Robert Landsdorp as a coach.

B

baseline08thrasher

Semi-Pro
I have a friend who went to Robert Landsdorp for lessons.

I'm wondering if you guys think it would be well worth a trip to San Diego,
(i live about 3 1/2 hours away)
for a private lesson or something?

I've heard he feeds the ball like crazy, and my friend told me he had to hit the ball really flat.

Robert Landsdorp likes kids who hit through the ball, and don't use those extreme grips.

I don't use any of those, so that's a good plus.

Would this be worth a trip?
If so, I'll ask my friend about how to contact him.

I'm interested so far.
 
Ballinbob

Ballinbob

Hall of Fame
Are you kidding me.... I was in Cali last week and had no idea. I learned about this coach today lol, woulda definitley went for a lesson while I was there if I knew..

I say go for it.
 
B

baseline08thrasher

Semi-Pro
Yep. :)

This coach tho is a pickle at times.
I've heard some things about him.

I'll ask my friend for details.


Wonder how hard he is to contact.

Either way, if I don't go out there, my coach is really awesome.

I have a really good coach.
Very knowledgeable and straight forward.
No non-sense mumbo-jumbo.
Hate coaches like that.

I'll check up on it.
 
C

Charlzz

Rookie
Tennis Channel Academy has a segment on Lansdorp. You can watch that, if you like, to get a sense of the guy.
 
S

sureshs

Bionic Poster
I think he is pretty expensive. He charges everybody the same, pro or novice. Also, he is picky about who he coaches.
 
B

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
incredibly expensive-all his lessons are up on Tennisplayer.net-To benefit from his ball feeding drills you need to go to him regularly

not worth the money imo
 
B

baseline08thrasher

Semi-Pro
BeHappy said:
incredibly expensive-all his lessons are up on Tennisplayer.net-To benefit from his ball feeding drills you need to go to him regularly

not worth the money imo
Click to expand...

Your possibly right.

I've had rapid improvement with my coach.

We are constantly changeing up things, and working on my strengths and weaknesses.

He used to work at bolletieri, so he knows a lot of useful drills.
He also knows a lot about how europeans develop their game.

He doesn't just sit there and feed me balls.
He has top level college players come out and hit with me, during the lesson.
If not, he hits with me, and he's really good.

Overall, he's the best coach out there for me.

I'm not going to try Robert.
 
5263

5263

G.O.A.T.
baseline08thrasher said:
I have a friend who went to Robert Landsdorp for lessons.

I've heard he feeds the ball like crazy, and my friend told me he had to hit the ball really flat.

Robert Landsdorp likes kids who hit through the ball, and don't use those extreme grips.

I'm interested so far.
Click to expand...

This explains why you are not hearing much from anybody he is developing these days. He's really a lot like Bolletteri in the sense that his players get better from mega training and hitting lots of balls, but not much on stroke technique and development.

The last decade of Champions with WW Fhs and strong spinning balls have pretty much debunked his flat, hit thru 3 balls out towards the target approach to strokes. Even Pete and Lindsey had great serves and had to develop the Rev Fh heavy TS, to get around the error prone style he drilled them in. Pete would not win one of 4 points against Nadal, Dj, or Fed once the rally starts. Funny how he makes fun of the "academy ball", when it is the stroke he teaches that has gone extinct.
 
Last edited:
J

JohnYandell

Hall of Fame
I don't think you are accurately describing Robert's approach. First, he says that he teaches the "academy ball," and that it's an important ball to have.

Second, he teaches windshield wiper finishes, what he calls the downward finish and argues that the additional topspin is critical in the game today. "only old bald guys always finish over the shoulder."

Third, he coined the phrase "reverse" forehand to describe the Nadal style over the head finish, and trains players to hit it.

Fourth, he believes that the players need to flatten the ball out at times to hit with maximum velocity and penetrate the court. That's certainly true of all the big hitters--even Nadal--and this can be done with the advanced more modern finishes.
 
5263

5263

G.O.A.T.
JohnYandell said:
I don't think you are accurately describing Robert's approach. First, he says that he teaches the "academy ball," and that it's an important ball to have.

Second, he teaches windshield wiper finishes, what he calls the downward finish and argues that the additional topspin is critical in the game today. "only old bald guys always finish over the shoulder."

Third, he coined the phrase "reverse" forehand to describe the Nadal style over the head finish, and trains players to hit it.

Fourth, he believes that the players need to flatten the ball out at times to hit with maximum velocity and penetrate the court. That's certainly true of all the big hitters--even Nadal--and this can be done with the advanced more modern finishes.
Click to expand...

