Del Potro doesn't pat the dog. check out his girly WTA push strokes.

[5263]

Originally Posted by JohnYandell

The highest topspin components we saw in the serves was 30%.

I suspect it's probably the reverse on the topspin groundstrokes--very roughly something like 70% or more topspin. .

So what does 30% or 70% refer to here? What type measurement is being
referenced?
% of what? Are we talking degrees in one direction?

[FrisbeeFool]

Originally Posted by Headshotterer

OP is an idiot.

Thank you.

[5263]

Originally Posted by JohnYandell

We measured Delpo's forehand spin and it's still well over 2000rpm--higher than Sampras and Agassi though less than Fed or Djok. His forehand may be relatively flat in the modern game but it is far from flat.

I think this discussion is mostly about trajectory, and not so much about spin revs.

[Jeff Salzenstein]

Originally Posted by 5263

Look, Jeff is a good guy and we have talked a bit. He is a fine player and working
to build an instruction based career. He is smart to use certain names and
associations in the manner he does. Don't be confused though, as Jeff's instruction
is rooted in modern tennis and has studied it from Oscar. He has also referenced him
a few times on his site.

Many are impressed by certain names for
one reason or another. Lansdorp has had tremendous success related to him thru
the years, but that in NO WAY means that everything he does is correct.
His successes are based on many items and there is plenty of room for a mistake
here and there. His predictions about how the game would be played have been
180 out, so it seems to me his vision for the sport's technique was quite flawed.
I'm pretty familiar with RL and his work since he was one who I studied for the
very reasons you like him, and was a pretty good coach and player even then,
but my ball striking and coaching of technique really took a turn for the better
when I discovered better modern instruction and realized how far RL was off in
that aspect of the game. None of that is to say that RL is not at the top in
several other areas. There is a lot more to the game than swing technique.

I just jumped into TW today to see what has been written recently. I want to set the record straight on what was written by 5263. If we have spoken, maybe you can let me know who you are so we can chat again sometime.

I want to point out that me mentioning various coaches I have worked with has nothing to do with being smart and everything to do with giving credit to those great coaches who have come before me. I am forever grateful for them helping me understand the game of tennis better.

I want to be very clear that I have created my own systematic teaching system from ALL of the coaches and mentors that I have interacted with. I spent about 3 days in Florida with Oscar once and have also studied his material via videos and books. I have also studied with numerous other coaches for far longer periods of time.

To say I have studied the modern game from Oscar is an inaccurate statement. He is one of many coaches that has helped shape my philosophy and I've learned a lot from many other coaches as well (Landsdorp, Baskin, Macci, Jones, O'Shaugnessy, O'Dwyer, Yandell, etc etc) I have also developed my philosophies from my own experimentation and video analysis.

[sureshs]

........................

[5263]

Originally Posted by Jeff Salzenstein

I spent about 3 days in Florida with Oscar once and have also studied his material via videos and books.
----------
To say I have studied the modern game from Oscar is an inaccurate statement.

Really?
Some of this is just a matter of perspective Imo and of course you can see it
how you like. I've seen some of your instruction where you credited Oscar
directly along with your work with him as you mention again above. From my perspective
those other coaches don't represent modern instruction for the most part
as I use the term, but maybe your use of that term is more inline with "current"
rather than what is properly termed "modern".

My comments on your instruction being rooted in "modern Tennis" was more
of an observation of what I saw in much of your instruction, while I also clearly
saw some deviations as well. Maybe I should have been more clear on that, but
either way, nothing I stated was inaccurate and think the 2 quotes
above don't really jive that well. It seems you did study "modern Tennis" from
& with Oscar, along with a lot of other tennis study with other top coaches.
I never said you studied only or even mainly from Oscar. Personally I think it
is "Smart" to give credit to the coaches who came before you, but again, you
can see it differently.