confused w/ the term "MTM"

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by 5263

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

You know the answer to that. New technology aided these changes and hastened them.

[connico]

Well done OP, trolled the lot of them.

[JohnYandell]

5263:

You should listen to Suresh or read my post.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by bhupaes

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.

I haven't seen what an isolated racquet would look like in either case, but, I would think the difference would be very obvious, if not drastic. That's the whole point isn't it?

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by 5263

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.

What part is not correct? I think the "modernness" of a stroke is a matter of degree. No one was hitting forehands quite like like Federer, Nadal or Djokovic with wood and gut. As I mentioned, some hit with modern technique, but, not with the extreme grips, rotation and swing paths that these players hit with today. Maybe Vilas was the closest.

[JohnYandell]

Limp,

Right, matter of degree. Occasional elements versus normative when we look at the history. And I am sure Novak knows what he is talking about. His forehand would have looked very different if he had to play with wood.

[5263]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

What part is not correct? I think the "modernness" of a stroke is a matter of degree. No one was hitting forehands quite like like Federer, Nadal or Djokovic with wood and gut. As I mentioned, some hit with modern technique, but, not with the extreme grips, rotation and swing paths that these players hit with today. Maybe Vilas was the closest.

Limp, we have gone over this several times and reached agreement to an extent.
This is a thread asking about MTM, and the MTM modern Strokes were developed
in the late 60's and in use by early 70's with wood rackets; modeled
and based on strokes with wood rackets well before poly, and well before
MTM, as MTM was modeled on previous great strokes. Maybe your comment
is true to a large degree based on some general sense of modern, but the modern of MTM
in the OP was well before both modern rackets and string.

We agree that the strengths of modern played well with the new tools, but who
can say which was more important. A case could be made that the modern strokes were
key to the widespread use of the tools since power of the new
tools would have been harder to control without having the modern strokes
out there to take advantage of their qualities. I'm not making a case either way,
as to me it is silly to speculate on the chicken or the egg.
You are entitled to your opinion of course, but 1000% used here is absurd,
especially given we have the fact that Oscars instruction came earlier than
the new tools.

Interesting that all 3 players you cite have very different looking Fhs to most,
but can all be tied together by fundamentals of MTM instruction that predates
all 3 of them. Each of them meets the basics of the MTM Fh even though that
instruction was developed well before all of them hit the tour. Much different
than someone like JY reviewing tape for years after they are great to bring any
relevant point to bear.

[5263]

Originally Posted by JohnYandell

Limp,

Right, matter of degree. Occasional elements versus normative when we look at the history. And I am sure Novak knows what he is talking about. His forehand would have looked very different if he had to play with wood.

Yes, to a matter of degree that is far less than 1000, and more like 900+%
away.
Was 1000%, but now it's normative and occasional elements.

I'm not sure Novak has any idea how he would fare if he and all the others were
using wood now. Odd you would take his gracious type comment, showing respect
for the history of the game to mean something of actual substance related to
how he would fare. Another example of the type of evidence you accept for your
theories. I would gladly bet that he would still be able to be at the
very highest levels of the game if all were using wood rackets, but would give
Fed an edge. Even that is complete and pure speculation,

[5263]

Originally Posted by sureshs

You know the answer to that. New technology aided these changes and hastened them.

If you mean made it more obvious that the modern strokes were easier to learn
and use, yes. I agree that the new tools greatly sped up the change that was already
happening and maybe even added a level of amplitude as well; but that is not
close to what was stated imo.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by 5263

Limp, we have gone over this several times and reached agreement to an extent.
This is a thread asking about MTM, and the MTM modern Strokes were developed
in the late 60's and in use by early 70's with wood rackets; modeled
and based on strokes with wood rackets well before poly, and well before
MTM, as MTM was modeled on previous great strokes. Maybe your comment
is true to a large degree based on some general sense of modern, but the modern of MTM
in the OP was well before both modern rackets and string.

We agree that the strengths of modern played well with the new tools, but who
can say which was more important. A case could be made that the modern strokes were
key to the widespread use of the tools since power of the new
tools would have been harder to control without having the modern strokes
out there to take advantage of their qualities. I'm not making a case either way,
as to me it is silly to speculate on the chicken or the egg.
You are entitled to your opinion of course, but 1000% used here is absurd,
especially given we have the fact that Oscars instruction came earlier than
the new tools.

Interesting that all 3 players you cite have very different looking Fhs to most,
but can all be tied together by fundamentals of MTM instruction that predates
all 3 of them. Each of them meets the basics of the MTM Fh even though that
instruction was developed well before all of them hit the tour. Much different
than someone like JY reviewing tape for years after they are great to bring any
relevant point to bear.

