confused w/ the term "MTM"

sureshs · Oct 7, 2012

arche3 said:
No-one here is paying for it. Its a discussion on the coaching itself. Why do you keep trolling?

There is a coaching "system" which is being discussed here which is commercial. There was even a thread started to promote it which was deleted by the mods. Don't you even know that after all this time or are you just pretending to be ignorant?

sureshs · Oct 7, 2012

Limpinhitter said:
criticizing Wegner for not having something that you now say has no practical value?

What does he not have which does not have practical value? Can you get rid of the double negatives and state your question?

toly · Oct 7, 2012

arche3 said:
Really? I'm not even saying Oscars methods should be deliberate but the swing mechanics of this montage shows to a t what Oscar is saying.
Racket accelerates as it approaches contact. Right after contact the arm pulls across as the biceps is contracted as forearm pronates.

I think I know what Oscar is getting at. He is trying to instill a mental picture of what should happen. I have read his small book and while simplistic it paints certain pictures of positions and movements you achieve in certain parts of tennis strokes. His is meant to guide your stroke. The big picture allowing for individual nuance.

You have to remember when Oscar was first applying his methods the majority of tennis coaches world wide were adamant about closed stance fh and hitting in the direction of the balls intent. The hit through 5 balls thing. Finishing into the line of the shot as long as possible. What Oscar proposed was pretty different.

Now, it is hard to distinguish Oscars methods from other modern coaches because people are using the same fundamental principles. 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.

Here is on more picture of Federer forehand.

Figure 1. Federer I/O forehand

This is a typical Federer FH. It is his bread and butter.

1. He starts hard acceleration from image #3, not in the end of the forward swing as Wegner explains. The maximum acceleration you can see in my post 137. So, about acceleration Wegner is completely wrong.

2. Around impact images 7 and 8 the end of handle moves along of perfect circuit due to the arm is straight, thus the radius of rotation is constant, and center of rotation is stable, images 7 & 8. There is no special sideway motion and change in the arm path. Wegner is wrong again.

3. Before impact the racquet moves to the right and cannot produce clockwise sidespin, but only counterclockwise, not like Wegner says.

4. Images from 1 to 7 make obvious that Federer straightens the elbow and he begins bending elbow long after impact, see image 11. But, Wegner explains that we should bend elbow before contact point.

Thus, practically all Wegner explanations about Federer FH are misleading!!!:shock:

sureshs · Oct 7, 2012

toly said:
Here is on more picture of Federer forehand.

Figure 1. Federer I/O forehand

This is a typical Federer FH. It is his bread and butter.

1. He starts hard acceleration from image #3, not in the end of the forward swing as Wegner explains. The maximum acceleration you can see in my post 137. So, about acceleration Wegner is completely wrong.

2. Around impact images 7 and 8 the end of handle moves along of perfect circuit due to the arm is straight, thus the radius of rotation is constant, and center of rotation is stable, images 7 & 8. There is no special sideway motion and change in the arm path. Wegner is wrong again.

3. Before impact the racquet moves to the right and cannot produce clockwise sidespin, but only counterclockwise, not like Wegner says.

Thus, practically all Wegner explanations about Federer FH are misleading!!!:shock:

LOL are you surprised by that?

toly · Oct 7, 2012

sureshs said:
LOL are you surprised by that?

I am surprised very much that a lot of people cannot or don’t want to see that, unbelievable. :shock:

sureshs · Oct 7, 2012

toly said:
I am surprised very much that a lot of people cannot or don’t want to see that, unbelievable. :shock:

They prefer to live in their illusions and try to find meaning in vague phrases by twisting them to their pleasure and then argue about their vague ideas about the vague phrases as if they really know something. Present them with evidence and they get upset because they cannot think on their own but feel comfortable with the vague phrases given to them.

Limpinhitter · Oct 7, 2012

sureshs said:
What does he not have which does not have practical value? Can you get rid of the double negatives and state your question?

