Modern Tennis Tips by Oscar Wegner

[5263]

Originally Posted by sureshs

The last part is highly relevant. You take shots anonymously at proven coaches,

No coach is ever proven, not even Oscar. Coaches have evidence, more or less
to their contributions, but never Proof.
They may be proven as a Player, but never as a coach.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by 5263

No coach is ever proven, not even Oscar. Coaches have evidence, more or less
to their contributions, but never Proof.
They may be proven as a Player, but never as a coach.

That is not the point. The point is you shouldn't take shots at anybody who doesn't post here, in a direct and insulting fashion. It is not even about tennis. But he is loved by parents of juniors so he is immune from any action.

[5263]

Originally Posted by sureshs

That is not the point. The point is you shouldn't take shots at anybody who doesn't post here, in a direct and insulting fashion. It is not even about tennis. But he is loved by parents of juniors so he is immune from any action.

So if Oscar goes back to not posting here, you and your merry band should
stop your scathing attacks? That is a not likely, lol.

I don't agree or see what them posting here has to do with posters sharing their
opinion. You don't really see it that way, and just came up with that as a lame
defense for someone your agenda is to protect.
Any coaching or instruction is up for discussion here.... or should be anyway!

[arche3]

Originally Posted by sureshs

If you have a problem, say something concrete. Your ignorance of basic physics is obvious, and is that of a couple of other posters here. If you have anything to say, say it and let us see what you have got. If you think a body can hit out on another body while itself moving in the opposite direction, say it, and I will rip you apart. Otherwise, your sarcasm just amplifies your ignorance. You have nothing to contribute other than taking sides here and there. I am done with you - answering your comments is a waste of time.

Suresh you always go back to physics. I'm sure even your messiah "neo" aka john yandel does not use exact scientific language to express all tennis to his students. When neo says to his junior player try to extend the fh out a little bit more for more pace and hit it on the rise. Does he quantify the instruction by adding the extention is on a curve and the arc of the curve is ... etc. ... ? No. He just says extend a bit more into the shot. Your hung up on words and descriptions that do not need a exact computer modeled simulation. Its tennis. Your lack of tennis knowledge is so huge as shown by other posters here. And your ignorance and persistent posting of lame brained observations wear people out.

[arche3]

Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen

I think we have been over this.



Ofcourse the ball can be hit outwards, even if you pull inwards (across the body), it depends on the angle between ball and the racket, and deflection. Perhaps you are confusing inwards and backwards.

You have to realise suresh has no working knowledge of playing tennis. I would pay money to see how he hits a tennis ball.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by 5263

So if Oscar goes back to not posting here, you and your merry band should
stop your scathing attacks? That is a not likely, lol.

Oh man I was not even talking about Oscar (as the guy who attacks others). Why do you always look at things from one angle only?

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by arche3

Suresh you always go back to physics. I'm sure even your messiah "neo" aka john yandel does not use exact scientific language to express all tennis to his students. When neo says to his junior player try to extend the fh out a little bit more for more pace and hit it on the rise. Does he quantify the instruction by adding the extention is on a curve and the arc of the curve is ... etc. ... ? No. He just says extend a bit more into the shot. Your hung up on words and descriptions that do not need a exact computer modeled simulation. Its tennis. Your lack of tennis knowledge is so huge as shown by other posters here. And your ignorance and persistent posting of lame brained observations wear people out.

Originally Posted by arche3

You have to realise suresh has no working knowledge of playing tennis. I would pay money to see how he hits a tennis ball.

Why don't you tell me what I said wrong, and we can discuss that? I stand by every thing that I said. There was a complete misrepresentation of a work done by a respected coach which contradicted totally what was claimed here, and I pointed to the original video.

I think you have nothing to contribute, so you just pick one side or another and enjoy the show.

People like you don't allow Oscar and others to have a discussion and get these threads deleted. I never heard back from Oscar - only from a bunch of others who would have probably believed the numbers if I had not found the video.

[jmnk]

Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen

I think we have been over this.



Ofcourse the ball can be hit outwards, even if you pull inwards (across the body), it depends on the angle between ball and the racket, and deflection. Perhaps you are confusing inwards and backwards.

ok, so for the sake of an argument, could you illustrate how that is possible?

imagine a ball as a circle where 12 o'clock is toward the opposite court, straight toward the center mark. To hit inside out FH (for righthanded player) you need to hit the ball anywhere between 6 and 9 o'clock. If you pull the racket inwards, the plane of the racket face is moving from general area of 3 o'clock to 9 o'clock (meaning right to left).

Could you explain how the plane (a racket) can touch a round object (a ball) between 6 and 9 while that plane is moving from right to left?

[5263]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Oh man I was not even talking about Oscar

I didn't say or imply you were talking of him, lol. I only used him as an example of
someone you and your lot have attacked often...even when he was not posting
here; showing how you didn't mean what you said related to comments about
those who don't post here.

[arche3]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Why don't you tell me what I said wrong, and we can discuss that? I stand by every thing that I said. There was a complete misrepresentation of a work done by a respected coach which contradicted totally what was claimed here, and I pointed to the original video.

I think you have nothing to contribute, so you just pick one side or another and enjoy the show.

People like you don't allow Oscar and others to have a discussion and get these threads deleted. I never heard back from Oscar - only from a bunch of others who would have probably believed the numbers if I had not found the video.

Its obvious why your wrong. Your misapplied use of physics.

