Vince Spadea's tips on FH and Serve

[sureshs]

I loved his volume concept on the forehand. It coincides with the notion of the racket almost perpendicular (square) or slightly closed at contact, and sweeping a 3D volume with the ball by extending through the swing arc. That is where he says the power comes from.

[FrisbeeFool]

Spadea's teachings really remind me a lot more of Nick Saviano's approach, I do have to agree with you on that.

[sureshs]

Macci coached the sisters for 4 years. The reason Richard pulled them out is not straightforward.

http://books.google.com/books?id=eKK...lliams&f=false

[TheCheese]

Just because you pull up and across, does not mean there is no forward motion on the swing, Frisbee. What the pulling up and across does is let you impart a ton of topspin AS you drive the ball. It gives much more margin for error and control.

Just go out and try it yourself, everyone. It clearly is the way to play.

[LeeD]

That "pulling up and across" thing is also good for reacting to balls hit deeper than you like. Holding the hand allows the racketHEAD to come thru earler than normal, so you can handle deep shots that you didn't expect.
Same as reverse forehands.

[FrisbeeFool]

Originally Posted by TheCheese

Just because you pull up and across, does not mean there is no forward motion on the swing, Frisbee. What the pulling up and across does is let you impart a ton of topspin AS you drive the ball. It gives much more margin for error and control.

Just go out and try it yourself, everyone. It clearly is the way to play.

I do hit my strokes with topspin. Most people do these days. It's not 1975. No coaches that I know are telling their students to hit groundstrokes with wooden rackets and continental grips. This whole controversy started because Wegner and his followers on here were telling people not to hit through the ball. Go see his internet videos with the ball attached to the prop where he's talking about contacting the ball on the bottom of the strings by the frame, and massaging over the top of the ball rather than hitting through it. Plenty of us on here know the fundamentals of the game, we just have to waste our time constantly debunking myths about yanking, hitting near the frame, counting to five, prepping late, massaging over the top of the ball etc. etc. That's not what characterizes the modern game. And it never will.

It was a good thread with Spadea talking about the fundamentals. Wegner and all his followers claim you need to abandon certain fundamentals like hitting through the ball in order to learn the modern game. It's simply not true and it's a recipe for disaster. Modern players like Federer hit through the ball as dramatically as anyone. It is still a huge part of the game always will be.

Then Wegner's claims about being responsible for players like Novak Djokovic and all of Russia's tennis players because Wegner's book might have been read my some people in those areas, forced the sane members of the forums to debunk those constant claims and selling and exaggerations. It's clear that accomplished players like Vince Spadea found the advice about hitting through the ball to be helpful, and if pointing out the fundamentals of the groundstroke is somehow painful or inconvenient for internet denizens, I'm sorry. It's simply how all good players in real life hit their groundstrokes.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by TheCheese

Just because you pull up and across, does not mean there is no forward motion on the swing, Frisbee. What the pulling up and across does is let you impart a ton of topspin AS you drive the ball. It gives much more margin for error and control.

Just go out and try it yourself, everyone. It clearly is the way to play.

Of course. That is what everyone does. It is the finer details which are exciting.

When you pull something up and across, where does it go? Take your cell phone right now and pull it up and across as you toss it. What happened? It went up and across and crashed against the wall and shattered.

Does the tennis ball go up and across like that?

No.

That is because most of the energy is in the forward direction with the up and across component coming from forces below the center of mass, and friction with the strings, which create the spin.

One of them is like flicking a vertical wheel on the lower side with an upwards and forwards force. As long as the line of force does not pass through the center of mass (axle) but above it, the wheel will rotate. Another way is to grip the wheel and turn it. These two are analogous to the strike on the ball followed by friction during the dwell time, and both require the across and up component.

If the direction of the force (and hence the swing just prior to it) was merely normal to the ball, it would just go straight. If the across and up direction passed through the center of mass, the ball would also be launched across and up. So it is a combination of the force in the forward direction which also acts up and across in a glancing way, which makes the combination of pace and spin possible.

[LeeD]

Could the "up and across" be a physiological function, one influenced by the pivot point of the shoulder, not allowing the racket to head towards the target, instead redirecting the swing in an axxis according to your arm length?

[TheCheese]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Of course. That is what everyone does. It is the finer details which are exciting.

When you pull something up and across, where does it go? Take your cell phone right now and pull it up and across as you toss it. What happened? It went up and across and crashed against the wall and shattered.

Does the tennis ball go up and across like that?

No.

