Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
It's not a litmus test, it's the foundation of modern technique and the most important distinction between modern and old school technique. I can't speak for Ralph, but, I'm betting he can answer the question.
Should I take lessons from a coach who teaches traditional strokes?
- Thread starter MikeyBigShot
- Start date
It's not a litmus test, it's the foundation of modern technique and the most important distinction between modern and old school technique. I can't speak for Ralph, but, I'm betting he can answer the question.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I'm proud to have a negative score on suresh's ignoramus rankings.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I don't think you know enough to recognize actual knowledge when you see it. Your comment that Federer's technique "is as traditional as it gets" forecloses any debate about that. Federer does have some traditional aspects to his technique, but, on the whole, it is no where near traditional technique. Tennis Balla told you the same thing. In any event, you, the OP, and everyone else is free to take my advice or leave it, as you choose.
Last edited:
So someone who says body rotation but has not heard of angular momentum is useless.
I am pretty sure Fed hasn't heard about angular momentum either.
I am lowering your score further in my previous post
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
So someone who says body rotation but has not heard of angular momentum is useless.
I am pretty sure Fed hasn't heard about angular momentum either.
I am lowering your score further in my previous post
Hahaha! That's okay, sureshs. When YOU lower MY score, you are actually lowering your score and raising mine.
Last edited:
Timbo's hopeless slice
Hall of Fame
it is certainly entertaining, I dunno how often it is informative though!
and it sounds like this coach could be good for you!
TheCanadian
Semi-Pro
You the guy who claimed in another thread to not only know more about tennis than Agassi but also more about his BH technique than him? What's left to say but to leave you to your delusions? As far as I could tell, your opinions in that thread were manifestly erroneous but said with much gusto.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Delusions? Show me where I claimed to know more about tennis than Agassi.
Again, I don't think you know enough about tennis to recognize error from merit when you see it.
Last edited:
5263
G.O.A.T.
LOL, yes...clearly this must be like golf where a lower score is better.
Mikey: +5
Frisbee: +5
Canadian: +5
Limpin: 0
5263: -15
Bounced up Limpin due to something great said in another thread. All is forgiven.
Bumped down 5263 even more
TheCanadian
Semi-Pro
It's easy to go through that thread and see your incredible conceit and fundamental ignorance of the game. Like I previously said, what bothers me is not your total ignorance of the game, but the fact that your spamming can mislead others who come here to learn.
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=438746
5263
G.O.A.T.
Limpin, looks like I've moved further ahead of you in the latest scores, but if
you stay at it, I believe you have the skills to close the gap
FrisbeeFool
Rookie
How ironic, that you are calling me a flat-earther, but you don't understand the basic geometry of a circle. You think the most important distinction between modern and old-school technique is linear vs angular momentum? Yet, you have no idea what those terms mean. When someone is using angular momentum, they are also using linear momentum. Any angular movement has linear components.
When Raphael Nadal hits a forehand, he is using both linear and angular momentum. It is not a case of either or.
If you want to break it down even more, it's also stance and situation dependent. All the top pros like Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Murrary, etc. excel in a variety of situations. Depending on the shot they are returning, and the shot they are executing, their strokes will have varying amounts of angularity or linearity.
It's never been a case of Linear vs Angular. It's a case of linear and angular. Ironic that you Limpinhitter, are calling me a flat-earther, but you insist on seeing things in such black and white terms. It you're going to throw around the terms linear and angular momentum in so many threads, maybe you should sit down and take some time to understand what they actually mean.
5263
G.O.A.T.
Limpin, feel free to correct me, but it seems to me you are just using the common
lingo of the board to communicate with the folks who post here. While I agree
that technically Fris is correct, I'm not sure how useful his distinction is to the
discussion. The terms seem to represent the predominant view and forces involved.
treblings
Hall of Fame
i wouldn´t be to bothered.
everybody who´s coming to this forum for advice should know that they are asking for opinions and they are getting opinions. not the absolute truth
what you call spamming or sureshs calls propaganda is actually only an opinion you strongly disagree with
Hi I'm Ray
Professional
Well I skipped a majority of this thread so idk if this has already been said, but I'd bet that in 6mo or 1yr you'll end up being a better player taking lessons from a traditional coach than if you tried to figure it out on your own. I don't know what kind of grip you are using, but I would suggest that if you are using a SW grip and the coach tells you to switch to an Eastern, that you insist on staying with a SW grip. It is so difficult to hit high balls with an eastern grip. Same with the BH side. A more "extreme" 1HBH actually deals with high & low balls just fine but not everyone will have the timing for a 1HBH, especially under pressure and against aggressive slice.
