The concept of the windshield wiper is bogus

[Bungalo Bill]

Originally Posted by Djokovicfan4life

No no no. I really feel that my muscles are not listening to me when I talk to them, since the brain clearly never sends messages to the body on anything. I keep telling them to focus on the contact point. It's ALL about the contact point and you're a fool for responding in any other way. My muscles simply choose to eat out every other Tuesdays and the fact that I'm timing the ball horrendously at the moment is obviously not linked to the fact that I just need more repetition. But I've made this quite clear. This isn't about that, it's all about a thread that was started a half a year ago, LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And so the dance continues.

HAHAHAHA, yes, and the eyes can process the incoming ball with exceptional detail to see it hit the strings despite what scientific studies show us and people in the know tell us.

Yeah, I know. It is brainless babble.

[Bungalo Bill]

Originally Posted by 5263

But 54 is not 70-100 is it?
I didn't come up with the 70-100 speed, the other guy did. All I did was point out that very few, to almost no balls will be in this range, the range he quoted, not me. Only the, even rare for Roddick, 145 serve will break into the 70-100 bracket, at the CP. Even Roddicks 145 serve could be well less than 70 when returned due to the extreme depth players use to return him. These points I made are facts, and it would have been to just acknowledge the mistake, then make your points.

Even the Dr quoted used the good judgement to say that it is "unlikely" that Ted could actually see the contact. In truth, most of what science understands currently about vision is more of a working theory, opposed to hard fully understood facts.

Sort of. There have been many tests to see how fast a sensory response gets sent to the brain. We have the science and equipment to measure how fast the brain receives information from the touch or feel of something.

These arent "things" that are pulled out of our ars. There is a lot of science behind vision therapy, training, and vision itself. We know a lot more than we do now and some things dont need further evidence and become the basis of new learning and research.

First, the eyes can not physically move fast enough to process detailed information to the brain when a ball is within 4 - 5 feet of the player. By the time the eyes try to see the detail, the ball has already hit the strings and is headed back to the opponent.

Obviously, this depends on how fast the ball is going. If the ball is moving very very slow, the eyes can keep up and provide the brain the sensory input handle the detail.

This is a very simple thing to learn which is why you waiting for "more proof" is a bit absurd.

Wave your hand in front of it and try to follow your hand. Wave it very slow and then very fast. This is what has been studied. The eyes can not keep up with a simple hand movement as it speeds up. The hand blurs.

Now, some humans wil have better eye sight but you then have to divide the better vision they have into the categories that vision has been defined.

However, in the end, when an object is close, small, and moving fast, the eyes can not move fast enough to process the information in detail.

YOU ARE LEGALLY BLLIND WHEN THE BALL IS WITHIN 4 - 5 feet and the ball blurs.

I understand that you and others are quoting the current theories on vision, and I do appreciate that, but am not inclined to agree with the current explanations. Maybe in the next 2 - 3 generations of this theory, as they improve it, will be more acceptable for me.
I can't count the times I've read in the last 20 yrs where they say, " scientist used to believe it worked like this, but now, with better info we believe this way is how it works."
I do appreciate that you are up on the latest (I guess) theory on this, but please be understanding for those of us that have read this work, and not ready to accept this version yet.

True, and I can count the times when we discover something, define it and use it as a basis to learn new things. I think gravity is one of those things. When we discover something from a physics perspective, we learn how to define our world. Eye movement, the size of the object, how fast the object is moving, and how close it is to the subject are things that is staple knowledge.

I dont know how you can dismiss what has been tested and shown to be true. Do you still dismiss that the earth revolves around the sun?

[Djokovicfan4life]

Originally Posted by stormholloway

This is coming from the guy who said you can't make deductions from one picture?

You can, provided that you're truly confident that you know what you're talking about from the get go. Prove me wrong, I challenge you.

Everyone knows Nadal finishes many forehands in the above fashion, but like I said: his standard forehand goes across his body and ends up below the shoulder in the torso area:

This is exactly what he meant by saying that looks can be deceiving sometimes. The finish a player chooses to use is directly linked to the amount of spin they're trying to hit. Or perhaps you're just still caught up in your little superficial matters as far as the tennis world is concerned. News flash, Einstein, it's time to put a mirror on your Christmas list. Seriously.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J46Dc4_i5zI



Where is the racquet?

Entirely unimportant. These are the "superficial" matters that I was referring to previously. In reality, the hitting hand is much more important.

