Does Modern Tennis Exist?

[5263]

Looks like this vid linked by Cheetah clears up the modern tennis question,
an below is the evidence of how the stroke is well described in modern tennis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheetah

Also there's this xstf vid where he talks about the laid back wrist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...uFqJ-Diw#t=76s

This vid is awesome for showing how on the inside out Fh, the hand is already
is moving well across to Fed's left, (our rt) before contact.
Hand is clearly moving to Fed's left comparing to the background and ball goes off to
Fed's right.
If someone doesn't get it from this vid, they are just not willing to accept what
the vid clearly shows. No idea how Jy could argue the vid does not confirm
what MTM states about pulling up & across into contact.

The vid also addresses moving back during the stroke.

There is another key aspect in telling which of these in I/O and which is I/I, for those who notice.
__________________
************
MTM Instructor -Pro Supex Big Ace

[5263]

Fixed the link above for this vid that clearly show the across hand
motion by Fed as it passes the items in the background.


Also there's this xstf vid where he talks about the laid back wrist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...uFqJ-Diw#t=76s

This vid is awesome for showing how on the inside out Fh, the hand is already
is moving well across to Fed's left, (our rt) before contact.
Hand is clearly moving to Fed's left comparing to the background and ball goes off to
Fed's right.
If someone doesn't get it from this vid, they are just not willing to accept what
the vid clearly shows. [/quote]

[sureshs]

So does modern tennis exist or not?

[TomT]

Originally Posted by sureshs

So does modern tennis exist or not?

Do you think there's a 'hard distinction' between modern and classical tennis? I don't. I agree with the idea that there have been adjustments in stroke mechanics, some of which have become de facto standard for top level tennis, made over the years by the top players to maximize the advantages that changes in racquet and string technology might confer.

[sureshs]

I don't either.

On a side note, what is the opinion about the claim that club tennis is way more advanced today than in the past? Meaning that a 4.5 of the old days would be a 3.5 today? I did not say this, but I remember people posting along those lines a while ago.

[TomT]

Originally Posted by sureshs

I don't either.

On a side note, what is the opinion about the claim that club tennis is way more advanced today than in the past? Meaning that a 4.5 of the old days would be a 3.5 today? I did not say this, but I remember people posting along those lines a while ago.

What's the basis for the comparison?

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by TomT

What's the basis for the comparison?

Gut feeling. That it is much more difficult today.

[5263]

Originally Posted by TomT

What's the basis for the comparison?

One is to look how much better the pros play today. Not saying those athletes
would not have adapted as well, but the play has clearly improved imo.

Also as many have noted, equipment has made it easier to start and improve!
More improved instruction available as well. Back in the day there
was little other than the old classic version of things.

[tlm]

Originally Posted by 5263

Fixed the link above for this vid that clearly show the across hand
motion by Fed as it passes the items in the background.


Also there's this xstf vid where he talks about the laid back wrist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...uFqJ-Diw#t=76s

This vid is awesome for showing how on the inside out Fh, the hand is already
is moving well across to Fed's left, (our rt) before contact.
Hand is clearly moving to Fed's left comparing to the background and ball goes off to
Fed's right.
If someone doesn't get it from this vid, they are just not willing to accept what
the vid clearly shows.

[/quote]

Great video and instruction, clearly shows more hitting across than towards target. Wow I thought that it is wrong to pull back and hit off the back foot. Why are they not stepping in and transferring their weight forward?

Why does their racket not go towards the target? I thought that this must be done if hitting correctly, they must have been taught the wrong technique.

[TomT]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Gut feeling. That it is much more difficult today.

I played for about a year in '76, and for about 8 months of 2012, and have been a fan and frequent spectator from '72 to now. I agree that open tournament level tennis looks much faster and more taxing today. But I don't see it in normal rec play from 3.0 to 4.0+.

Originally Posted by 5263

One is to look how much better the pros play today. Not saying those athletes would not have adapted as well, but the play has clearly improved imo.

I think that play is different. I don't think the pros today play 'better' than the pros of the '70s, and I've seen lots of both up close and in person.

Yes, today's pro game is much faster and much more physically demanding. But I think, for example, that, playing with wooden racquets and on grass, a Nastase would beat a Djokovic.