So he can make fun of and ridicule the Academy ball, as well as teach how important it is as well. Well isn't that a clear teaching message? Maybe you can post that vid for folks where they can see what he has to say about the academy ball and how more aggressive grips won't produce champions? from an RL ad about your site;

"Nobody explains to the parents that if you take your 8-year old to a coach who let's the kid hit with an extreme grip, you're already up the creek - you just won't know it for another 8 years. This is what I call the disaster of teaching methods in American junior tennis."

Robert has been pretty clear in the past on his approach to the Fh and his predictions have not bore out on grips or spin. Now that Nadal stands thousands of points above the rest of the field with his heavy spin and more aggressive grip, Lansdorp seems to be trying to do a re-make on his approach based on what you say here. Even what we would call a mid ct put away probably from Rafa, clears the net higher than what RL used to teach for a baseline shot. Of course I don't know what his latest adjustments are, but if he is trying to teach the Fh now like in this
vid--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZWfbTc8xyw&feature=related

I don't expect much from his camp.

sideways stance,
racket in line with the forearm, and
driving out to the target with the finish....etc...
What is modern here? finish near hip?
In another vid he is teaching a ww finish tacked on a conventional Fh, to an 8 yr old.

Not that Nadal does not hit the Rev Fh now and then, but mostly Rafa takes it right over the shoulder like normal, but with so much acceleration that it wraps on around the head and then ends up back on the original side. A far cry from the rev Fh that RL's students actually taught him where the racket does not cross the body mid-line, and he decided to allow them to stay with cause it worked so well. But yes, I guess he did coin the phrase.

Yes you can hit flatter trajectory shots with modern strokes, but there seems to be little modern in his coaching other than a tacked on finish.
 
Last edited:
J

JohnYandell

Hall of Fame
Uh, I'll stick with what I said above. If you read his articles on Tennisplayer he outlines a perspective that is quite different than your categorization of him.

You've set him up as a straw man, used some perjoratives, but haven't really done justice to his overall approach. Just my opinion.
 
5263

5263

G.O.A.T.
SystemicAnomaly said:
^ Yeah, it sounds like 5263 is pushing an agenda rather than offering a honest appraisal of Landsdorp. JMO.
Click to expand...

I've offered that he has a good approach to drilling and hard work, and open to anything relevant on technique he has done or is working on. I just don't see it.
You are reaching to suggest an agenda, so I guess you don't have a point to offer. I'm giving a very honest appraisal of RL. If anyone has an agenda here it would more likely be JY, as I don't have a dog in this either way. Maybe I find it interesting that he has been so out spoken, but yet, seems to have been way off in his expectations.

Pete developed his own serve and rev Fh. Fisher taught Pete how to swing a racket. RL drilled him.
Pete was no weak groundstroker, but none the less would not have broken top ten without the best first and second serve combo in history.
WHat agenda here? Just an honest question about anything RL has to offer technically. Is his contribution not worthy of discussion?

from RL- "The limitations don't show up until later. They have severe problems handling the pace in the pro game, especially when the ball is low and skidding."

What does RL bring to swing technique that has affected Modern tennis?
Hit flatter sometimes??
 
Last edited:
H

hawk eye

Hall of Fame
5263 said:
Pete developed his own serve and rev Fh. Fisher taught Pete how to swing a racket. RL drilled him.
Pete was no weak groundstroker, but none the less would not have broken top ten without the best first and second serve combo in history.WHat agenda here? Just an honest question about anything RL has to offer technically. Is his contribution not worthy of discussion?

What does RL bring to swing technique that has affected Modern tennis?
Hit flatter sometimes??
Click to expand...

Don't think so.. Pete in his prime could stay with anyone from the baseline, and on the faster courts outplay the top players who relied mainly on their groundies. Ask Agassi..
 
J

JohnYandell

Hall of Fame
I don't accept the assumption that there is such a thing as modern tennis, which is somehow completely distinct and different from (?) pre-modern.

Tilden hit the windshield wiper forehand. Fred Perry hit the reverse. Bobby Riggs hit open stance forehand returns--to mention only a few examples.

It's not that coaches either understand the modern game or don't. It's not accurate to divide the world into turn straight back step in straight thru--and then the modern revolution.

That's another straw man and I've never seen anyone who taught that overly simplistic, dogmatic way in 30 years anyway.

There are a lot of technical components obviously. They can be stressed, emphasized etc, but to say Lansdorp is teaching an extinct style, is not accurate in my opinion.

I've seen him work players on all the finishes. Open stance is part of his teaching as with any good coach. He believes in varying pace, arc and spin. He believes to hit cold winners you need to hit through the court with more velocity and relatively lower clearance over the net. I don't know what the argument there could be.

Other coaches can emphasize these or other elements more or less. I don't agree with Robert on everything myself! No two coaches do, or necessarily should. Just trying to give a broader more accurate view of what i've seen him do over the years.
 
