stormholloway
Legend
No argument here. I'm not Italian. Italians don't care about tennis one bit--on par with Americans.
Now how about talking about that "Federer vision technique" you referred to?
The concept of the windshield wiper is bogus
- Thread starter David L
- Start date
No argument here. I'm not Italian. Italians don't care about tennis one bit--on par with Americans.
Now how about talking about that "Federer vision technique" you referred to?
5263
G.O.A.T.
When the pros hit the ball, it has slowed down to 30-40 mph or even less, not 70-100, even when returning most 1st serves.
Also, everthing is just guess work produced by the brain. It is always taking in data, then decoding to create a mental picture. Maybe what you are intending is that there is has less data to work with in these circumstances?
quote:
It's PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for the human eye to see anything on the racquet. You cannot see the ball hit your strings, not even a blur. It happens too fast at the professional level.
the above quote is just not true as stated. They often hit balls very slow, even in the pros. So what other misunderstandings are in your claims?
Last edited:
Djokovicfan4life
Legend
Geez, still on about your little technicalities, I see? I guess you have to when you never had a legit argument in the first place, LOL!!!!
Fine, you win. I will not refer to it as a technique anymore. It is simply something he does differently than most players. Nothing more, nothing less. But that still sounds like a technique to me, by definition, no?
It is a proven fact. Period. Your eye cannot simply see the ball when it makes contact with the racquet. CANNOT. IT SIMPLY HAPPENS TOO FAST. NO MATTER THE SPEED. What is this? Jump pulse again?
When the ball hits the racquet, it makes contact for what, thousandths of a second (probably much smaller). Your eye cannot simply see the ball the moment it hits the string bed. It's physically impossible.
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
What they are specifically looking at is irrelevant. What we know is that they are not looking at the contact point.
Here's another one:
From these posted pix of Davydenko, we cannot really infer that his eyes are jumping ahead of the ball as he makes contact. It is very possible that he left his eyes in this position well before contact and has not moved them during (& shortly after) contact.
He might be doing the very same thing that Agassi has been observed doing. Like most players, they are tracking the incoming ball for much of its flight. At some point, as the ball gets too close, the smooth pursuit tracking system can no longer keep up with the flight of the ball.
At this point, Federer's eyes appear to jump ahead to the contact point. (I believe that Nadal has adopted the same visual technique). On the other hand, Aggasi and Davydenko seem to leave their eyes forward of the contact zone -- perhaps at the general area where the ball disappeared (where the smooth prusuit system could no longer keep up).
These players appear to fix their gaze at somewhat different locations in space during contact however they all share on common factor -- the head stops moving prior to contact and does resume moving until some time after contact.
Do any or all of these players see a yellow blur after the ball has pulled its disappearing act? Using the Fed/Nadal technique, I have detected the blur (but am not always aware of it). I am not certain, but I believe that I may have also picked the blur using the Aggassi/Davydenko tracking method.
I have noticed that the blur is not always at the same location in space. At times the nebulous blur appears to be just in front of the string conact. At other times, that blur appears to be a little bit more forward of the contact zone. It is possible that Agassi & Davydenko might be picking up a blur with their peripheral vision since their gaze it a bit more foward than Fed or Nadal.
stormholloway
Legend
Ok, so you admit he uses his eyes differently than other players. Why all the argument then? That's a lot more than Bungalow Bill ever did. All he ever said was that his head was tilted at a different angle.
Look, I was never arguing that it wasn't a technique. That was my whole point.
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
The "blind zone" for a baseball batter can be as much as 15 feet according a episode of SportScience on the Fox Sports Network (I've listed a YouTube link for this in other threads).
A 120 mph Sampras serve has been shown to reach the opposite baseline at about 54 mph. It is conceivable that some serves will reach an opponent at speeds in excess of 65 mph, but probably not too much greater than 70 mph. It is also conceivable the a player at the net may have to deal with a ball that is in excess of 70 mph.