Read my entire post and give it another try:

Limpinhitter said:
Sureshs, you have personally criticized Wegner on dozens of occasions for not inventing the modern tennis stroke and for not inventing modern tennis instruction. Why did you spend all that time writing all of those posts, wasting everyone's time, criticizing Wegner for not having something that you now say has no practical value?

bhupaes · Oct 7, 2012

toly said:
I am surprised very much that a lot of people cannot or don’t want to see that, unbelievable. :shock:

Okay toly, why don't you breakdown this picture for my benefit, so I can be sure of what your position is. At present, all I know is that you think Wegner is wrong. For example, where does the acceleration start, where is it maximum, at what point does the hand start pulling in and what motions are used, when does the wrist become active, etc. Thanks.

sureshs · Oct 7, 2012

toly, don't waste your time re-posting the acceleration and speed graph etc again for people who are looking for magic bullet phrases and improvement in 2 hours etc. You will be told that they know that Federer in his head decided to something intentionally because of their psychic powers.

bhupaes · Oct 7, 2012

Toly, ignore sureshs and please do what I requested.

sureshs · Oct 7, 2012

toly, ignore bhupaes and don't do it

bhupaes · Oct 7, 2012

Toly, note that we have already talked about the information in your post #137. So there is no need to post charts, etc. Just reference the APAS sequence you posted to give me the information I asked for. And don't be intimidated by sureshs!

Limpinhitter · Oct 7, 2012

toly said:
Here is on more picture of Federer forehand.

Figure 1. Federer I/O forehand

This is a typical Federer FH. It is his bread and butter.

1. He starts hard acceleration from image #3, not in the end of the forward swing as Wegner explains. The maximum acceleration you can see in my post 137. So, about acceleration Wegner is completely wrong.

2. Around impact images 7 and 8 the end of handle moves along of perfect circuit due to the arm is straight, thus the radius of rotation is constant, and center of rotation is stable, images 7 & 8. There is no special sideway motion and change in the arm path. Wegner is wrong again.

3. Before impact the racquet moves to the right and cannot produce clockwise sidespin, but only counterclockwise, not like Wegner says.

Thus, practically all Wegner explanations about Federer FH are misleading!!!:shock:

More photographic agitprops by toly.

JW10S · Oct 7, 2012

What happens just prior to contact is of far more relevance to where the shot goes than what happens after contact. What happens after contact is usually just a byproduct of what happened prior to contact. Where the racquet ends up doesn't really tell you much about where the ball went.

Limpinhitter · Oct 7, 2012

JW10S said:
What happens just prior to contact is of far more relevance to where the shot goes than what happens after contact. What happens after contact is usually just a byproduct of what happened prior to contact. Where the racquet ends up doesn't really tell you much about where the ball went.

I think you're overlooking something. You said that what happens with the racquet before contact is more important than what happens after contact, and, what happens after contact is a byproduct of what happened before contact. If that's so, then what happens after contact can be a good indicator of what happened before contact was executed correctly.

sureshs · Oct 7, 2012

JW10S said:
What happens just prior to contact is of far more relevance to where the shot goes than what happens after contact. What happens after contact is usually just a byproduct of what happened prior to contact. Where the racquet ends up doesn't really tell you much about where the ball went.

It is so obvious and in accordance with the principles of physics, that is why I cannot believe that I have argued with 5263 about it. He tried to muddy the waters by saying both are relevant (of course they are), that they are both connected by contact (of course), but just will not admit that the velocity, spin and direction are dictated by the build-up prior to contact. I frankly think I should follow the advice of some of the guys here and call it quits. I feel like I am banging my head against a brick wall explaining simple physics. They are looking for silver bullets which will transform their game and are willing to read whatever they want into vague statements and expand on them.

JW10S · Oct 7, 2012

Limpinhitter said:
I think you're overlooking something. You said that what happens with the racquet before contact is more important than what happens after contact, and, what happens after contact is a byproduct of what happened before contact. If that's so, then what happens after contact can be a good indicator of what happened before contact was executed correctly.

True, and the opposite can be said as well, what happens after contact can be a good indicator that what happened prior to contact was executed incorrectly--as we see in the many vids posted here by players looking for advice. But not always. I said it is 'usually' a byproduct--interesting you chose to leave that out. I see players who try to finish over their head like Nadal, but certainly don't have the same result because they're not doing what he does prior to contact.