This is a ball he is teeing off on, therefore this is his forehand as it should naturally be:

Ah, logical fallacies. Keep posting, I encourage you. I'm working on a comedy routine entitled "Storm's world".

when he has time to prepare his body and execute. The height of the ball is also a factor, but even though it's a low ball, he still finishes below the shoulder.

Look where Nadal is positioned in your picture. It's obvious that he's been pushed back into a defensive position. Therefore that isn't a "standard forehand," as I said. Do you have trouble reading? Do you even watch Nadal play regularly?

Uh, haven't we said all of this just a day or two ago?

Couple thoughts:

Take a look at BB's posts. I want you to REALLY look at them, meaning the quality of information and/or the amount of detail he goes into with every post. Now I want you to ask yourself, "could it MAYBE be possible that this guy's the real deal"?

After you've done this, take a look at some of your posts. Do you perceive them as: more mature, less, somewhere in between? And how does the information and more importantly, the PRESENTATION of it compare to Bill's? Is it: more or less organized? Do you: frequently jump to conclusions that he has to clear up for you?

And so on.

[stormholloway]

Originally Posted by Bungalo Bill

Yup, it is coming from that guy. I am just trying to see if it is true that Nadal doesn't ever finish over the shoulder.

Basically, you are wrong...again.

I never said he never finishes over the shoulder. What are you talking about?

You can, provided that you're truly confident that you know what you're talking about from the get go. Prove me wrong, I challenge you.

I said on a standard Nadal forehand he finishes in the torso area, i.e. below the shoulder. BB posted a picture of Nadal in an extreme situation far behind the baseline with both feet off the ground. He then went on to say that I was wrong because he finishes over his head and shoulder often.

Never once did I contradict this. I said on a standard forehand, meaning when balance, legs, and ball are all in optimal position, Rafael Nadal finishes below the shoulder. This isn't hard to understand, and was further confirmed by the videos I posted.

This is exactly what he meant by saying that looks can be deceiving sometimes. The finish a player chooses to use is directly linked to the amount of spin they're trying to hit. Or perhaps you're just still caught up in your little superficial matters as far as the tennis world is concerned. News flash, Einstein, it's time to put a mirror on your Christmas list. Seriously.

But the discussion that I began with another poster, and you and BB decided to enter, was entirely a superficial argument. We were specifically talking about finishes.

Entirely unimportant. These are the "superficial" matters that I was referring to previously. In reality, the hitting hand is much more important.

And? So what? I was talking about the finish. It was entirely important because that was our conversation before you decided to butt in. What you're talking about has NOTHING to do with what I was talking about. I was, indeed, talking about superficial matters.

Originally Posted by Djokovicfan4life

Uh, haven't we said all of this just a day or two ago?

Couple thoughts:

Take a look at BB's posts. I want you to REALLY look at them, meaning the quality of information and/or the amount of detail he goes into with every post. Now I want you to ask yourself, "could it MAYBE be possible that this guy's the real deal"?

Excuse me? This has NOTHING to do with that guy. I was talking to another poster. Read posts #385 and #386. I never once said Nadal always finishes around the torso nor did I say he never finishes over his head or over his shoulder.

I responded to a poster who said that both Nadal and Federer finish over their shoulders. He was speaking about their normal, standard forehands.

After you've done this, take a look at some of your posts. Do you perceive them as: more mature, less, somewhere in between? And how does the information and more importantly, the PRESENTATION of it compare to Bill's? Is it: more or less organized? Do you: frequently jump to conclusions that he has to clear up for you?

And so on.

Honestly boy, you've got a lot of nerve talking to me about maturity. A) You have nothing to do with this conversation as you don't even know how it started. I wasn't talking to you. B) You use BB language like "Einstein. It's embarrassing.

It's downright comical how little you know about which you're talking. I was speaking specifically about superficial matters, i.e. where the racquet finishes. I was responding to another poster, i.e. not you or BB.

It sounds like, instead of trying to win an argument, you need to actually read. Try posts #385 and #386. If you find something false in what I said, then quote it.

[stormholloway]

Originally Posted by stormholloway

Federer and Nadal don't finish over their shoulders on a standard forehand. They hit across the body and the racquet ends up around the torso.

Originally Posted by Bungalo Bill

Actually on many shots Nadal does finish over his shoulder and even brings it back around for what is known as a "Reverse Finish." You are wrong again. LOL!!!

I love toying with you. It is too easy.

For you students out there, this is what is called a "straw man argument".

Notice in my first post I didn't exclude the possibility that "on many shots Nadal does finish over his shoulder". I said on a "standard forehand". He says "actually" to insinuate he's contradicting me, when I, in fact, never said that Nadal doesn't finish over his shoulder or over his head.

