I never said hitting 3-5 balls on a line is a great idea either. No one thinks black and white all the time, like you.
confused w/ the term "MTM"
- Thread starter mr_fro2000
- Start date
- Status
I never said hitting 3-5 balls on a line is a great idea either. No one thinks black and white all the time, like you.
Ash_Smith
Legend
There aren't that many complete teaching systems and I make it my job to learn as much about those I come across as I can. I owe it to my athletes. You never know, something I pick up might make the difference between a player going from no medal to a medal or even from a medal to a gold. At the highest level the margins are so fine, I'm looking for any advantage we can get! If that means I have to study some and try some things out i'm willing to do it.
cheers
Hi I'm Ray
Professional
Sorry but this seriously points to a lack of any real experience or understanding, it sounds totally made up. Leaving the whole "MTM" debate out of this. Most coaches hardly talk about strategy, most are focused on stroke production, and they constantly point out mistakes. Coaches definitely talk about grips. Drills are very important practice, saying they lead to no improvements is pure crap. How many ppl here are going to believe that the majority of tennis "students" are more concerned about strategy than stroke production? Just Zero credibilty.
Last edited:
treblings
Hall of Fame
totally agree. that´s exactly how it is in the real world.
treblings
Hall of Fame
that´s the way i see it as well. i look for tips, drills, any small things maybe that can make a difference to a student. i don´t care where that comes from
5263
G.O.A.T.
I agree, well said by you and ash.
5263
G.O.A.T.
Oh but I don't...not all the time.
Classic is well documented, as is MTM and The advanced foundation
...so they have many well documented elements with reference.
You have made it clear you know little of either.
Then there are things like, "Trail braking" with motorcycles and the myriad of
hybrid strokes, which are more gray, without clear source and reference, and
are evolved terms that mean different things to different people. This seems to
be your ground of choice. Yes, these are is interesting and innovative, where much
creative play will originate, but it is also a space of opinion to a large degree,
and will just be speculation for years to come. I rather enjoy this
area too, and like to share my opinions where they fit. So from here, you can mostly
either express your opinions for helpful discussion or just try to rile up controversy
for those who are not well versed in the documented ideas.
Quite a shame you use your natural curiosity for the latter, when you could
contribute so much using the former!
Now to get on the topic you sought to obfuscate with your black and white comment,
about hitting across on an arc...
If you are using the classic method of trying to extend down the target line
thru 3-5 balls, there are documented ways in classic instruction to put a rather
straight segment into and past the contact point (which you deny) instead of
what I agree should be a curving arc across the shot line.
So either you are agreeing that the swing should be an arc across the shot
line, or classic extension methods should be used....or do you have a 3rd
undocumented idea that you speculate is better?
Last edited:
As a tennis consumer of instruction, I don't really care about who invented what first. I read John Yandell's post with interest, as I believe he runs Tennisone? Which is where I came across Doug King's "Orientation & Swingpath." Again, I'm not sure if Mr Yandell reviews or stamps approval on each/every article.
Having taken clinics at Newcombe's ranch (probably the most traditional clinic I've experienced where they'll feed you low balls to get you to stay down and step into the ball) I definitely find Wegner's methods to be unique in that he recommends pulling the forehand up and across rather than following through in the direction (hitting 5 balls in a row). BTW, I've been told the "5 balls in a row" in California and Florida clinics where they were more friendly feeding to western grips and open stances.
The other point that seems unique is his emphasis on finding the ball specifically not taking the racquet back early. Again all the other clinics/coaches come down hard on this. I'll be honest that this last point is something I'm not sure about... it's part of my routine.
What I'm not sure about is whether MTM argues against an early shoulder turn on FHs? Even on slower balls, I find if I delay the shoulder turn, I feel rushed hitting the ball. I also notice that I usually don't need a bigger backswing than what the shoulder turn provides.
On the overhead for example, we can agree that every pro turns right away. This does not seem to hinder them from finding the ball.
Having done clinics and lessons w/ non-MTM coaches, I'm curious to try an MTM coach. That being said, I will return to Newks and enjoy their drills though I will ignore their suggestions about hitting through the ball.
Having taken clinics at Newcombe's ranch (probably the most traditional clinic I've experienced where they'll feed you low balls to get you to stay down and step into the ball) I definitely find Wegner's methods to be unique in that he recommends pulling the forehand up and across rather than following through in the direction (hitting 5 balls in a row). BTW, I've been told the "5 balls in a row" in California and Florida clinics where they were more friendly feeding to western grips and open stances.
