confused w/ the term "MTM"

[FrisbeeFool]

Originally Posted by 5263

hahaha,, Your definition is worse than I had expected.

maybe if you would respond to the substance of my post I could take you seriously.

[5263]

Originally Posted by FrisbeeFool

maybe if you would respond to the substance of my post I could take you seriously.

You trying to say your post had any substance?
You accused my of attacking Li Na...I didnt
You accused me of attacking RL, I don't really think I have unless you thought
he was perfect
And you seem to think Li Na hits just like top guys on ATP, lol
Where is the substance?

[sureshs]

I would say leave the 70 year old guy alone and let him keep his hard-earned money for his twilight years. Just got back from a grueling 1.5 hour match with a retired guy in his 60s and just managed to squeak past him. He plays 4.0 league and ladder matches four times a week, no topspin, hard flat shots, great fitness, and wonderful court sense with a variety of sneaky drop shots. I was lucky to get past him. I think the edge I got was from the movement of the ball after bounce from topspin and sidespin, which seemed to catch him off balance and send his aggressive flat returns into the net. The topspin itself did not seem to bother him.

What is needed at the club level is solid control of the ball, ability to put it where you want with reasonable precision, court sense and craftiness, non-chocking mentality, and fitness. No need for any fancy ineffective topspin by trying to pull back and up abruptly on the ball at contact instead of hitting through it.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by 5263

Li Na is working to get more TS, but has not been known for it in the past.
Seems her working to get more tends to be evidence of our point.
Why do think she is looking to make these changes & hired Calos?
Because she has the best WTA Fh, as toly says? hahaha
I don't think she would be working to hit more modern if suresh and fFool were correct.

She hired "Calos" and not you or your leader. That is precisely the point LOL.

[5263]

Originally Posted by sureshs

No need for any fancy ineffective topspin by trying to pull back and up abruptly on the ball at contact instead of hitting through it.

Then maybe you should avoid doing that and even quit talking about it unless
it something you are looking to learn more about it. Sorry, I don't know anyone
to help you with it though, because you are the only one I hear speaking of that.

[5263]

Originally Posted by sureshs

She hired "Calos" and not you or your leader. That is precisely the point LOL.

And Carlos coaches very modern, regardless of where he got it...that is the point.

[FrisbeeFool]

Originally Posted by 5263

You trying to say your post had any substance?
You accused my of attacking Li Na...I didnt
You accused me of attacking RL, I don't really think I have unless you thought
he was perfect
And you seem to think Li Na hits just like top guys on ATP, lol
Where is the substance?

What makes Li Na a traditional player? Sureshs's post was about a tennis magazine article about the extension and drive of her groundstrokes. You said she was a bad example because she was traditional. If good extension makes someone a traditional player, than most of the top guys on the ATP are traditional players.

MTM fails again. MTM has as much connection to the modern game of tennis as Scientology does to science.

[5263]

Originally Posted by FrisbeeFool

What makes Li Na a traditional player? Sureshs's post was about a tennis magazine article about the extension and drive of her groundstrokes. You said she was a bad example because she was traditional. If good extension makes someone a traditional player, than most of the top guys on the ATP are traditional players.

Get your quote of me correct and I might answer you, but I won't answer questions
where I'm improperly quoted. I did not say what you misquote.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by FrisbeeFool

What makes Li Na a traditional player? Sureshs's post was about a tennis magazine article about the extension and drive of her groundstrokes. You said she was a bad example because she was traditional. If good extension makes someone a traditional player, than most of the top guys on the ATP are traditional players.

5263 is in a bind. He was praising Tennis mag recently, and now he got trapped.

Again, point is Macci is the one invited to write the article, Li Na has never heard of this methodology, and both have actually achieved something in what they do. That is a new concept to him, and since he doesn't have any student to point to, he has to try to poke holes in what others have achieved.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by 5263

And Carlos coaches very modern, regardless of where he got it...that is the point.

Exactly, and people should get it elsewhere too from proven coaches LOL not hacks with no record

[5263]

Originally Posted by sureshs

5263 is in a bind. He was praising Tennis mag recently, and now he got trapped.
.

Thank you for showing how much info you misrepresent at the drop of a hat.

Yes, I have spoke highly of tennis Mag's improvements and I stand firmly behind
that, no bind and quite a silly comment about traps.
So so weak. Your poor hand is always showing, but I guess you are stuck all in?

[FrisbeeFool]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Again, point is Macci is the one invited to write the article, Li Na has never heard of this methodology, and both have actually achieved something in what they do. That is a new concept to him, and since he doesn't have any student to point to, he has to try to poke holes in what others have achieved.

Bingo! Right on the money. Maybe he'll trot out the old canard from the Oscar at Fair thread about how Djokovic's coach was a known reader of books, and he could have read Oscar's book, and Novak plays "modern tennis" so he must be a product of MTM.

[sureshs]

^^^ That was real entertainment. Sadly, those days are gone.

[FrisbeeFool]

Originally Posted by 5263

Get your quote of me correct and I might answer you, but I won't answer questions
where I'm improperly quoted. I did not say what you misquote.

Originally Posted by sureshs

Twice in 2 days. First the #1 junior in the world mentions it twice, and now I pick up the latest issue of Tennis rag err mag and what do I see but Rick Macci's analysis of Li Na's forehand. Selected excerpts below. (5263: don't even bother to do your usual thing of picking up a small side issue and ignoring everything else - just give up already.)

Photo 4: ..... Li's racquet is still going forward through the ball and toward her target.