[arche3]

Originally Posted by jmnk

ok, so for the sake of an argument, could you illustrate how that is possible?

imagine a ball as a circle where 12 o'clock is toward the opposite court, straight toward the center mark. To hit inside out FH (for righthanded player) you need to hit the ball anywhere between 6 and 9 o'clock. If you pull the racket inwards, the plane of the racket face is moving from general area of 3 o'clock to 9 o'clock (meaning right to left).

Could you explain how the plane (a racket) can touch a round object (a ball) between 6 and 9 while that plane is moving from right to left?

An in out fh is not literally hit on the ball at 8pm. If you actually made contact at 9pm the ball would go to the side fence.

See federer io fhs. There is a lot of side spin if he wants it. Meaning he is pulling the racket right to left as he made contact.

[arche3]

Originally Posted by 5263

I didn't say or imply you were talking of him, lol. I only used him as an example of
someone you and your lot have attacked often...even when he was not posting
here; showing how you didn't mean what you said related to comments about
those who don't post here.

I think suresh needs to buy a faster computer so he and his "messiah" can do sub atomic physics modeling of tennis ball atom interactions so we can get to the bottom of all the arguments. Its obvious to me now 2000 frame per second video is not nearly enough to show what is really happening. Maybe nasa will let suresh use their computing power.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by arche3

I think suresh needs to buy a faster computer so he and his "messiah" can do sub atomic physics modeling of tennis ball atom interactions so we can get to the bottom of all the arguments. Its obvious to me now 2000 frame per second video is not nearly enough to show what is really happening. Maybe nasa will let suresh use their computing power.

These days no need for that. I can buy cloud computing time from Amazon, Microsoft and others.

Going to NASA with a request for their supercomputer is traditional instruction. Modern technique is to use cloud computing. Some are still teaching the old way.

[Cheetah]

Originally Posted by jmnk

ok, so for the sake of an argument, could you illustrate how that is possible?

imagine a ball as a circle where 12 o'clock is toward the opposite court, straight toward the center mark. To hit inside out FH (for righthanded player) you need to hit the ball anywhere between 6 and 9 o'clock. If you pull the racket inwards, the plane of the racket face is moving from general area of 3 o'clock to 9 o'clock (meaning right to left).

Could you explain how the plane (a racket) can touch a round object (a ball) between 6 and 9 while that plane is moving from right to left?

What am I missing here? You just described how to hit an i/o forehand with sidespin.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by jmnk

ok, so for the sake of an argument, could you illustrate how that is possible?

imagine a ball as a circle where 12 o'clock is toward the opposite court, straight toward the center mark. To hit inside out FH (for righthanded player) you need to hit the ball anywhere between 6 and 9 o'clock. If you pull the racket inwards, the plane of the racket face is moving from general area of 3 o'clock to 9 o'clock (meaning right to left).

Could you explain how the plane (a racket) can touch a round object (a ball) between 6 and 9 while that plane is moving from right to left?

This is not exactly the point being discussed, which is an even more absurd claim, but it is a nice question. I would say that inward motion is not just right to left - it has to be a motion towards the body at contact time. I think some people found it too literal and want to think of right to left as inward also, instead of well, simply right to left!

In any case, the way you have framed it is what some people appear to be thinking, so let us go with that.

The answer is, of course, that it is not possible. Pro videos show the racket face both almost perpendicular to the ground, and perpendicular to the intended target direction, at contact. The racket continues in this path for a while before turning over.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by Cheetah

What am I missing here? You just described how to hit an i/o forehand with sidespin.

He means right to left OVER the ball from 3 to 9, which will constitute an arc moving inward from right to left. Obviously, it is not possible, and that is his point. He would consider your side spin to be 3 to 9 UNDER the ball, with the arc moving away from the body to the left.

[Cheetah]

Originally Posted by sureshs

He means right to left OVER the ball from 3 to 9, which will constitute an arc moving inward from right to left. Obviously, it is not possible, and that is his point. He would consider your side spin to be 3 to 9 UNDER the ball, with the arc moving away from the body to the left.

How do you know he means over the ball?
You can also hit i/o on the top half of the ball by swinging right to left.

[jmnk]

Originally Posted by arche3

An in out fh is not literally hit on the ball at 8pm. If you actually made contact at 9pm the ball would go to the side fence.

See federer io fhs. There is a lot of side spin if he wants it. Meaning he is pulling the racket right to left as he made contact.

isn't "not literally hit on the ball at 8pm" exactly the same as "you need to hit the ball anywhere between 6 and 9 o'clock" ? I think I'm missing your point here...

[jmnk]

Originally Posted by Cheetah

What am I missing here? You just described how to hit an i/o forehand with sidespin.

No.
I was asking how it is possible to hit inside out FH while having the racket move from right to left (which I'm assuming is being claimed when one says to pull the racket inwards during the stroke). I just would like someone to draw how that is physically possible.

[jmnk]

Originally Posted by sureshs

This is not exactly the point being discussed, which is an even more absurd claim, but it is a nice question. I would say that inward motion is not just right to left - it has to be a motion towards the body at contact time. I think some people found it too literal and want to think of right to left as inward also, instead of well, simply right to left!

In any case, the way you have framed it is what some people appear to be thinking, so let us go with that.

The answer is, of course, that it is not possible. Pro videos show the racket face both almost perpendicular to the ground, and perpendicular to the intended target direction, at contact. The racket continues in this path for a while before turning over.

sure, the racket may have some forward movement. But if it moves --at all- from right to left than it seems to me it is impossible to have the racket contact the ball anywhere past 6 o'clock mark (meaning between 6 and 12). So it seems impossible to hit inside out FH that way.