confused w/ the term "MTM"

[sureshs]

Yeah, all juniors and pros have been playing like this for a while now with the help of their coaches, from beginning juniors to advanced ones to college players to pros. And all over the world too, including juniors from countries with a very small tennis following and no access to American or European coaches.

It has nothing to do with one particular person or organization.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Yeah, all juniors and pros have been playing like this for a while now with the help of their coaches, from beginning juniors to advanced ones to college players to pros. And all over the world too, including juniors from countries with a very small tennis following and no access to American or European coaches.

It has nothing to do with one particular person or organization.

I have no idea what Oscar Wegner's personal role in the popularity of modern technique is. Obviously, it is now way beyond the aegis of his influence. But, it is my understanding, from what I've read, that the widespread use of the technique began in South America. And from my observations of South American players from in the late 80's early 90's, that was the time and place this technique seemed to become so prevalent, to me.

What I do credit Oscar Wegner with is a simple, accessable approach to learning modern technique. Even if, as some complain, it seems "incomplete," you don't know what he teaches to every individual student. I suspect that he tries to teach only what needs to be taught in order to achieve a particular result. That will vary from person to person.

[sureshs]

There are so many things that happened in the past or claimed to have happened. They are really not relevant today when it comes to making a choice about something.

[JohnYandell]

Limp,

I think you are 1000% correct. The huge body rotation and hand and arm rotation (ww or whtever you wish to call it) are the two big technical changes and they are dependent on the rackets and string.

A Tennis Mag writer talked Djokovic into hitting with a wood racket a few years ago at Indian Wells. Djok's conclusion was that if he had to play with wood he wouldn't be able to hit a forehand.

[JohnYandell]

Re: TennisOne

I have not been associated with TennisOne for around 10 years now. All the work I did there previously is now exclusively on Tennisplayer.net, as well as the massive info we have developed independently in the last decade.

[treblings]

Originally Posted by 5263

You can't really expect to see a full on atp stroke unless it is in match conditions,
of course, depending on what you are looking for.
Watch some of Fed's warm up vids and the strokes often look worse than any
good Jr.
On the other hand, for one who knows what to look for, those vids show the
fundamental aspects of the stroke or part of the strokes they are meant to
demo. There are progressions to account for and Oscar's audience is not the
bunch of doubting Toms like sureshs, but players and instructors who come to learn from a
former pro with an excellent system. You can accomplish little by answering every
question from beginniners and are much more effective leading thru progressions
and letting them feel aspects of the stroke as you put it together.

if you realize that the video shows an element of the forehand to illustrate a point Oscar Wegner is making than that´s fine.
only if you think you´re seeing the full stroke how you are meant to play it, that that might lead to confusion

[sureshs]

Well, how do we know it is not the full stroke? It is open stance, no proper shoulder turn, short takeback and an abrupt pushing or slapping of the ball - similar to the other video by another coach illustrating the system.

Sure, we can give the benefit of the doubt, but there are really so many good instructional videos available for free where you don't need to have such doubts.

[dominikk1985]

I believe for some reason kids today play naturally like this with the modern rackets. I have seen good juniors who were coached totally traditionally doing those rotational strokes.

probably because they emulate what they see on TV?

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by dominikk1985

I believe for some reason kids today play naturally like this with the modern rackets. I have seen good juniors who were coached totally traditionally doing those rotational strokes.

probably because they emulate what they see on TV?

And one another. I had mentioned before how older coaches with 1 H BH have students who are great 2 handers. I have seen them giving tips for it, but I think the kids learned them by osmosis from peers and TV.

I learnt my stuff from watching pros on Tennis Channel (and from tips on this great forum) and so I was playing "modern" from day one.

[MikeyBigShot]

John Frausto has the best MTM forehand. The 53 drills video is the best MTM video I've seen (The whole video, not just these clips.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQhz8ijLCzc

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

[bhupaes]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Here are my observations. Let me know what you think.

IMO, there are two fundamental differences between the two styles of hitting. Both of these differences are made possible by the size of modern tennis racquets which have much, much bigger sweet spots than wood racquets allowing players to swing with more racquet head speed and a much steeper angle of ascent to contact, and still consistently hit the ball in the sweet spot. Players like Hoad, Laver, Vilas, Borg, Okker and Nastase were so frikkin' talented, that they could hit with some measure of these modern characteristics with 14oz+, 65sq.in., wood racquets, and still hit cleanly, most of the time. But, they were the exceptions.