Photo 5: This is major-league extension. Look how far her right shoulder and arm go into the court, toward her target. When people watch forehands on television, the speed of the shot deceives them. Though it looks like players don't extend into the court and just whip across the ball, they don't. It is impossible to hit a great forehand that way. (My note: a few months ago former touring pro Peter Burwash said the same thing as I had pointed it out then.)

Photo 6: ..... Now comes the follow-through, which wraps around the body.

Originally Posted by 5263

Of course, she is one of the more traditional hitters on tour, as
stated before.
Also one of the more spotty with results and tends have a lot of UEs;
and even then she still works across the target line to a lesser extent,
so it's not so obvious. I would not model a WTA Fh and if I had to, hers
would be one of the last, so pick what you like out there. Suresh, maybe
you can learn her high risk game. Since you are slow, it may help you.

Originally Posted by sureshs

Again, point is Macci is the one invited to write the article, Li Na has never heard of this methodology, and both have actually achieved something in what they do. That is a new concept to him, and since he doesn't have any student to point to, he has to try to poke holes in what others have achieved.

5263, If you want I can also go quote ten posts where you talk about extension and traditional tennis. Why don't we just save ourselves some time. Federer has great extension towards his target on his groundstrokes just like Li Na. Is he traditional too?

[5263]

Originally Posted by FrisbeeFool

5263, If you want I can also go quote ten posts where you talk about extension and traditional tennis. Why don't we just save ourselves some time. Federer has great extension towards his target on his groundstrokes just like Li Na. Is he traditional too?

so as all can see, I didn't say Li Na was traditional, but stated she was MORE
traditional, as in more than most pro players.

Sorry, but either you have a short memory or were out that day, but we pretty
much showed the pics and vid where it was cleared up that Fed does not hit
out the target line past contact and clearly his racket has started moving across
the contact as shown by the sidespin aspect of his swing.

As to Li Na...I don't study her and don't have the vid to really say. I don't
really care how she hits now as she is changing, WTA and erratic. If she wins
a couple of slams and slows down the UEs in her avg match, then I might study
her some. Even if she slows down on UEs in her avg match, then I'll look at
her for you since she is your top model I guess. We can even do before and
afters to see how much the change was and in what direction...if she cuts the
High UEs.

For anyone one who wades thru these guys and their "he said, she said" approach to
tennis, They don't even realize there are book refs on classic/traditional instruction,
along with even some book ref on modern strokes. These guys just
shoot from the hip and what they heard from someone, stirring up their confusion.
I just stay on topic best I can and stick to sources available to me. So really they
aren't arguing with me but with book definitions. I stay in
here for those of you who care to learn and improve...using their misconceptions
as chance to show things that can be learned by those who study up.

[toly]

In picture below Serena Williams is trying to hit flat FH winner. She hits the ball with a little topspin and practically with no useless sidespin.
Here is original video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJg5cWEviZo.

[sureshs]

Much improved Tennis mag same issue had another piece of instruction. Here the term used was to extend through the ball. And the pics showed across the body finish. It takes such explanations to make some people understand that the fast across the body finish of the pros masks the extension, when viewed on TV, and leads to mistaken teaching like whip the racket across the ball, pull the racket back at impact, etc.

And yes, the author was formerly on the ATP tour, i.e., can actually play LOL.

[toly]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Much improved Tennis mag same issue had another piece of instruction. Here the term used was to extend through the ball. And the pics showed across the body finish. It takes such explanations to make some people understand that the fast across the body finish of the pros masks the extension, when viewed on TV, and leads to mistaken teaching like whip the racket across the ball, pull the racket back at impact, etc.

And yes, the author was formerly on the ATP tour, i.e., can actually play LOL.

I don’t like a vague tennis terminology. It seems that nobody is able to explain clearly what exactly we should do to extend through the ball. Our joints are very good with rotational movement, but very bad with straight linear motion. IMO, we just have to rotate relevant parts of the body in synchronized manner and forget about across or through aspects.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by toly

I don’t like a vague tennis terminology. It seems that nobody is able to explain clearly what exactly we should do to extend through the ball. Our joints are very good with rotational movement, but very bad with straight linear motion. IMO, we just have to rotate relevant parts of the body in synchronized manner and forget about across or through aspects.

Well, that is not what the pros and (proven) coaches are saying. We can certainly say that any joint is for rotational motion only because I have not heard of a part of a limb increasing in length, but I don't think that is helpful for these purposes. Rotational motion of connected parts can lead to linear motion (crank is an example). And the linear motion is only for a certain time and part of an overall swinging trajectory.

[toly]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Well, that is not what the pros and (proven) coaches are saying. We can certainly say that any joint is for rotational motion only because I have not heard of a part of a limb increasing in length, but I don't think that is helpful for these purposes. Rotational motion of connected parts can lead to linear motion (crank is an example). And the linear motion is only for a certain time and part of an overall swinging trajectory.

In billiards they called straight linear stroke as “piston stroke”. http://billiards.colostate.edu/threa....html#pendulum.

A "piston stroke" is one where you coordinate motion of both the elbow and the shoulder to keep the cue tip moving in a straight line during the entire stroke (just like a piston in the cylinder of an internal-combustion engine).

I think this idea cannot be used successfully in tennis due to this motion is slow. See figure underneath.



Maximum speed is around 13 mph. The instructor also was using the wrist to increase speed.

In general, IMO, our body just cannot create very fast straight linear motions. That’s why, Federer and Nadal rotates straight arm before impact. I didn’t see any pro that can use straight linear motion before and during impact. Maybe you can provide some videos that support hitting through idea?