Nonetheless, even a ball moving at 30 mph can be too fast for the smooth pursuit tracking system if the ball is sufficiently close. Once the ball exceeds the limitations of the smooth pursuit system, many athletes will employ the saccadic system to catch a glimpse of the ball. While the smooth pursuit system can only track object up to 70-90 degrees per 100 ms, the saccadic system can enable the eyes to "track" (pick up) an object moving much faster -- about an order of magnitude faster.
It is very possible the the blur that has been observed after the ball has "disappeared" is the eyes detecting the ball motion/location using a jump-ahead saccade.
stormholloway
Legend
Interesting stuff above. Thanks.
Djokovicfan4life
Legend
And the endless cycle continues. I'll try one more time and leave it at that.
THERE ARE NO PROVEN BENEFITS TO THIS BUSINESS OF LOOKING AT THE CONTACT POINT. If you hit better using this method, then that's great for you! But it's just a different way of doing it (hence my reasoning for referring to it as a technique), AND NOT A SUPERIOR ONE.
Got it?
Djokovicfan4life
Legend
5263, you are dead wrong about being able to see anything on the racquet. My racquet head speed is absolutely dreadful and I can never see anything on the racquet, even when I focus on keeping the head very quite at impact. I think that your idea of what this means is the problem here.
We're talking about actually seeing something hitting the strings, which is just not possible in any sense of the word. Even if you pushed the ball you still wouldn't see it hit the strings, since the ball is only on them for a mere 4 milliseconds, as BB and others have pointed out time and again. In fact, I imagine that the dwell time would probably decrease in this case, since you wouldn't be hitting very hard and really compressing the string bed.
We're talking about actually seeing something hitting the strings, which is just not possible in any sense of the word. Even if you pushed the ball you still wouldn't see it hit the strings, since the ball is only on them for a mere 4 milliseconds, as BB and others have pointed out time and again. In fact, I imagine that the dwell time would probably decrease in this case, since you wouldn't be hitting very hard and really compressing the string bed.
Last edited:
stormholloway
Legend
First, stop for a second and look at the way you're conducting, and have conducted yourself, in this thread. It's time to grow up.
Second, the essence of your argument, however, is ridiculous. When you throw darts at a target, you train your eyes at the target. This is no different. The contact point is the target you're aiming for. Does it not stand to reason that looking at this point will help you aim for it better?
Also, if you admit that the techniques are different, then why would one not be better than the other? How can they simply be exactly equally effective?
Djokovicfan4life
Legend
Double postings galore, what the heck is wrong with me lately, anyway? :wink:
Last edited:
Djokovicfan4life
Legend
Well, I certainly apologize if I came off as condescing in my replys. I freely admit that in the past half a year or, general arrogance has been a weakness of mine in the past few months or so, on these boards and as a person. I've seen the errors of my ways, believe me, and I'm doing my best to work on them in the best possible manner. But you've got to understand that you haven't exactly done yourself any favors here either, with all this stuff about answering your questions, followed by "I've made this quite clear, this isn't about that". I'll cut the BS myself if and when you decide to do the same. Like I said earlier, I have no gripe against you as a person. But if I see things that I feel are untrue from anyone on these boards, myself included, then I'm going to do my best to call that person on them to ensure that we don't set a bad example for other posters who may or may not know any better.
Best of luck to you with all things tennis and life in general,
Matt
Best of luck to you with all things tennis and life in general,
Matt
Last edited:
Bungalo Bill
G.O.A.T.
Look who is talking.
People aim the ball in different ways. One is by actually looking at the target, expecially in a game like archery or something where you are intently allowed to look at the target. In other words, the game played is largely static or stationary.
In a game like tennis players aim the ball in a several different ways.