[treblings]

Originally Posted by TomT

I played for about a year in '76, and for about 8 months of 2012, and have been a fan and frequent spectator from '72 to now. I agree that open tournament level tennis looks much faster and more taxing today. But I don't see it in normal rec play from 3.0 to 4.0+.

I think that play is different. I don't think the pros today play 'better' than the pros of the '70s, and I've seen lots of both up close and in person.

Yes, today's pro game is much faster and much more physically demanding. But I think, for example, that, playing with wooden racquets and on grass, a Nastase would beat a Djokovic.

i´ve watched a football game from ´77 . soccer for you folks across the pond they still play with the same equipment now then they did 35 years ago. it´s a different sport. while you can appreciate the skills of former years, the speed is much different. it´s the same for all sports, tennis is no exception

[5263]

Originally Posted by TomT

I played for about a year in '76, and for about 8 months of 2012, and have been a fan and frequent spectator from '72 to now. I agree that open tournament level tennis looks much faster and more taxing today. But I don't see it in normal rec play from 3.0 to 4.0+.

I think that play is different. I don't think the pros today play 'better' than the pros of the '70s, and I've seen lots of both up close and in person.

Yes, today's pro game is much faster and much more physically demanding. But I think, for example, that, playing with wooden racquets and on grass, a Nastase would beat a Djokovic.

I think if you took Rod Laver of the 60s and dropped him into the US Open...
he would likely get destroyed in the 1st rd and have a very tough time... much
like he did in 63 when he moved to the pro league. Would that great player and
competitor adjust and evolve? Yes, he would catch on quickly and be at least
as good a Ferrer or so with time and maybe prove he is the GOAT. That is why
they play the matches. But the play then cannot compare to today and that
is without question imo.

I played and did well with 4.0s and 4.5s in the 70s, but that "me" would get crushed
by how I played as a 4.5 when I came back to playing in the late 90s.

[Relinquis]

instead of discussing whether modern tennis exists or not, should we not be discussing whether modern tennis training exists? i.e. is there a better way to teach tennis?

i took some (eight) one-on-one lessons last summer. the coach made me do various drills and simulated points sequences, then he rallied with me a bit. he didn't mention how to position myself, how to stand, how to move, how to hit, what angle to keep the racquet, etc...

instead he would monitor what i was doing and occasionally tell me to finish higher on certain shots, or to keep rotating and not stop my stroke. other times rallying with him he would point to a shot i just made and say "yes, like that. one more time", or would tell me to move back a step then prepare so that the ball is in my hitting zone (this was on clay) on particular shots (high/deep topspin). the idea with the rallying was to get me to feel how to position myself and hit the ball better. with the shot sequences the idea was to get me to have a strategy in constructing points.

obviously, i know how to hit a ball and it's not the first time i pick up a racquet, but this approach was pretty good in helping me refine my rallying and point play. I'm working on my serve now with another coach and it is more technical. breaking down the movement into parts to work on.

What do you guys think? Is there a better, contemporary, methodology for teaching tennis, or do the old rules apply?

[5263]

Originally Posted by Relinquis

instead of discussing whether modern tennis exists or not, should we not be discussing whether modern tennis training exists? i.e. is there a better way to teach tennis?

i took some (eight) one-on-one lessons last summer. the coach made me do various drills and simulated points sequences, then he rallied with me a bit. he didn't mention how to position myself, how to stand, how to move, how to hit, what angle to keep the racquet, etc...

instead he would monitor what i was doing and occasionally tell me to finish higher on certain shots, or to keep rotating and not stop my stroke. other times rallying with him he would point to a shot i just made and say "yes, like that. one more time", or would tell me to move back a step then prepare so that the ball is in my hitting zone (this was on clay) on particular shots (high/deep topspin). the idea with the rallying was to get me to feel how to position myself and hit the ball better. with the shot sequences the idea was to get me to have a strategy in constructing points.

obviously, i know how to hit a ball and it's not the first time i pick up a racquet, but this approach was pretty good in helping me refine my rallying and point play. I'm working on my serve now with another coach and it is more technical. breaking down the movement into parts to work on.

What do you guys think? Is there a better, contemporary, methodology for teaching tennis, or do the old rules apply?

