ShoeShiner
Rookie
I have found by myself this is true.:-?. . .
Focusing initially on the hand, rather than on the racquet, can develop several abilities.
. . .
I have found by myself this is true.:-?. . .
Focusing initially on the hand, rather than on the racquet, can develop several abilities.
. . .
3 questions for Oscar - first, in general, I like your simply way of teaching the game and it has helped me in the past.
Question 1: you don't seem to stress what other call the "prep" phase where you pivot the shoulders to the side. I have studied many pros and a shoulder pivot where the shoulder turn to the side and the hands stay in front of the chest seems to be almost universally used. Why do you not teach this as part of your method?
Question 2: you don't teach to change grips for a 2HBH in your book, but again almost all pros and better players use a continental on the dominant side (r hand conti for right handed player) and an eastern or semi-western grip on the non-dominant side (l hand for right handed player). Shouldn't advanced players use a conti R hand/E or SW L hand grip?
Question 3: you and many others teach the 2 HBH is a a L handed forehand for a right handed player. But, many pros use the dominant hand, arm and shoulder quite a bit. Djoko hits 90% of his 2 HBH with a square/neutral or slightly closed stance, his right shoulder closes a bit to the incoming ball, he does not have the racket head as high up on the backswing as a normal pro forehand, and the L hand seems to take over on the follow-thru. He does rotate the hips, shoulders to fully open and wraps the follow-thru like a WW forehand, but there seem to be a vast difference in his 2 HBH and his forehand. Isn't the 2 HBH really quite different from a normal forehand?
I would say that there is across in this forehand:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTjBXVQyiwg
But the ball seems to go pretty straight though...
Oscar,
in the video interview you posted you were critical of fyb´s modern footwork videos.
i actually liked them a lot and feel like they helped me in my game
what is it you don´t like about them?
thanks mr wegner. I will try that and Report back.
I'm definitely against Extension of the arm but do you actually mean active pulling in by bending the arm (biceps). or do you mean just follow the natural arc around the Body?
TCF,
In an earlier thread, that has since been deleted, you mentioned that your students improved when presented with the "pulling across" image.
Congratulations on this.
But what do you believe is physically changing with their stroke?
I would say that there is across in this forehand:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTjBXVQyiwg
But the ball seems to go pretty straight though...
Just that I feel there is undue attention to footwork. I like foot movement to be more natural, more instinctive, that to pay so much attention to the feet.
I think the great lesson to learn in watching this, is look how slow it seems his racquet moves to the ball, and then the rapid acceleration at the end. It almost seems like he is going to catch the ball on his strings. Talk about finding the ball.
everybody is built differently, therefore by definition there can NOT be monolithic truth.
whoever claims so is basically self-labeling as a one trick pony.
TCF,
I don't believe--correct me if I am wrong--Oscar acknowledges that this conclusion came from his attendance at a talk I did at the Open in 1998.
He approached me after the conference to discuss this. This is an example of the kind of appropriation I don't appreciate--especially when combined with his rejection or denial of so much of my other research that doesn't fit his theories.
Yes! I've been saying this for ages. Oscar was the first coach I heard say this. If you watch top juniors even the racket head looks slow to start then blam. Its jumps into the ball and you get the pop.
Watch Lopez serving. Super slow to begin and then a fast snap at the ball.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DbR3rqgu1Ho#!
In fact, you do not need a hundred answers for a hundred people... you just need one which is general enough to cover them all, yet precise enough to allow to cover each peculiar case properly. We call that a theory.
I would say that there is across in this forehand:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTjBXVQyiwg
But the ball seems to go pretty straight though...
Watch Lopez serving. Super slow to begin and then a fast snap at the ball.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DbR3rqgu1Ho#!
you are going to the other extreme. I am not saying 100 answers... I am saying for 100 people, there is a distribution curve, so for 68 of them you can apply 1 method, but need some others to cover the statistical tails.
by the way - I am a scientist.
I would say that there is across in this forehand:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTjBXVQyiwg
But the ball seems to go pretty straight though...
It is difficult to tell in real-time.
It would be good to examine slow motion forehand video of two players, one "pulling across", and the other with the "hitting through 5 balls" method, and compare the differences... if any.
It is possible that the differences are so subtle that even high speed video cannot pick up the differences.
The change from conventional to modern is that you use more your major muscle groups in modern and you have a freer posture, while conventional is more elaborate and involves too much muscles that are smaller and therefore weaker (and that includes rotational forces on your hips and knees at the end of the stroke, making you more vulnerable to injury).
The difference between a philosopher and a scientist is slim, though it is significant: the scientists bothers to verify his claims.
While Oscar might have a point in trying to bring results through visual cues or figurative speech, it is very uncertain whether he actually knows what he is talking about in the first place... I am ready to believe anything and am willing to let Oscard justify himself, but if JY is right and Oscar cannot back up his claims with scientific research or propose a meta-analysis of many researches as a justification, then anyone‘s words are as good as his.
With his reputation, I would expect that he‘d be thoughtful enough to answer this criticism properly... so, I‘ll let him reply to John. Leave your visual cues home and use a precise vocabulary to answer our doubts. Go through several of your key advices and demonstrate your points one by one.