The other point that seems unique is his emphasis on finding the ball specifically not taking the racquet back early. Again all the other clinics/coaches come down hard on this. I'll be honest that this last point is something I'm not sure about... it's part of my routine.
What I'm not sure about is whether MTM argues against an early shoulder turn on FHs? Even on slower balls, I find if I delay the shoulder turn, I feel rushed hitting the ball. I also notice that I usually don't need a bigger backswing than what the shoulder turn provides.
On the overhead for example, we can agree that every pro turns right away. This does not seem to hinder them from finding the ball.
Having done clinics and lessons w/ non-MTM coaches, I'm curious to try an MTM coach. That being said, I will return to Newks and enjoy their drills though I will ignore their suggestions about hitting through the ball.
5263
G.O.A.T.
He does not currently.
arche3
Banned
Suresh pretends to misunderstand on purpose to stir the pot. You would think by his posts he can barely get the ball over the net 2 times in a row.
5263
G.O.A.T.
MTM is NOT against early shoulder turn,
It teaches not to stick the racket way back behind you way early like many use to teach (and some still do).
5263
G.O.A.T.
I know, but don't understand his efforts except he likes to focus on MTM as a
target. Must think he can get on a winning effort and look more knowledgeable,
since there has been a history on this site of bashing modern strokes?
It's really only recently that the lifting rotational type swing of MTM has gained
widespread acceptance on here. Only just about 3 yrs ago that was being denied.
Last edited:
Well, I have seen literally hundreds of adults whose game has improved zilch with lessons. True many of them takes doubles lessons only, but even the singles ones have not improved. Maybe they have maintained their level and that itself is an achievement, I do not know. But I see them making the same mistakes over and over again, using wrong grips, and then asking an intricate question about doubles positioning.
Also, I am not talking about tennis "students" in general, but adult players.
Just this afternoon I was at the club and after playing a set of old man doubles which went into a tiebreak, one guy tells me a story of a coach from Bermuda who once had a foursome of women in a clinic. He asked them to put their rackets down, and for half an hour made them do dancing steps to improve their footwork. It became legendary.
Would I pay for it? No.
Another thing that amazes me is that these adult lesson takers wait for 10 minutes for a lesson, when the coach is teaching a junior. The junior is hitting massive top spin and looks like a mini Nadal. Then these guys walk into the court and do they even wonder, hey maybe I should also hit with topspin? No. Instead they are "warming up" for 10 minutes service line to service line thinking it is a great lesson.
These guys could certainly use a dose of MTM to wake them up.
It also seems to teach to count till 5 from the bounce before hitting, which is ridiculous.
That suggestion is to address the scores of club players who hit tentative strokes, which become even more tentative during a match. Telling them to obey the finish of the follow through as a key stroke point does not often help. This way, they have something concrete to aim for (no pun).
The fallacy lies in thinking that these guys who learnt tennis in their late thirties are otherwise going to be generating massive RHS and finishing like Fed and Nadal, making precise contact with the high bouncing away incoming topspin, with the correct mixture of up, forward, and across movement to achieve the desired CC or DTL stroke. Not!
MikeyBigShot
New User
I guess this video sort of answers my MTM back swing question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tozo_eNQqEQ
I don't see the wind up of the shoulders that is typical on the ATP (not that everyone should try to clone ATP tour players).
Is the pulling across motion suppose to make up for the lack of a deep shoulder turn?
Earlier this summer, I was literally mimicking the forehand that Oscar shows here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk0VWHh2OmI
I don't see the wind up of the shoulders that is typical on the ATP (not that everyone should try to clone ATP tour players).
Is the pulling across motion suppose to make up for the lack of a deep shoulder turn?
Earlier this summer, I was literally mimicking the forehand that Oscar shows here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk0VWHh2OmI
LOL that is the infamous MIT video which caused a lot of embarrassment in a famous deleted thread. Push the ball, slap the ball, and throw it over the net? Really? This is one of the few videos which actually shows the technique being taught and practiced - as you can see, there is no power in the shots.
Instead of answering this, you will find a lot of videos of Fed and Nadal thrown at you, as if they have something to do with this.
Instead of answering this, you will find a lot of videos of Fed and Nadal thrown at you, as if they have something to do with this.
LOL the second video is even more ridiculous. No shoulder turn, and an abrupt arming and muscling of the ball just before contact followed by going out of balance - just like the horrible club players I see every day. Not only will there be no pace, it will also cause injuries.
