The concept of the windshield wiper is bogus

[dennis10is]

Originally Posted by jessey

One of my friend studied child psychology, and wow, that is an interesting subject from what he tells me. The experiment they do are so very amusing and boarderline abusing . Like telling children not to hit a teddy bear while providing opportunity for them to do so. Then, when they do, making them feel really bad by saying things like "don't you know you're hurting the bear" and recording their reactions.

If you are correct in describing the study above, that would be very iffy. To conduct research on children, the researcher must have parental/guardian consent and in this case, the parents would have to know ahead of time what the experimenters will do with their children. If the study made the child feel bad about their actions, I would be surprised that the study would have been approved first by the ethics committe and second received signed consent from the parents. My colleagues in child psychology always have a difficult time getting consent from parents even if the study involves the children just playing and interacting with the experimenter. No crying nothing and the parents will be in the room or observing next door. Can't imagine parents would let them do this. If the study was published and now in a textbook, it would have been challenged by the reviewers?

Could you ask your friend if the study was looking at the child's acquistion of "theory of mind"?

[stormholloway]

Tennis can't be compared to driving a car. A car is a complex set of working parts that are unseen and unfelt by sensory perception. A tennis racquet gives feedback. It's just a stick attached to a hoop with strings in it. Therefore, you don't need declarative knowledge to play tennis, but you do need it to drive a car.

[Bungalo Bill]

Originally Posted by junbug

bill, i'd still like to see a video of you explaining your points. with you demo'ing it. i'm not disagreeing with what you say. but if you had a video demo i can get a better picture.

LOL! Now why? Is it that important that I do it? You have plenty of examples. Is what I do going to make you a better tennis player? Or are you still sore that I made fun of your little guru. What is it?

Here is what I think. I think you are mad that I challenged your guru. You were rubbing its hair, stroking its face, and kissing it every chance you got. Then I came along and grabbed it from you and slapped it around.

Tell you what, you show us how to do it because like you said, compared to "oscar" I have no idea what I am talking about. After all, I am one of thse coaches that Oscar calles "ancient" or "old school". Since you are a "child of the tennis god" you tell me how to do it. Or can you?

[Bungalo Bill]

Originally Posted by stormholloway

Tennis can't be compared to driving a car. A car is a complex set of working parts that are unseen and unfelt by sensory perception. A tennis racquet gives feedback. It's just a stick attached to a hoop with strings in it. Therefore, you don't need declarative knowledge to play tennis, but you do need it to drive a car.

AWESOME!!!

So tennis has no declaritive knowledge involved?

And getting back to a car, you are talking about a car vs. mental processes that are happening in the brain.

You do realize you just set yourself up right? I really dont want to make you look like a fool.

I will allow you time to change your post above.

[jessey]

Originally Posted by dennis10is

If you are correct in describing the study above, that would be very iffy. To conduct research on children, the researcher must have parental/guardian consent and in this case, the parents would have to know ahead of time what the experimenters will do with their children. If the study made the child feel bad about their actions, I would be surprised that the study would have been approved first by the ethics committe and second received signed consent from the parents. My colleagues in child psychology always have a difficult time getting consent from parents even if the study involves the children just playing and interacting with the experimenter. No crying nothing and the parents will be in the room or observing next door. Can't imagine parents would let them do this. If the study was published and now in a textbook, it would have been challenged by the reviewers?

Could you ask your friend if the study was looking at the child's acquistion of "theory of mind"?

He did tell me about feeling iffy about it, and something about the ethics committee. I think when they ask the children questions they ask them in a neutral and un-judgmental way and see how the children reacted. Anyway, I'll ask him about the details.

[Bungalo Bill]

The beginning of our research and the first response from my library of information.

It is a little one but it gets the ball rolling. First let's put stormholloway to bed. Then we can put our psychology professor to bed with a more meaty response:

Learning and Memory by Robert W. Howard.

Skill Learning (page 117)

Much research has tackled the difficult question of how skills are actually acquired, how humans manage to learn the complex-ordinations of many perceptions and actions involved in complicated skills. Several issues concern the exact course of skill learning and whether it is broadly the same for all skills, the role of feedback, and when and to what extent transfer occurs.

Some similar learning processes seem to be involved with many skills. One is learning to attend to relevant cues, to sort out wheat from chaff. Chess players learn to see the few good moves on the board, novice car drivers to attend to the car's controls and the important objects ahead, such as traffic signs and lights, other cars, and road conditions.