Considering the very short time the ball is in contact with the strings, in order to 'hit up and across', a phrase used much more often in these threads than 'pulling up and across', the right to left across movement (for a righty) would have to start before contact, not during or after, to have any effect on the ball.

Cheetah · Oct 7, 2012

I'm not for nor against MTM.
That's an inside-out fh. Roger's i/o fh's have sidespin.
That's only 1 stroke. Surely Roger doesn't put the same spin on every shot. Maybe that shot had sidespin. Maybe it didn't. We don't know because that's from the APS vid and we don't have the actual vid of the shot correct? Or do we? Do we know if Roger hit the inside of the ball? (which would create sidespin)

toly · Oct 7, 2012

bhupaes said:
Okay toly, why don't you breakdown this picture for my benefit, so I can be sure of what your position is. At present, all I know is that you think Wegner is wrong. For example, where does the acceleration start, where is it maximum, at what point does the hand start pulling in and what motions are used, when does the wrist become active, etc. Thanks.

I wanted to right the article about wrist and others arm’s part motions. I prepared almost everything, but unfortunately I drowned in Photoshop. This application is much, much, ... worse than any drugs. It consumes all my time now. I cannot quit posting all these crazy pictures. I’m sorry. So, wait please a little bit.

toly · Oct 7, 2012

Limpinhitter said:
More photographic agitprops by toly.

I cannot discuss agitprop in public forum, because that will be very dangerous for you.

5263 · Oct 7, 2012

JW10S said:
would have to start before contact, not during or after, to have any effect on the ball.

what we know is that we have the strong evidence that it has started enough
before, whatever that may be, to give the telling side aspect to the top spin.
Often is enough on their hard hit balls to force them to curve their path,
So we can be pretty sure it is happening in time for anyone who even thinks
there is a question on this.

5263 · Oct 7, 2012

toly said:
Here is on more picture of Federer forehand.

This is a typical Federer FH. It is his bread and butter.

1. He starts hard acceleration from image #3, The maximum acceleration you can see in my post 137.

2. Around impact images 7 and 8 the end of handle moves along of perfect circuit due to the arm is straight, thus the radius of rotation is constant, and center of rotation is stable, images 7 & 8.

3. Before impact the racquet moves to the right and cannot produce clockwise sidespin, but only counterclockwise.

What you have done here is describe in your words what Oscar imo says much better
in his words.
I took out where you mis-state Oscar's positions. Not sure why you think you
can speak for his position since you don't get it and your version while ok,
is not near as useful for a student imo.
Nice try though, but I could gen up a bunch of mis-info and attribute it to your
comments and make them look worse or even wrong. I don't have a need to
mis-represent you like you do for MTM.

Of course I must mention that after the racket works to the right as you say,
it then gets working back to the left in time to give the side spin we see from
Fed normally on this shot, which is around 4:30 to 10:30. (Fed's view)
Even JW will have to admit this if he is honest.
below is a HD vid showing how Fed's normal Fhs tend to break down and rt &
you can even see his Bhs breaking down and left
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPOaOiHbyTc&feature=player_detailpage#t=53s
which is not in agreement with your observations on Fed's spin.
Unless toly is meaning from a front view? is that it?

bhupaes · Oct 7, 2012

toly said:
I wanted to right the article about wrist and others arm’s part motions. I prepared almost everything, but unfortunately I drowned in Photoshop. This application is much, much, ... worse than any drugs. It consumes all my time now. I cannot quit posting all these crazy pictures. I’m sorry. So, wait please a little bit.

That's cool, no problem!

toly · Oct 7, 2012

About Sidespin

Cheetah said:
I'm not for nor against MTM.
That's an inside-out fh. Roger's i/o fh's have sidespin.
That's only 1 stroke. Surely Roger doesn't put the same spin on every shot. Maybe that shot had sidespin. Maybe it didn't. We don't know because that's from the APS vid and we don't have the actual vid of the shot correct? Or do we? Do we know if Roger hit the inside of the ball? (which would create sidespin)

This is my old post from famous deleted MTM thread.
Let’s assume a player rotates straight arm around shoulder joint with locked bend back wrist in horizontal plane and without arm pronation, see please picture below.

The angle (ϕ) between long axis of the racquet and axis of the arm is 45°.