1. By directly looking at the target (focal).
2. By seeing the target in their peripheral vision.
3. By seeing the target in their mind.
Players can not track the incoming ball quick enough with their eyes. They are seeing the blur which may or may not be the actual ball itself. Concerning our sensory abilities, we can't even register the feeling of the ball hitting our strings until the ball is long gone. Our central processing is too slow as compared to a ball coming within 4 - 5 feet at a very fast speed. Most likely you are seeing an image of the ball but not the ball itself. And even that image is a blur as well. When a ball is within 4 - 5 feet and traveling at speeds that are seen in the pros, you cant even blink that fast. Or if you can, it would be very close as to just how quickly that ball hits the strings and so on within that distance and traveling at a fast speed.
The eyes can not move quick enough and provide the brain the details of the information it is receving when the ball gets very close to us. Unless the ball is moving very slow or the object (the ball) becomes a lot larger, the human eye can not keep up. Therefore, the image we see is a blur with a lot of players looking forward to the last point they saw the ball.
When you post photos and make your little claims, you are showing your ignorance. You are showing yoru ignorance because some people do take their eyes off the ball, some people are focused closer to contact when they last could pickup the ball, and some people simply look forward because they have trained their brain to process the information of the incoming ball and fill in the blanks in their brain. In other words, other sensory capabilities kick in.
The bottom-line is you brought up an old argument because your argument in this thread was weak and narcotic.
The bottom-line is nobody can see the ball hit the strings. It is humanly impossible. Even with Federer turning his head, there is no way he can turn his head back towards his racquet and be able to track the ball (not the blur) into his strings, see it hit the strings, and so on. There is no darn way.
Tracking the ball is the same for all players. They use two eyes and a brain to track the ball. If you want to dive into the sublties (like Federer turning his head) to save face, you go right ahead.
You have twisted meanings and you have provided photos to support your twisted claims.
The person that needs to grow up is you.
Last edited:
Bungalo Bill
G.O.A.T.
You really dont need to apoligize to this guy. He was wrong about how "engines learn" and now he tells everyone to grow up but was the one that brought up his old nonsense argument from the past. Further, he also bashes people here that dont agree with his nonsense. So he calls the kettle black.
Here is the bottom-line question is "can a player see the ball hit the strings?" The answer is no.
We have said over and over again that the human brain can not pick up the ball when it is within 4 - 5 feet. We go legally blind. What is the definition of legally blind?
1. Blindness is the condition of lacking visual perception due to physiological or neurological factors.
2. Having 20/200 vision in the best eye with correction or a visual field of 20 degrees or less.
3. The American Optometric Association states that a person with 20/20 vision can clearly identify a row of 9mm letters from 20 feet. A legally blind person with vision of 20/200 has to be as close as 20 feet to identify objects that people with normal vision can spot from 200 feet. So a legally blind person needs a distance of two feet to spot the letters on a standard eye chart that is 20 feet away.
Could Ted Williams see the ball hit the bat? (source: http://www.frozenropes.com/home/national-news.aspx?d=222)
Author: Dr. Daniel Laby, Dr. David Kirschen & Tony Abbatine
Although Ted Williams reportedly had excellent vision - he is unlikely to have followed the ball from release to contact with the bat. Despite decades of little league coaches emphasizing the importance of "keep your eye on the ball", professional baseball players have learned better! In fact, it is physically impossible for the human eye to track the baseball from the pitcher's hand to it striking the bat.
The human eye simply cannot move fast enough to keep up with major league pitching. Instead, players depend on all of the visual functions detailed above (as well as the performance skills detailed below) to follow the initial path of the pitch and then predict its final location as it crosses the plate. The task of the hitter is to put the bat where he thinks the ball will end up over the plate, where the optimal point of contact between the ball and the bat will occur. Although Ted Williams was unlikely to have seen the ball strike the bat, he probably could see the red stitching on the ball and could predict it's final position over the plate 4 out of every 10 times he was at bat.
Now, if he wants to argue with Doctors, tell him to send them a letter. lol
Last edited:
Djokovicfan4life
Legend
Case closed, it seems. Now just when were you guys ever talking about a WW forehand, anyway? :wink:
Fay
Professional
All coaches in the US do *not* teach the same, especially to people who are adult recreational players versus elite hopefuls they assume are going up the ranks toward the top 100 in the country.
