Modern Tennis Tips by Oscar Wegner

[luvforty]

everybody is built differently, therefore by definition there can NOT be monolithic truth.

whoever claims so is basically self-labeling as a one trick pony.

[arche3]

Originally Posted by JohnYandell

Disagreement is not "hating." Calling people out on their credibility problems by citing evidence is not "hating."

Expalining why certain claims are falacious when presented as monolithic truth is not "hating." Suggesting how these claims may be detrimental to the tennis of players here is not "hating."

But there is a reaction pattern we have seen here over and over again when these criticisms are raised that leads to thread oblivion. It's self inflicted.

On with the love fest!

I have an idea. If you started a JY tennis ideas thread I am sure people would enjoy it just as much as this one. I know I would.

[Mulach]

John, why are you so critical of this approach?

Have you ever bothered to try it? As a scientist, which you are, you would test this notion of feel vs real. And if feel results in the "right" real, then a scientist would just acknowledge it.

I've heard your criticism but can you explain how following OW advice can results in problems? You've said it is dangerous but I would like to hear details of how so.

I'm just learning about this accelerate across and it makes a lot of sense. I see the pro's doing it, now that I'm looking for it. I also see then extend through. So the two things coexist. Is it a chicken before egg debate?

It's quite simple. Throw a ball at a target. The first way - chase the ball with your hand straight in line with your throw and target. Second way, throw it at target and as you release, accelerate your arm across your body. After playing with this, which method results in a faster throw? After a bit of practice, direction control is just as accurate with both methods.

So what gives? Why so much resistance if this coaching works? What are the pitfalls? What are the signs we should look for that indicate backfire?

Lets have some data.

[JohnYandell]

Mulach,

All reasonable questions you ask. You're late to this debate though by about 2 years. I lost count of how many threads in which I posted video clips, hard data, interviews with other authorities who challenged various points as well as myself, not to mention a ton of very precise reasoning, all that have been vaporized in a haze of denial and...well, let's just stop there before the vapor trial is all that is left.

I am going to duck out here and leave the love fest to the lovers.

Arche had an interesting suggestion.

[3fees]

Thanks for sharing

[Mulach]

Originally Posted by JohnYandell

Mulach,

All reasonable questions you ask. You're late to this debate though by about 2 years. I lost count of how many threads in which I posted video clips, hard data, interviews with other authorities who challenged various points as well as myself, not to mention a ton of very precise reasoning, all that have been vaporized in a haze of denial and...well, let's just stop there before the vapor trial is all that is left.

I am going to duck out here and leave the love fest to the lovers.

Arche had an interesting suggestion.

John, thank you for your reply. I will try search for it. If you can point me in the right direction I would appreciate it. Private message would work if that helps keeps the mods from having to take action.

I'm in this forum to learn and this seems like an extremely important topic.

[TomT]

Originally Posted by arche3

I have an idea. If you started a JY tennis ideas thread I am sure people would enjoy it just as much as this one. I know I would.

Ditto. I think I can learn from both Oscar Wegner and John Yandell ... and a lot of other people for that matter. If something (after sufficient work on my part in applying a principle or technical adjustment) helps my game, then, for me at least, it was sage advice.

[JohnYandell]

OK Gentleman I won't promise anything less than rigorous analysis, however. I made a start in a thread titled "Does Modern Tennis Exist?"

[TennisCJC]

3 questions for Oscar - first, in general, I like your simply way of teaching the game and it has helped me in the past.

Question 1: you don't seem to stress what other call the "prep" phase where you pivot the shoulders to the side. I have studied many pros and a shoulder pivot where the shoulder turn to the side and the hands stay in front of the chest seems to be almost universally used. Why do you not teach this as part of your method?

Question 2: you don't teach to change grips for a 2HBH in your book, but again almost all pros and better players use a continental on the dominant side (r hand conti for right handed player) and an eastern or semi-western grip on the non-dominant side (l hand for right handed player). Shouldn't advanced players use a conti R hand/E or SW L hand grip?

Question 3: you and many others teach the 2 HBH is a a L handed forehand for a right handed player. But, many pros use the dominant hand, arm and shoulder quite a bit. Djoko hits 90% of his 2 HBH with a square/neutral or slightly closed stance, his right shoulder closes a bit to the incoming ball, he does not have the racket head as high up on the backswing as a normal pro forehand, and the L hand seems to take over on the follow-thru. He does rotate the hips, shoulders to fully open and wraps the follow-thru like a WW forehand, but there seem to be a vast difference in his 2 HBH and his forehand. Isn't the 2 HBH really quite different from a normal forehand?

[Povl Carstensen]

I would say that there is across in this forehand:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTjBXVQyiwg
But the ball seems to go pretty straight though...