The arm rotation creates around impact linear racquet speed Vshoulder. Accordingly to the linear algebra, every vector of the racquet velocity Vshoulder can be decomposed as a sum of two orthogonal (perpendicular to each other) components (vectors). The normal component VshouldNorm is the perpendicular to the strings and the tangential component VshoulTang is the parallel to them.

The normal component (VshouldNorm) mostly defines ball’s direction and ball’s translational speed. Tangential component (VshoulTang) creates mostly clockwise sidespin.

If ϕ=0 there will be no sidespin at all.

Thus, the larger the angle ϕ, so there will be more sidespin. Apparently that sidespin has nothing to do with pulling across or whatever the name is, it is defined by position of the wrist relative to the arm/forearm.

On winner attempts, that are usually flatter, we have to decrease ϕ angle to minimize useless sidespin and thus increase translational ball speed.

I think in next picture Federer hits hard FH with some clockwise sidespin.

bhupaes · Oct 7, 2012

Cheetah said:
I'm not for nor against MTM.
That's an inside-out fh. Roger's i/o fh's have sidespin.
That's only 1 stroke. Surely Roger doesn't put the same spin on every shot. Maybe that shot had sidespin. Maybe it didn't. We don't know because that's from the APS vid and we don't have the actual vid of the shot correct? Or do we? Do we know if Roger hit the inside of the ball? (which would create sidespin)

My point is that sidespin is not added intentionally. It is a byproduct of pulling the racquet inwards (and upwards, of course) just prior to contact. The actual amount and orientation of the resulting spin will depend on individual nuances like whether the player uses a straight arm or not, his grip, the height of the ball, and the contact point, among other things. All one can say, I believe, is "yes, there is likely to be sidespin, and lots of it."

JW10S · Oct 7, 2012

5263 said:
whatever that may be

Typical MTM vaguery. I get it now, give them as few details as possible then you have less explaining to do. I truly understand MTM now for what it is--and more importanly, for what it isn't.

5263 · Oct 7, 2012

JW10S said:
Typical MTM vaguery. I get it now, give them as few details as possible then you have less explaining to do. I truly understand MTM now for what it is--and more importanly, for what it isn't.

I give 10 times more info than you share, LOL...

Either way, I try to avoid absolutes. You think that is a bad thing I guess?
Want to share some of your absolutes?

I can see you are working hard to be disagreeable, but why say how much
before?
and you would have said something if I was wrong there, but
you won't tell toly how wrong he is...lol.
and you sure don't want to confirm my comment even though you know it
is correct. I think that goes to a character issue...dont you?
I'm happy to agree with anything you share that is correct, if you decide
to share anything with the group besides snide remarks.

toly · Oct 7, 2012

JW10S said:
True, and the opposite can be said as well, what happens after contact can be a good indicator that what happened prior to contact was executed incorrectly--as we see in the many vids posted here by players looking for advice. But not always. I said it is 'usually' a byproduct--interesting you chose to leave that out. I see players who try to finish over their head like Nadal, but certainly don't have the same result because they're not doing what he does prior to contact.

Considering the very short time the ball is in contact with the strings, in order to 'hit up and across', a phrase used much more often in these threads than 'pulling up and across', the right to left across movement (for a righty) would have to start before contact, not during or after, to have any effect on the ball.

Excellent post, thank you very much.

bhupaes · Oct 7, 2012

toly said:
This is my old post from famous deleted MTM thread.
Let’s assume a player rotates straight arm around shoulder joint with locked bend back wrist in horizontal plane and without arm pronation, see please picture below.

[refer to post #324 for picture]

The angle (ϕ) between long axis of the racquet and axis of the arm is 45°.

The arm rotation creates around impact linear racquet speed Vshoulder. Accordingly to the linear algebra, every vector of the racquet velocity Vshoulder can be decomposed as a sum of two orthogonal (perpendicular to each other) components (vectors). The normal component VshouldNorm is the perpendicular to the strings and the tangential component VshoulTang is the parallel to them.

The normal component (VshouldNorm) mostly defines ball’s direction and ball’s translational speed. Tangential component (VshoulTang) creates mostly clockwise sidespin.

