Robert Landsdorp as a coach.

[SFrazeur]

It's difficult to define an age or era without a specific event marking change or evolution.

I myself reject the term "modern tennis." Many of the components some use to mark "modern tennis" existed since the beginning. One cannot take something like the "reverse forehand" and or combine multiple elements and say that the utilization of these by players define "modern tennis." Again, these have been around since the beginning.

Those who prescribe to the notion of "Modern Tennis" I would be interested to read your definitions of what exactly is modern tennis.

-SF

[5263]

Really pretty ridiculous IMO to reject the idea of Modern tennis, as it is clearly ingrained as an accepted term in the sport, as well as all sports. Just google modern boxing or modern baseball/football/basketball. It may mean different things to different people, but to reject the general term just makes no sense that I can see other than to be difficult. A more sensible comment would be to comment on what modern tennis means to you or what you think it means in general.

If you want something to reject, try this one, lol - Modern History.

[SFrazeur]

Originally Posted by 5263

Really pretty ridiculous IMO to reject the idea of Modern tennis, as it is clearly ingrained as an accepted term in the sport, as well as all sports. Just google modern boxing or modern baseball/football/basketball. It may mean different things to different people, but to reject the general term just makes no sense that I can see other than to be difficult. A more sensible comment would be to comment on what modern tennis means to you or what you think it means in general.

If you want something to reject, try this one, lol - Modern History.

My rejection is hardly senseless. Do you read why I reject it?

As for modern history it can be defined:

Modern history, or the modern era, describes the historical timeline after the Middle Ages.
Modern history can be further broken down into the early modern period and the late modern period.

Middle ages: a period of European history from the 5th century to the 15th century.
The period followed the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476, and preceded the Early Modern Era. (source:wiki-something)

This discussion is actually a common one amongst historians, anthropologists, etc. I'm a lumper, you're a splitter. I'm still waiting for you to post a definition of modern tennis.

-SF

[5263]

Originally Posted by SFrazeur

My rejection is hardly senseless. Do you read why I reject it?

As for modern history it can be defined:

Modern history, or the modern era, describes the historical timeline after the Middle Ages.
Modern history can be further broken down into the early modern period and the late modern period.

Middle ages: a period of European history from the 5th century to the 15th century.
The period followed the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476, and preceded the Early Modern Era. (source:wiki-something)

This discussion is actually a common one amongst historians, anthropologists, etc. I'm a lumper, you're a splitter. I'm still waiting for you to post a definition of modern tennis.

-SF

I think like modern anything, it can mean different things to different people and other things will be more modern in 30 years. Modern is sort of a moving, current term.
But I see it is a generic idea of how the better players play over the last 5-10 years.
Does knowing my definition make a difference?
The term will be there whether I define it or not.
The down side of those who lump things in Modern tennis is that you get a mix and match of instruction that does not work well together, as well as a misunderstanding of what is observed.

The modern history was a joke based on the oxymoron kind of thing, like jumbo shrimp etc....

[JohnYandell]

It would be great if rather than setting me up as yet another straw man, like Lansdorp, non-modern tennis, or whatever, you would accurately represent what I said.

Repeat, please if you want to discuss these issues, represent my view correctly before you respond.

This is one of the biggest weaknesses in the whole school you represent. You misrepresent what others say in order to reject them and set up the new beacon. Black white, good bad, modern tennis and bad non-modern tennis. That's not the way the world is or tennis as part of it.

What I actually said was that I reject the term "modern tennis, which is somehow completely distinct and different from (?) pre-modern."

Their is a continuity and an evolution in the game. But not a radical break in which somehow the new wisdom enters the world.

The either/or approach is inaccurate and also counterproductive. That's in tennis, religion, life.

On a specific technical point:

Regarding the double bend forehand--what you said either makes no sense or is unclear. One player in history hit which shot, the double bend? You consider it "modern" or not? Over the course of tennis history the double bend and the straight arm forehand have been two variations. They were mixed in the past, and are mixed now.

[deluxe]

Originally Posted by JohnYandell

What I actually said was that I reject the term "modern tennis, which is somehow completely distinct and different from (?) pre-modern."