That‘s how we should be proceeding every single time...
The difference between a philosopher and a scientist is slim, though it is significant: the scientists bothers to verify his claims.
While Oscar might have a point in trying to bring results through visual cues or figurative speech, it is very uncertain whether he actually knows what he is talking about in the first place... I am ready to believe anything and am willing to let Oscard justify himself, but if JY is right and Oscar cannot back up his claims with scientific research or propose a meta-analysis of many researches as a justification, then anyone‘s words are as good as his.
With his reputation, I would expect that he‘d be thoughtful enough to answer this criticism properly... so, I‘ll let him reply to John. Leave your visual cues home and use a precise vocabulary to answer our doubts. Go through several of your key advices and demonstrate your points one by one.
That‘s how we should be proceeding every single time...
I'm lost here. Doesn't modern also use rotational forces at the hips and knees?
Oscar I think I have gone through this too
When I'm really concentrated when I am about to swing the ball seems to sit in place for a second. cool
Disagreement is not "hating." !
so if for example you have a new student who hits his fh only with a closed stance you wouldn´t draw his attention to his footwork and make him try more open stances?
It's more in how it's done. You don't just call it footwork but you show how to
load the torso thru facing the net...then coiling thru turning your shoulders to
the side. This doesn't focus on dance steps, but more on how the body works
as a unit.
how do you show this specifically? the body working as a unit is something that isn´t limited to open stances, imo
That sounds a bit like a JY comment, :???:.
I didn't place any limitations. Just said that is how
we do it in place of teaching dance step with the feet.
The difference between a philosopher and a scientist is slim, though it is significant: the scientists bothers to verify his claims.
While Oscar might have a point in trying to bring results through visual cues or figurative speech, it is very uncertain whether he actually knows what he is talking about in the first place... I am ready to believe anything and am willing to let Oscard justify himself, but if JY is right and Oscar cannot back up his claims with scientific research or propose a meta-analysis of many researches as a justification, then anyone‘s words are as good as his.
With his reputation, I would expect that he‘d be thoughtful enough to answer this criticism properly... so, I‘ll let him reply to John. Leave your visual cues home and use a precise vocabulary to answer our doubts. Go through several of your key advices and demonstrate your points one by one.
That‘s how we should be proceeding every single time...
I would agree. And the right to left is hit on a low bounce, while the left to right is hit on a higher ball. Which is very natural considering the natural curve of a swing. But by far the most are curling left to right (inside out one might say), while on the fewer low balls you get the opposite.In terms of direction, the ball goes where Fed intends, but if you look closely, the degree and timing of the "across" in each shot corresponds to the way the ball bounces on the other side of the net. It's less noticeable from the camera's POV as opposed to first-person, but there are two predominant shot shapes Fed uses, and both are hit very much to his side (still in front):
One causes the ball to curve right-to-left (2:13), while the other causes the ball to curve left-to-right (two shots after 1:55).
most players at the rec level hit the ball too late, not in front of them where they would find more power and control.
the main reason for this i find is that many players play at a faster speed than they can handle
their footwork and their stroke preparation isn´t good enough to handle the pace. but virtually everybody likes to hit hard
many players don´t do a very good unit turn as well. some don´t do it at all and just arm the ball.
doing a split step is also not widely known.
by teaching all these things, and in many cases more open stances as well i see big improvements
once people learn about stuff like that it leads to more confidence and competence and less rushing
My suggestion to you is to just try any methods of tennis instruction on a tennis court and decide if it works for you or not. Tennis is not science. Nothing needs scientific research here. Tell your rant to any of the top coaches. They would laugh you off the court. Even when high speed video is used it simply allows you to see more precisely so you can form an opinion. It is just a tool to help a coach. They do not have advanced scientific labs setup court side to prove coaching theories.
There has been this thing called "practice" that good tennis players do which improves their tennis. Hard to believe I know but it really works.
I will surprise you...
There are theories about friendship, communication, education, teaching, even love. Thepries have major advantages over your experience, namely that they are not context-dependant and that they reflect reality objectively... your experience is unfortunately a biased sample.
You then have two options:
You guess that your experience luckily happen to fit reality in this case and you solve your problems through trials and errors;
Or you use the existing theories and you solve your problems systematically.
Guess what works best? In any case, you have good reasons to believe the theories will work every time: they‘re tested, unlike your personal convictions.
*theories in the scientific sense
To further develop, trying out different approaches is very inefficient, long and tiring... We can compare both ways to solve this problem with a simplified example.
Maximize f(x,y)= 3xy^2 subject to y=4x+2
? What does this have to do with training your body to hit tennis balls?
I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm talking about playing tennis on a real court with tennis racket and tennis balls. What are you saying? Study physics of tennis more than practice? Tennis is not that hard to learn. There is no theory of trying to learn tennis. You just get a good coach and play tennis.
How did you learn to play tennis? I had a coach and he showed me as a kid how to play and we practiced. And coaches through high school and college, they all had different ideas about tennis but were all variations on how to win.