is implied from the increase in diameter and use of new materials. It is also part of MTM teaching as Oscar showed in a diagram that the modern sweet spot is almost as large as the head. It may have been an example of printer's devil, but Oscar got it right with his tour experience, unlike some of his followers who have never played at a high level.

The across part seems to be simply a path of the swing. On reverse forehands, the across would come over the same shoulder, in the windshield wiper forehands it may be be more pronounced in the vertical plane, in other forehands it may be part of the solid contact when hitting through the ball to impart power. The main thing to note is that the naked eye misses how much hitting through the ball is present in powerful forehands, as we end up focusing on where the racket finishes. It is not tangential contact as some seem to believe.

I don't know which Oscar video you saw, but if it is the one where there is an abrupt pullback at contact with a loss of balance to the side, I agree that it is not right.

[5263]

Originally Posted by mntlblok

Interesting. Can't imagine "why". I recall asking a question in a tennis forum early on in my quest about whether trajectory was controlled by racket face angle or by swing path.

Kevin

I'm not sure what you mean here. You say face angle or swing path, right?
Is not swing path dealing with across aspect?
Maybe you can address what you feel is wrong about the "across aspect"?

And by the way, the only mention you normally have of tangential contact or a
abrupt actions are from those trying to make a negative strawman for MTM.
Those terms don't correlate or relate to MTM instruction.

[5263]

Originally Posted by JohnYandell

You should listen to Suresh or read my post.

Agree, about the same level of info.