I know because I traveled around two states and took from a lot of different pros in different cities and they have different ideas as to how to hit the ball.
I have also seen pros say one thing and then turn around when they are playing with a touring pro play an entirely different way that they teach during their clinics.
I might not be the best tennis player but having taken figure skating lessons most of my life, being a coach and having to see what other people are doing with their bodies and fixing it on a tiny blade going at high speeds, and being a photography, my eye has become pretty keen, and the contradiction between what some tennis pros say and what they do with elite players was very striking to me coming into the sport.
And students of the game will see and hear differently depending upon what their coach says ...
If one coach says "take your racquet back early" and another says "turn your shoulders but keep your racquet tip up and do not swing early" when they watch a pro on tv, they tend to see what they were told .... I am not saying you do this, but it takes years for a person's eyes to really *see* what is going on at high speed.
I have found the best way to learn tennis is to study a web site where I can move the pros swings **frame by frame in slow motion.**
Watching a recreational player or junior is not going to help my game to my way of thinking.
Hmmmm, both of these players started with their racquet tips up, but they also both stopped the racquet path at their waist or so and have a very flat swing toward the ball before they came across their body.
What would you call someone who lets the racquet head drop just a tad before accelerating up and across the ball .... like Nadal ... sometimes his hand is level with the ball and the racquet come up from underneath ... and then his arm wraps around with his hand ending at his hip ... yes sometimes he wraps it up around his head, but I don't see Nadal hitting like these examples .... Roger doesn't do it as extremely as Nadal, but even he comes from under the ball and not flat across.
Also both video-clip players have very tight hitting hands and wrists compared to what I see the top pros play with.
Another nit I had was that neither were a good example of excellent weight transference. In figure skating weight transference and timing of it is everything!
Djokovicfan4life
Legend
Fay, clearly you've been able to take the same concepts from figure skating and simply apply them to tennis. I did the same thing with guitar, essentially. It taught me a strong work ethic and the desire to be the best and I'd like to think that it will begin to manifest itself in my game soon.
P.S. Did you change emails, Bill? I tried sending you one and ended up just getting an error message back. Arggghhhhhh.
P.S. Did you change emails, Bill? I tried sending you one and ended up just getting an error message back. Arggghhhhhh.
Fay
Professional
Fay, clearly you've been able to take the same concepts from figure skating and simply apply them to tennis. I did the same thing with guitar, essentially. It taught me a strong work ethic and the desire to be the best and I'd like to think that it will begin to manifest itself in my game soon.
P.S. Did you change emails, Bill? I tried sending you one and ended up just getting an error message back. Arggghhhhhh.
Yes, yes! I played piano and many of the same concepts apply ... practice practice practice and *really* listen ... tennis: practice practice practice and really *look* ...
I did not take lessons during Dec. and Jan. but I practiced hundreds of serves and kept watching different pros on videos and by golly something clicked and it started to get better. I started to see things I didn't see last year in the videos and tried to apply it to my serve. Especially about the toss and how the hitting shoulder moves "to" the ball. Fascinating stuff !
have not changed emails ... perhaps my server at Earthlink is buggy, but usually don't have a problem.
faykelley@earthlink.net
should work.
stormholloway
Legend
I've conducted myself like an adult in this thread. You, on the other hand, should be ashamed and downright embarrassed by the way you've acted. If you think I've been out of line, then I dare you to quote it.
A lot of people around here have seen you act like a child. I'm glad I was able to expose it to your "younglings".
The bolded part must be one of the dumbest things you've ever said. You're always seeing an image of something. That image may have deteriorated to varying degrees but it's always an image.
What does my disagreement on this have to do with growing up? It's the way you conduct yourself, not necessarily your opinion, the reflects your method of conduct. Your name-calling and childish "LOLLZZ!" exclamations shed light on just how childish you really are.
This particular technique isn't about how well you can see the ball. You still can't grasp that, obviously. It's about focusing your eyes where you want to make contact to help bring your racquet more accurately to that point. I've said it countless times but you still can't get it.