If ϕ=0 there will be no sidespin at all.

Thus, the larger the angle ϕ, so there will be more sidespin. Apparently that sidespin has nothing to do with pulling across or whatever the name is, it is defined by position of the wrist relative to the arm/forearm.

On winner attempts, that are usually flatter, we have to decrease ϕ angle to minimize useless sidespin and thus increase translational ball speed.

The angle ϕ being non-zero is not the reason for sidespin. Just think, if what you are saying is true, there will be sidespin whenever contact is made with a laid back wrist - and this is definitely not so. On the other hand, even with ϕ=0, it is possible to have sidespin if the path of the racquet head at contact has a component that is inward or outward.

Also, note that the picture is a little misleading because it doesn't show the low to high component.

5263 · Oct 7, 2012

toly said:
Excellent post, thank you very much.

Sorry toly, but neither JY or JW is going to go on record here saying Fed's or
Nadal's normal Fh spins as you suggest.
Yes they work outside the balls in certain situations, but not the normal Fh.
They would be glad to tell me I'm wrong on this, but they don't won't to be
wrong in print. JW is in ck here; looking to be disagreeable
and looking to change the subject.
The only chance to support you here is to avoid the topic or try to find some
odd situation to exploit.
JY has already admitted to this normal spin on this forum and I have it saved in
case things go sour yet again

bhupaes · Oct 7, 2012

Regarding the follow through, yes, it is also a byproduct of the stroke mechanics, and I agree what happens before contact definitely is the causal component. I used to think that one should not dwell on the follow through at all, from the point of view of developing strokes - but I changed my mind somewhere in between.

If one subscribes to the principle of initiating the pulling of the racquet up and across just prior to contact, visualizing the follow through is a very important cue for developing the right mechanics, and ensuring that the ball has the intended direction, flight, and spin. The intention has to carry over beyond contact into the follow through simply because it starts so close to contact. This is IMO, of course, and you are all free to have other opinions. I am not on a mission to convert anyone to my way of thinking.

toly · Oct 7, 2012

bhupaes said:
The angle ϕ being non-zero is not the reason for sidespin. Just think, if what you are saying is true, there will be sidespin whenever contact is made with a laid back wrist - and this is definitely not so. On the other hand, even with ϕ=0, it is possible to have sidespin if the path of the racquet head at contact has a component that is inward or outward.

Also, note that the picture is a little misleading because it doesn't show the low to high component.

Agreed, but first of all I said, “Let’s assume a player rotates straight arm around shoulder joint with locked bend back wrist in horizontal plane and without arm pronation, see please picture below.”

So, it is very simplified version of reality, but I use that to demonstrate the main idea.

5263 · Oct 7, 2012

JW10S said:
I truly understand MTM now for what it is--and more importanly, for what it isn't.

This is good and I'm happy for you, but

throw toly a bone. He claims to be an engineer and wants to play math with
this stuff.
Let him know how the sidespin of a normal TS shot turns due to the racket path
however you want to word it. I know you don't like Oscar or my phrasing of it, so
put it your way and explain the spin to him.
This way you don't have to agree with us and can also share that awesome info
you say you have on these issues. You can show us how to word this in a superior
fashion that we will all benefit from hearing. I love to learn.

bhupaes · Oct 7, 2012

toly said:
Agreed, but first of all I said, “Let’s assume a player rotates straight arm around shoulder joint with locked bend back wrist in horizontal plane and without arm pronation, see please picture below.”

So, it very simplified version of reality, but I use that to demonstrate the main idea.

Sorry, I missed that. Even then, depending on the contact point, the racquet can meet the ball absolutely head on, tangential to the target line - even with ϕ not equal to zero. So my point holds. However, I'm afraid this example is without merit since nobody will hit in such a fashion...

5263 · Oct 7, 2012

sureshs said:
You guys are right. I played the video frame by frame and Cheetah got the impact right.