Last edited:
Djokovicfan4life
Legend
I think the problem with defining any coach as "traditional" is that you don't know what's what until you take lessons with him for awhile. My coach taught me lots of things that we TW morons would instantly dismiss as "old school," but lots of coaches teach tennis in steps/phases/whatever, and until you actually get to know him and hit with him for an extended period of time, you'll never know.
Here's a list of "traditional" things my coach has taught me (all of them helped my very "modern" game tremendously:
1. Hit through the ball (yes, I said it, MTMalites, deal with it).
2. Step into the ball [(mostly to get me used to transferring my weight forward. I have a tendency to pull off to the side and mishit the ball (sound familiar?)].
3. Adjust my grip very slightly depending on the height of the ball, to keep my wrist in a strong position (he doesn't subscribe to the "one grip for everything" BS.
4. Concentrate on the arm motion until I could get it down perfectly with no hitches, and a decent toss to boot (yes, I don't bend my knees all that much, that's still a work in progress).
Just a few examples.
5
Here's a list of "traditional" things my coach has taught me (all of them helped my very "modern" game tremendously:
1. Hit through the ball (yes, I said it, MTMalites, deal with it).
2. Step into the ball [(mostly to get me used to transferring my weight forward. I have a tendency to pull off to the side and mishit the ball (sound familiar?)].
3. Adjust my grip very slightly depending on the height of the ball, to keep my wrist in a strong position (he doesn't subscribe to the "one grip for everything" BS.
4. Concentrate on the arm motion until I could get it down perfectly with no hitches, and a decent toss to boot (yes, I don't bend my knees all that much, that's still a work in progress).
Just a few examples.
5
Djokovicfan4life
Legend
5263
G.O.A.T.
Only thing I see on your list that is traditional is #2. step into the ball.
Or I should say the others can be included in modern, with even #2 as
acceptable in certain situations.
By the way, I've been waiting for someone to mention how pulling off the ball
makes them mishit. Yes, you can step in more and change to different problems, or
you can work to keep your head over towards the contact side.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5rWS3sun74&feature=player_detailpage#t=20s
Mild version, but stop the vid as soon as it hits 21 secs and look how Fed's
head is over his outside foot, but body forms a small bow from head to foot,
as he pull off the shot slightly. I will look for a more obvious example as well.
Frank Silbermann
Professional
Bill Tilden taught the closed stance forehand drive, with both heel and knuckle of the hand on bevel 3. He was credited with being the originator of modern tennis technique. (Before Tilden there were probably at least as many continental and western grips as eastern.)
I saw an article by Jack Kramer written around 1960 in which he described what he called the modern eastern forehand (heel of the hand on bevel 2, index knuckle on bevel 3 near bevel 2). This was essentially the Brent Abel style. So that would be the modern forehand.
The Sharapoval and windshield-wiper styles would have to be called post-modern, because they more or less have replaced the modern forehand (the one described in the article by Jack Kramer). Or, one can call them "incorrect" forehands, since the majority of tennis coaches over the past century taught that the "shake-hands" grip was the correct way to hold the racket for a forehand, and that one should strive to hit one's ground strokes flat with a closed or square stance (admitting that, in practice, most forehands will carry a touch of topspin and most good backhands a touch of under-spin).
With today's equipment and court surfaces, the incorrect techniques seem to be superior. My current style is to strive to hit a forehand that is moderately incorrect (open stance, index knuckle at the bottom of bevel 3, and a conscious attempt to swing up at the ball for topspin), and go to a forehand that is incorrect in the other direction (i.e. near-continental) for balls that are very wide or low.
C
chico9166
Guest
You my friend, are correct....There are linear and angular componants to all swings..it's never been a case of either/or. The Mtm guys just use this as a straw man to differentiate there teaching style...It's much ado about nothing.
5263
G.O.A.T.
Your post is mostly correct except the part about how mtm guys use it.
It in no way addresses MTM instructional style and
I don't think MTM focus on that at all unless you are speaking of a particular
aspect of a swing.
We all realize our MTM swing is very linear as we line up for contact and
also that classic strokes use a bit of angular as well.
Sorry, but that part is just more of the mis-info propaganda.
nice try though,
Last edited:
5263
G.O.A.T.
Super...glad you think that is the main issue, since it clearly proves our point.
Last edited:
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
That's correct. I'm using the terms commonly used in tennis, here and elsewhere, to distinguish between the linear weight transfer of a traditional stroke and the upper body rotation associated with a modern stroke. FF is just looking for something to argue about.
5263
G.O.A.T.
Yes, thanks.
Then they go on the claim this is MTM lingo. I'm like you, that if I stated it that
way, it was due to the common usage of the posters here....not from MTM terms.
C
chico9166
Guest
I was talking principally about linear and angular usage of body....not racquet/path...Anyway since you feel inclined to "grade" everyone's answer, can you please explain how this works.Your post is mostly correct except the part about how mtm guys use it.