On a standard forehand, when Nadal is in position, balanced, and the ball is at optimal height, Nadal's racquet will end up around the torso area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

To "set up a straw man," one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view, yet is easier to refute. Then, one attributes that position to the opponent. For example, someone might deliberately overstate the opponent's position. While a straw man argument may work as a rhetorical technique—and succeed in persuading people—it carries little or no real evidential weight, since the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

Bungalow Bill is the unequivocal King of the Straw Men, and his lackey, Djokovicfan4life, follows not far behind, nibbling on his scraps.

[Djokovicfan4life]

Originally Posted by stormholloway

I never said he never finishes over the shoulder. What are you talking about?



I said on a standard Nadal forehand he finishes in the torso area, i.e. below the shoulder. BB posted a picture of Nadal in an extreme situation far behind the baseline with both feet off the ground. He then went on to say that I was wrong because he finishes over his head and shoulder often.

Never once did I contradict this. I said on a standard forehand, meaning when balance, legs, and ball are all in optimal position, Rafael Nadal finishes below the shoulder. This isn't hard to understand, and was further confirmed by the videos I posted.



But the discussion that I began with another poster, and you and BB decided to enter, was entirely a superficial argument. We were specifically talking about finishes.



And? So what? I was talking about the finish. It was entirely important because that was our conversation before you decided to butt in. What you're talking about has NOTHING to do with what I was talking about. I was, indeed, talking about superficial matters.



Excuse me? This has NOTHING to do with that guy. I was talking to another poster. Read posts #385 and #386. I never once said Nadal always finishes around the torso nor did I say he never finishes over his head or over his shoulder.

I responded to a poster who said that both Nadal and Federer finish over their shoulders. He was speaking about their normal, standard forehands.



Honestly boy, you've got a lot of nerve talking to me about maturity. A) You have nothing to do with this conversation as you don't even know how it started. I wasn't talking to you. B) You use BB language like "Einstein. It's embarrassing.

It's downright comical how little you know about which you're talking. I was speaking specifically about superficial matters, i.e. where the racquet finishes. I was responding to another poster, i.e. not you or BB.

It sounds like, instead of trying to win an argument, you need to actually read. Try posts #385 and #386. If you find something false in what I said, then quote it.

Currently taking professional coaching courses through http://virtualtennisacademy.com, just FYI.

[Bungalo Bill]

Originally Posted by stormholloway

For you students out there, this is what is called a "straw man argument".

Notice in my first post I didn't exclude the possibility that "on many shots Nadal does finish over his shoulder". I said on a "standard forehand". He says "actually" to insinuate he's contradicting me, when I, in fact, never said that Nadal doesn't finish over his shoulder or over his head.

On a standard forehand, when Nadal is in position, balanced, and the ball is at optimal height, Nadal's racquet will end up around the torso area.

So what is a standard forehand for Nadal? And are you leaving it open for your "torso" word also so you cant fail? Here you go Einstein! LOL!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkWii...eature=related

Seems to me the hand is up around shoulder area. But wait, dont let me put words in your mouth. LOL!

Bungalow Bill is the unequivocal King of the Straw Men, and his lackey, Djokovicfan4life, follows not far behind, nibbling on his scraps.

Yeah, I am the king. LOL!

[Djokovicfan4life]

Originally Posted by Bungalo Bill

So what is a standard forehand for Nadal? And are you leaving it open for your "torso" word also so you cant fail? Here you go Einstein! LOL!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkWii...eature=related

Seems to me the hand is up around shoulder area. But wait, dont let me put words in your mouth. LOL!




Yeah, I am the king. LOL!

First dibs on Prince of Tennis.

[stormholloway]

Originally Posted by Bungalo Bill

Yeah, I am the king. LOL!

Originally Posted by Djokovicfan4life

First dibs on Prince of Tennis.

Get a room.

[Djokovicfan4life]

Originally Posted by stormholloway

Get a room.

Get a mirror.

[Bungalo Bill]

Originally Posted by Djokovicfan4life

Get a mirror.

ROFLMAO!!!!

[Bungalo Bill]

Originally Posted by stormholloway

Get a room.

I noticed you didnt answer the question. Please do, I have plenty of other proof.

[NamRanger]

Originally Posted by stormholloway

For you students out there, this is what is called a "straw man argument".