Last edited:
5263

5263

G.O.A.T.
hawk eye said:
Don't think so.. Pete in his prime could stay with anyone from the baseline, and on the faster courts outplay the top players who relied mainly on their groundies. Ask Agassi..
Click to expand...

Stay with anyone is an interesting phrase to use, maybe defend-able in a sense, meaning Pete could rally for a while till he lost 3 out of 4 points against players like Hewitt, Andre, most other top 20 players..

I'd say Agassi "stayed with" Pete pretty well in their matches, even with Pete winning so many free points on 1st and second serves. Take those away or take the serving out of it, and no, I'm sorry, It's straight sets for Agassi. And this comes from a huge Pete fan.
 
5263

5263

G.O.A.T.
JohnYandell said:
I don't accept the assumption that there is such a thing as modern tennis, which is somehow completely distinct and different from (?) pre-modern.

Tilden hit the windshield wiper forehand. Fred Perry hit the reverse. Bobby Riggs hit open stance forehand returns--to mention only a few examples.

It's not that coaches either understand the modern game or don't. It's not accurate to divide the world into turn straight back step in straight thru--and then the modern revolution.
Click to expand...

Interesting claims you state here. You don't believe there is such thing as the modern game, but then to go on to say that " It's not that coaches either understand the modern game or don't".

First how would someone discuss or explain something that they admit they don't recognize it's distinctions?

Second, you believe in a term "rev Fh" (which was called the buggy whip for years) a term coined by RL to describe something he observed his students hit,
and you believe in the double bend Fh, a term I understand you coined to describe the common pro Fh,
but you don't believe there is a Modern Tennis played, because one player in history occasionally hit this shot and another player hit that shot at times.
Never mind that in videos of players from a mere 40 years ago shows that overall tennis is played far different today on the whole than it was back then.
Of course if you don't recognize the distinctions, why would you believe there is Modern Tennis?
 
S

SFrazeur

Legend
It's difficult to define an age or era without a specific event marking change or evolution.

I myself reject the term "modern tennis." Many of the components some use to mark "modern tennis" existed since the beginning. One cannot take something like the "reverse forehand" and or combine multiple elements and say that the utilization of these by players define "modern tennis." Again, these have been around since the beginning.

Those who prescribe to the notion of "Modern Tennis" I would be interested to read your definitions of what exactly is modern tennis.

-SF
 
5263

5263

G.O.A.T.
Really pretty ridiculous IMO to reject the idea of Modern tennis, as it is clearly ingrained as an accepted term in the sport, as well as all sports. Just google modern boxing or modern baseball/football/basketball. It may mean different things to different people, but to reject the general term just makes no sense that I can see other than to be difficult. A more sensible comment would be to comment on what modern tennis means to you or what you think it means in general.

If you want something to reject, try this one, lol - Modern History.
 
S

SFrazeur

Legend
5263 said:
Really pretty ridiculous IMO to reject the idea of Modern tennis, as it is clearly ingrained as an accepted term in the sport, as well as all sports. Just google modern boxing or modern baseball/football/basketball. It may mean different things to different people, but to reject the general term just makes no sense that I can see other than to be difficult. A more sensible comment would be to comment on what modern tennis means to you or what you think it means in general.

If you want something to reject, try this one, lol - Modern History.
Click to expand...

My rejection is hardly senseless. Do you read why I reject it?

As for modern history it can be defined:

Modern history, or the modern era, describes the historical timeline after the Middle Ages.
Modern history can be further broken down into the early modern period and the late modern period.

Middle ages: a period of European history from the 5th century to the 15th century.
The period followed the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476, and preceded the Early Modern Era. (source:wiki-something)

This discussion is actually a common one amongst historians, anthropologists, etc. I'm a lumper, you're a splitter. I'm still waiting for you to post a definition of modern tennis.

-SF
 
5263

5263

G.O.A.T.
SFrazeur said:
My rejection is hardly senseless. Do you read why I reject it?

As for modern history it can be defined:

Modern history, or the modern era, describes the historical timeline after the Middle Ages.
Modern history can be further broken down into the early modern period and the late modern period.

Middle ages: a period of European history from the 5th century to the 15th century.
The period followed the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476, and preceded the Early Modern Era. (source:wiki-something)

This discussion is actually a common one amongst historians, anthropologists, etc. I'm a lumper, you're a splitter. I'm still waiting for you to post a definition of modern tennis.

-SF
Click to expand...

I think like modern anything, it can mean different things to different people and other things will be more modern in 30 years. Modern is sort of a moving, current term.
But I see it is a generic idea of how the better players play over the last 5-10 years.
Does knowing my definition make a difference?
The term will be there whether I define it or not.
The down side of those who lump things in Modern tennis is that you get a mix and match of instruction that does not work well together, as well as a misunderstanding of what is observed.