Feel free to correct me if I'm off, 5263 - here's my take.
Although I am not the best practitioner
, I think I understand how the shoulder turn works. For the FH, there is a partial turn when the player is stalking the ball with the racquet in front. The full hip turn happens when the player plants the back foot, which happens when the ball is relatively close, possibly after the bounce or near it. The full shoulder turn completes just before the backswing is complete, which is usually when the ball is approaching closer. This sequence, if done right accomplishes many things, IMO - the most important items being the timing of the kinetic chain, and the ability to track the ball well after the bounce. IMO, nothing should happen too early except stalking the ball with a partial turn.The 2HBH would be similar, except the final turn and backswing will be coincident with the step to the front (if hitting from the front foot).
Best not to overthink this, IMO... a few simple cues a la Oscar should make the right things happen!
Last edited:
treblings
Hall of Fame
i can understand why people watching this videos would be confused.
those examples don´t look like anything you see on the ATP tour
MikeyBigShot
New User
Perhaps this is the ATP version of an Oscar influenced stroke?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW2He3mWk-g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMd2f8udFsg
treblings
Hall of Fame
nice footage of Guga, thanks
my point is, people watching those wegner instruction videos will likely be trying to copy exactly what they see. and what they see in these videos is not a pro like fh. these videos are illustrating the concept of pulling across but missing the take-back and follow-thru of a pro like fh, imho
mr_fro2000
Rookie
Wow lots of feedback here… thx! While I have not watched every video and read every thread in painstaking detail, I think I’m getting the idea/concepts of what has happened the past 10 yrs.
I think my conclusion from all this is that there is really no ‘new’ way to play tennis… the strokes that are being taught in the wenger videos have been around since I was a junior. Perhaps these kinds of strokes were not actively taught to stone-cold new players in the past… and maybe they are now.
In any case, many of the arguments seem silly and I personally don’t think 1 ‘methodology’ is really better than the other. Regarding forehand strokes, I think it might be best to figure out ‘naturally’ what works best for a new student and then build off of that. Some may find eastern grip forehands more natural, while others may find a semi-western strokes easier to hit. Both grips/strokes have advantages and disadvantages.
I’ll continue to explore the topic, but it seems like I’m not changing a thing about how I play nor will I be radically changing the way I will teach (my kids) when they are ready to learn the game. Thx again everyone!
I think my conclusion from all this is that there is really no ‘new’ way to play tennis… the strokes that are being taught in the wenger videos have been around since I was a junior. Perhaps these kinds of strokes were not actively taught to stone-cold new players in the past… and maybe they are now.
In any case, many of the arguments seem silly and I personally don’t think 1 ‘methodology’ is really better than the other. Regarding forehand strokes, I think it might be best to figure out ‘naturally’ what works best for a new student and then build off of that. Some may find eastern grip forehands more natural, while others may find a semi-western strokes easier to hit. Both grips/strokes have advantages and disadvantages.
I’ll continue to explore the topic, but it seems like I’m not changing a thing about how I play nor will I be radically changing the way I will teach (my kids) when they are ready to learn the game. Thx again everyone!
MikeyBigShot
New User
nice footage of Guga, thanks
my point is, people watching those wegner instruction videos will likely be trying to copy exactly what they see. and what they see in these videos is not a pro like fh. these videos are illustrating the concept of pulling across but missing the take-back and follow-thru of a pro like fh, imho
I've always been confused by the takeaway, but I suppose the 2nd MIT video shows the takeaway.
Maybe an expert will chime in.
I've hit some nice forehands using MTM concepts, but I've never felt completely comfortable with it. I always felt like I was missing something.
Don't believe the influence on Guga based on claims. I have not seen convincing proof.
nice footage of Guga, thanks
my point is, people watching those wegner instruction videos will likely be trying to copy exactly what they see. and what they see in these videos is not a pro like fh. these videos are illustrating the concept of pulling across but missing the take-back and follow-thru of a pro like fh, imho
That is why one must not be misled by pro videos unless there is verified proof of them being coached under this system.
Sticking to the actual instruction videos, there are so many things missing, as you point out, that this kind of play cannot be called pro strokes and will be ineffective.
Be careful not to get diverted into a discussion of other coaches or entering into a contrived debate about pros like Fed, Nadal or Del Potro.
