Does Modern Tennis Exist?

[luvforty]

Originally Posted by Avles

At risk of going way off topic-- is this really true? I've never heard this explanation before, and it sounds kind of implausible...

well, going off topic is just a matter of time.... so what the heck.

the reason that a slow hard court makes the ball bounce higher, is because the surface has more these tiny 'hills' (if you look under microscope), that provides the ball with a angle to climb up on.

the same applies to the clay surface, the clay particles provide these tiny hills for the ball to climb up on..... plus the little pile that the skidding ball pushes the loose dirt into.... just look at the ball marks.

[Ash_Smith]

Originally Posted by max

I think communication is the secret: being able to get a message across to different kinds of people using different ways; for some, visual, for others, metaphorical, and yet others, very plain language technical.

Of course - the best coaches use combinations of visual, audial and kinaesthetic teaching. Audial can be further split (depending on the intention of the coach) into Control (Direction), Common Understanding (shared goal) or Emancipator Reflections (guided discovery to liberate from unconscious or conscious behaviours).

[Raul_SJ]

Originally Posted by TCF

One of the first tips I ever heard from Oscar, way back in his tennis tips on TV days, was that the ball loses half its speed from the time it leaves the racquet and reaches the other player. He also repeated this in his first book back in the day.

You guys came to the exact same conclusion....you with detailed research, Oscar through whatever means he used (perhaps just estimating??) way back when!

If the ball did not lose speed, a forehand hit at 80mph (~120 feet per second), would take 0.67 seconds to travel 80 feet to the opposite baseline.

But players know that they have much more than 0.67 seconds (>1.0 second) to react.

Players 100 years ago would have intuitively known the ball significantly slows down during its flight..

[treblings]

Originally Posted by JohnYandell

The balls are leaving the racket on the top forehands with 2500rpm of spin or more. And the spin actually increases after the bounce. The bottom half of the ball grabs the court and the friction causes the top half to accelerate. After the bounce the spin can double. We've measured balls spinning at over 5000rpm before the contact.

So between the hits, the speed is halved and the spin is doubled. What does it all mean?

probably means that a teaching pro working with potential future elite players should direct his students towards more spin, or does it?
can we predict the direction tennis will take in the next 20 years?
will they make the courts faster again, develop different balls that favor pace and not spin?

[Akubra]

Originally Posted by JohnYandell

Most of the debate over technique centers on the fundamental stroke of the forehand.

Let's start with some basic facts. In the pro game in a typical groundstroke exchange, there is about 1 second between the rackets. The ball leaves Fed's racket and 1 second later it leaves Nadal's, plus or minus.

As our research was the first to show, the ball loses about 50 percent or more of it's speed in this interval. If that wasn't true the speed of tennis would exceed human reaction capacity.

So on a forehand measured off the racket at 80mph, pros are actually hitting an incoming ball that is, say, traveling around 40mph, and they have at most a few tenths of second after the bounce in which to make contact.

But speed and time are not the only factors to consider in the nature of pro excahnges. The balls are leaving the racket on the top forehands with 2500rpm of spin or more. And the spin actually increases after the bounce. The bottom half of the ball grabs the court and the friction causes the top half to accelerate. After the bounce the spin can double. We've measured balls spinning at over 5000rpm before the contact.

So between the hits, the speed is halved and the spin is doubled. What does it all mean?

John,

As someone who has the means, why don't you do a study on the actual effect of court speed? Measure the difference in time-to-contact, rpms and speed at contact for the same shot on 2 different hard courts - one fast, one at typical pro-tournament speed? There is so much talk about the effect of the court speed on the game, but no real data that I've ever been able to find. Some real information could frame the discussion moving forward rather than the pure speculation we're dealing with now.

[5263]

Originally Posted by Ash_Smith

oh, and to answer John's original question - yes "Modern Tennis" does exist, but only in the same sense that "Modern Art" exists.

So a clear wrong answer then, since it is the name of teaching method and has been
for years. It exist, therefore it is!

[JohnYandell]

AK,

Yeah it's an interesting idea.