Notice in my first post I didn't exclude the possibility that "on many shots Nadal does finish over his shoulder". I said on a "standard forehand". He says "actually" to insinuate he's contradicting me, when I, in fact, never said that Nadal doesn't finish over his shoulder or over his head.

On a standard forehand, when Nadal is in position, balanced, and the ball is at optimal height, Nadal's racquet will end up around the torso area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man


Bungalow Bill is the unequivocal King of the Straw Men, and his lackey, Djokovicfan4life, follows not far behind, nibbling on his scraps.

Except Nadal's standard forehand IS the reverse forehand, especially on clay and slower surfaces. So you're logic is shot again.


http://vimeo.com/1552633


Roughly 70% of Nadal's forehands are reverse forehands, whether he is balanced or not. Nadal rarely uses the standarad forehand, unless he plans on attacking and driving through the ball alot.

[Bungalo Bill]

Originally Posted by NamRanger

Except Nadal's standard forehand IS the reverse forehand, especially on clay and slower surfaces. So you're logic is shot again.

Hahaha, exactly. Let's see if he catches his mistake. I am curious if he will "spin" it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSr6d...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb3smnR6NSc&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNyfckDtRHM&NR=1

[NamRanger]

Originally Posted by Bungalo Bill

Hahaha, exactly. Let's see if he catches his mistake. I am curious if he will "spin" it.

He will say that the arm magically teleports below the shoulder, just like how Federer can use his cybernetic eye in order to see an event that happens within millionths of a second.


I mean seriously BB, didn't you know. If you can see light, which travels faster than anything known to man, that must mean you are able to track the light particles too! - Example of storm's logic, if you see it, even if it is a mirage or illusion, it must exist.

[Bungalo Bill]

Originally Posted by NamRanger

Example of storm's logic, if you see it, even if it is a mirage or illusion, it must exist.

It's is all about the mirage and learning applies to engine parts.

[JCo872]

Haven't been able to read all the posts here, but here is my 2 cents. First, I think "windshield wiper" is a nice term because it accurately describes the path the racket takes in the pro forehand. The strings of the racket face the net as the entire arm goes through and up the back of the ball and then rotates over.

The obviously problem with the term is that you have to tease out cause and effect (a problem John Yandell has addressed from day one). My personal conclusion, which I wrote about on tennisplayer.net, is that the wiper forehand comes from engaging the shoulder, which pushes the arm and racket through as it lifts up, and then rotates over.

The big problem you run into is if you just "roll" the racket over the ball. This doesn't work because you aren't driving through and up and then over - just slapping or rolling across the body. When players finish with the elbow in close to the body, you know they haven't extended through the ball.

So I think there are dangers to a superficial understanding of the "windshield wiper" phrase. It obviously doesn't capture the linear, forward motion through contact, but it does capture the idea of arm rotation - which is to me the big advancement in forehand technique. Rather than just hitting through the ball and extending forward, you add in the rotation of the hitting structure and get more powerful moves and added topspin.

You can't find a modern forehand today without SOME rotation from the shoulder. Sometimes it is extreme with the full wiper path. Sometimes it is mild rotation. But rotation of the arm is going to be there along with the essential linear motion through contact.

[stormholloway]

Originally Posted by Bungalo Bill

Hahaha, exactly. Let's see if he catches his mistake. I am curious if he will "spin" it.

Spin it? Like you spun my original post?

Perhaps you're slow (okay, we know you're slow), but you spun my original post to mean that Nadal never finishes over his head. Perhaps you'd like to respond to that. Maybe then I'll address your other questions. If you expect me to sit back while you lie about my posts but then oblige yours then you're mistaken, "coach".

[stormholloway]

Originally Posted by Djokovicfan4life

Get a mirror.

What does this mean exactly? Are you implying that a) you know what I look like and that b) you find me unattractive?

[NamRanger]

Originally Posted by stormholloway

Spin it? Like you spun my original post?

Perhaps you're slow (okay, we know you're slow), but you spun my original post to mean that Nadal never finishes over his head. Perhaps you'd like to respond to that. Maybe then I'll address your other questions. If you expect me to sit back while you lie about my posts but then oblige yours then you're mistaken, "coach".

He didn't spin anything. You said when Nadal hits a standard forehand, he follows through across his body and underneath his shoulder. However; Nadal's "standard" forehand is not that type of forehand. His standard forehand is the reverse forehand, which he roughly hits 70% of the time (about 80% on clay).


Also, you stated with optimal positioning, Nadal hits the "across the body" forehand. However, that's not true. Nadal will usually hit his reverse forehand in that situation, UNLESS he is going for a winner, or going to approach the net.