I see no extension through contact. Frame by frame, after impact, I mentally plotted the perpendicular to the strings and compared it to the ball direction, and they show a steady divergence,

BTW, I seem to have come up above with a scientific meaning of extension: the rate of change of angle between the path of the ball and path of the perpendicular to the strings after impact, normalized to the racket head speed in some way to compare across strokes and players. In other words, how slowly/quickly the two diverge, keeping the RHS the same.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/public/tw/nadal/swing_path.html

come on sureshs, help toly see what you saw above with how nadals racket
worked across the ball so great you can see it leave the racket further out
than where it landed above in frame by frame.
Pretty clear here how the across starts early enough to work across on
the strings, despite the short dwell time claimed.
You have seen the Nadal Fh hook down and left from Rafa's view.

Cheetah · Oct 7, 2012

bhupaes said:
My point is that sidespin is not added intentionally. It is a byproduct of pulling the racquet inwards (and upwards, of course) just prior to contact. The actual amount and orientation of the resulting spin will depend on individual nuances like whether the player uses a straight arm or not, his grip, the height of the ball, and the contact point, among other things. All one can say, I believe, is "yes, there is likely to be sidespin, and lots of it."

Disagree. If I'm going for a shot and I don't want sidespin on it there will be no sidespin. If I want a lot of sidespin for some reason then there will be a lot of sidespin. If I want all sidespin and no topspin then that's what comes of my racquet. By intention. It's incorrect to say that some sidespin cannot be added by intention. Do you think Fed can't control the amount of sidespin on his shots?

5263 · Oct 7, 2012

Cheetah said:
I think it's naive to say that some sidespin cannot be added by intention. Do you think Fed can't control the amount of sidespin on his shots?

Of course you, Fed and I can do this with intention, but bup is saying that is likely
not what he intends. He intends to shape the shot and hit a certain amount of
pace. The over riding factor is to hit the ball he intends, and that swing will give a
certain side aspect as a result. I agree that I don't think it is important to top
pros that they normally work that side hook, but just tend to get it with a good
stroke and may tend to take it into account since it normally happens...but not a
driving factor for them I don't expect.
Did I read you right Buphaes?

Cheetah · Oct 7, 2012

ok but that's not how i took his comment.

Limpinhitter · Oct 7, 2012

toly said:
I cannot discuss agitprop in public forum, because that will be very dangerous for you.

That sounds like a personal threat there, Toly.

Limpinhitter · Oct 7, 2012

toly said:
I cannot discuss agitprop in public forum, because that will be very dangerous for you.

That sounds like a personal threat there, killer.

bhupaes · Oct 7, 2012

5263 said:
Of course you, Fed and I can do this with intention, but bup is saying that is likely
not what he intends. He intends to shape the shot and hit a certain amount of
pace. The over riding factor is to hit the ball he intends, and that swing will give a
certain side aspect as a result. I agree that I don't think it is important to top
pros that they normally work that side hook, but just tend to get it with a good
stroke and may tend to take it into account since it normally happens...but not a
driving factor for them I don't expect.
Did I read you right Buphaes?

That's exactly what I meant, 5263. Thanks for the clarification!

Cheetah · Oct 7, 2012

Hmm... idk. maybe. maybe not. spin is spin. it's true most balls have
more ts than sidespin but aren't there times when you're in a certain situation and think "i need this ball to bounce high so i'm going to give it a lot of top" or "i need a little extra pace on this one so i'm giving it less arc and a bit less top"? but you wouldn't say the topspin is not intentional and it's just just shaping the shot in those cases. And aren't there times when you think "i've got him on the run so i'm putting this ball cc but he's already heading that way so i'm going add more sidespin to make it curve away from him"? In those cases you're not just shaping the shot you are deliberately applying the desired amount and type of spin.
That's how i think when I play anyway although yes I think about sidespin less often but still there are plenty of times i apply it deliberately and I'd say that Fed does also.

Anyway, no biggie. carry on...

toly · Oct 8, 2012

Cheetah said:
Hmm... idk. maybe. maybe not. spin is spin. it's true most balls have
more ts than sidespin but aren't there times when you're in a certain situation and think "i need this ball to bounce high so i'm going to give it a lot of top" or "i need a little extra pace on this one so i'm giving it less arc and a bit less top"? but you wouldn't say the topspin is not intentional and it's just just shaping the shot in those cases. And aren't there times when you think "i've got him on the run so i'm putting this ball cc but he's already heading that way so i'm going add more sidespin to make it curve away from him"? In those cases you're not just shaping the shot you are deliberately applying the desired amount and type of spin.
That's how i think when I play anyway although yes I think about sidespin less often but still there are plenty of times i apply it deliberately and I'd say that Fed does also.