Too bad.
Bungalo Bill
G.O.A.T.
Yeah too bad. Here is more research. You just dont have a clue what you are talking about.
Keep Your Eye on the Ball: Curveballs, Knuckleballs, and Fallacies of Baseball, Revised and Updated (Paperback)
by Robert G. Watts (Author), A. Terry Bahill (Author)
Product Description
"Keep your eye on the ball!" may be good advice--but it is impossible to do. The batter can track the ball until it is about five feet in front of the plate, but then he falls behind because the ball is moving too fast.
In Keep Your Eye on the Ball, Robert G. Watts and A. Terry Bahill--engineers by vocation, baseball fans by avocation--have devised a series of experiments that put some of baseball's most cherished myths to the test. By applying physics, psychology, physiology, and other scientific principles to baseball, the authors have resolved, once and for all, some of the controversial issues that have intrigued fans for decades, including:
* Do curveballs really curve? Do fastballs rise?
* How do knuckleballs and spitballs work?
* What exactly happens when the ball hits the bat?
* Does corking the bat really help a hitter?
* Are aluminum bats more dangerous than wooden bats?
* Can certain physiological factors help predict success for a hitter?
* Why are more home runs being hit than ever before?
* Are today's players better than yesterday's?
Bungalo Bill
G.O.A.T.
In and Out of Focus
As an object approaches, the human eye's lens flexes to focus on it. Eventually the object gets so close, however, that the lens can no longer focus on it. Then the object begins to blur.
http://www.reachoutmichigan.org/funexperiments/agesubject/lessons/newton/humaneye.html
As an object approaches, the human eye's lens flexes to focus on it. Eventually the object gets so close, however, that the lens can no longer focus on it. Then the object begins to blur.
http://www.reachoutmichigan.org/funexperiments/agesubject/lessons/newton/humaneye.html
Bungalo Bill
G.O.A.T.
SEE the ball!!! (source: http://www.tennisserver.com/turbo/turbo_96_10.html)
How many times have you heard someone say to himself/herself..."watch the ball!" You've probably said it to yourself on one or more occasions...usually in anger. It seems straight forward...if I watch the ball, I'll hit it and probably hit it better. Well, it really isn't that simple!
I try to teach my players to see the ball...not simply watch it. What do I mean by "seeing?" Here are the key elements:
How many times have you heard someone say to himself/herself..."watch the ball!" You've probably said it to yourself on one or more occasions...usually in anger. It seems straight forward...if I watch the ball, I'll hit it and probably hit it better. Well, it really isn't that simple!
I try to teach my players to see the ball...not simply watch it. What do I mean by "seeing?" Here are the key elements:
- See the ball hit the strings of your opponent's racquet. Don't try to figure anything out by doing this. Simply see the contact. If you do, your non-conscious mind will quickly, and without any interference by you, begin to record things in its memory bank. Soon, you will begin to notice that you can anticipate without having to concentrate.
- As your opponent's shot crosses the net make a note of its spin...flat, top or slice. Again, don't try to figure anything out. Just notice the spin at this point of its flight. Eventually, your non-conscious mind will begin to give you cues on what to do.
- See the ball bounce on your side. If you saw nothing else but this bounce your game will greatly improve. Why? First, you'll really know if the ball bounced in or out (How many times are you really uncertain?...too many!). Second, your body will automatically begin to move and position itself properly for your own stroke. Finally, it reduces the "surprise" response that funny bounces, etc. can create.
- See the blur of your arm(s) and racquet after you strike the ball. No one can actually see the moment of impact as she/he strikes the ball...especially on groundstrokes. But, you can try!!! I pay extremely close attention to the ball when it is 2 or 3 feet before I make contact. Then I look to see the blur of my racquet after contact. This action forces me to keep my head still through the shot, and equally important, to freeze my head for a fraction of a second after the hit. Whether its a baseball hitter, a basketball shooter, a golfer or a tennis player...you must quiet the head!!! To illustrate my point, try this:
Using some wadded-up paper balls and a waste basket, shoot some free throws. When you have found a distance, etc. that allows you to make at least 8 out of 10 shots in the basket, try some while nodding your head "yes" and then, while shaking your head "no." You probably have more misses out of every 10 throws especially, while shaking your head "no." Why? The more head movement (no usually involves more than yes) the more likely the error.