MikeyBigShot
New User
A bit off topic, but my favorite stroke videos are:
(1) Tennis Guru's Restrung In 24 Hours DVD: http://www.**********.com/
(2) Millennium Forehand: http://www.virtualtennisacademy.com
(Not a fan of the straight arm or how the lady turns her head as she does the unit turn, but it's ok.
For Footwork:
I like Jeff Salzensteins work. I was able to immediately use what I watched, and my positioning immediately improve. Other players commented how I seemed faster... His total tennis membership is only like $10: http://www.jeffsalzensteintennis.com
(1) Tennis Guru's Restrung In 24 Hours DVD: http://www.**********.com/
(2) Millennium Forehand: http://www.virtualtennisacademy.com
(Not a fan of the straight arm or how the lady turns her head as she does the unit turn, but it's ok.
For Footwork:
I like Jeff Salzensteins work. I was able to immediately use what I watched, and my positioning immediately improve. Other players commented how I seemed faster... His total tennis membership is only like $10: http://www.jeffsalzensteintennis.com
5263
G.O.A.T.
You can't really expect to see a full on atp stroke unless it is in match conditions,
of course, depending on what you are looking for.
Watch some of Fed's warm up vids and the strokes often look worse than any
good Jr.
On the other hand, for one who knows what to look for, those vids show the
fundamental aspects of the stroke or part of the strokes they are meant to
demo. There are progressions to account for and Oscar's audience is not the
bunch of doubting Toms like sureshs, but players and instructors who come to learn from a
former pro with an excellent system. You can accomplish little by answering every
question from beginniners and are much more effective leading thru progressions
and letting them feel aspects of the stroke as you put it together.
5263
G.O.A.T.
I think you reach some pretty good conclusions here. Only thing new about this over
the last 10 yrs is far broader acceptance across the US. You are right that
Oscar has been teaching like this since 72, although you likely never heard about
it back then. Also you are correct that more instructors are now using this modern
approach to teach new students.
And yes, the arguments from the usual 3.5 suspects are quite silly.
Last edited:
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Here are my observations. Let me know what you think.
IMO, there are two fundamental differences between the two styles of hitting. Both of these differences are made possible by the size of modern tennis racquets which have much, much bigger sweet spots than wood racquets allowing players to swing with more racquet head speed and a much steeper angle of ascent to contact, and still consistently hit the ball in the sweet spot. Players like Hoad, Laver, Vilas, Borg, Okker and Nastase were so frikkin' talented, that they could hit with some measure of these modern characteristics with 14oz+, 65sq.in., wood racquets, and still hit cleanly, most of the time. But, they were the exceptions.
The two big differences that I see are: (1) the change from linear to angular momentum, and (2) the WW swing. These two characteristics of the modern swing work best together.
Angular momentum is achieved through the rotation of the body from the legs and hips, to the shoulders, arm and racquet, commonly referred to as the kinetic chain. Angular momentum generates more RHS than linear momentum which results in more power, and more spin if you combine it with the WW swing (described below). Such a kinetic chain and upper body rotation is easiest to achieve with an open stance, unless you pivot on your front foot after contact and bring your back foot forward. It also recqires that contact be made futher forward, closer to the target, in order to hit at the peak of acceleration, which in turn requires either a SW grip, or a laid back wrist ala Federer, so that the racquet face is facing the target causing the ball to travel to the target even though the circular swing is across the target line.
I use the term "WW swing" rather than WW finish just to make the point that a true WW finish starts before contact in the supination part of the forward swing where the racquet head drops well below the hand and the ball. Without that drop, the WW finish is meaningless. From there, the steep ascent of the racquet through contact into the familiar WW finish is what generates the heavy spin that characterizes the modern forehand and what controls the additional power of both the longer strings of modern racquets, the extra force generated by angular momentum, and the additional racquet head speed of the WW swing itself. But, this technique only works with the forward contact point associated with the upper body rotation described above.
This technique, which has evolved gradually over the past 30+ years, was just not accessable to most of the wood racquet era players.
Last edited:
Yeah, all juniors and pros have been playing like this for a while now with the help of their coaches, from beginning juniors to advanced ones to college players to pros. And all over the world too, including juniors from countries with a very small tennis following and no access to American or European coaches.
It has nothing to do with one particular person or organization.
It has nothing to do with one particular person or organization.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I have no idea what Oscar Wegner's personal role in the popularity of modern technique is. Obviously, it is now way beyond the aegis of his influence. But, it is my understanding, from what I've read, that the widespread use of the technique began in South America. And from my observations of South American players from in the late 80's early 90's, that was the time and place this technique seemed to become so prevalent, to me.