The modern history was a joke based on the oxymoron kind of thing, like jumbo shrimp etc....
 
Last edited:
J

JohnYandell

Hall of Fame
It would be great if rather than setting me up as yet another straw man, like Lansdorp, non-modern tennis, or whatever, you would accurately represent what I said.

Repeat, please if you want to discuss these issues, represent my view correctly before you respond.

This is one of the biggest weaknesses in the whole school you represent. You misrepresent what others say in order to reject them and set up the new beacon. Black white, good bad, modern tennis and bad non-modern tennis. That's not the way the world is or tennis as part of it.

What I actually said was that I reject the term "modern tennis, which is somehow completely distinct and different from (?) pre-modern."

Their is a continuity and an evolution in the game. But not a radical break in which somehow the new wisdom enters the world.

The either/or approach is inaccurate and also counterproductive. That's in tennis, religion, life.

On a specific technical point:

Regarding the double bend forehand--what you said either makes no sense or is unclear. One player in history hit which shot, the double bend? You consider it "modern" or not? Over the course of tennis history the double bend and the straight arm forehand have been two variations. They were mixed in the past, and are mixed now.
 
Last edited:
D

deluxe

Semi-Pro
JohnYandell said:
What I actually said was that I reject the term "modern tennis, which is somehow completely distinct and different from (?) pre-modern."

Their is a continuity and an evolution in the game. But not a radical break in which somehow the new wisdom enters the world.
Click to expand...

I think we can all agree that "new wisdom" entered the world with Oscar Wegner and MTM, that MTM is the radical break splitting modern from pre-modern, and that all the great modern champions are using MTM.

;-)
 
P

papa

Hall of Fame
So many things in this sport keep changing like racquets, strings and equipment. The game has to change to accommodate this ongoing process.

Some have done outstanding research to provide us with materials and advice which allow us to play/teach/enjoy the game more. Although I recognize and appreciate the contributions of RL to the game, I certainly do not agree with all his methods but as John Yandell has pointed out none of us teaching the game totally agrees with a particular individual, method or school.

I happen to like JY approach in that he is presenting what is going on today and is not necessarily advocating any one method being superior to others.
 
5263

5263

G.O.A.T.
JohnYandell said:
you would accurately represent what I said.

Repeat, please if you want to discuss these issues, represent my view correctly before you respond.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding?? I actually had the exact quote you stated right above my post.
You said that you don't buy into distinctions or differences from how the game was played before. Sort of sounds like you think watching a match from the 20's and not being able to note any differences or distinctions. Seems to me it would be quite easy to note how a strokes from this era would be different from then. Sure, there would be things in common as well, but pretty easy to note distinctions as well.

I just pointed out that in one place you don't believe in the term Modern tennis, but then later go on to use the term to discuss what coaches do or don't understand. I agree that maybe that is not such an important point, as you don't have to believe in anything to discuss the topic, but it did come across odd in this case.

AS to the part that you found unclear; I thought it was odd that you were so open to accept the new name for the buggy whip and fine with using the Rev Fh used interchangeably with the "Lasso", but wanted to take issue with such a simple and general term used to describe how most top pros play the game over the last decade or so, and that you would use the odd stroke that resembled modern tennis as evidence to your point. Talking about a straw position to take...
 
Last edited:
D

deluxe

Semi-Pro
5263 said:
Are you kidding?? I actually had the exact quote you stated right above my post.
You said that you don't buy into distinctions or differences from how the game was played before. Sort of sounds like you think watching a match from the 20's and not being able to note any differences or distinctions. Seems to me it would be quite easy to note how a strokes from this era would be different from then. Sure, there would be things in common as well, but pretty easy to note distinctions as well.
Click to expand...

You're just ignoring what he's clearly explained and ridiculing a position he's never had. He's never said that there are no differences between the game now and the game in the 20's. All he's said is that it has been in incremental change in the techniques of the game rather than one revolutionary switch that divides one era of tennis ("the modern") from another ("the pre-modern").

If you want to debate that, just tell us when the big revolutionary switch was that divides the modern from the pre-modern.
 
5263

5263

G.O.A.T.
deluxe said:
You're just ignoring what he's clearly explained and ridiculing a position he's never had. He's never said that there are no differences between the game now and the game in the 20's. All he's said is that it has been in incremental change in the techniques of the game rather than one revolutionary switch that divides one era of tennis ("the modern") from another ("the pre-modern").

If you want to debate that, just tell us when the big revolutionary switch was that divides the modern from the pre-modern.
Click to expand...