Finally, freezing your head through the impact enables you to make a more consistent finish...another important "tennis universal." - See your shot bounce in the opponent's court. This completes the vision cycle. Just be careful about being too eager to see this. If you missed seeing this component it would not be critical. The danger in trying too hard is that you lift your head too soon and negate the goal of step 4 above. How many times have you missed a shot...groundstroke, volley or approach, because you were to eager to see where it was going?
stormholloway
Legend
You still act like you're arguing with someone else. You might as well be arguing about affirmative action at this point.
It's not an issue how well one can see the ball. It's about guiding your muscles by focusing on the contact point. It's time to use whatever brain power you have left (after whatever happened to you as a lad).
It's not an issue how well one can see the ball. It's about guiding your muscles by focusing on the contact point. It's time to use whatever brain power you have left (after whatever happened to you as a lad).
Bungalo Bill
G.O.A.T.
It is about GUIDING YOUR MUSCLES? LOL!!!
The premise of you posting the past is on whether or not a player can see the ball hit the strings.
You can guide the muscles all you want, in the end, you see a blur and there is a high chance the ball isnt in there due to how slow our eyes are able to respond. Even players that move their eyes back to the racquet, can not see the ball. It is a blur and will always be a blur.
Quit twisting things out of context or spinning things to support your lame excuses.
By the way? How do engines learn? LOL!!!! What a nutcase.
YOU SAID THE FOLLOWING:
1. A BLUR IS THE BALL. If the eyes can not move and pick up information that quickly how do you know that the blur a person sees has the ball in it? A blur is NOT the ball.
Last edited:
You've insulted nearly everyone in this thread that has disagreed with you, and neither me or DjokovicFan4Life had not said anything aggressive to you until you started hurling insults like no tomorrow.
So no, you have not conducted yourself as an adult at all.
Bungalo Bill
G.O.A.T.
Classic.
Here is another LOL! for ya.
The bottom-line is all people use their eyes to track a ball the same way and this is documented by people who are involved in vision (medical doctors, vision therapists, etc...)
Federer uses a different technique to keep his eyes pointed to the contact zone on his forehand but his eyes will process the ball in his brain the same way Einstein.
Players see a blur and nobody can see the ball hit the strings.
You and the following claims are ridiculous:
1. 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.
2. Except the moment a coach says "swinging a tennis racquet isn't natural" he does the opposite of coaching. What he does is take away one's natural inclination to feel, and replace it with words.
3. Like your inability to distinguish the difference between the way Federer and Davydenko/Djokovic/et al look at the tennis ball?
Players look at the ball in the same fashion. They see a blur. Federer turns his head to point his face to the contact point, however, his eyes see the same thing everyone else does - a blur. Period.
Yeah, okay, I don't get it. LOL!
Last edited:
Bungalo Bill
G.O.A.T.
Fay, clearly you've been able to take the same concepts from figure skating and simply apply them to tennis. I did the same thing with guitar, essentially. It taught me a strong work ethic and the desire to be the best and I'd like to think that it will begin to manifest itself in my game soon.
P.S. Did you change emails, Bill? I tried sending you one and ended up just getting an error message back. Arggghhhhhh.
Send it to usptapro@ctcweb.net
Are you going to try to tell me that engines cant learn? They are just a set of complez moving parts that dont feel? Or process information? Talking about taking things out of context. Doh!!
Bungalo Bill
G.O.A.T.
You really are a stupid person aren't you? Havent we said it was a technique? However, a player will track the ball in his eyes and brain the same way. We see the same thing.