[JohnYandell]

So when we left Roger Federer the ball had left Rafa's racket traveling 80 mph with 3000rpm leaving him around a second to reach the contact point on his forehand.

This is why immediately after the split step--and sometimes even before landing--all top players have started to turn the body and the feet sideways.

This full body turn includes the feet and legs, the hips and the shoulders. No matter what anyone else including Wegner tries to tell you, it is universal.

How do I know this? By careful study of thousands of high speed video clips of dozens of the top players. The naked eye records at about 20 frames a second. Anyone who tells you they have seen the truth with their own eyes is mistaken.

This turning motion is continuous and includes, often, multiple steps to the ball when players are moving wide, or back, or around the ball to hit inside out.

This instantaneous, smooth and continuous preparation reaches a characteristic point that coincides roughly with the bounce on the court. The shoulders turn 90 degrees plus to the net. The left arm stretches across the body, pointing square or perpindicular to the sideline. If the ball allows, the player will also load on the outside foot in a stationary position, but often the full turn is reached while the player is still on the move or on the run.

The hands have separated and the racket hand has reached, roughly, the top of the backswing.

There is no delaying, there is no keeping your hands in front as long as possible, there is no stalking, there is no counting to five after the bounce--unless you can count to five in about 3/10s of a second. Watch Wegner's preparation in his "modern" forehand tips--he is no where near the pro position and neither are the MIT coaches in the video he touts as examples of his system.

This fully loaded position is what allows the players to deal with the incredible forces in the high velocity, heavy balls launched at them at one second intervals.

And guess what? You can find the great players of the past like Bill Tilden and Jack Kramer in that exact same position.
This is what I mean when I say the hard distinction between classical and modern tennis is artificial at best, and a marketing scam at worst. Early, strong preparation is an element than runs across a century of high level tennis.

This position, fully turned with the racket at the top of the backswing is sometimes described by coaches like Rick Macci as the position from which the forehand swing starts. Rick calls it "dropping into the hit." Remember that at this point the contact is only a couple or at most a few 1/10ths of a second away.

Imagine if the top players waited til the bounce to try to create this position, much less then complete the swing. Impossible.

Ironically the rare times you see the turn and preparation delayed proves the truth of the above analysis. You see it sometimes on short, slow, or high bouncing moonlike balls. You see it on lets.

So here is one of the funamental ironies of "modern" instruction and why it can be so detrimental to the games of so many players. Not only is it not modern, it is actually the antithesis of the way modern players really prepare. There are many others to come.

[JohnYandell]

But wait a minute some club level advocate of "modern" instruction may argue, I don't have to deal with 80 mph forehands so I can stalk and delay and start to prepare when the ball bounces. "Modern" instruction really works for me because I am a low level player.

OK let's examine the assumption there. Wasn't the claim that modern instruction works because it allows anyone to "play like the pros" and make the game so very, very easy?

Now you reach a fundamental contradiction. I am going to play like the pros by not playing like the pros.

The reality is that the difference in the time interval between the pros and a high level 4.5 player is less than you think. When we did our first studies of ball speed we were surprised to find that those exchanges were around 1.2 to 1.4 seconds in duration and that club spin on the forehand could be well over 1000rpm and sometimes a lot higher.

So there is no doubt that given the reaction times of the rest of the players in the tennis world the same principles apply. If anything they apply more.

Just go to any club. I see it all the time. Watch the players standing around waiting for the ball to bounce on their side of the net. Then making the kind of ugly arm based swings that are also so common at that level.

It's as if the basic tenets of "modern" instruction were designed to make this fundamental problem worse. Don't fall for it.

Learn to make a gorgeous precise, powerful turn.

[WildVolley]

I'm not that interested in the fighting over schools of tennis teaching. But I'm totally convinced that using high speed video, in which Yandell has been a pioneer, is the big breakthrough in understanding high level tennis.

For example, I think there is a "new" forehand as performed by Federer, Nadal, etc. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know that there weren't early antecedents, but the heavy "pat-the-dog" motion at the end of the back-swing along with the straighter arm stuff seems to be different than what I recall seeing of Lendl or even Agassi. However, this is not something that I think Wegner or anyone else can claim credit for (can they?).