No, I don't need to debate that, as I think you said it pretty well. Well stated on your part. The only thing is that if this is what he is saying, it has little bearing where Modern tennis is a reasonable term or not. There is no need for a clear divide. Almost everything we have today is modern, even though some have had a slow evolution and some have had more abrupt break thru moments. We have modern cars, bikes, tennis, etc... with no reason to argue this use of the term modern. The only reason I can see to debate the term modern tennis is to be difficult or push an agenda. Tennis has had quite a few defining moments IMO, like going to bigger rackets and then another was going to Poly string, just to name a couple. For the general term Modern tennis in this regard, IMO this would currently refer to the widespread use of poly.

As to the person who brought up the Oscar Wegner association with this term, well that is the easiest aspect to defend. There was pretty clear time when an tennis announcer began to refer to Oscar as the father of Modern tennis, as it was his take on what he had seen of the instruction. Now that has been incorporated into a brand in the name MTM or modern tennis methodology. Would you not call a certain car a Malibu, because it did not remind you of the city or do you just accept that is it's given name? I think it would be sort of pointless to argue that the car is not a Malibu if that is what Chevy produced it as.
 
Last edited:
D

deluxe

Semi-Pro
5263 said:
No, I don't need to debate that, as I think you said it pretty well. Well stated on your part. The only thing is that if this is what he is saying, it has little bearing where Modern tennis is a reasonable term or not. There is no need for a clear divide. Almost everything we have today is modern, even though some have had a slow evolution and some have had more abrupt break thru moments. We have modern cars, bikes, tennis, etc... with no reason to argue this use of the term modern. The only reason I can see to debate the term modern tennis is to be difficult or push an agenda. Tennis has had quite a few defining moments IMO, like going to bigger rackets and then another was going to Poly string, just to name a couple. For the general term Modern tennis in this regard, IMO this would currently refer to the widespread use of poly.
Click to expand...

So am I right in thinking that in your use of terminology, "modern tennis" is the way tennis is played today, and that "pre-modern tennis" is the way tennis was played in all previous years?

If RL teaches an extinct form of tennis, not "modern tennis", what techniques in use today does RL not teach?

5263 said:
As to the person who brought up the Oscar Wegner association with this term, well that is the easiest aspect to defend. There was pretty clear time when an tennis announcer began to refer to Oscar as the father of Modern tennis, as it was his take on what he had seen of the instruction. Now that has been incorporated into a brand in the name MTM or modern tennis methodology. Would you not call a certain car a Malibu, because it did not remind you of the city or do you just accept that is it's given name? I think it would be sort of pointless to argue that the car is not a Malibu if that is what Chevy produced it as.
Click to expand...

Presumably when Brad Holbrook referred to one of the guests on his TV program as "the father of modern tennis" back in 1995, in todays terminology we would have to call him "the father of pre-modern tennis"? Presumably there's been technique improvements since 1995 which OW wasn't teaching at the time? Presumably the OW of 1995 was teaching an extinct form of tennis? Unless you're saying everying Fed, Rafa & all the rest are doing now was merely a result of what OW was teaching back in the Pete's heyday?
 
J

JohnYandell

Hall of Fame
Thank you deluxe. I thought what I said was pretty clear...but maybe I was missing out on the "new wisdom"...wait, probably not.

Obviously I have used that term modern tennis myself. And I would agree that the rackets and the string (as well as the size and quality of the athletes) have facilitated the evolution of the game and shifted the balance of certain technical elements.

As for the father issue, that's quite a claim. My own opinion is that these changes are mostly the result of the players developing and experimenting with technique. As I've said, the coaches tend to follow the players. I've seen the claims on Oscar's website about how world teaching evolved from his work. It would be interesting to do a large scale poll of players and teachers worldwide to see if they agree.

As for the reverse forehand, never saw a clear technical presentation of the stroke under another name before Robert and I think he deserves mention for providing that and interjecting it into the lexicon. That doesn't make him the father of the reverse forehand though...
 
Last edited:
S

scotus

G.O.A.T.
A question about Lansdorp.

Does he have a reputation as a mean, cranky coach?

In the Tennis Channel's "Academy" show, he keeps saying that he is really a nice guy. I wonder why he needs to point that out over and over again.
 
5263

5263

G.O.A.T.
deluxe said:
So am I right in thinking that in your use of terminology, "modern tennis" is the way tennis is played today, and that "pre-modern tennis" is the way tennis was played in all previous years?

If RL teaches an extinct form of tennis, not "modern tennis", what techniques in use today does RL not teach?