The two big differences that I see are: (1) the change from linear to angular momentum, and (2) the WW swing. These two characteristics of the modern swing work best together.

Angular momentum is achieved through the rotation of the body from the legs and hips, to the shoulders, arm and racquet, commonly referred to as the kinetic chain. Angular momentum generates more RHS than linear momentum which results in more power, and more spin if you combine it with the WW swing (described below). Such a kinetic chain and upper body rotation is easiest to achieve with an open stance, unless you pivot on your front foot after contact and bring your back foot forward. It also recqires that contact be made futher forward, closer to the target, in order to hit at the peak of acceleration, which in turn requires either a SW grip, or a laid back wrist ala Federer, so that the racquet face is facing the target causing the ball to travel to the target even though the circular swing is across the target line.

I use the term "WW swing" rather than WW finish just to make the point that a true WW finish starts before contact in the supination part of the forward swing where the racquet head drops well below the hand and the ball. Without that drop, the WW finish is meaningless. From there, the steep ascent of the racquet through contact into the familiar WW finish is what generates the heavy spin that characterizes the modern forehand and what controls the additional power of both the longer strings of modern racquets, the extra force generated by angular momentum, and the additional racquet head speed of the WW swing itself. But, this technique only works with the forward contact point associated with the upper body rotation described above.

This technique, which has evolved gradually over the past 30+ years, was just not accessable to most of the wood racquet era players.

Good post, Limp. I have a question for you... if one were to see a disembodied racquet executing a forehand, should one be able to tell if it was classical or modern? All you get to see is the racquet and the ball - the player is invisible.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by MikeyBigShot

John Frausto has the best MTM forehand. The 53 drills video is the best MTM video I've seen (The whole video, not just these clips.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQhz8ijLCzc

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

In the first one, the technique works with balls arriving low and slow after 2 bounces. That is why the claim that there is plenty of time. IMO, it is will not work with faster, higher bouncing balls with topspin on them. You can't wait till the last minute on those balls.

[FrisbeeFool]

Originally Posted by treblings

if you realize that the video shows an element of the forehand to illustrate a point Oscar Wegner is making than that´s fine.
only if you think you´re seeing the full stroke how you are meant to play it, that that might lead to confusion

Part of the problem though, is that the mtm teachings don't focus much on coiling and preparation. They focus so much on the racket work in the contact zone, but there is little teaching about how to prepare for the shot.

Telling most people to stalk the ball or find the ball from below, will not teach them the shoulder turn and coiling that you see in the preparation phase of modern ATP/WTA strokes.

The mtm materials I've seen tell people they have more time than they think they do to prepare. They should count to 5 when they're getting ready, so they will have a niced relaxed stroke. Some of the videos tell people they shouldn't worry about footwork, that their movement will happen naturally if they are stalking the ball. These approaches might work making the game more palatable and intuitive for beginners, but at a certain point in a players development most people will need teaching on concepts like preparation and coiling, in order to improve.

I think it's funny that the selling point for MTM is "play like the pros." Most of the teachings seem designed to make the game fun and intuitive for beginners, just learning the basics.

It just makes mtmers look silly when they're presenting their system as the Holy Grail of tennis instruction and denigrating "traditional coaches". Treblings, you clearly have a lot of coaching experience. You seem like an unbiased, open-minded person willing to uses good advice, regardless of what "coaching methodology" it comes from. When you are teaching do you spend time teaching students about how to turn their shoulders and prepare for groundstrokes? I'm guessing vague mystical language about stalking the ball and finding the ball doesn't work for every student. Some students might need more concrete advice about turning the shoulders, looking at the ball with their chin over their front shoulder, coiling, etc, however it might have to be phrased to get through to that student.

Treblings, I'm guessing the same vague, mystical mtm language wouldn't get through to every student. Some people might need a more concrete approach, that focuses on things like preparation on groundstrokes, and learning different movement patterns. I don't think I've ever heard an mtm supporter talking concretely about movement patterns that all the modern pro's use.

From other instructors, who don't adhere to mtm, a lot of the instruction on footwork and movement is more concrete and less vague and mystical. I don't think I've ever heard an mtm supporter on these boards talk about something like a carioca step in concrete, easy to understand terms.

I've read pretty much all the mtm advice on these boards. I've learned more from Jeff Salzenstein about movement patterns in 2 minutes, than I've learned from the years worth of mtm advice on these boards. Perhaps mtmers should develop some humility and perspective, and cease presenting the mtm system as the holy grail of tennis instruction. It's just ridiculous when the sane people on the boards have to waste our time debunking claims like: Novak Djokovic is a practitioner of MTM, and Robert Lansdorp didn't teach Pete Sampras topspin.