That is because most of the energy is in the forward direction with the up and across component coming from forces below the center of mass, and friction with the strings, which create the spin.

One of them is like flicking a vertical wheel on the lower side with an upwards and forwards force. As long as the line of force does not pass through the center of mass (axle) but above it, the wheel will rotate. Another way is to grip the wheel and turn it. These two are analogous to the strike on the ball followed by friction during the dwell time, and both require the across and up component.

If the direction of the force (and hence the swing just prior to it) was merely normal to the ball, it would just go straight. If the across and up direction passed through the center of mass, the ball would also be launched across and up. So it is a combination of the force in the forward direction which also acts up and across in a glancing way, which makes the combination of pace and spin possible.

Yes, obviously everyone has some combination of hitting through as well as up and across.

I think the magic in describing it as pulling is that you're actually pulling the racket towards your body to create the upward and across motion, rather than through extending your arm outwards and up. You can accelerate your arm much more quickly by pulling than otherwise.

[LeeD]

I see it as ..before you hit the ball, your racket is moving along the path of your target.
After you hit the ball, your racket starts to pivot it's arc off your shoulder.

[FrisbeeFool]

Originally Posted by TheCheese

Yes, obviously everyone has some combination of hitting through as well as up and across.

I think the magic in describing it as pulling is that you're actually pulling the racket towards your body to create the upward and across motion, rather than through extending your arm outwards and up. You can accelerate your arm much more quickly by pulling than otherwise.

On the Forehand, I think describing it as pulling up and across could help some people, who don't understand phrases like rotate into contact, rotate your core use your core, uncoil, etc etc. One the one handed backhand it's a horrible description and is confusing a lot of beginners on the forum.

On the forehand I prefer to think of the stroke as coiling early and then rotating back into the stroke, while I extend my arm forward and through. I hit with a modern stroke with plenty of topspin.

Since Wegner tells people not to prep early or worry about early prep, his approach of just telling students to pull up and across isn't going to work for every student, because in order to uncoil dramatically like in the modern strokes, you have to be coiled in the first place!

It's harder to uncoil into the modern forehand if you haven't first executed the unit turn. There was a period of time on this forum where me and other posters couldn't use phrases like unit turn, without wegner's followers derailing the thread saying we couldn't call it the unit turn because modern players don't execute a unit turn, they stalk the ball. This is laughable, because the phrase unit turn is very descriptive and helpful for many students, and is common parlance in the coaching word. On the world of these threads stalking is the common parlance among all the Wegnerites, but the real world many coaches prefer the term unit turn.

If Wegner's approach works for you fine, but most accomplished coaches don't teach it that way. And it prevents beginners from hearing a lot of great advice, if Wenger's followers are ruining every thread claiming theres no unit turn, there's no hitting through the ball, etc. etc. Anyone who has had any access to decent coaching in the real world knows these claims are ridiculous, will damage peoples games, and are counterproductive.

[TheCheese]

Originally Posted by FrisbeeFool

On the Forehand, I think describing it as pulling up and across could help some people, who don't understand phrases like rotate into contact, rotate your core use your core, etc etc. One the one handed backhand it's a horrible description and is confusing a lot of beginners on the forum.

On the forehand I prefer to think of the stroke as coiling early and then rotating back into the stroke, while I extend my arm forward and through. I hit with a modern stroke with plenty of topspin.

Since Wegner tells people not to prep early or worry about early prep, his approach of just telling students to pull up and across isn't going to work for every student, because in order to uncoil dramatically like in the modern strokes, you have to be coiled in the first place!

If that approach works for you fine, but most accomplished coaches don't teach it that way.

You should give Oscar's method a try at least and report back with how you felt about it.
I think Oscar's method works especially well for beginners because it doesn't clutter their mind with a thousand different things to remember.

[boramiNYC]

Originally Posted by FrisbeeFool

Since Wegner tells people not to prep early or worry about early prep, his approach of just telling students to pull up and across isn't going to work for every student, because in order to uncoil dramatically like in the modern strokes, you have to be coiled in the first place!

It's harder to uncoil into the modern forehand if you haven't first executed the unit turn. There was a period of time on this forum where me and other posters couldn't use phrases like unit turn, without wegner's followers derailing the thread saying we couldn't call it the unit turn because modern players don't execute a unit turn, they stalk the ball. This is laughable, because the phrase unit turn is very descriptive and helpful for many students, and is common parlance in the coaching word. On the world of these threads stalking is the common parlance among all the Wegnerites, but the real world many coaches prefer the term unit turn.