Great post and yes, there are a lots of ways to teach, but there is a way
of teaching where the title is Modern Teaching Methodology or MTM.
It is different than classic of the past and I prefer it. Some instructors don't.
Don't think I've met a student that didn't love it!

[JohnYandell]

Rel,

Don't fall for this post above. That there is only one "modern" system and the only other option is classic or the past. This is the one note that these guys hit over and over on their drums, and it's just plain not true.

Unfortunately on this board there are many people without much knowledge of what some of the great teachers in the world are actually doing. So they fall for this marketing dichotomy.

In reality there are dozens if not hundreds of working coaches who have produced tremendous results in many cases far beyond the (dubious) claims of Oscar Wegner and his minions. There are researchers who have developed video and quantitative resources that show what is really happening in the game and methodologies for teaching it. They have debunked many of the Wegner claims without any legitimate counter responses--both the teaching claims and the claims of world influence. Many people in the coaching industry are offended by the cult aspect of this and the Wegnerites open proclamations that all problems in tennis stem from the fact that their religion isn't universal and that there is some top down revolution needed with Oscar making the rules.

[5263]

Originally Posted by JohnYandell

In reality there are dozens if not hundreds of working coaches who have produced tremendous results in many cases far beyond the (dubious) claims of Oscar Wegner

Just more of the regular straw men raised by Jy in his very offensive, name calling
post. Oscar has never stated they were not coaches out there who have coached
to tremendous results.
Most of the rest of the post was too offensive to quote and likely not to last
on here!

[arche3]

Originally Posted by JohnYandell

Rel,

Don't fall for this post above. That there is only one "modern" system and the only other option is classic or the past. This is the one note that these guys hit over and over on their drums, and it's just plain not true.

Unfortunately on this board there are many people without much knowledge of what some of the great teachers in the world are actually doing. So they fall for this marketing dichotomy.

In reality there are dozens if not hundreds of working coaches who have produced tremendous results in many cases far beyond the (dubious) claims of Oscar Wegner and his minions. There are researchers who have developed video and quantitative resources that show what is really happening in the game and methodologies for teaching it. They have debunked many of the Wegner claims without any legitimate counter responses--both the teaching claims and the claims of world influence. Many people in the coaching industry are offended by the cult aspect of this and the Wegnerites open proclamations that all problems in tennis stem from the fact that their religion isn't universal and that there is some top down revolution needed with Oscar making the rules.

I think there are hundreds of great coaches who are teaching great players at all levels whom have not heard of john yandel or oscar wegnar. Nobody cares about you or oscar as much as you seem to think.

[Relinquis]

thanks for the replies guys.

that's kind of what i'm looking to figure out. instead of just arguing classical vs. MTM, what are the main approaches, techniques or philosophies of tennis teaching/training that are currently used?

I mean there are lots of different coaches who have worked with top players (pro, college and junior) and several top academies around the world that churn out players (USA, Spain, UK, etc...). How do their approaches differ? Are they based on players and coaches handing down what works from experience/competition or is it empirical, or a mixture of the two? What about all of the analytics at the various universities? Tennis is pretty heavily researched and modeled isn't it?

from just this thread:
- High speed video analysis of pros (ideal hitting) and of the student.
- statistical analysis of shot selection and game strategy. I know people use this for pros, but have you seen this applied to college, junior or maybe even rec level players who are interested enough? Are the academies using this?
- the Oscar Wegner school MTM.

But what about the other approaches? Bollettieri, Lansdorp, or dare i say Brad Gilbert? What are they doing and what part of tennis do they focus on? What about how all of these top non-USA trained players are being taught and developed? What are they doing differently? What about going beyond just strokes and hitting to strategy and mental toughness?

Can any of us non-pros benefit from this or should we just put in the hours on the court and have a good time while everyone else argues?

For me, I try to work on my game by focusing on one area in every practice session and seeking opinions from more than one coach when i need to (a few sessions every 6 months or so). I've had experience with two coaches in two different countries over the past 12 months and have learned a bit from both. They have very different styles.

[Relinquis]

sorry to spam this thread.

[JohnYandell]

Arche,

Nope your wrong, my mom cares. But just not about Oscar--she agrees with me about his work and she was club champion in 1952.