The learner must first acquire the ability to perform them and then to co-ordinate them. For instance, the novice driver learns to depress the clutch and the brake pedal to the right level, to shift the gears, to turn the steering wheel the right distance for a given turn, and so on, and then to co-ordinate these actions.

For very complex skills, many muscle units need to be co-ordinated. Chunking is ubiquitous in skill learning. Drivers learn to group actions into larger unit, chess players to group pieces into perceptual chunks, and satellite photo interpreters to group fragments into patterns.

Stormholloway was easy to put to bed and I won't go any further with him. Now, on to the professor and his declaritive knowledge statement. Believe me, you don't have to do much research to prove these clowns wrong.

[dennis10is]

Originally Posted by jessey

He did tell me about feeling iffy about it, and something about the ethics committee. I think when they ask the children questions they ask them in a neutral and un-judgmental way and see how the children reacted. Anyway, I'll ask him about the details.

Ok, thanks. I'll look forward to your response.

Social psychologist did some ground breaking work but it was so psychologically devasting to the subjects and to the readership that it provided the impetus for the ethics protocol we now adhere to.

If you are interested in psychology, I would recommend this book. It is a small and easy read book. I used this book when I was teaching.

Forty studies that changed psychology by Roger Hock.

[Bungalo Bill]

Originally Posted by dennis10is

Ok, thanks. I'll look forward to your response.

Social psychologist did some ground breaking work but it was so psychologically devasting to the subjects and to the readership that it provided the impetus for the ethics protocol we now adhere to.

If you are interested in psychology, I would recommend this book. It is a small and easy read book. I used this book when I was teaching.

Forty studies that changed psychology by Roger Hock.

LOL, you are back? I thought you left. Well, I guess now I post my evidence to send your little statement to bed.

You are a phoney.

[David L]

Originally Posted by wihamilton

Hey David no sweat on the late reply. You've got a lot of people vying for your attention, heh. And thanks for the kind words about the video.

My feeling is that the follow through isn't always the natural consequence of what's going on prior to and at contact. You need to teach someone how to slow down / decelerate their racket and body smoothly for pretty much every shot in tennis -- not just the windshield wiper.

While you're right that the windshield wiper follow through is the product of a more vertical swing plane, it's not the only option when following through. As I mentioned in the video, you could continue to extend your arm and the racket straight up into the air. In a way that's more intuitive than turning your arm / racket over to create the windshield wiper effect.

I guess it's debatable, but I feel the windshield wiper follow-through is the path of least resistance. It's what the arm seems to want to do if you do not try to control it after contact with the ball.

[David L]

Originally Posted by JohnYandell

OK I love this! I'm sure I'm not the only one who noticed. David, as is his pattern, didn't respond to all the comments that pointed out the errors and contradictions in his posts, and certainly didn't apologize for his various mistatements of facts.

But the best part is now he agrees with Lansdorp about the three finishes. And of course what Robert calls the downward finish is the same finish everyone else calls the windshield wiper.

So I guess so long as you don't call it the wiper, the wiper finish is a key part of the modern game. But wait I thought it was the CONCEPT of the wiper that was bogus. Hmm... that doesn't really make sense does it? Just another contradiction that will of course be ignored.

Now as for that hard distinction between classical and modern, that won't really hold up either. There were western forehands in the 1920s. The rackets changed the preponderance of grips and shot types. But every shot in the game, including the wiper forehand, and the reverse forehand have always been part of the game.

You can see Tilden hit a wiper forehand on our site. Also Pancho Gonzales. And Fred Perry hitting a reverse forehand--with a continental grip.

The rackets allowed the players to (eventually) figure out the advantages of the more extreme grips and spins (the real benefit of the wiper at high levels), but great players in all eras intuitively new how to use the racket in the way that best facilitated what they were trying to do.

Anyway this has been a fun exercise as a compliment to watching the AO. Love the Dokic thing and we have some amazing high speed footage of her forehand I'll put up now that she's back. And yes, to stay on the topic of the thread, she hits an amazing wiper as one of her forehand variations, one of the first women to do that routinely going back to when she was in the top 10 as a teenager. And have to say it's the opposite of bogus.

I think my posts have been consistent and yes, I still do think the concept of the windshield wiper is bogus, principally because it is a perception which confuses many about the actual.

As for classical and modern technique, regardless of which preceded which, the important point is that we are playing in the modern world with modern technology, so how players struck the ball with wooden rackets is of little importance when playing the game today.

[David L]

Originally Posted by Bungalo Bill

Okay, I can start buying your information. You do know, you came off a bit strong which threw everyone out of whack. Lots of passionate players and coaches here.

