Practice for Smarter Targets

[5263]

Originally Posted by 5263

We will often hit slightly deeper than the deep cone due to catching the ball strong and aggressive, but that is the purpose of the margins of error built into the triangle. The 2 short cones mark an area that we generally seek to exceed form a gate if you will,

From the OP, for luvforty

[5263]

Originally Posted by luvforty

2) there is certainly benefit in target practice, but where the target should be depends very much on the opponent... some guys like to sit way back receiving deep balls, some others prefer hugging the baseline.... there is a live person standing on the other side.

It is not going to matter how the opponent plays with these targets and they
are still where the ball should go when you don't have a better idea.
Hanging back, hugging BL, or rushing the net...these targets still give a nice
margin for error and allow you to cut loose more with of your power.

[luvforty]

thx for the replies.

[5263]

Originally Posted by luvforty

thx for the replies.

You are welcome and thanks for the comments/questions.

[5263]

Originally Posted by luvforty

the target and the landing pattern are 2 different things..

if you aim for deep targets, only balls hit on the sweet spot will land there... balls made contact anywhere else on the string bed will land short.

so to take a landing pattern chart of pro match and say ha - joker aims short, is wrong..... he aims deeper, but most balls land shorter

I get your thinking here, but if it were that simple...they would never miss long.
Misses long was one of the biggest motivators in working this out.
I also think mis hits fly in many ways...not just short. Much different than
golf where most shots are max range for the club.

Either way, you seem to think the charts were used to locate the targets.
They were not. I designed the targets based on charting result based on how
points were ended and noticed some trends in the process. Some talented
posters came up with the diagrams and overlays you see in the thread.
I had been using my cones and hula hoops for a yr or two before even starting
that thread or using any of those diagrams.

[5263]

Originally Posted by dominikk1985

Good read. I agree with that. especially that red zone is important to avoid. that is where you get killed.

BTW this is nothing new. I photographed two "smart targets" from two of my oldest german tennis books written about 98-00:



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Glad you enjoyed the read and realize the avoid zone you found is quite
similar! Pretty cool and we have all discussed how there is nothing ever
really new.
Hopefully you do see the the actual Smart Targets are quite different, and
seem to lack some of the most important aspect of my Smart Targets,
although I don't read German to be sure of any of this.

[5263]

Originally Posted by dominikk1985

It seems like you suggest an "in between angle" which is longer than a short angle but shorter than a deep CC.

yes, something like that...with some margin for error on the sides and more for
depth.
Simple on purpose for beginners, but has been well received by more experienced
players as well. All the Jrs talk about how different it is than what they have used before.
My oldest son who played and coached D1 loves my system.
With any luck, my 14 yr old will be good enough to test it on some bigger stages.
He is really doing some cool things at his current level and you can notice
quite a difference between him and his opponents as to how they work pts.
Kids coming off the court saying they have never worked so hard...win or
lose. Some even sort of tank due to the workload.

[5263]

Originally Posted by 5263

Either way, you seem to think the charts were used to locate the targets.
They were not. I designed the targets based on charting result based on how
points were ended and noticed some trends in the process. .

One of the key pts here is my charting proved to me hitting very near the lines
was way overrated and likely caused way more misses for the hitter,
than pts won due to the proximity to the lines. Basically a sucker bet imo.

[luvforty]

mishits, (not shanks), can only fly short... simple physics of how much rebound provided on the sweet spot vs. bitter spot.

they'd never miss long if they were not under the gun, on the run, off balance... a slight deviation of racket face angle can produce a long error.

if you train a student with cones.... player's brain will adjust.... if the eyes see majority balls missing the cones short, he will aim at the cone by NOT aiming at the cone

I bet if you take a good player with sound strokes, but who has never practiced cone hitting, the first 20 min he will miss the cone mostly on the shorter side.

[luvforty]

Originally Posted by 5263

One of the key pts here is my charting proved to me hitting very near the lines
was way overrated and likely caused way more misses for the hitter,
than pts won due to the proximity to the lines. Basically a sucker bet imo.

there is a big area between your 'smart targets' and 'very near the lines'...

if you get a good player with sound stroke, and just tell him to aim 3 ft inside both lines... (would be perfect to do this on clay).... let him hit for 5min, and look at the landing pattern... you will see it resembles the 'smart target' there...... the short balls are just a by product of contact on the bitter/dead spots.

the center of the landing pattern will not be that spot 3ft inside both lines, it will be well short of that.

it only makes sense, because long/wide balls immediately cost a point... short balls don't (at least not yet)

[5263]

Originally Posted by luvforty

mishits, (not shanks), can only fly short... simple physics of how much rebound provided on the sweet spot vs. bitter spot.

they'd never miss long if they were not under the gun, on the run, off balance... a slight deviation of racket face angle can produce a long error.

if you train a student with cones.... player's brain will adjust.... if the eyes see majority balls missing the cones short, he will aim at the cone by NOT aiming at the cone

I bet if you take a good player with sound strokes, but who has never practiced cone hitting, the first 20 min he will miss the cone mostly on the shorter side.

A shank is a form of mis-hit. Look, I know you are a smart guy, but try to be a
little less overbearing about what you think you know. I like addressing your
questions and points and think it leads to good info. Many times you are quite
right, but the way you state it...makes it so hard..... to stay polite.

