Modern Tennis Tips by Oscar Wegner

[Head Pegger]

Oscar I think I have gone through this too
When I'm really concentrated when I am about to swing the ball seems to sit in place for a second. cool

[Wegner]

Originally Posted by Head Pegger

Oscar I think I have gone through this too
When I'm really concentrated when I am about to swing the ball seems to sit in place for a second. cool

Fantastic. Welcome to the Club (the Zone).

Happy New Year, Oscar

[5263]

Originally Posted by JohnYandell

Disagreement is not "hating." !

Maybe not by itself, but when added to calling folks who disagree with you
cults and calling Oscar a "Messiah" (yours I guess since you thought of it?),
along with direct attacks....yep..that hating, but thanks again for a demonstration
of how your logic is full of misinfo.

[5263]

Originally Posted by treblings

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?

It's more in how it's done. You don't just call it footwork but you show how to
load the torso thru facing the net...then coiling thru turning your shoulders to
the side. This doesn't focus on dance steps, but more on how the body works
as a unit.

[treblings]

Originally Posted by 5263

It's more in how it's done. You don't just call it footwork but you show how to
load the torso thru facing the net...then coiling thru turning your shoulders to
the side. This doesn't focus on dance steps, but more on how the body works
as a unit.

how do you show this specifically? the body working as a unit is something that isn´t limited to open stances, imo

[5263]

Originally Posted by treblings

how do you show this specifically? the body working as a unit is something that isn´t limited to open stances, imo

That sounds a bit like a JY comment, .
I didn't place any limitations. Just said that is how
we do it in place of teaching dance step with the feet.

[treblings]

Originally Posted by 5263

That sounds a bit like a JY comment, .
I didn't place any limitations. Just said that is how
we do it in place of teaching dance step with the feet.

that was a misunderstanding on my part. you were simply talking about how to show the student the open stance i would probably do it in a similar way

[corbind]

Originally Posted by 10isfreak

The difference between a philosopher and a scientist is slim, though it is significant: the scientists bothers to verify his claims.

While Oscar might have a point in trying to bring results through visual cues or figurative speech, it is very uncertain whether he actually knows what he is talking about in the first place... I am ready to believe anything and am willing to let Oscard justify himself, but if JY is right and Oscar cannot back up his claims with scientific research or propose a meta-analysis of many researches as a justification, then anyone‘s words are as good as his.

With his reputation, I would expect that he‘d be thoughtful enough to answer this criticism properly... so, I‘ll let him reply to John. Leave your visual cues home and use a precise vocabulary to answer our doubts. Go through several of your key advices and demonstrate your points one by one.

That‘s how we should be proceeding every single time...

Agreed the scientific approach is really he way to have intelligent conversation/debate/resolution. People can talk until they exhaust themselves. I'll read it all since I'm not lazy and desire to learn.

For those who claim tennis is easy. Sure you can get a guy who has never left the farm, never watched tv, and still play well.

You can also have a guy who has never played on a court but has extensively studied books, videos and watched others who could play well in short order.

people are on forums for a plehora of reasons.

Learning
Trolling
Selling products
Bragging of wins
Sulking over beat-downs

Yet the vast majority here are here to LEARN! As such the method of addressing ideas/issues and grinding them down to small details if of great value if they are validated with research or some reasonable proof. Without the "proof" it becomes a, "I heard..." From maybe a kid who just picked up a racquet last month. We ALL were THAT GUY at one time and learned a ton since... May the wise bring us knowledge (with sources)!

[Relinquis]

i don't know why everyone is so sensitive on this thread. all of you coaching types criticise one another's approaches. even the "celebrity" coaches.

as someone who plays tennis for fun, i can make my own mind up when comparing the various approaches. It's actually useful to see different coaches disagreeing on specific points, or even teaching philosophies.

debate can be useful when people are knowledgeable of the topic. most people here have played a lot of tennis and/or received a lot of instruction/coaching. if we only posted on threads we agreed with this place would be a lot less useful.

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by psv255

In terms of direction, the ball goes where Fed intends, but if you look closely, the degree and timing of the "across" in each shot corresponds to the way the ball bounces on the other side of the net. It's less noticeable from the camera's POV as opposed to first-person, but there are two predominant shot shapes Fed uses, and both are hit very much to his side (still in front):
One causes the ball to curve right-to-left (2:13), while the other causes the ball to curve left-to-right (two shots after 1:55).

I would agree. And the right to left is hit on a low bounce, while the left to right is hit on a higher ball. Which is very natural considering the natural curve of a swing. But by far the most are curling left to right (inside out one might say), while on the fewer low balls you get the opposite.

