Nope, you still don't get it. But, you don't really want to, do you?
Are you one of those people I mentioned?
Nope, you still don't get it. But, you don't really want to, do you?
I think a person who can play correct classical strokes (flatter forehand, mostly closed or neutral stance, finish till the left forehead, serve and volley) can easily incorporate more topspin, open stance, across finish, baseline grind as he has the fundamentals down.
But those who never had the fundamentals right but have been hacking away for decades will think that "modern instruction" is great as compared to their "classical" style which was actually "no" style. And they will become fanatical about the improvement of the game due to the teaching.
I'm not getting involved in the discussion, staying away. We've been over all these things before, it's just not worth it. I do think the OP is sketchy but I'm stating that as only an opinion nothing more.
So you should be thanking them lol.
pretty well said. and closed stance is not something biomechanically inferior or incorrect as some MTMers believe.
I actually thought I was responding to you 5263, cause I was responding on my phone and didn't notice the name on the small screen. I just noticed now I responded to Limp.....d'oh! My bad
You are likely right that he doesn't get it,....butNope, you still don't get it. But, you don't really want to, do you?
I actually thought I was responding to you 5263, cause I was responding on my phone and didn't notice the name on the small screen. I just noticed now I responded to Limp.....d'oh! My bad
Pathetic. No, I don't have my own words for 'pulling backwards', 'hitting off-center', 'ignoring the importance of footwork', 'count to 5', 'find the ball', or any of the other things I've read about on this site--as I said, I don't use them at all. And no, I don't teach to swing down the target line, nor do I teach to 'pull across'. In typical MTM fashion you seem to believe it can only be one or the other--but you're so wrong. As I've said many times there is more than one way to effectively hit a tennis ball, some of which you apparently know nothing about.Ok, you have your own words to
describe what Oscar described while you were in kindergarten.
Yes, basically hacks that tried to make classic work as actually taught
Pathetic. No, I don't have my own words for 'pulling backwards', 'hitting off-center', 'ignoring the importance of footwork', 'count to 5', 'find the ball', or any of the other things I've read about on this site--as I said, I don't use them at all. And no, I don't teach to swing down the target line, nor do I teach to 'pull across'. In typical MTM fashion you seem to believe it can only be one or the other--but you're so wrong. As I've said many times there is more than one way to effectively hit a tennis ball, some of which you apparently know nothing about.
I didn't tell him, but I should have said: Haven't you played against me a 100 times over the years? Did you not see that every shot I hit is with topspin?
Pathetic.
And no, I don't teach to swing down the target line, nor do I teach to 'pull across'. In typical MTM fashion you seem to believe it can only be one or the other--but you're so wrong. As I've said many times there is more than one way to effectively hit a tennis ball, some of which you apparently know nothing about.
No, not hacks who were actually taught, but hacks who either were not taught or took lessons with no result,
Really, so even though I coached my son to #3 in the state etc and played
well enough to trounce these jrs with my classic strokes, along my having lessons
from an Emory Hall of Fame player/instructor, along with my USPTA cert and training....
that is the lack of training and seriousness you are talking about?
you believe the MTM got your son where he is in tennis which could be true but you can't say for sure some other more sophisticated method could not have gotten him much farther like world #3, can you?
Read closer....I said we did all that before I learned of MTM and we were working
very traditional at those times.
Learning of MTM, both our games took a big leap from there.
What is your sophisticated method of choice?
It is a bunch of imaginary things. If people over-analyze something to show that they have a new insight, they come up with these kind of things. They look for intent where there isn't any. They try to artificially separate intent from flow to show that there is some value-add to their method. Many of these claims are of the wishy-washy kind and what we end up doing is trying to treat them rationally and then arguing among ourselves. This prolongs the thread and provides publicity. We are the ones who are being fooled.
Well, he's talking about Federer - and I would expect Federer to produce more sidespin.
I think this is natural for most people, and we have an extreme example in Nadal.
Here are pictures of Federer forehand with different camera speed.
Figure 1. Federer forehand - high speed camera
Like Nadal, Federer rotates relevant parts of his body very smoothly and without abrupt sideway acceleration.
Figure 2. Federer forehand - low speed camera
The last three frames of fig.2 demonstrate extreme wrist activity and arm pronation. It is absolutely clear that Federer and Nadal don’t follow Wegner instructions.
Here are pictures of Federer forehand with different camera speed.
Figure 1. Federer forehand - high speed camera
Like Nadal, Federer rotates relevant parts of his body very smoothly and without abrupt sideway acceleration.
Figure 2. Federer forehand - low speed camera
The last three frames of fig.2 demonstrate extreme wrist activity and arm pronation. It is absolutely clear that Federer and Nadal don’t follow Wegner instructions.
Really, so even though I coached my son to #3 in the state etc and played
well enough to trounce these jrs with my classic strokes, along my having lessons
from an Emory Hall of Fame player/instructor, along with my USPTA cert and training....
that is the lack of training and seriousness you are talking about?
That's true but he didn't have to be. The people against MTM give it more publicity then MTM'ers themselves. That's what I was getting at. On the one hand you got all these folks foaming at the mouth when they see the term MTM and hate it with a passion yet on the other they discuss it to no end and are actually helping in spreading it around for more to see. So you should be thanking them lol.
It has become addictive. It is so much fun. The Fedal wars have almost ended, the big-small racket wars have almost ended, the legendary BP-NoBadMojo fights are no more - there is really nothing much to look forward to in life. This thing provides a small daily dose of entertainment, before it too ceases to amuse.
Such is life.
Not sure what you are saying here. The hacks I was referring to where the club players I see (like the one who approached me for help with the forehand), not coaches. It had nothing to do with you, so what are you talking about?