So, with that said, I am a process person. Some people here are an end result type people. However, I love the process and can buy into what you are saying above. You are not dishing the WW pattern or finish, what it seems like is you are dishing is those that ONLY focus on or glorify the finish as if it is the Holy Grail to improve your ability to hit topspin, consistently, on time, and cleanly. In this case, I am with you.

So, if this is true. the point is we both know, no matter how you slice the swing, need to understand that the most important aspect of the swing is your racquet making contact with the ball on time and hitting it cleanly.

People like John Yandell know that the contact with the ball is very important or he wouldnt have come out with the book Visual Tennis. However, there are some coaches out there that ignore the process and just emphasize a certain finish. With these people, I am in disagreement.

What happens in the backswing, drop, forward swing, contact, extention, followthough, and finish are all important elements that provide feedback to the various stages of the swing. For example, if a player breaks off into the finish too soon, this might shed light that he is not accelerating to and through the ball in the stages prior to the finish. Or he might not be extending very well through the ball.

So if my explanation is aligned with your original objectives for this thread, I am fully with you. I am not a finish person as well, I am a process person. I place more emphasis in the swing path portion that leads up and goes into the extension of the stoke more than anything. I rarely concentrate on the finish because I will get the finish I want by concentrating on what happens before the finish. However, for coaches and players that understand the process is important as well, getting players to think of the finish can work as well.

I wish you would have said it this way to begin with!!!

Yes, you pretty much captured the point of my post.

[JohnYandell]

David,

No. Not consistent. And on the modern versus clasical game, sliding and reframing as expected, and as usual.
Convince yourself as needed.

[stormholloway]

Originally Posted by Bungalo Bill

AWESOME!!!

So tennis has no declaritive knowledge involved?

And getting back to a car, you are talking about a car vs. mental processes that are happening in the brain.

You do realize you just set yourself up right? I really dont want to make you look like a fool.

I will allow you time to change your post above.

First, are you a grown man? If so, I feel sorry for you. As a guy who parades around this forum acting like a mentor, you sure are childish in your posts.

It's obvious you're barely even grasping what you're writing because, after cutting and pasting about declarative and procedural knowledge, you misspelled "declarative". You're also childish in that you act as if you've made some point, but nothing above contains any pertinent information other than that you believe you're right and that I'm wrong.

As for the car, it was obviously over your head. In order to drive a car you must have specific knowledge of how it works. Intuition cannot tell a driver which pedal does what, or what the gears mean, or what the lights on the streets mean. The driver can't see the gears, wires, and fluids. On the other hand, a person can instantly recognize how a tennis racquet works. It's a stick with a broad surface on the end.

If you have any trouble with this, send me an email. I'd be glad to help you out.

[Bungalo Bill]

Originally Posted by stormholloway

First, are you a grown man? If so, I feel sorry for you. As a guy who parades around this forum acting like a mentor, you sure are childish in your posts.

And yours aren't childish? I mean come on, you continue to take the road of posting information that is ridiculous. How many times do the people around here need to point out you are constantly off? I mean we post something true and you always have to spur things on with an opposite ridiculous view.

A clear example was you telling us that driving a car has no declarative knowledge. Can that get anymore childish? This of course is in light of course that it clearly does and I provided information indicating so from much more knowledgable people in this area than I and certainly you.

It's obvious you're barely even grasping what you're writing because, after cutting and pasting about declarative and procedural knowledge, you misspelled "declarative". You're also childish in that you act as if you've made some point, but nothing above contains any pertinent information other than that you believe you're right and that I'm wrong.

LOL! Barely grasp? I think what you meant is I proved you wrong.

As for the car, it was obviously over your head. In order to drive a car you must have specific knowledge of how it works. Intuition cannot tell a driver which pedal does what, or what the gears mean, or what the lights on the streets mean. The driver can't see the gears, wires, and fluids. On the other hand, a person can instantly recognize how a tennis racquet works. It's a stick with a broad surface on the end.

We are talking about DRIVING A CAR which means the car is moving. Which means something or someone has to press on the gas. Which means there are interactions going on mechanically, mentally, and physically. LOL!!!! We already know an engine has gears, etc... Einstein! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

If you have any trouble with this, send me an email. I'd be glad to help you out.

No thanks, I would rather handle it here and spare me on the spelling/grammar check professor.

[Bungalo Bill]

Originally Posted by David L

Yes, you pretty much captured the point of my post.

Perfect! Thanks!

[stormholloway]

Originally Posted by Bungalo Bill

And yours aren't childish? I mean come on, you continue to take the road of posting information that is ridiculous. How many times do the people around here need to point out you are constantly off? I mean we post something true and you always have to spur things on with an opposite ridiculous view.