What I do credit Oscar Wegner with is a simple, accessable approach to learning modern technique. Even if, as some complain, it seems "incomplete," you don't know what he teaches to every individual student. I suspect that he tries to teach only what needs to be taught in order to achieve a particular result. That will vary from person to person.
Last edited:
JohnYandell
Hall of Fame
Limp,
I think you are 1000% correct. The huge body rotation and hand and arm rotation (ww or whtever you wish to call it) are the two big technical changes and they are dependent on the rackets and string.
A Tennis Mag writer talked Djokovic into hitting with a wood racket a few years ago at Indian Wells. Djok's conclusion was that if he had to play with wood he wouldn't be able to hit a forehand.
I think you are 1000% correct. The huge body rotation and hand and arm rotation (ww or whtever you wish to call it) are the two big technical changes and they are dependent on the rackets and string.
A Tennis Mag writer talked Djokovic into hitting with a wood racket a few years ago at Indian Wells. Djok's conclusion was that if he had to play with wood he wouldn't be able to hit a forehand.
JohnYandell
Hall of Fame
Re: TennisOne
I have not been associated with TennisOne for around 10 years now. All the work I did there previously is now exclusively on Tennisplayer.net, as well as the massive info we have developed independently in the last decade.
I have not been associated with TennisOne for around 10 years now. All the work I did there previously is now exclusively on Tennisplayer.net, as well as the massive info we have developed independently in the last decade.
treblings
Hall of Fame
if you realize that the video shows an element of the forehand to illustrate a point Oscar Wegner is making than that´s fine.
only if you think you´re seeing the full stroke how you are meant to play it, that that might lead to confusion
Well, how do we know it is not the full stroke? It is open stance, no proper shoulder turn, short takeback and an abrupt pushing or slapping of the ball - similar to the other video by another coach illustrating the system.
Sure, we can give the benefit of the doubt, but there are really so many good instructional videos available for free where you don't need to have such doubts.
Sure, we can give the benefit of the doubt, but there are really so many good instructional videos available for free where you don't need to have such doubts.
dominikk1985
Legend
I believe for some reason kids today play naturally like this with the modern rackets. I have seen good juniors who were coached totally traditionally doing those rotational strokes.
probably because they emulate what they see on TV?
probably because they emulate what they see on TV?
And one another. I had mentioned before how older coaches with 1 H BH have students who are great 2 handers. I have seen them giving tips for it, but I think the kids learned them by osmosis from peers and TV.
I learnt my stuff from watching pros on Tennis Channel (and from tips on this great forum) and so I was playing "modern" from day one.
MikeyBigShot
New User
John Frausto has the best MTM forehand. The 53 drills video is the best MTM video I've seen (The whole video, not just these clips.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQhz8ijLCzc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbHuhERpCmM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQhz8ijLCzc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbHuhERpCmM
Good post, Limp. I have a question for you... if one were to see a disembodied racquet executing a forehand, should one be able to tell if it was classical or modern? All you get to see is the racquet and the ball - the player is invisible.
In the first one, the technique works with balls arriving low and slow after 2 bounces. That is why the claim that there is plenty of time. IMO, it is will not work with faster, higher bouncing balls with topspin on them. You can't wait till the last minute on those balls.
FrisbeeFool
Rookie
Part of the problem though, is that the mtm teachings don't focus much on coiling and preparation. They focus so much on the racket work in the contact zone, but there is little teaching about how to prepare for the shot.
Telling most people to stalk the ball or find the ball from below, will not teach them the shoulder turn and coiling that you see in the preparation phase of modern ATP/WTA strokes.
The mtm materials I've seen tell people they have more time than they think they do to prepare. They should count to 5 when they're getting ready, so they will have a niced relaxed stroke. Some of the videos tell people they shouldn't worry about footwork, that their movement will happen naturally if they are stalking the ball. These approaches might work making the game more palatable and intuitive for beginners, but at a certain point in a players development most people will need teaching on concepts like preparation and coiling, in order to improve.
I think it's funny that the selling point for MTM is "play like the pros." Most of the teachings seem designed to make the game fun and intuitive for beginners, just learning the basics.