So, I think the game is still evolving, and that the way pros actually play is shaping what is taught because we can see things in ways that wasn't possible before. We don't need to rely on the pronouncement of gurus, and the younger generation probably doesn't care as much about who claims to have "invented" what the pros are doing.

Hopefully, I haven't gone too off course.

[JohnYandell]

Wegner claimed in one of the famous nuked threads that virtually any technical problem a club player faced could be magically erased by watching his DVDs.

I mean I like the sham wow commericals as much as anyone, but developing a gorgeous effective esthetically satisfying game that produces real competitive results is a little harder than drying your car.

It's been well established that true mastery of any athletic or musical or academic skill takes roughly 10,000 hours of practice or about 10 years.

Not everyone is going to take it to that level obviously but part of the satisfaction of any endeavor is the challenge.

Every competitive player myself included has played matches where everything felt ridiculously easy--you are in a flowing rhythm, you can hit with power and dominate the court creating openings and hitting winners.

That isn't going to come from watching a DVD. Yes, I feel most players when exposed to simple model positions with use of video and video feedback can make immediate progress--but mastering that as part of a honed game takes time and the ability to work the change through at increasing levels of difficulty.

You see this with even the greatest players in the world lilke Murray or Djokovic that achieved more and more of their potential over time.

That is the great satisfaction of becoming a player. It's not something you can learn in two hours or two days. In fact it can be a lifetime process--that's what makes tennis great, not bogus miracle promises.

[JohnYandell]

WV,

Actually Laver and McEnroe and Philipoussis all hit with a straight arm. And most of the modern players today hit with the double bend.

But you are right. Some of the ways the elements are combined, particularly with the advantages of the strings, are prevelent in a way never before seen.

Ironically, they are not actually elements in Wegner's so called "modern" system. I'm working toward explaining that but trying to build a systematic step by step presentation.

[Mulach]

John,

I wonder if you and Oscar are just talking past each other.

I've just come across this swing/pull across the body tip. Before now, for some time I've been working on split step, unit turn, pat the dog, drive the swing with legs and core, passive arm extends through the ball.

Now I am doing the same thing except that instead of a passive arm, I am actively pulling the arm up and across. And guess what, my extension through the ball is better than ever. Do you know why? Because that active pull of the arm is complemented by my right shoulder rotating almost a full shoulder width through the ball as I pull my arm up and across.

So do you see it? The tip from Oscar about pulling the arm up and acros is leading to exactly what you are saying should hapen based on high speed video analyss. Why can't you guys reconcile that? Too much ego on both sides?

For me adding the pull across the body seems like it will be a game changer. I've never hit a forehand as hard as I have following Oscars tip. And for the record, I'm doing it with a full shoulder turn and loading/unloading my legs. Oscar doesn't say don't do that. Why do you assume he advocates that?

If you bothered to test his coaching, you would realize that swinging across actually ENCOURAGES a full shoulder turn. And a full shoulder turn ENCOURAGES loading the legs to maintain balance.

You guys fight all you want. I will reap the benefits on the court.

If you were to get over yourselves, you would see that you are coaching the same results. JY via what happens in high speed video. OW via simple tips that lead to what is seen in high speed video.

What else can we players say to get you two to realize that you are debating feel vs real and in this case OW feel should lead to JY real?

[JohnYandell]

M,

Glad you are having success. If you read the rest of the thread or if you were more familiar with my work you would see that the finish or the extension of the forward swing and how to achieve it is key. This includes, obviously, the across dimension but not the limited forward dimension and bicep scissor move Wegner advocates. That a situational exception and different than most drives.

The preparation is also key and it sounds like yours, as you describe it, is good. And yes I would agree great preparation leads to great extension. But coming across and extending are two independent components.

I have absolutely no need to reconcile theories with Wegner or anyone else. There is no need in this world for unifying conflicting viewpoints. If anything the contrast is a way of sharpening your own views.

I always consider new data when I see it. I try to integrate and learn and evolve and form my own views. It's ongoing. Those who wish to agree or disagree are welcome.

