Modern Tennis Tips by Oscar Wegner

[arche3]

Originally Posted by sureshs

I will take your word for it. My interest is academic, not practical.

I can peacefully enjoy tennis again. Thanks you.

[treblings]

Originally Posted by 5263

Notice when the racket is back and racket butt is facing directly at the ball to pull for contact?
Notice how the line to the contact is different for each of the shots?
at 1:14 in the vid with it paused.
See how the line from the hand to the ball would extend pretty
close to the shot direction? That line points to I/O for that and I/I for the other.

very interesting, thanks for pointing that one out to me

Originally Posted by sureshs

What is this "path?" Analyze the videos yourself. There is movement towards the intended target before and a little after contact. That is what generates the velocity towards the target. No other way is possible to get the result of forward velocity twice the upward velocity. There has to be momentum build in the direction of intent, and inertia demands that the extension continue a little longer. Tangential shots cannot achieve such forward speeds.

If you are making up your own images and coming to your own conclusions and asking me to disagree or agree, I cannot help with that. In general, I am tired of people arguing with me instead of focusing on Oscar's tips. This is how threads are derailed.

Regarding the slice, it is interesting you asked. By coincidence, I received Tennis Rag yesterday, and there is John Evert (proven coach) explaining how even in the backhand slice, the racket extends towards the target before moving across. 5263 will have a lot to say about it, and it should be interesting, because I also believe that modern slice has more of an across component and would like to hear about the extension part.

Easy, we're just talking here. To create maximum horizontal velocity, a player would use angular momentum, an arc...not straight or towards the target..In the chetah video, can you not see the lag in the racquet head on inside out shots..I think the problem with your tangent argument, is that you are discounting the range of motion of the wrist from completely extended to netruel. This gives a player the ability to hit the ball on a wide array of shot lines, even while swinging on an arc. If the wrist, was welded/immovable than your argument would make sense.

BTW, i'd like to know how John Evert accounts for sidespin on almost all slices. The answer is IMO, an outside in path.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by chico9166

BTW, i'd like to know how John Evert accounts for sidespin on almost all slices. The answer is IMO, an outside in path.

It is not that he doesn't account for it. He is not some anonymous guy behind a computer, but a real person who people bring their children to. It is not either or. There will be extension across and towards the target to provide side and back spin.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by arche3

I can peacefully enjoy tennis again. Thanks you.

Once again, you are derailing the thread by not focusing on Oscar's tips but posting stuff which causes posters to complain about junk in this thread.

Originally Posted by sureshs

It is not that he doesn't account for it. He is not some anonymous guy behind a computer, but a real person who people bring their children to. It is not either or. There will be extension across and towards the target to provide side and back spin.

Well i've taught my share of great players. Anyway, Lloyd doesn't understand that there will be no sidespin if the racquet extends first before it comes across. The ball is gone. The direction of the path into the ball creates the axis of rotation. Least that's how i see it.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by chico9166

Well i've taught my share of great players. Anyway, Lloyd doesn't understand that there will be no sidespin if the racquet extends first before it comes across. The ball is gone. The direction of the path into the ball creates the axis of rotation.

No, the sequence is created by you as a strawman which you yourself destroy. He never mentioned any sequence as being there or not there. Why don't you read the article first instead of trying to show off here?

And it is not Lloyd. And I would go by established people than someone behind a computer who claims this or that. Too many "coaches" here whose main job is to criticize other coaches who don't post here. It is because of their lack of results.

[arche3]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Once again, you are derailing the thread by not focusing on Oscar's tips but posting stuff which causes posters to complain about junk in this thread.

Sure buddy. You keep thinking you actually are contributing something.

[treblings]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Once again, you are derailing the thread by not focusing on Oscar's tips but posting stuff which causes posters to complain about junk in this thread.

sureshs, i would suggest that you and me set a good example to others, and stop posting in this thread until and when Oscar posts his next set of tips
of course, others would be welcome to join us

Originally Posted by sureshs

No, the sequence is created by you as a strawman which you yourself destroy. He never mentioned any sequence as being there or not there. Why don't you read the article first instead of trying to show off here?

And it is not Lloyd. And I would go by established people than someone behind a computer who claims this or that. Too many "coaches" here whose main job is to criticize other coaches who don't post here. It is because of their lack of results.

Ok LOL, than while we're giving advice, why don't you actually learn how to hit a forehand instead of spending so much time here. You obviously know what your doing.

[arche3]

Originally Posted by chico9166

Ok LOL, than while we're giving advice, why don't you actually learn how to hit a forehand instead of spending so much time here. You obviously know what your doing.

While Suresh is at it I would love to see him actually hit a tennis ball.

[TCF]

Originally Posted by sureshs

I will take your word for it. My interest is academic, not practical.

Actually, I am glad you made this post. It is short and sweet but totally explains why you and I butt heads. My interest is practical, yours is academic.

[sureshs]

I wish mods would delete such posts as above which prevent people like TCF from absorbing Oscar's tips.

[TCF]

Originally Posted by sureshs

I wish mods would delete such posts as above which prevent people like TCF from absorbing Oscar's tips.

Now that was funny.

[arche3]

Originally Posted by sureshs

I wish mods would delete such posts as above which prevent people like TCF from absorbing Oscar's tips.

I wish mods would delete all of sureshs posts posing as a tennis fountain of knowledge. it harms this great ttw community. Its poluting the knowledge pool of tennis.

[jakeytennis]

Oscar is a genius

[Mulach]

I hope folks are open to this. The golf folks are ahead of us in the subject of face angle vs swing path. They have been using Doppler radar and have data that concludes that face angle contributes to ball direction 5 times more than swing path.

This, if I'm not mistaken, should also apply in tennis.

Here is a nice report. Page 12 and 13 if you want to skip to it.
http://www.trackman.dk/download/User...20Laws%20I.pdf

Originally Posted by Mulach

I hope folks are open to this. The golf folks are ahead of us in the subject of face angle vs swing path. They have been using Doppler radar and have data that concludes that face angle contributes to ball direction 5 times more than swing path.

This, if I'm not mistaken, should also apply in tennis.

Here is a nice report. Page 12 and 13 if you want to skip to it.
http://www.trackman.dk/download/User...20Laws%20I.pdf

great post...yeah I was going to mention this, but was afraid I'd get grounded by Suresh.

[julian]

Originally Posted by chico9166

great post...yeah I was going to mention this, but was afraid I'd get grounded by Suresh.

Are we interested in a speed of a head of a racket?
It came to my attention that tennis has a net and a court of FINITE SIZE.
Please specify what are we talking about?
What is a relation between golf and Oscar?
Why we do NOT start a separate thread?

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by chico9166

great post...yeah I was going to mention this, but was afraid I'd get grounded by Suresh.

LOL do you even know what he is talking about? Contributes 4 times to what? You thought speed right? It is starting direction. He is saying the face angle determines the launch angle to a great extent.

Are we talking about the launch angle here? No. You should at least read before you post.

The ball should roughly go perpendicular to the string plane, so the face angle will be the main factor. It is so obvious. We are discussing extension and across movements here.

But this is a great teaching moment.

A short swing from close to the ball is called what? A put.

Is the drive done by bringing the club head close to the ball and then accelerating? Or does the swing start gaining movement from way back over the head on the other side and then explode into the ball? Does the golfer gently find and catch the ball and then accelerate on the drive?

If he does that, he would be putting. In tennis, the ball would not even clear the net.