It just makes mtmers look silly when they're presenting their system as the Holy Grail of tennis instruction and denigrating "traditional coaches". Treblings, you clearly have a lot of coaching experience. You seem like an unbiased, open-minded person willing to uses good advice, regardless of what "coaching methodology" it comes from. When you are teaching do you spend time teaching students about how to turn their shoulders and prepare for groundstrokes? I'm guessing vague mystical language about stalking the ball and finding the ball doesn't work for every student. Some students might need more concrete advice about turning the shoulders, looking at the ball with their chin over their front shoulder, coiling, etc, however it might have to be phrased to get through to that student.
Treblings, I'm guessing the same vague, mystical mtm language wouldn't get through to every student. Some people might need a more concrete approach, that focuses on things like preparation on groundstrokes, and learning different movement patterns. I don't think I've ever heard an mtm supporter talking concretely about movement patterns that all the modern pro's use.
From other instructors, who don't adhere to mtm, a lot of the instruction on footwork and movement is more concrete and less vague and mystical. I don't think I've ever heard an mtm supporter on these boards talk about something like a carioca step in concrete, easy to understand terms.
I've read pretty much all the mtm advice on these boards. I've learned more from Jeff Salzenstein about movement patterns in 2 minutes, than I've learned from the years worth of mtm advice on these boards. Perhaps mtmers should develop some humility and perspective, and cease presenting the mtm system as the holy grail of tennis instruction. It's just ridiculous when the sane people on the boards have to waste our time debunking claims like: Novak Djokovic is a practitioner of MTM, and Robert Lansdorp didn't teach Pete Sampras topspin.
Last edited:
To achieve a high speed rotation (like slinging a rock) a certain linear velocity is generated and then a force is applied 90 degrees to that direction (pull toward the center). This can be done in more than one way and what you describe is not the only way. A running FH is an example. And yes stepping into the ball this can be achieved as well. That's how Fed hits short approach shots with closed stance.
5263
G.O.A.T.
And clearly neither does sureshs. Of course sureshs says he learned modern
from tv, but has suggested that Oscar has no influence with his commentating and
tv tips during his years on the tube. Is he suggesting that
only he can learn from tv instruction and not all those who saw Oscar during
those years? That's the kind of logic he shares here.
5263
G.O.A.T.
Well this is likely because you never even understand the basics, so you never
get beyond that aspect of the training.
You are right that most of what you see on the net is to make it fun for
beginners. Good insight on that.
It only seems mystical to those in the dark, like how a caveman would see a
computer. With knowledge and understanding, the mystery goes away,
so hang in there.
Your constant trolling with misinfo like stating RL never taught Pete topspin??
Where do you get this stuff? And you are the only one I've heard say DJ is using
MTM? where do you get that?
I think you just make it up like most your misinformed comments.
Last edited:
5263
G.O.A.T.
This is the same with all instruction video except where they use actual match
footage.
Frisfool and others will whine all day if you mention how RL teaches a Fh with no
finish, that left the racket out front like a sword to say Charge! But then fFool
has the nerve to suggest that MTM does not have enough focus on shoulder
turn?? lol, what could be more funny?
Even lock and roll guy who so popular on here, basically uses different words to
describe almost the same stroke. He shows partial swings and partials hip move-
ment to make his points, So yes, you must listen the the points being made to
learn the intended info from most any instruction.
And before folks get excited about lock & roll's terms, if those were Oscar's terms,
the haters would be jumping out of their shoes on how nothing is locked and how
rolling is not the best way to say that.
All you have to do is look at the sheer number of post by suresh in this thread alone.
He doesn't know MTM well at all, proving it with every post of misinfo, but posting
many times in a thread where someone expresses an interest in what the
term MTM means. Its all about some agenda with these guys and little concern
for truth.
5263
G.O.A.T.
Really?? 1000% correct?? Wow.
So how do you account for the players hitting this way with wood and gut
before new rackets and poly?
I think I know that what he means is that it is easier to the avg player,
I mean since that statement which is at best partially correct, is
1000% correct to you.
Last edited:
5263
G.O.A.T.
Well it is easy to see why you and others may find the term confusing, as it
seems that those who seem to understand the term the least are so eager
to jump and share what they don't know, lol.
Best luck to you trying to weed thru their mis-info to find a reasonable
understanding of what you seek.
I didn't suggest that in the manner you describe. Quite a few people were posting and it seemed improbable that the TV broadcasts influenced Nalbandian. There were jokes made about influence through electromagnetic waves.
He also said that the former Yugoslavia was showing his broadcasts when Djoko was growing up, remember?
When I said I learnt from TV, I meant from watching the pros. Frankly, I have not benefited from the 1-minute clinic segments on Tennis Channel.
- Status