If you were more familiar with Wegner's work you'd see that the great preparation you are describing isn't part of his system and in fact what he believes undermines it.

That's just my view and as I said what others such as yourself get out of my work or anyone else's is there for the taking.

[Ash_Smith]

Originally Posted by 5263

So a clear wrong answer then, since it is the name of teaching method and has been
for years. It exist, therefore it is!

exactly, it is nothing more than a label. "Modern Art" for example covers a period roughly from around 1860 to the 1970's and includes other art movements including Impressionism, Cubism, Surrealism, Abstract Expressionism and Pop Art - in other words it included all sorts of philosophies and went through many transitions during its existence and was considered a period where artists threw aside the spirit of traditionalism in favour of experimentation. If Oscar feels this is what his teaching method is all about then in those terms the Label "Modern Tennis" is more than appropriate.

[TimothyO]

Originally Posted by treblings

John,

first, let me take this opportunity to thank you for giving me access to your site for a week. i used it extensively and enjoyed it a lot.
i can recommend it highly and will subscribe to it

as to the decline of u.s. tennis. we europeans probably have the advantage of playing on slower surfaces, mainly red clay, in clubs and academies.
with the atp tour slowing down the courts, the fact that europeans are used to playing longer rallies and maybe working on shot selection more, probably pays off.

Are players such as Sharapova American or Russian?

In her case she has a Russian flag icon or the letters "RUS" next to her name on TV but she is a product of the American tennis system.

Others such as Azarenka are a mix having moved to the US to train as a teenager.

I wonder how many of the other top WTA and ATP players received some or most of their training in US facilities but still nominally play for other countries (eg Andy Murray now lives and trains in Florida).

[Relinquis]

The WTA is a different sport altogether.

P.S. Sharapova is Russian. There is more to being a player than where you trained. You do make a valid point though.

[treblings]

Originally Posted by TimothyO

Are players such as Sharapova American or Russian?

In her case she has a Russian flag icon or the letters "RUS" next to her name on TV but she is a product of the American tennis system.

Others such as Azarenka are a mix having moved to the US to train as a teenager.

I wonder how many of the other top WTA and ATP players received some or most of their training in US facilities but still nominally play for other countries (eg Andy Murray now lives and trains in Florida).

they don´t ´nominally´play for other countries. they play for their home country.
many players train at least part time in Spain nowadays, maybe more so than the U.S. that doesn´t make them spanish.
as reliquis said, you make a good point though

[TimothyO]

Nominally was poor choice of words on my part. Sorry bout that.

I guess what I'm saying is that when we bemoan the lack of American talent we should remember that America is producing fine players who happen to play for other countries (although in Sharapova's case I would argue that she's culturally American rather than Russian...and she clearly prefers living here rather than over there).

That's also a good point about the Spanish School O Tennis. Didn't Murray train there too?

This fall I spoke with some coachs at an ITF juniors event. They said this is a touchy subject in the business. Some folks feel kids from other countries take slots that might otherwise go to Americans since they are willing to pay full cost. Doesn't make sense to me but I'm completely ignorant of the world of up and coming juniors. Talking to parents at the same event it seems like a really tough life given the ultra low probability of success.

[treblings]

Originally Posted by TimothyO

Nominally was poor choice of words on my part. Sorry bout that.

I guess what I'm saying is that when we bemoan the lack of American talent we should remember that America is producing fine players who happen to play for other countries (although in Sharapova's case I would argue that she's culturally American rather than Russian...and she clearly prefers living here rather than over there).

That's also a good point about the Spanish School O Tennis. Didn't Murray train there too?

This fall I spoke with some coachs at an ITF juniors event. They said this is a touchy subject in the business. Some folks feel kids from other countries take slots that might otherwise go to Americans since they are willing to pay full cost. Doesn't make sense to me but I'm completely ignorant of the world of up and coming juniors. Talking to parents at the same event it seems like a really tough life given the ultra low probability of success.

as i said, you made a good point about the american system producing champion players. attending u.s colleges on a tennis scholarship is very popular over here in europe as well.