Their is a continuity and an evolution in the game. But not a radical break in which somehow the new wisdom enters the world.

I think we can all agree that "new wisdom" entered the world with Oscar Wegner and MTM, that MTM is the radical break splitting modern from pre-modern, and that all the great modern champions are using MTM.

[papa]

So many things in this sport keep changing like racquets, strings and equipment. The game has to change to accommodate this ongoing process.

Some have done outstanding research to provide us with materials and advice which allow us to play/teach/enjoy the game more. Although I recognize and appreciate the contributions of RL to the game, I certainly do not agree with all his methods but as John Yandell has pointed out none of us teaching the game totally agrees with a particular individual, method or school.

I happen to like JY approach in that he is presenting what is going on today and is not necessarily advocating any one method being superior to others.

[5263]

Originally Posted by JohnYandell

you would accurately represent what I said.

Repeat, please if you want to discuss these issues, represent my view correctly before you respond.

Are you kidding?? I actually had the exact quote you stated right above my post.
You said that you don't buy into distinctions or differences from how the game was played before. Sort of sounds like you think watching a match from the 20's and not being able to note any differences or distinctions. Seems to me it would be quite easy to note how a strokes from this era would be different from then. Sure, there would be things in common as well, but pretty easy to note distinctions as well.

I just pointed out that in one place you don't believe in the term Modern tennis, but then later go on to use the term to discuss what coaches do or don't understand. I agree that maybe that is not such an important point, as you don't have to believe in anything to discuss the topic, but it did come across odd in this case.

AS to the part that you found unclear; I thought it was odd that you were so open to accept the new name for the buggy whip and fine with using the Rev Fh used interchangeably with the "Lasso", but wanted to take issue with such a simple and general term used to describe how most top pros play the game over the last decade or so, and that you would use the odd stroke that resembled modern tennis as evidence to your point. Talking about a straw position to take...

[deluxe]

Originally Posted by 5263

Are you kidding?? I actually had the exact quote you stated right above my post.
You said that you don't buy into distinctions or differences from how the game was played before. Sort of sounds like you think watching a match from the 20's and not being able to note any differences or distinctions. Seems to me it would be quite easy to note how a strokes from this era would be different from then. Sure, there would be things in common as well, but pretty easy to note distinctions as well.

You're just ignoring what he's clearly explained and ridiculing a position he's never had. He's never said that there are no differences between the game now and the game in the 20's. All he's said is that it has been in incremental change in the techniques of the game rather than one revolutionary switch that divides one era of tennis ("the modern") from another ("the pre-modern").

If you want to debate that, just tell us when the big revolutionary switch was that divides the modern from the pre-modern.

[5263]

Originally Posted by deluxe

You're just ignoring what he's clearly explained and ridiculing a position he's never had. He's never said that there are no differences between the game now and the game in the 20's. All he's said is that it has been in incremental change in the techniques of the game rather than one revolutionary switch that divides one era of tennis ("the modern") from another ("the pre-modern").

If you want to debate that, just tell us when the big revolutionary switch was that divides the modern from the pre-modern.

No, I don't need to debate that, as I think you said it pretty well. Well stated on your part. The only thing is that if this is what he is saying, it has little bearing where Modern tennis is a reasonable term or not. There is no need for a clear divide. Almost everything we have today is modern, even though some have had a slow evolution and some have had more abrupt break thru moments. We have modern cars, bikes, tennis, etc... with no reason to argue this use of the term modern. The only reason I can see to debate the term modern tennis is to be difficult or push an agenda. Tennis has had quite a few defining moments IMO, like going to bigger rackets and then another was going to Poly string, just to name a couple. For the general term Modern tennis in this regard, IMO this would currently refer to the widespread use of poly.

As to the person who brought up the Oscar Wegner association with this term, well that is the easiest aspect to defend. There was pretty clear time when an tennis announcer began to refer to Oscar as the father of Modern tennis, as it was his take on what he had seen of the instruction. Now that has been incorporated into a brand in the name MTM or modern tennis methodology. Would you not call a certain car a Malibu, because it did not remind you of the city or do you just accept that is it's given name? I think it would be sort of pointless to argue that the car is not a Malibu if that is what Chevy produced it as.