From my view, there is no chicken and egg debate. A degree of the modern technique being used today was being used by many players (some more than others), before modern racquets were developed. By degree, I mean the amount and speed of upper body rotation, the amount of arm supination/pronation, the severity of the ascending swing path, the racquet speed, the grip, etc. But, the technique being used in 1970, which incorporated these elements, continued to evolve to the degree they are being used today as the racquets got bigger, lighter and more rigid, and the strings able to impart more spin. I would think that Oscar's MTM approach evolved with the equipment. That only make sense. The severity of today's technique just wasn't practical with wood racquets.

[5263]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

From my view, there is no chicken and egg debate. A degree of the modern technique being used today was being used by many players (some more than others), before modern racquets were developed. But, the technique being used in 1970 continued to evolve toward what is being used today as the racquets got bigger, lighter and more rigid, and the strings able to impart more spin. I would think that Oscar's approach evolved with the equipment.

I always appreciate you non-biased view (with respect to MTM) and
You know we generally agree on most things here and even with JY most of the
time when he's not twisting things to take a poke a Oscar.

I agree that the strokes evolve and often gain amplitude. I agree that is likely to
continue as well, but that is not the same as what was posted earlier.

Quote-"two fundamental differences between the two styles of hitting.
Both of these differences are made possible by the size of modern tennis racquets"
If the rackets made it possible, then it was not possible before. I felt I knew what
you meant, and was only making a comment on this due to the 1000% claim
that was so out of place here.

What we see today still works off the fundamentals that MTM
published in the late 80s, just like MJ built on the basics learned with Dean
Smith. That's what great players do...they build on solid basics and take them
further. I think that is what you share on here each day. Now I don't know
where Dean learned those basics just like I don't know where Fed's coach learned
modern ones, but that is largely irrelevant to this discussion.

[JohnYandell]

5263:

Yes if I disagree with Oscar I am twisting that on top of my own values to "take a poke" at Oscar. That's just crap.

Anyone who disagrees with him is clearly motivated by factors other than truth. Again, crap.

It must be sad and lonely here for you now without the leader and his yap yaps.

[5263]

Originally Posted by JohnYandell

5263:

Yes if I disagree with Oscar I am twisting that on top of my own values to "take a poke" at Oscar. That's just crap.

Anyone who disagrees with him is clearly motivated by factors other than truth. Again, crap.

It must be sad and lonely here for you now without the leader and his yap yaps.

No, sorry, but nice try. I can't count the times I've caught you and corrected
the mis-info you put out about MTM. Either you were twisting it or just mis-
informed. I gave you the benefit of knowing your subject.
By the way, I didn't say anyone, but that is just you twisting again isn't it. lol
Thanks for giving me a quick example of how you operate.

About the lonely part...maybe you need to share more info with me, as I have
no idea what you are referencing there.
But I'll be glad to share with you the many wonderful things happening in my
life right now if you are so interested. What email would you like me to use?

[bhupaes]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

I haven't seen what an isolated racquet would look like in either case, but, I would think the difference would be very obvious, if not drastic. That's the whole point isn't it?

Indeed, that is the point. So much so that if I were to prioritize the characteristics of modern tennis going from the most important to the least, I would say that the path of the racquet relative to the ball is the primary distinguishing feature of modern tennis. The next prominent feature is an enormously improved awareness, and use, of body kinetics in stroke making. I would put equipment at the bottom of the heap from the point of view of defining modern tennis, but it is significant in that the resulting increase in speed and spin has fostered new tactics and forced players to achieve ungodly fitness levels.

[JohnYandell]

I am trying to have an intelligent discussion with Limp. Why don't you just butt out since you can do nothing but suck up to the leader. You have nothing to contribute that is substantial, either on your own part or as part of the cult.

When you say you have caught me in lies about Oscar that is genius. A basic liar's premise.

And please don't email ever. I have absolutely zero interest in what may be happening to you. Wait--unless the new is you have decided to stop posting permanently like the other yap yaps--email me that and I will send you a present.

[5263]

Originally Posted by JohnYandell

I am trying to have an intelligent discussion with Limp. Why don't you just butt out unless you can do anything but suck up
.

I guess suck up is right there on your mind as you try to work that on limpin.
He's a pretty sharp guy and likely will see right thru your efforts though
He values his position as unbiased and realizes the new tack taken now that
efforts to paint him as a MTM person have rightly failed.
It will be interesting to see if you can get him to go for your strawmen
Probably have to try your usual of taking you efforts to email, but I bet he is
on to your game, lol.
good luck!

[JohnYandell]

Chuck do us all a favor and just shut up. You alone are the master that puts the suck in suck up.

[5263]

Now Johnny boy, is that anyway to act?
Are we Cross?

[JohnYandell]

I repeat. You have zero credability. Just go back to crashing navy jets.

[5263]

Originally Posted by JohnYandell

Just go back to crashing navy jets.

More twisting there, but lets just give it a rest, oK?