Presumably when Brad Holbrook referred to one of the guests on his TV program as "the father of modern tennis" back in 1995, in todays terminology we would have to call him "the father of pre-modern tennis"? Presumably there's been technique improvements since 1995 which OW wasn't teaching at the time? Presumably the OW of 1995 was teaching an extinct form of tennis? Unless you're saying everying Fed, Rafa & all the rest are doing now was merely a result of what OW was teaching back in the Pete's heyday?
Click to expand...

Yes, modern tennis would be today's tennis of course.

What does RL currently teach? I can't say that, but he has made a point of going on record that extreme topspin and grips like Rafa's would not take players to the highest levels of the game.

As to Oscar, he has the distinction being one of the few teaching as early as the 70's, the way most top players play today. I guess you could call him pre-modern, as he was teaching this way before it came as common as it is today, so he did precede modern tennis in a sense.
 
J

JohnYandell

Hall of Fame
On Lansdorp, some would use those adjectives, others would say relentless and demanding.

Robert just speaks his mind, and from the heart. Some people hate that, others love it.
 
D

deluxe

Semi-Pro
5263 said:
Yes, modern tennis would be today's tennis of course.
Click to expand...

Ok, what about pro tennis 15 years ago, was that "modern tennis"? I'm just trying to pin down if you simply mean "the way pros play tennis today" or if you mean "the way pros have played tennis over the last X number of years"
5263 said:
What does RL currently teach? I can't say that,
Click to expand...
Then it seems odd you're prepared to say he teaches an extinct form of tennis.
5263 said:
but he has made a point of going on record that extreme topspin and grips like Rafa's would not take players to the highest levels of the game.
Click to expand...

Quote please? I certainly remember reading some of his stuff where he says he prefers more conservative grips, ie semi-western over western.

5263 said:
As to Oscar, he has the distinction being one of the few teaching as early as the 70's, the way most top players play today. I guess you could call him pre-modern, as he was teaching this way before it came as common as it is today, so he did precede modern tennis in a sense.
Click to expand...

Are there any videos of Oscar from the 70's online? I'd like to see that. I'd like to see how Oscar was teaching people to play like Rafa with 14oz, 65 sq inch wooden tennis racquets.
 
5263

5263

G.O.A.T.
JohnYandell said:
As I've said, the coaches tend to follow the players.
Click to expand...

Father of modern tennis is not a claim of Oscars that I have ever heard, so is this a strawman you are trying to create?

Yes, most coaches do tend to follow the players; especially those that use vid and pics to arrive at what is going on. Now Oscar in some ways did the same, as he noticed things about some of the most potent strokes in history from different players thru the years, then boiled it down to some general, but key points in a system he created in the early 70's. Then he wrapped this simple system in a efficient way to interact with the student to help them develop feel for the strokes vs knowing them technically.
On the other hand, modern players have still not completely caught up to this system, as few if any incorporate the full spectrum of the training in their play. There is still an aspect where players with the best Bhs get it on that stroke, but don't quite get it on their weaker Fh or more often they get it on the Fh and Bh, but come up short on volleys. So in that sense, Modern tennis is not yet fully up with Modern Tennis Methodology as a system, but moving that way rapidly. IMO if you study some of your vids of Davydenko, you will get your best current view of where tennis is headed.
 
5263

5263

G.O.A.T.
deluxe said:
Ok, what about pro tennis 15 years ago, was that "modern tennis"? I'm just trying to pin down if you simply mean "the way pros play tennis today" or if you mean "the way pros have played tennis over the last X number of years"

Then it seems odd you're prepared to say he teaches an extinct form of tennis.
Quote please? I certainly remember reading some of his stuff where he says he prefers more conservative grips, ie semi-western over western.

Are there any videos of Oscar from the 70's online? I'd like to see that. I'd like to see how Oscar was teaching people to play like Rafa with 14oz, 65 sq inch wooden tennis racquets.
Click to expand...

Why would you expect to "pin someone down" on a general term like Modern tennis?

I'm also not going to get pinned down on what RL is currently teaching, as he seems to be backtracking on his previous positions on how young players are being ruined cause instructors allow them to use western grips. If you want to read and hear where he pokes fun at the "academy ball" and how aggressive grips are not the way to #1, then you will have to get off your wallet and make JY some money. Tennisplayer.net is a great site with tons of resources for you to pick thru. I guess that stuff is still on there.

As for 70s tennis- first you want to say that tennis strokes of today are not new, but now you want to suggest that these strokes won't work with older style wood rackets.????
 
W

WChiang

Rookie
*note to 5263*.....quit digging your hole. It's only getting bigger, lol. The others are right. I've spoken with Landsdorp and seen his coaching firsthand. You are completely mischaracterizing his teaching viewpoint, opinions, and method. Also, strawmen galore in your posts.
 
mtommer

mtommer

Hall of Fame
JohnYandell said:
What I actually said was that I reject the term "modern tennis, which is somehow completely distinct and different from (?) pre-modern."
.....
Their is a continuity and an evolution in the game. But not a radical break in which somehow the new wisdom enters the world.
Click to expand...