Anyway, no biggie. carry on...

This is true. I also sometimes use clockwise sidespin, especially against righty opponents with poor backhand. Long ago it was my favorite shot.

5263 · Oct 8, 2012

Cheetah said:
Hmm... idk. maybe.

That's how i think when I play anyway although yes I think about sidespin less often but still there are plenty of times i apply it deliberately and I'd say that Fed does also.

Anyway, no biggie. carry on...

Sure, you are right that it's used, but imo it's just more secondary knowing that
it will happen on certain shots rather to to try to work the shot for side spin.
Absolutely looking to get more vertical top for high bouncers, but that adjusting
out the sidespin that is normal with the harder hit Fhs. Only time I can see a pro player
trying to work the side top in more the primary intention is trying to hook one
back into court a bit on a dtl type situation. Trying to use side spin to slide it more away
from the opponent imo is more of a rec player intention, as a pro
will depend more on his control and pace to do this, likely just accounting for
that spin that happen naturally for the type shot he chooses, as he knows
what that stroke will give. The I/O Fh is a great example of this and it naturally spins
out away from the court, so you don't have to try to, but more account for how
it will be happening...if anything, limit a bit so it doesn't slide wide on you.

5263 · Oct 8, 2012

toly said:
This is true. I also sometimes use clockwise sidespin, especially against righty opponents with poor backhand. Long ago it was my favorite shot.

So you use the side spin aspect too. Ok, how do you use the clockwise spin
to hurt a righty's weak Bh? Are you a lefty? Was it your Fh? Did your spin cause the shot to
break into the righty player's Bh; is that what bothered them?

Cheetah · Oct 8, 2012

5263 said:
Sure, you are right that it's used, but imo it's just more secondary knowing that
it will happen on certain shots rather to to try to work the shot for side spin.
Absolutely looking to get more vertical top for high bouncers, but that adjusting
out the sidespin that is normal with the harder hit Fhs. Only time I can see a pro player
trying to work the side top in more the primary intention is trying to hook one
back into court a bit on a dtl type situation. Trying to use side spin to slide it more away
from the opponent imo is more of a rec player intention, as a pro
will depend more on his control and pace to do this, likely just accounting for
that spin that happen naturally for the type shot he chooses, as he knows
what that stroke will give. The I/O Fh is a great example of this and it naturally spins
out away from the court, so you don't have to try to, but more account for how
it will be happening...if anything, limit a bit so it doesn't slide wide on you.

Sidespin is a lot less obvious on t.v.
When I was at the Indian Wells semi's and finals this year I saw Djoko/Fed/Nadal/Isner all using a lot of sidespin and if you recall I came back after those matches and posted here that I was surprised at how much sidespin they use and I wasn't referring only to the 'amount' of sidespin but also the appearance of intention. It wasn't just dtl or i/o as that is obvious. There were a lot of points especially on extended rallies where all of a sudden they would throw one in with sidespin and each time the crowd would go 'oooohhh' because they noticed it. Sometimes fed or djoko would have a whole rally where every fh had noticeable sidespin. Then other rallies w/ no sidespin. He would also have clockwise sidespin for a few shots and then changed it counterclockwise for the next few etc. It was quite noticeable which leads me to think it was intentional.

Cheetah · Oct 8, 2012

5263 said:
So you use the side spin aspect too. Ok, how do you use the clockwise spin
to hurt a righty's weak Bh? Are you a lefty? Was it your Fh? Did your spin cause the shot to
break into the righty player's Bh; is that what bothered them?