[boramiNYC]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Angular momentum is achieved through the rotation of the body from the legs and hips, to the shoulders, arm and racquet, commonly referred to as the kinetic chain. Angular momentum generates more RHS than linear momentum which results in more power, and more spin if you combine it with the WW swing (described below).

To achieve a high speed rotation (like slinging a rock) a certain linear velocity is generated and then a force is applied 90 degrees to that direction (pull toward the center). This can be done in more than one way and what you describe is not the only way. A running FH is an example. And yes stepping into the ball this can be achieved as well. That's how Fed hits short approach shots with closed stance.

[5263]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

I have no idea what Oscar Wegner's personal role in the popularity of modern technique is.

And clearly neither does sureshs. Of course sureshs says he learned modern
from tv, but has suggested that Oscar has no influence with his commentating and
tv tips during his years on the tube. Is he suggesting that
only he can learn from tv instruction and not all those who saw Oscar during
those years? That's the kind of logic he shares here.

[5263]

Originally Posted by FrisbeeFool

I think it's funny that the selling point for MTM is "play like the pros."
Most of the teachings seem designed to make the game fun and intuitive for beginners, just learning the basics.
.

Well this is likely because you never even understand the basics, so you never
get beyond that aspect of the training.
You are right that most of what you see on the net is to make it fun for
beginners. Good insight on that.
It only seems mystical to those in the dark, like how a caveman would see a
computer. With knowledge and understanding, the mystery goes away,
so hang in there.

Your constant trolling with misinfo like stating RL never taught Pete topspin??
Where do you get this stuff? And you are the only one I've heard say DJ is using
MTM? where do you get that?
I think you just make it up like most your misinformed comments.

[5263]

Originally Posted by treblings

if you realize that the video shows an element of the forehand to illustrate a point Oscar Wegner is making than that´s fine.
only if you think you´re seeing the full stroke how you are meant to play it, that that might lead to confusion

This is the same with all instruction video except where they use actual match
footage.
Frisfool and others will whine all day if you mention how RL teaches a Fh with no
finish, that left the racket out front like a sword to say Charge! But then fFool
has the nerve to suggest that MTM does not have enough focus on shoulder
turn?? lol, what could be more funny?

Even lock and roll guy who so popular on here, basically uses different words to
describe almost the same stroke. He shows partial swings and partials hip move-
ment to make his points, So yes, you must listen the the points being made to
learn the intended info from most any instruction.
And before folks get excited about lock & roll's terms, if those were Oscar's terms,
the haters would be jumping out of their shoes on how nothing is locked and how
rolling is not the best way to say that.

All you have to do is look at the sheer number of post by suresh in this thread alone.
He doesn't know MTM well at all, proving it with every post of misinfo, but posting
many times in a thread where someone expresses an interest in what the
term MTM means. Its all about some agenda with these guys and little concern
for truth.

[5263]

Originally Posted by JohnYandell

I think you are 1000% correct. The huge body rotation and hand and arm rotation (ww or whtever you wish to call it) are the two big technical changes and they are dependent on the rackets and string.

Really?? 1000% correct?? Wow.

So how do you account for the players hitting this way with wood and gut
before new rackets and poly?

I think I know that what he means is that it is easier to the avg player,
I mean since that statement which is at best partially correct, is
1000% correct to you.

[5263]

Originally Posted by mr_fro2000

Hi everyone.I realize that people are now doing this thing called MTM... and I find the term confusing. Thanks!

Well it is easy to see why you and others may find the term confusing, as it
seems that those who seem to understand the term the least are so eager
to jump and share what they don't know, lol.
Best luck to you trying to weed thru their mis-info to find a reasonable
understanding of what you seek.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by 5263

And clearly neither does sureshs. Of course sureshs says he learned modern
from tv, but has suggested that Oscar has no influence with his commentating and
tv tips during his years on the tube. Is he suggesting that
only he can learn from tv instruction and not all those who saw Oscar during
those years? That's the kind of logic he shares here.

I didn't suggest that in the manner you describe. Quite a few people were posting and it seemed improbable that the TV broadcasts influenced Nalbandian. There were jokes made about influence through electromagnetic waves.

He also said that the former Yugoslavia was showing his broadcasts when Djoko was growing up, remember?

When I said I learnt from TV, I meant from watching the pros. Frankly, I have not benefited from the 1-minute clinic segments on Tennis Channel.