I think the radical break in "modern tennis" is the introduction of poly string that resulted in a far more physically demanding game overall.
 
5263

5263

G.O.A.T.
WChiang said:
*note to 5263*.....quit digging your hole. It's only getting bigger, lol. The others are right. I've spoken with Landsdorp and seen his coaching firsthand. You are completely mischaracterizing his teaching viewpoint, opinions, and method. Also, strawmen galore in your posts.
Click to expand...

Oh, so you know RL!
Spoken with him too? Impressive.

If I'm digging a hole, you just fell in it.
So if you really know anything about him you would know he has been quite outspoken in the past about how heavy TS and western grips are not the way to the top of the game, along with how his training focus is hitting out thru the target with conservative grips. Since you don't seem to know this, I guess you don't know him as well as you think.

Now the best player in the world comes up hitting big spin with a western grip, which contradicts RL's predictions and claims below. JY has these predictions and comments on his site, so I don't expect he will deny this, but continue to make general supportive comments for RL.
If you don't have an interest in this, fine, but it is relevant to his insight into the future of the game and his claimed focus on his instruction.

found this from RL on Western Grips, as an ad for TP

The Grip

The foundation of the forehand is the grip. One of the biggest problems in American junior tennis is the poor foundation so many young players have because of their extreme grips.

Under the handle, extreme western grips are incredibly common in high level junior tennis. Kids have great success early in their careers because they can hit topspin and get a lot of balls in play. If the ball is high and not too fast, these kids actually look pretty good.

The limitations don't show up until later, in the older age divisions or when a good young player first tests himself in professional tennis. Now these same kids suddenly don't look so great. They have severe problems handling the pace in the pro game, especially when the ball is low and skidding.


Pete Sampras hits through the ball with a classic forehand grip and perfect followthrough.

But nobody talks about these problems. Kids hold the rackets with the extreme grip and think it's alright. Nobody stands up and says that teaching extreme western grips are actually ruining these kids.

Nobody explains to the parents that if you take your 8-year old to a coach who let's the kid hit with an extreme grip, you're already up the creek - you just won't know it for another 8 years. This is what I call the disaster of teaching methods in American junior tennis.
 
Last edited:
C

chico9166

Guest
The simple answer in my mind, is evolution-- like in any other sport. The kids are just bigger, stronger and faster, with the result being, the game is played at an unbelievable speed.. All we're seeing in terms of more "modern" strokes, is adapting to the incredible athleticism and speed of shot one sees on tour.

Windshield wiper stokes, reverse finishes, swinging volleys, shot patterns, etc.etc. are just the way players have learned to adapt to what they're confronted with. It's not like they are necessarily being taught this. They just figure it out.
 
5263

5263

G.O.A.T.
mtommer said:
I think the radical break in "modern tennis" is the introduction of poly string that resulted in a far more physically demanding game overall.
Click to expand...

I think this is a very strong point you make and said as much in another post as well.
 
5263

5263

G.O.A.T.
chico9166 said:
The simple answer in my mind, is evolution-- like in any other sport. The kids are just bigger, stronger and faster, with the result being, the game is played at an unbelievable speed.. All we're seeing in terms of more "modern" strokes, is adapting to the incredible athleticism and speed of shot one sees on tour.

Windshield wiper stokes, reverse finishes, swinging volleys, shot patterns, etc.etc. are just the way players have learned to adapt to what they're confronted with. It's not like they are necessarily being taught this. They just figure it out.
Click to expand...

Much of what you say here is correct in the US, as there are few instructors well versed in the way the modern game is played, so as JY says, most instructors are lagging the better players.
 
D

deluxe

Semi-Pro
5263 said:
Why would you expect to "pin someone down" on a general term like Modern tennis?
Click to expand...

Because you're so slippery. You always refuse to define what you're talking about. I should have known better than to expect you to answer simple questions about your terminology.

5263 said:
I'm also not going to get pinned down on what RL is currently teaching,
Click to expand...
How could you be? You've already told us you have no idea what he is currently teaching. Except you apparently know enough to tell us he's teaching a style of tennis that is extinct.

5263 said:
as he seems to be backtracking on his previous positions on how young players are being ruined cause instructors allow them to use western grips.
Click to expand...
Where has he backtracked? Give me a quote for his original position and a quote for his new position. Or a reference. Or a link to a video. Anything!
5263 said:
If you want to read and hear where he pokes fun at the "academy ball" and how aggressive grips are not the way to #1, then you will have to get off your wallet and make JY some money. Tennisplayer.net is a great site with tons of resources for you to pick thru. I guess that stuff is still on there.
Click to expand...
I've read the article. Seemed good. I don't recall him saying Nadal would never be #1. Are you saying there's no qualitative difference between the kind of shot hit by Fed or Rafa and the kind of shot hit by the average kid at an academy?