This shot also used to be my favorite long ago. I (righty) would hit a fh dtl and curve the ball away and out of the court. I don't use this one as much now as my grip is more extreme these days.

bhupaes · Oct 8, 2012

Cheetah said:
Sidespin is a lot less obvious on t.v.
When I was at the Indian Wells semi's and finals this year I saw Djoko/Fed/Nadal/Isner all using a lot of sidespin and if you recall I came back after those matches and posted here that I was surprised at how much sidespin they use and I wasn't referring only to the 'amount' of sidespin but also the appearance of intention. It wasn't just dtl or i/o as that is obvious. There were a lot of points especially on extended rallies where all of a sudden they would throw one in with sidespin and each time the crowd would go 'oooohhh' because they noticed it. Sometimes fed or djoko would have a whole rally where every fh had noticeable sidespin. Then other rallies w/ no sidespin. He would also have clockwise sidespin for a few shots and then changed it counterclockwise for the next few etc. It was quite noticeable which leads me to think it was intentional.

It's possible that at the top levels there is intention to create sidespin, on occasion. When I hit a forehand, I think only topspin, yet I see the ball break from the straight path frequently. I know what makes it happen, so I can certainly do so intentionally if I want, but I don't know if that would benefit me any...

5263 · Oct 8, 2012

Cheetah said:
Sidespin is a lot less obvious on t.v.
When I was at the Indian Wells semi's and finals this year I saw Djoko/Fed/Nadal/Isner all using a lot of sidespin and if you recall I came back after those matches and posted here that I was surprised at how much sidespin they use and I wasn't referring only to the 'amount' of sidespin but also the appearance of intention.

Look, imo you are missing the subtle pt on this.
I'm sure not here denying the side aspect to pro TS. I'm on here posting how it
is here and strong evidence of how the pros work across the ball on their strokes.

I think I've been pretty clear in saying imo, but imo this is something they mostly
expect and account for, and likely don't try to adjust their stroke to get it.
IMO they know where- they will get what- with their shot and pick accordingly.
IMO they are looking at the court and saying I want to go here with X pace
and this is my stroke that fits that overall shape of the shot bests.

IMO they don't think, "if i can just work across a bit stronger, I can get a
better curve to the right away from his Bh" and work that as primary intent for
the shot. I don't think a touring pro goes to his coach and says, I need my Fh
to tail away more, but instead his I/O has an amount of tailing away that he
knows and expects to be there as part of his stroke mechanics.
That same pro may notice the opp's Bh struggles with his normal I/O tailing off,
and go to that shot more, But IMO he should not try to adjust his shot to max
the effect, and rather just stay with his grooved stroke.

Cheetah · Oct 8, 2012

5263 said:
Look, imo you are missing the subtle pt on this.
I'm sure not here denying the side aspect to pro TS. I'm on here posting how it
is here and strong evidence of how the pros work across the ball on their strokes.

I think I've been pretty clear in saying imo, but imo this is something they mostly
expect and account for, and likely don't try to adjust their stroke to get it.
IMO they know where- they will get what- with their shot and pick accordingly.

I'm not missing any subtle point. I'm stating that I don't think you can say for sure that you know what the pros are thinking.

IMO they are looking at the court and saying I want to go here with X pace and this is my stroke that fits that overall shape of the shot bests. IMO they don't think, "if i can just work across a bit stronger, I can get a better curve to the right away from his Bh" and work that as primary intent for the shot.

Maybe. Maybe not. I think the pros mix up their spins with intent and that would include sidespin. Don't they hit their serves to the same location in the box with the same pace using different spins?

But IMO he should not try to adjust his shot to max the effect, and rather just stay with his grooved stroke

But they adjust their topspin don't they? That implies their grooved stroke has varying levels of spin so why not varying levels of sidespin? Or one could say they have more than one grooved stroke. Spin level and type can also be adjusted by simply positioning your body differently or contact point and using your same 'grooved stroke'.

Trying to use side spin to slide it more away from the opponent imo is more of a rec player intention

Rec players use this intent more most likely i would agree. But it can also be argued that perhaps not trying to adjust his shot and rather just stay with his grooved stroke could be more of a rec player intention and that the pros are working on a different level... especially those at the top of the game.

So I say we can't say for sure unless an actual pro posts here or maybe a coach that works with touring pros who would have direct insight into what a pro might or might not be thinking.

confused w/ the term "MTM"

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Professional

Bionic Poster

Professional

Bionic Poster

Professional

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Professional

Hall of Fame

Professional

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Professional

G.O.A.T.

Professional

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Professional

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Professional

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Professional

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Similar threads