And now you say you were never arguing? Can you please tell me what an argument is to you now? Or are you going to twist that as well!
This has been nothing but an argument because you had yoru little feelings hurt because it was dumb for you to link learning with a car engine and think that was what we were talking about. It was so dumb that I gladly embarrassed you which caused you to go hunt down a thread made a long time ago to salvage what is left of your idiotic brain.
And please tell me where I have ever told you is the information BOLDED above? This is another lie you are coming up with.
I have said a lot of things regarding the eyes and how they see and track a ball. I have already said that Federer turns his head to face the contact.
I have said repeatedly that a player CAN NOT SEE THE BALL HIT THE STRINGS!!!
PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE ONLY SAID THE ABOVE EINSTEIN.
Last edited:
stormholloway
Legend
No it wasn't. You originally interpreted it that way and then turned it into an argument about how clearly you see the ball.
How do I know that the yellow blur is a ball? Is this really where you're going with this? If there is a big yellow butterfly in my view then perhaps it would get confusing, but probably not.
How can you defend such a comment? It's ridiculous.
Of course the blur is the ball. Some people with really bad eyesight (legal blindness) can still see a ball in front of their face. Is it clear? No. Is it a ball? Of course.
Hurling insults like no tomorrow? Quote me.
Never. All you ever said was that Federer has a different way of tilting his head. You never once admitted that Federer aims his eyes differently, despite a wealth of photographic evidence.
I quite clearly said that "I wasn't arguing that it wasn't a technique". I never said I wasn't arguing period. My God man. Your reading comprehension is ridiculously bad.
You didn't get my point about the engine, which wasn't surprising, but now you insist on using your own lack of comprehension as ammunition? Shameful. It's simple: the usage of the racquet tool can be understood at a glance; a car can not because of its complex internal (unseen) parts, therefore it requires prior knowledge to use a car. It's simple.
Huh?? You don't even make sense with this post. The grammar in the first sentence above is atrocious. You'd make just a bit more sense if you grasped the English language.
And you've been wrong repeatedly. The blur is the ball. What you're implying is that no pertinent visual information is being processed. That's absolutely false. The yellow blur is the ball. You're a one-man comedy routine, sir. Once the ball becomes blurry it's no longer a ball? What dimension do you live in?
Done.
Post #28.
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=193661&highlight=contact&page=2
He "just" (meaning only) "has a different way to position his head". You're implying that he isn't using his eyes differently. He's "just" positioning his head differently. Wrong. His eyes are on the contact point, while the other examples were not. Pretty simple.
If you're still struggling, I'm sure I can help you figure it out
Last edited:
Djokovicfan4life
Legend
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.
Last edited:
5263
G.O.A.T.
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.
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.
Bungalo Bill
G.O.A.T.
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.
It gones on and on and on...nobody knows what twists and turns await us.
Djokovicfan4life
Legend
Mail sent.
Karma_struggle
New User
Nadal and Federer using the WW? You have got to be kidding me! Have you ever actually watched either of their forehands? Nadal and Federer both finish their forehand over the shoulder! In Nadal's case, often over the other shoulder. I can see Federer using it now and then, but almost never from the baseline. He uses it occasionally from inside the baseline to wrap the ball just over the net. Before you tear apart the TC, you should make sure you're not an idiot.
stormholloway
Legend
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.
Fay
Professional
right on
Nadal has a buggy whip that finishes high, but Nadal and many pros hit in a windshield wiper fashion and finish by the hip .... I cannot fathom how anyone watching tennis can miss that.
I can't remember her name today, but a woman back in the 20s was using the same stroke and beating everyone she played against. I should look that up, but anyways, windshield wiper is the stroke of choice now .... even teaching pros who don't want to talk about "modern tennis methodology" are using it when they play, LOL.
Last edited:
Bungalo Bill
G.O.A.T.
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!!!
Okay, I will be nice and allow you to save face.
Here is normally how Federer finishes.
I love toying with you. It is too easy.