People around here? I see you. It's amazing the way you speak. The whole point is that not everyone believes what you say is true, therefore the burden is on you to prove it. I'm simply disagreeing. I disagree but I don't conduct myself like a child with these ridiculous insults and "LOLLLLS!!!! exclamations.

Two words: grow up.

A clear example was you telling us that driving a car has no declarative knowledge. Can that get anymore childish? This of course is in light of course that it clearly does and I provided information indicating so from much more knowledgable people in this area than I and certainly you.

Excuse me? I NEVER said such a thing. Quote it.

We are talking about DRIVING A CAR which means the car is moving. Which means something or someone has to press on the gas. Which means there are interactions going on mechanically, mentally, and physically. LOL!!!! We already know an engine has gears, etc... Einstein! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

The car isn't moving until you make it move professor. In fact, without any prior knowledge, one wouldn't have a clue what a car was. It would just look like a "thing". If we "already know an engine has gears" then we have some declarative knowledge already. You're assuming that the person knows these things.

Before I simply thought you weren't qualified. I'm beginning to think that you lack general intelligence altogether.

[Bungalo Bill]

Originally Posted by stormholloway

People around here? I see you. It's amazing the way you speak. The whole point is that not everyone believes what you say is true, therefore the burden is on you to prove it. I'm simply disagreeing. I disagree but I don't conduct myself like a child with these ridiculous insults and "LOLLLLS!!!! exclamations.

Two words: grow up.

LOL!

Two words: YOU FIRST.

LOL!

Excuse me? I NEVER said such a thing. Quote it.

LOL!

Let's bring it into context Einstein. You said: "Tennis can't be compared to driving a car."

LOL!

Then you went on to talk about the mechanical nature of the car and that which was completely out of context. You further took it out of context and brought up the following:

A tennis racquet gives feedback. It's just a stick attached to a hoop with strings in it. Therefore, you don't need declarative knowledge to play tennis. A car is a complex set of working parts that are unseen and unfelt by sensory perception.

LOL!!!

Well Einstein? How do you go from DRIVING A CAR to A CAR IS A COMPLEX SET OF WORKING PARTS THAT ARE UNSEEN AND UNFELT BY SENSORY PERCEPTION?

We are talking about DRIVING A CAR. That means a human is behind the wheel DRIVING THE CAR!

LOL!!!!

As we just found out, you do need declarative knowledge to play tennis AND to drive a car.

The car isn't moving until you make it move professor. In fact, without any prior knowledge, one wouldn't have a clue what a car was.

LOL!!!!

and how do you make it move? YOU DRIVE THE FRICKING CAR!!!

LOL!!!!!

It would just look like a "thing". If we "already know an engine has gears" then we have some declarative knowledge already. You're assuming that the person knows these things.

Before I simply thought you weren't qualified. I'm beginning to think that you lack general intelligence altogether.

LOL!!!

Yeah, I lack general intelligence even though I just provided evidence pointing out you have no clue what you are talking about. It is me, not you.

LOL!!!!

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by stormholloway

Tennis can't be compared to driving a car. A car is a complex set of working parts that are unseen and unfelt by sensory perception. A tennis racquet gives feedback. It's just a stick attached to a hoop with strings in it. Therefore, you don't need declarative knowledge to play tennis, but you do need it to drive a car.

A car does provide feedback. In some tests, replacing the steering by a joystick displeased the user because the feedback from turning the wheel was found to be more satisfying than the feedback from a joystick. When the angular movement of the steering has a linear relationship with the actual turn of the car, it was more satisfying. A small displacement of the joystick resulting in a big turn was not intuitive. Also the engine sound was found to provide reinforcement and there were even proposals to simulate that in electric cars (like the impact sound in tennis).

And even in cars found today, there are those who prefer a closer to road feel, like in beemers, and dislike the cushioned feel of transmissions in American cars. They like the road feedback that they get. It is very critical for race car drivers.

[Djokovicfan4life]

I may have to pop myself some popcorn for this one.

[junbug]

bill, i'm trying to be open to your ideas, but just because i'm oscar's protege doesn't mean i'll be 100% pro oscar. i'm sure there are other things in this forum that i would like to get some insights. now if you are in the business of bashing other teaching pros who try to make the sport easier and fun and even offering a helping hand to other teaching pros, then i won't bother you especially considering you are now a "FORMER" . makes me wonder if you got kicked out of the USPTA because of the grudges you have in your baggage.