[deluxe]

Originally Posted by 5263

No, I don't need to debate that, as I think you said it pretty well. Well stated on your part. The only thing is that if this is what he is saying, it has little bearing where Modern tennis is a reasonable term or not. There is no need for a clear divide. Almost everything we have today is modern, even though some have had a slow evolution and some have had more abrupt break thru moments. We have modern cars, bikes, tennis, etc... with no reason to argue this use of the term modern. The only reason I can see to debate the term modern tennis is to be difficult or push an agenda. Tennis has had quite a few defining moments IMO, like going to bigger rackets and then another was going to Poly string, just to name a couple. For the general term Modern tennis in this regard, IMO this would currently refer to the widespread use of poly.

So am I right in thinking that in your use of terminology, "modern tennis" is the way tennis is played today, and that "pre-modern tennis" is the way tennis was played in all previous years?

If RL teaches an extinct form of tennis, not "modern tennis", what techniques in use today does RL not teach?

Originally Posted by 5263

As to the person who brought up the Oscar Wegner association with this term, well that is the easiest aspect to defend. There was pretty clear time when an tennis announcer began to refer to Oscar as the father of Modern tennis, as it was his take on what he had seen of the instruction. Now that has been incorporated into a brand in the name MTM or modern tennis methodology. Would you not call a certain car a Malibu, because it did not remind you of the city or do you just accept that is it's given name? I think it would be sort of pointless to argue that the car is not a Malibu if that is what Chevy produced it as.

Presumably when Brad Holbrook referred to one of the guests on his TV program as "the father of modern tennis" back in 1995, in todays terminology we would have to call him "the father of pre-modern tennis"? Presumably there's been technique improvements since 1995 which OW wasn't teaching at the time? Presumably the OW of 1995 was teaching an extinct form of tennis? Unless you're saying everying Fed, Rafa & all the rest are doing now was merely a result of what OW was teaching back in the Pete's heyday?

[JohnYandell]

Thank you deluxe. I thought what I said was pretty clear...but maybe I was missing out on the "new wisdom"...wait, probably not.

Obviously I have used that term modern tennis myself. And I would agree that the rackets and the string (as well as the size and quality of the athletes) have facilitated the evolution of the game and shifted the balance of certain technical elements.

As for the father issue, that's quite a claim. My own opinion is that these changes are mostly the result of the players developing and experimenting with technique. As I've said, the coaches tend to follow the players. I've seen the claims on Oscar's website about how world teaching evolved from his work. It would be interesting to do a large scale poll of players and teachers worldwide to see if they agree.

As for the reverse forehand, never saw a clear technical presentation of the stroke under another name before Robert and I think he deserves mention for providing that and interjecting it into the lexicon. That doesn't make him the father of the reverse forehand though...

[scotus]

A question about Lansdorp.

Does he have a reputation as a mean, cranky coach?

In the Tennis Channel's "Academy" show, he keeps saying that he is really a nice guy. I wonder why he needs to point that out over and over again.

[5263]

Originally Posted by deluxe

So am I right in thinking that in your use of terminology, "modern tennis" is the way tennis is played today, and that "pre-modern tennis" is the way tennis was played in all previous years?

If RL teaches an extinct form of tennis, not "modern tennis", what techniques in use today does RL not teach?

Presumably when Brad Holbrook referred to one of the guests on his TV program as "the father of modern tennis" back in 1995, in todays terminology we would have to call him "the father of pre-modern tennis"? Presumably there's been technique improvements since 1995 which OW wasn't teaching at the time? Presumably the OW of 1995 was teaching an extinct form of tennis? Unless you're saying everying Fed, Rafa & all the rest are doing now was merely a result of what OW was teaching back in the Pete's heyday?

Yes, modern tennis would be today's tennis of course.

What does RL currently teach? I can't say that, but he has made a point of going on record that extreme topspin and grips like Rafa's would not take players to the highest levels of the game.

As to Oscar, he has the distinction being one of the few teaching as early as the 70's, the way most top players play today. I guess you could call him pre-modern, as he was teaching this way before it came as common as it is today, so he did precede modern tennis in a sense.