[ShoeShiner]

Originally Posted by Wegner

. . .
Focusing initially on the hand, rather than on the racquet, can develop several abilities.
. . .

I have found by myself this is true.

[B.W.]

If Oscar says so.I guarantee its true.Just try it.

[Wegner]

Originally Posted by TennisCJC

3 questions for Oscar - first, in general, I like your simply way of teaching the game and it has helped me in the past.

Question 1: you don't seem to stress what other call the "prep" phase where you pivot the shoulders to the side. I have studied many pros and a shoulder pivot where the shoulder turn to the side and the hands stay in front of the chest seems to be almost universally used. Why do you not teach this as part of your method?

Question 2: you don't teach to change grips for a 2HBH in your book, but again almost all pros and better players use a continental on the dominant side (r hand conti for right handed player) and an eastern or semi-western grip on the non-dominant side (l hand for right handed player). Shouldn't advanced players use a conti R hand/E or SW L hand grip?

Question 3: you and many others teach the 2 HBH is a a L handed forehand for a right handed player. But, many pros use the dominant hand, arm and shoulder quite a bit. Djoko hits 90% of his 2 HBH with a square/neutral or slightly closed stance, his right shoulder closes a bit to the incoming ball, he does not have the racket head as high up on the backswing as a normal pro forehand, and the L hand seems to take over on the follow-thru. He does rotate the hips, shoulders to fully open and wraps the follow-thru like a WW forehand, but there seem to be a vast difference in his 2 HBH and his forehand. Isn't the 2 HBH really quite different from a normal forehand?

Answer to question number 1:

I would say that there are 3 stages in tennis: one is geting to the ball, then focussing on finding it well, the next is how you hit it. The squaring of the shoulders is part of the third stage. To do it as part of stage #1 for a ball that you have to run to is a waste of time (the body usually turns to run to a distant ball anyway). Only when the ball is coming directly to you it is wise to address it, while you are making room for the stroke, with the shoulder turn.

Answer to question number 2:

There are a lot of players that operate as you say, mainly with the right hand. Others operate with the left hand. I prefer the second one as more natural and more efficient. You can easily hit it easily with an open stance.

Answer to question number 3:

Depending on your choice as per my answer to number 2, the 2 handed-backhand has more similarities to a one-handed backhand, or with a forehand with the left hand. Throughout my teachings, I work on making tennis simple and easy to learn. That is reflected in the two-handed backhand as well. I start the student with the left hand only, as if it was a forehand, then I have them add the right hand and I drill both back and forth. The power of simplicity!

[Wegner]

Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen

I would say that there is across in this forehand:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTjBXVQyiwg
But the ball seems to go pretty straight though...

Beautiful example. Thank you, Povl.

[Wegner]

Originally Posted by treblings

Oscar,
in the video interview you posted you were critical of fyb´s modern footwork videos.
i actually liked them a lot and feel like they helped me in my game
what is it you don´t like about them?

Just that I feel there is undue attention to footwork. I like foot movement to be more natural, more instinctive, that to pay so much attention to the feet.

[Wegner]

Originally Posted by dominikk1985

thanks mr wegner. I will try that and Report back.

I'm definitely against Extension of the arm but do you actually mean active pulling in by bending the arm (biceps). or do you mean just follow the natural arc around the Body?

I pull actively, and coach so as well. Why? Because I noticed that the results are spectacular in terms of accuracy, power, feel and ease. Spectacular, at times.

[Wegner]

Originally Posted by Raul_SJ

TCF,

In an earlier thread, that has since been deleted, you mentioned that your students improved when presented with the "pulling across" image.

Congratulations on this.

But what do you believe is physically changing with their stroke?

The change from conventional to modern is that you use more your major muscle groups in modern and you have a freer posture, while conventional is more elaborate and involves too much muscles that are smaller and therefore weaker (and that includes rotational forces on your hips and knees at the end of the stroke, making you more vulnerable to injury).

[morandi]

Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen

I would say that there is across in this forehand:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTjBXVQyiwg
But the ball seems to go pretty straight though...

I think the great lesson to learn in watching this, is look how slow it seems his racquet moves to the ball, and then the rapid acceleration at the end. It almost seems like he is going to catch the ball on his strings. Talk about finding the ball.

[morandi]

Here is another, more extreme example of pulling across. There is no backswing here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUcymJTm0gs

[treblings]

Originally Posted by Wegner

Just that I feel there is undue attention to footwork. I like foot movement to be more natural, more instinctive, that to pay so much attention to the feet.

so if for example you have a new student who hits his fh only with a closed stance you wouldn´t draw his attention to his footwork and make him try more open stances?