Last edited:
Djokovicfan4life
Legend
I know you mean well, but they doesn't always finish over the shoulder. There are four finishes in the modern forehand that are all used at some point depending on how much spin the player is trying to hit
1. Racquet around the waist area (heavy spin)
2. Around the elbow (somewhere in between)
3. On top of the shoulder (flat ball)
4: Over the top of the head (used to naturally decelerate the racquet in situations where the player doesn't have the luxury of getting a full 180 degrees of rotation, like running forehands, serve returns etc.).
This is my beef with all the WW terminology. It seems to get players obsesses with this whole "wiping" concept and they forget that they should still follow through with their hitting arm extending up and into the court. Instead they just wipe the ball and end up with a weak forehand that bounces around the service line more often than not with no pace whatsoever.
Matt
Last edited:
Bungalo Bill
G.O.A.T.
I know you mean well, but they doesn't always finish over the shoulder. There are four finishes in the modern forehand that are all used at some point depending on how much spin the player is trying to hit
1. Racquet around the waist area (heavy spin)
2. Around the elbow (somewhere in between)
3. On top of the shoulder (flat ball)
4: Over the top of the head (used to naturally decelerate the racquet in situations where the player doesn't have the luxury of getting a full 180 degrees of rotation, like running forehands, serve returns etc.).
Well done.
Yup and yup. It is the first picture that players dont see as most important. Bringing that back shoulder through the ball and getting extention as they wipe up the ball.
Last edited:
Djokovicfan4life
Legend
Thanks Bill. Another good example here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq09yHPmKh0&feature=related
And people say that you can't hit flat with a western grip, hahahahaha!
And people say that you can't hit flat with a western grip, hahahahaha!
Bungalo Bill
G.O.A.T.
Yup, you can.
Here is another example of the backshoulder. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8AJYfkJ4hc&feature=related
Djokovicfan4life
Legend
Yeah, seems as though he uses one of the most pronounced OTS finishes. Could be wrong tough. Djokovic is the man, whatever the case. An excellent model for western grippers who are struggling with versatility in their games.
Matt
bobbynorwich
New User
Nadal and Federer use the windshield wiper motion for extreme spin, but it's a difficult one for most club-level players to master.
Djokovicfan4life
Legend
Not at all if approached with the correct methods. I'm learning the modern forehand right now and I'm a total schmuck in every sense of the word.....NO athletic talent whatsoever. It's all about practice and more importantly, HOW you practice. To say something is "just not practical for club players" is just a cop-out, nothing more, nothing less.
Matt
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
Some years back Federer was using the OTS finish quite a bit. Recently, however, it appears that the he has been using a WW finish quite a bit more -- perhaps even as his predominant finish. Check recent articles by Yandell on his own site as well as in Tennis mag.
Nadal has been the most prolific user of the reverse finish. However, at the Aussie Open this year, it appears that he is using it quite a bit less. I didn't see that much of it until the later sets in his finals match with Fed.
stormholloway
Legend
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!!!
This is coming from the guy who said you can't make deductions from one picture? 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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J46Dc4_i5zI
Pause the video at :24. Where is the racquet? This is a ball he is teeing off on, therefore this is his forehand as it should naturally be: 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?
stormholloway
Legend
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zD0w0pEhbz4&NR=1
Here is a series of forehands in a warmup. Is the racquet above or below his shoulder?
Here is a series of forehands in a warmup. Is the racquet above or below his shoulder?
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
Well aware of that. And 54 mph is not "30-40 mph or less" either (your guess-timate). My point was that neither range was correct for big serves for the pros. My other point was that even 30 mph is not really all that slow, as far as the eye is concerned, when the ball is in close proximity.
Can't figure out what you are trying to say here.
To my mind these are very solid "theories". We are not talking about unproven models here like the big bang or string theory. I believe that there is a very strong body of evidence on these vision "theories". I am unaware of any credible competing theories on the way our eyes see and track moving objects. If you are aware of any, please do enlighten.
Bungalo Bill
G.O.A.T.
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.
Similar threads