Also I have said many times that I think you are a good coach who studies all the modern developments. It has nothing to do with MTM. That is why I suggested you branch off and start MTM2 where you need not be defensive about the MIT video, count till 5 etc. but can just pursue your passion.
Sorry, as you say, didn't read too close. I don't know if there is a method that we can choose as in multiple choice question. And every student has different background and path to improvement so it's kinda silly to identify such a thing. I was thinking more like a method you develop or improve upon on top of something like MTM specifically tailored for your son.
Here are pictures of Federer forehand with different camera speed.
Figure 1. Federer forehand - high speed camera
Like Nadal, Federer rotates relevant parts of his body very smoothly and without abrupt sideway acceleration.
Figure 2. Federer forehand - low speed camera
The last three frames of fig.2 demonstrate extreme wrist activity and arm pronation. It is absolutely clear that Federer and Nadal don’t follow Wegner instructions.
^^^5263 - do you deliberately mention "MTM excellent foundation strokes" and "top notch serve mechanics" as separate entities? I ask because my experience of MTM leaves me cold as to its teaching of the serve when compared to the forehand or single handed backhand (i'm not overly thrilled with its handling of the two hander either). Your referencing above leads me to think that you have similar reservations - or have I read too much into it?!?!?
Cheers
You and I are seeing things very differently! This is very similar to the Nadal sequence, and the principle of pulling the racquet across (inwards) is even more starkly visible in this sequence. Notice how the wrist is laid back at a constant angle most of the way as Federer pulls the racquet almost linearly towards the ball, and the ISR close to contact that pulls the hand in and whips the racquet head. At this point you can also see the wrist release. Thank you toly, it confirms everything I said - your pictures are the best!
^^^5263 - do you deliberately mention "MTM excellent foundation strokes" and "top notch serve mechanics" as separate entities? I ask because my experience of MTM leaves me cold as to its teaching of the serve when compared to the forehand or single handed backhand (i'm not overly thrilled with its handling of the two hander either). Your referencing above leads me to think that you have similar reservations - or have I read too much into it?!?!?
Cheers
I don't think there was anything about the serve or the backhand other than some stuff made up on the fly as a response to postings here.
The forehand instruction also seems either trivially generalized or not in line with what the pros are doing as shown by video evidence.
We need to see someone actually trained by this method instead of looking at Federer and Nadal who have nothing to do with the system.
The proof is in the pudding
I'm not going to offer any subjective comments about any system...But, Sureshs has an important point that I made years ago about another tennis teaching "method:"
The validity of any methodology, with key identifying points that are clearly unique within that technique, will be ultimately determined by the number of high level players produced using the specific nature of that method.
The correct maxim is "the proof of the pudding is in the eating."
The correct maxim is "the proof of the pudding is in the eating."
Wow, can't believe you are supporting this position. First this would only be true
if the coach were to plant himself and run a system in one location for the years
it takes to get that results, but Not when a instructor approaches things in much any other way
like a focus on coaches who intend to rightlyfully take the credit for the kids they then develop.
....Especially with the haters here. They don't want to give
Oscar credit unless he got them from the cradle on till he trotted around on tour
with them. The fact that Guga was in a program he had, that he worked with many
coaches that were successful with their players & children, and helped maybe the greatest
clay courter (Borg) regain much of his form where other Nick's academy failed miseralbly,
means nothing to them. Never mind anyone can poke the same holes in most
if not all the people who came thru Nick's, Macci's, and Evert's, even though they
ran academies in place for decades. Lots of fingers in all those pies.
Really hate to see your comments play into that nonsense.
Here is Federer FH full path of the racquet forward swing.I think you need to show at contact to finish. Not drop to contact. Then you can really see the across and finish. The way you have it doesn't show anything remotely related to Oscars claims. It cannot because you omit the part of the video that Oscar instructions talks about. It only proves Oscar says to aim the butt cap at the ball. Not the finish.
Here are Federer FH full path of the racquet forward swing.
Maybe you can clarify Wegner explanations? I definitely cannot.
I understand and see your point.
I'm not discrediting Oscar or anyone else. I believe he has influenced a great number of players through both his longevity as well as through his dedicated passion to the sport.
I feel I'm in the same boat...having developed players and teams and then moving on (due to circumstances that had nothing to do with tennis), and watching those players and teams I built go on to greatness and others getting the credit!
But, I know what influence I had, and usually those players also let me know what role I had in their success. But, in the global sense, no one else knows!
Here are Federer FH full path of the racquet forward swing.
Figure 1. Federer forehand full racquet path - high speed camera
Figure 2. Federer forehand full racquet path - medium speed camera
Figure 3. Federer forehand full racquet path - low speed camera
Maybe you can clarify Wegner explanations? I definitely cannot.
But it does not diminish the fact that Oscar could of been the first to try to dissect the archetypical type of modern tennis mechanics and coaching.
Then it is good material for a museum exhibit. Why would anyone pay for it today?
Sorry if this is a bit off topic but as this thread seems to have a lot of MTM followers, I'm hoping to get feedback. Two things I'm having trouble with are returns and hitting on the rise. On these shots, I find myself trying to drive the ball back (vs. ground strokes or 2nd serves where I have time to find the ball and pull across it). This results in inconsistent shots. I'm trying to get out of this habit.
I have Oscar's Play better in 2 hours book, if it is permitted may I ask which DVD set you'd recommend. I group hitting on the rise w/ return of serve as it's a shot where I'm often rushed. The other topic, I'm curious about is what he says about the serve. His book to touch on the basics of the serve... If TW doesn't want discussion of other DVDs, pls. send me a PM. Thanks.
Then it is good material for a museum exhibit. Why would anyone pay for it today?