If that approach works for you fine, but most accomplished coaches don't teach it that way.

It's really tomato vs tomaaato you're arguing here. def 'stalking' is not conventional term but both achieve the same goal, the unit turn. And both approaches can help players depending on in what state their strokes are. Except that you are not fan of Oscar, which I'm not either, what else is new?

[FrisbeeFool]

Originally Posted by TheCheese

You should give Oscar's method a try at least and report back with how you felt about it.
I think Oscar's method works especially well for beginners because it doesn't clutter their mind with a thousand different things o remember.

I've spent a lot of time with his material since it is so popular on the forums. The only video positive or helpful was his old ESPN video where he talks about how the pros hit through their one-handed backhands and finish out front.

I find that most of his terminology is a convoluted, and confused way of describing things other coaches have described in a more fluent, coherent, simple way. That's one of the reasons it's so funny hearing Wegner and his followers demean accomplished coaches like Robert Lansdorp, who have real histories coaching at the highest levels.

[TheCheese]

Originally Posted by FrisbeeFool

Both achieve the same goal. True. Although one is much more descriptive, accurate, and less convoluted, It's hilarious going on a tennis forum and using terms like unit term which are common parlance in coaching circles and having 5263 running around saying players in the modern game don't execute a unit term.

The point is in not being descriptive. Tennis, as in most sports, is learned through feel. Reading a book on biomechanics does not make you a great athlete. Often times, it makes you play much worse. I'm sure you've read the Inner Game.

[psv255]

Originally Posted by FrisbeeFool

Um when a coach uses words to describe what is happening, you want to use easy to understand terminology that creates an accurate picture.

I agree that to describe what is actually happening, accuracy and conciseness is key, but when a coach wishes to teach something, it is much more feel-oriented; to reproduce what was described as actually happening in a student, we must note that the coach is instructing a subjectively thinking, feeling human being, prone to all sorts of "error" and misinterpretation; surely we're not programming an automaton (obviously I'm exaggerating, but I hope you get my point).

Vince's video reminded me of one of those Powerthirst commercials

[FrisbeeFool]

Originally Posted by TheCheese

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...twpu--0#t=108s

You can watch the entire video. It's clear he's pulling up and across the ball at contact. Watch Rafa, watch Djokovic.

If you want to describe the whole motion with biomechanical terms, that's fine, but I don't think it's a very good tool for most people who just want to play tennis well.

Are you aware that Roger Federer was taught by an Australian coach named Peter Carter who advocated hitting through the ball with a long follow through? Oscar Wegner has no connection to Federer that I'm aware of.

[FrisbeeFool]

Originally Posted by psv255

I agree that to describe what is actually happening, accuracy and conciseness is key, but when a coach wishes to teach something, it is much more feel-oriented; to reproduce what was described as actually happening in a student, we must note that the coach is instructing a subjectively thinking, feeling human being, prone to all sorts of "error" and misinterpretation; surely we're not programming an automaton (obviously I'm exaggerating, but I hope you get my point).

Vince's video reminded me of one of those Powerthirst commercials

True I agree with you. I think analogies can be helpful coaching tools even if they aren't 100 percent accurate. That's why I think it's so funny all the MTM people insist the MTM terminology is the only way to describe modern tennis. A lot of coaches that have been labeled "traditional" by the MTM folks uses coaching advice that can help a lot of students. I think whatever terminology works the student is great. I question how helpful the MTM terminology is for most people.

[TheCheese]

Originally Posted by FrisbeeFool

Are you aware that Roger Federer was taught by an Australian coach named Peter Carter who advocated hitting through the ball with a long follow through? Oscar Wegner has no connection to Federer that I'm aware of.

And I'm sure many pros were not necessarily taught to brush up and across. Yet, they do intuitively anyway because it's the most efficient way to simultaneously produce ball speed and spin.

[FrisbeeFool]

Originally Posted by TheCheese

And I'm sure many pros were not necessarily taught to brush up and across. Yet, they do intuitively anyway because it's the most efficient way to simultaneously produce ball speed and spin.

He was also taught to get under the ball and hit topspin. That's what so funny about this discussion. He was taught topspin, just like every player. He just wasn't taught using the confusing, inaccurate, and often hilarious MTM wegnerite terminology people in these forums love so much. I give up, I will no longer use the phrase unit turn or shoulder turn, or coiling even though that's what almost every coach uses in real life. I will use the term stalking the ball because it is MTM approved even though it doesn't evoke the early preparation and coiling that actually take places in modern groundstrokes. You have won. I will no longer comment.