[JohnYandell]

On Lansdorp, some would use those adjectives, others would say relentless and demanding.

Robert just speaks his mind, and from the heart. Some people hate that, others love it.

[deluxe]

Originally Posted by 5263

Yes, modern tennis would be today's tennis of course.

Ok, what about pro tennis 15 years ago, was that "modern tennis"? I'm just trying to pin down if you simply mean "the way pros play tennis today" or if you mean "the way pros have played tennis over the last X number of years"

Originally Posted by 5263

What does RL currently teach? I can't say that,

Then it seems odd you're prepared to say he teaches an extinct form of tennis.

Originally Posted by 5263

but he has made a point of going on record that extreme topspin and grips like Rafa's would not take players to the highest levels of the game.

Quote please? I certainly remember reading some of his stuff where he says he prefers more conservative grips, ie semi-western over western.

Originally Posted by 5263

As to Oscar, he has the distinction being one of the few teaching as early as the 70's, the way most top players play today. I guess you could call him pre-modern, as he was teaching this way before it came as common as it is today, so he did precede modern tennis in a sense.

Are there any videos of Oscar from the 70's online? I'd like to see that. I'd like to see how Oscar was teaching people to play like Rafa with 14oz, 65 sq inch wooden tennis racquets.

[5263]

Originally Posted by JohnYandell

As I've said, the coaches tend to follow the players.

Father of modern tennis is not a claim of Oscars that I have ever heard, so is this a strawman you are trying to create?

Yes, most coaches do tend to follow the players; especially those that use vid and pics to arrive at what is going on. Now Oscar in some ways did the same, as he noticed things about some of the most potent strokes in history from different players thru the years, then boiled it down to some general, but key points in a system he created in the early 70's. Then he wrapped this simple system in a efficient way to interact with the student to help them develop feel for the strokes vs knowing them technically.
On the other hand, modern players have still not completely caught up to this system, as few if any incorporate the full spectrum of the training in their play. There is still an aspect where players with the best Bhs get it on that stroke, but don't quite get it on their weaker Fh or more often they get it on the Fh and Bh, but come up short on volleys. So in that sense, Modern tennis is not yet fully up with Modern Tennis Methodology as a system, but moving that way rapidly. IMO if you study some of your vids of Davydenko, you will get your best current view of where tennis is headed.

[5263]

Originally Posted by deluxe

Ok, what about pro tennis 15 years ago, was that "modern tennis"? I'm just trying to pin down if you simply mean "the way pros play tennis today" or if you mean "the way pros have played tennis over the last X number of years"

Then it seems odd you're prepared to say he teaches an extinct form of tennis.
Quote please? I certainly remember reading some of his stuff where he says he prefers more conservative grips, ie semi-western over western.

Are there any videos of Oscar from the 70's online? I'd like to see that. I'd like to see how Oscar was teaching people to play like Rafa with 14oz, 65 sq inch wooden tennis racquets.

Why would you expect to "pin someone down" on a general term like Modern tennis?

I'm also not going to get pinned down on what RL is currently teaching, as he seems to be backtracking on his previous positions on how young players are being ruined cause instructors allow them to use western grips. If you want to read and hear where he pokes fun at the "academy ball" and how aggressive grips are not the way to #1, then you will have to get off your wallet and make JY some money. Tennisplayer.net is a great site with tons of resources for you to pick thru. I guess that stuff is still on there.

As for 70s tennis- first you want to say that tennis strokes of today are not new, but now you want to suggest that these strokes won't work with older style wood rackets.????

[WChiang]

*note to 5263*.....quit digging your hole. It's only getting bigger, lol. The others are right. I've spoken with Landsdorp and seen his coaching firsthand. You are completely mischaracterizing his teaching viewpoint, opinions, and method. Also, strawmen galore in your posts.

[mtommer]

Originally Posted by JohnYandell

What I actually said was that I reject the term "modern tennis, which is somehow completely distinct and different from (?) pre-modern."
.....
Their is a continuity and an evolution in the game. But not a radical break in which somehow the new wisdom enters the world.

I think the radical break in "modern tennis" is the introduction of poly string that resulted in a far more physically demanding game overall.