[treblings]

most players at the rec level hit the ball too late, not in front of them where they would find more power and control.
the main reason for this i find is that many players play at a faster speed than they can handle
their footwork and their stroke preparation isn´t good enough to handle the pace. but virtually everybody likes to hit hard
many players don´t do a very good unit turn as well. some don´t do it at all and just arm the ball.
doing a split step is also not widely known.
by teaching all these things, and in many cases more open stances as well i see big improvements
once people learn about stuff like that it leads to more confidence and competence and less rushing

[Passion4Tennis]

Originally Posted by treblings

most players at the rec level hit the ball too late, not in front of them where they would find more power and control.
the main reason for this i find is that many players play at a faster speed than they can handle
their footwork and their stroke preparation isn´t good enough to handle the pace. but virtually everybody likes to hit hard
many players don´t do a very good unit turn as well. some don´t do it at all and just arm the ball.
doing a split step is also not widely known.
by teaching all these things, and in many cases more open stances as well i see big improvements
once people learn about stuff like that it leads to more confidence and competence and less rushing

This is true. I doubt that a lot of people I've played with over the years (3.5-4.5) would have any idea what a split step is. I didn't know what it was until I came to this forum.

[TheCheese]

Can we please keep it civil and keep this thread open? It's one of the more useful threads on TTW.

We realize JY and Oscar disagree, but it'd be great if they could stay out of each other's tip threads so they don't get deleted.

[tennisfan69]

What JY is putting out in his thread -does modern tennis exist- is brilliant stuff for anyone to absorb...

[arche3]

The best coaches in every sport realises that players need to keep things simple and uncluttered in their minds. So they play without conscious thought and play in the moment. Which coincidentally is the reason drills and patterns of play are used by the top coaches of all sports. So the situation is familiar to the player. The players body just does what it knows. There is no overriding ego sitting ontop of the mind during the split second between hits.

You cannot get much better as a player watching videos. You can however get much better if you have a coach that watches videos of your technique and game play. The job of the player is to keep it simple in a complex dynamic situation of the point in a tennis match.

Have you guys seen the video of djokovic teaching how to serve? He says its all in the wrist snap. High speed video of top pros show its really not about snapping the wrist. But that is what djokos coach used to elicit a certain performance from him. So djoko thinks its because he snaps his wrists.

[10isfreak]

Originally Posted by arche3

My suggestion to you is to just try any methods of tennis instruction on a tennis court and decide if it works for you or not. Tennis is not science. Nothing needs scientific research here. Tell your rant to any of the top coaches. They would laugh you off the court. Even when high speed video is used it simply allows you to see more precisely so you can form an opinion. It is just a tool to help a coach. They do not have advanced scientific labs setup court side to prove coaching theories.

There has been this thing called "practice" that good tennis players do which improves their tennis. Hard to believe I know but it really works.

I will surprise you...

There are theories about friendship, communication, education, teaching, even love. Thepries have major advantages over your experience, namely that they are not context-dependant and that they reflect reality objectively... your experience is unfortunately a biased sample.

You then have two options:
You guess that your experience luckily happen to fit reality in this case and you solve your problems through trials and errors;
Or you use the existing theories and you solve your problems systematically.

Guess what works best? In any case, you have good reasons to believe the theories will work every time: they‘re tested, unlike your personal convictions.

[10isfreak]

*theories in the scientific sense

To further develop, trying out different approaches is very inefficient, long and tiring... We can compare both ways to solve this problem with a simplified example.

Maximize f(x,y)= 3xy^2 subject to y=4x+2
Try doing this by trial and error... it‘s nearly impossible and we‘re talking about three variables. Use appropriate method and you solve it in under 10min.

In reality, when we talk about things like human behavior, thought or simply hitting a forehand, we can have 40, 50 or even more distinct components interacting. Teaching asks you what will work best with all that stuff... Being presumably an adult, you have an edge over kids: you can use deductive logic and, therefore, theories to solve these problems in minutes instead of spending a life time, hoping to get it right.

[arche3]

Originally Posted by 10isfreak

I will surprise you...

There are theories about friendship, communication, education, teaching, even love. Thepries have major advantages over your experience, namely that they are not context-dependant and that they reflect reality objectively... your experience is unfortunately a biased sample.

You then have two options:
You guess that your experience luckily happen to fit reality in this case and you solve your problems through trials and errors;
Or you use the existing theories and you solve your problems systematically.

Guess what works best? In any case, you have good reasons to believe the theories will work every time: they‘re tested, unlike your personal convictions.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm talking about playing tennis on a real court with tennis racket and tennis balls. What are you saying? Study physics of tennis more than practice? Tennis is not that hard to learn. There is no theory of trying to learn tennis. You just get a good coach and play tennis.

How did you learn to play tennis? I had a coach and he showed me as a kid how to play and we practiced. And coaches through high school and college, they all had different ideas about tennis but were all variations on how to win.

[arche3]

[quote=10isfreak;7085776]*theories in the scientific sense

To further develop, trying out different approaches is very inefficient, long and tiring... We can compare both ways to solve this problem with a simplified example.

Maximize f(x,y)= 3xy^2 subject to y=4x+2


? What does this have to do with training your body to hit tennis balls?

[10isfreak]

Originally Posted by arche3

I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm talking about playing tennis on a real court with tennis racket and tennis balls. What are you saying? Study physics of tennis more than practice? Tennis is not that hard to learn. There is no theory of trying to learn tennis. You just get a good coach and play tennis.

How did you learn to play tennis? I had a coach and he showed me as a kid how to play and we practiced. And coaches through high school and college, they all had different ideas about tennis but were all variations on how to win.

What I am telling you is that you cannot teach what you do not understand.