Really does not matter why they miss long...important aspect is they DO.
That whole mis-hit thing is your deal. I don't care why they spray per this
convo. Maybe on another topic, it might matter.

As to cones... there use is common in tennis at all levels and many are quite
successful with their use. My students do well with the way we use them.
If you need some help with their implementation, I'm sure many on here can
make suggestions. It's not a problem for us, but I do target in many ways
besides cones.

[5263]

Originally Posted by luvforty

there is a big area between your 'smart targets' and 'very near the lines'...

if you get a good player with sound stroke, and just tell him to aim 3 ft inside both lines... (would be perfect to do this on clay).... let him hit for 5min, and look at the landing pattern... you will see it resembles the 'smart target' there...... the short balls are just a by product of contact on the bitter/dead spots.

the center of the landing pattern will not be that spot 3ft inside both lines, it will be well short of that.

it only makes sense, because long/wide balls immediately cost a point... short balls don't (at least not yet)

Actually I did nearly exactly this and the experience did not match your
expectations. This is part of what led to developing this target system.

I know it was a long thread, but you seemed to have missed some very
important parts to the system. The targets are a reference more than a target
to try and actually hit.

[luvforty]

no need to stay polite - waste of energy while risking not getting the point across.

missing the sweet spot and shanks are not the same, 1 is still on the strings, 1 is on the frame... string bed is a plane facing the same direction.. the frame, well, not so much.

why they miss long DO matter, in the sense that how much of a miss is expected. do you expect a good player to miss a target by 5ft 11 inches so you ask him to aim 6ft short of the baseline? that's a significant loss of penetration..... or do you expect him to miss by only 2ft 11 inches and therefore aiming 3ft inside is safe and has more penetration.

[5263]

Originally Posted by luvforty

no need to stay polite -

missing the sweet spot and shanks are not the same, 1 is still on the strings, 1 is on the frame... string bed is a plane facing the same direction.. the frame, well, not so much.

Good, I won't worry about it then.

Ok, understand that it may be subtle, but I didn't say they were the same,
I said a shank is a mis-hit, but no, they are not the same, as a mis-hit is
not always a shank. Clearly a shank is poorly struck...thus is MIS-HIt.
If you don't agree, that is fine. This is like Leonard explaining to Sheldon. lol

This target system has been extremely helpful for limiting the depth risk errors,
which was a big part of the WHY for it. Also if you learn to apply this system
correctly, you will learn how the hitting short within this system is not the risk
that many think.

[luvforty]

good - you will notice that fingers flying much faster on the keyboard without that politeness thing getting in the way.

couple of thoughts -

1) perhaps, you are in the same trap as the mid ct ball theory, in the sense that the benefit of your target system is in the 'targeting', not the 'target'... i.e. player becomes more aware of a specific spot to shoot for, better concentration, better execution, (some golf teacher ask student to aim for a specific leaf on a tree 200 yards away..... same idea)......but there is no intrinsic benefit of where that target is, which leads to my 2nd thought..

2) limiting depth risk, at what cost......... aiming 6ft-9ft short of the baseline sure will give up lots of short balls waiting to be pounded.... you say well, joker lands his balls there.... I am saying, yeah he lands them there, but he is not aiming there.

[5263]

Originally Posted by luvforty

2) limiting depth risk, at what cost......... aiming 6ft-9ft short of the baseline sure will give up lots of short balls waiting to be pounded.... you say well, joker lands his balls there.... I am saying, yeah he lands them there, but he is not aiming there.

just like for DJ, there is no cost. Depth is not what you have been told.
Key in higher levels is the line of shot or vector, along with control of pace,
with some exceptions of course like drops shots. Rally shots and mid ct
attacks are about the shot line with good pace for the level of play.

[5263]

Originally Posted by luvforty

.....but there is no intrinsic benefit of where that target is, which leads to my 2nd thought..

absolutely a major benefit to the location...did you not read the post of the
players who are getting the idea of how this works? The payoff is enormous.

[luvforty]

i haven't been told anything... i see what i see.

runners run and hitters hit.... where is the 'smart' target that balances the penetration vs. the short ball? that target is different for any player/opponent combination.

i am not saying location doesn't matter, I am saying your smart target is not the smart target.

huge benefit - i don't doubt, but from the 'targeting' or the 'target'?

tomorrow I can come up with a 'target smart' system and I am sure it will bring huge benefit too (seriously), but where is the cause-effect relationship?

that's what I meant by 'the same trap as the mid ct ball'.

[5263]

Originally Posted by luvforty

tomorrow I can come up with a 'target smart' system and I am sure it will bring huge benefit too (seriously), but where is the cause-effect relationship?

Good luck with your system! I hope it is great and you share it as I have. If it
is better than mine, I benefit from a better system...it's all good

On the other hand, I think it is clear from your questions and comments that
your experience is shallow, you seem young, and you won't even share how long you have been
playing, so you may need some seasoning I expect.
Either way, best to you.

[sundaypunch]

I have a revolutionary new system that works just as well and is easier to learn.

"Avoid The Middle 1/3 of the Court"

That will be $100. Paypal is accepted.