It in no way addresses MTM instructional style and
I don't think MTM focus on that at all unless you are speaking of a particular
aspect of a swing.
We all realize our MTM swing is very linear as we line up for contact and
also that classic strokes use a bit of angular as well.
Sorry, but that part is just more of the mis-info propaganda.
nice try though,
5263
G.O.A.T.
I'm not inclined to explain things for you and don't grade answer's, but
do correct the mis-info improperly attributed to MTM. There is a difference.
It would be better for you to share what you think you know and avoid speaking
for MTM.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Really? How is your use of linear vs. angular use of the body differ from my use of it, since you concurred in FF's criticism of my use?
C
chico9166
Guest
LOl, that's kinda what i thought.
C
chico9166
Guest
Because linear and angular momentum of body are not mutually exculsive.....pretty simple. One doesn't have to to own a PHD in biomechanics to give there opinion here, but when you come across as an expert, you should have a decent idea of how these two componants work. You're a smart guy though, so I'll give you a hint. The body's use of linear momentum is present in all strokes past or present, old school/modern, across stance permutations, etc etc.
5263
G.O.A.T.
Thanks, but your hint is not needed. Just because I'm not inclined to explain it
for you does not mean I'm not schooled up on that info.
It also seems you confuse how something is expressed for Math vs what it actually is.
The linear momentum in angular momentum is just a component
of expressing angular momentum or a result of it.
Nice try though.
C
chico9166
Guest
No kidding,,,, that's why I would never use the linear vs angular distinction.
Linear momentum and angular momentum are ANALOGOUS in Physics between translation and rotational motion, like displacement<->angle, linear velocity<->angular velocity, linear acceleration<->angular acceleration, linear momentum<->angular momentum, force<->torque.
Angular momentum can be expressed in terms of linear momentum for a single particle in circular motion in a straightforward way, but not for a rigid body (angular momentum is MOI*angular velocity, linear momentum in mass*linear velocity of center of mass).
A purely rotating body (with no movement of its center of mass) has angular momentum but no linear momentum. A body with center of mass moving in a straight line has linear momentum and no angular momentum. For cases in between, a body has both kinds of momentum, but they are independent and have NO connection with each other.
In summary, angular momentum has really nothing to do with linear momentum.
Angular momentum can be expressed in terms of linear momentum for a single particle in circular motion in a straightforward way, but not for a rigid body (angular momentum is MOI*angular velocity, linear momentum in mass*linear velocity of center of mass).
A purely rotating body (with no movement of its center of mass) has angular momentum but no linear momentum. A body with center of mass moving in a straight line has linear momentum and no angular momentum. For cases in between, a body has both kinds of momentum, but they are independent and have NO connection with each other.
In summary, angular momentum has really nothing to do with linear momentum.
C
chico9166
Guest
Suresh, so are you saying that linear momentum cannot act as a catalyst to increase end point angular output? If so, i disagree.
It can act as a catalyst, just like footwork can also act as a catalyst in any stroke. But angular and linear momentum are two different things, and your "piecewise linear" approximation of a circle as a series of chords is not relevant to it.
If you are saying that there is a huge difference between staying still and rotating your racket, and moving your upper body forward and leaning on the ball and rotating your racket, you are right.
FrisbeeFool
Rookie
Most people that use these terms understand what they mean, though. It's fine to use those terms. However, if you're running around telling everyone that modern tennis has abandoned the use of linear momentum, you clearly don't understand what these terms mean. There is nothing wrong with the terminology, only with your understanding of the terminology.
As usual Limpinhitter, you have missed the point, and carried on with your facile, black vs white approach to the world.
Last edited:
C
chico9166
Guest
Yes it can...but linear momentum (as you mentioned) is the movement of one's center of mass in a straight line AND can be expressed in any direction. Modern players use considerable linear momentum (in an open stance for instance) by loading against the ground and pushing up to augment the tremendous rotational cycle that creates racquet head speed.
At any rate, as I mentioned, linear momentum has little direct effect on racquet head speed, but it's contribution to angular speed can be significant..
Last edited by a moderator:
5263
G.O.A.T.
Although I don't think I can agree that the center of mass is moving in a straight line, I think I like that last statement....especially as you say "can be significant".
C
chico9166
Guest
Maybe, maybe not. I think most consider the intial ground reaction force (by pushing up) to be verticle linear momentum. Anyway, as it pertains to this subject, linear momentum is used to create greater end point angular speed. It is not a case of either/or.
5263
G.O.A.T.
I agree it is close enough for our purposes, although I could see where someone
could make a good case that the push will be up & arcing in some direction, and
rarely a straight line.
As I said, I like your statement overall and think it should be useful, but someone
can always get more technical, which is the risk of going that route with
details.