5263 said:
As for 70s tennis- first you want to say that tennis strokes of today are not new, but now you want to suggest that these strokes won't work with older style wood rackets.????
Click to expand...

Where did I say "tennis strokes of today are not new"? You really do misrepresent people. You've misrepresented me, you've misrepresented what JY said in this thread. I'd like to think you weren't misrepresenting what RL wrote elsewhere, but your refusal to give references or quotes, or even to answer simple questions makes it difficult to give you the benefit of the doubt :-(

Do you know of any online instructional clips by Oscar from the 70s that you can point me at? It's a simple question, just answer it simply. I'm genuinely intrigued to see how Oscar was teaching modern tennis in the 70's with small headed, heavy, wooden racquets.
 
S

sureshs

Bionic Poster
Watched Lansdorp on Tennis Channel with Davenport a night or two ago. She asked him to teach her the reverse forehand. He explained what it was and how Nadal uses it. He said he has been teaching it for 20 years. Then Lindsay says how come you never taught it to me and only taught the swing across the body. He does not answer the question. Then Lindsay is fed some balls and hits reverse FHs per his instruction.
 
S

scotus

G.O.A.T.
sureshs said:
Watched Lansdorp on Tennis Channel with Davenport a night or two ago. She asked him to teach her the reverse forehand. He explained what it was and how Nadal uses it. He said he has been teaching it for 20 years. Then Lindsay says how come you never taught it to me and only taught the swing across the body. He does not answer the question. Then Lindsay is fed some balls and hits reverse FHs per his instruction.
Click to expand...

I think I have seen Lindsay hit it. It is just that she is not aware she does it.

Sampras' running forehand is almost always reverse. Sharapova hits it all the time. So I believe Lansdorp's claim that he has been teaching it that long.
 
S

sureshs

Bionic Poster
scotus said:
I think I have seen Lindsay hit it. It is just that she is not aware she does it.

Sampras' running forehand is almost always reverse. Sharapova hits it all the time. So I believe Lansdorp's claim that he has been teaching it that long.
Click to expand...

Yes it surprised me too, because I thought she hit it. Maybe she picked it up from watching others? If you watch the segment, she actually tries the reverse FH swing slowly several times before being fed a ball. Unless she is an expert actress, it really seemed that she had never done the motion before and was trying to get into it. And of course that is what she also said - that he had never taught her. Why would someone make up such a thing?
 
C

chico9166

Guest
5263 said:
Much of what you say here is correct in the US, as there are few instructors well versed in the way the modern game is played, so as JY says, most instructors are lagging the better players.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you have all the answers. Good for you. And since you feel obliged to disparage Lansdorp, could you please share with us your history of developing players, in comparison? Don't necessarily agree with everything he says, but I do believe he deserves respect in regard to the work he's done. Don't you? It's easy to Monday morning quarterback, but the fact remains, he has built alot of great games, by himself, without help, on a single court. Look, the guy is gruff, and opinionated, but he(from what I've read) isn't interested in promoting himself, and is quick to give credit to the kids who can handle his demands. These are great qualities, in an industry that is inundated with shameless self promoters. Guys who talk, but haven't produced, something he most certainly has.

As far as American tennis goes, I can assure you that the reason American tennis is in a down cycle is not because people are not embracing your hero, Oscar. But because we get about 1/100th of the potential talent pool involved in tennis. It's something, as an industry, we have to improve upon.


It doesn't sound like you have developed a substantial number of high level players, as I have. If you did, you would know that the ability to play at a high college level or pro's has alot more to do with the player's talent, mind, and athletic ability than a coach's ability. To believe otherwise, is either arrogant, or shows a general lack of practical experience.


BTW, I don't pretend to know Robert, or feel comfortable judging his instruction. But from what I have read, his fundamental approach is pretty solid. Which is, teach a player to move through the ball well, with good extension, then teach them wiper action, reverse finishes, and let them "run with it".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

X
How to find a good coach?
2
Replies
90
Views
3K
AlexSV
A
chess9
Are most folks pretending to play and learn?
2
Replies
74
Views
4K
nickybol
N
Z
Teaching a 5 year-old
Replies
2
Views
3K
heretoserve
heretoserve
K
Practicing on a ball machine?
Replies
12
Views
1K
GuyClinch
G
K
Are Tennis Lessons worth it?
Replies
27
Views
7K
sureshs
S
Top