In any case, the claim of 17 mph RHS at impact, followed by more acceleration after contact, is absurd. TWU professor has a menu for calculating this kind of stuff, and even the cases when there is heavy reliance on incoming ball speed to achieve a reflection effect by blocking, the speed is at least 40 mph.
Modern Tennis Tips by Oscar Wegner
- Thread starter Wegner
- Start date
- Status
In any case, the claim of 17 mph RHS at impact, followed by more acceleration after contact, is absurd. TWU professor has a menu for calculating this kind of stuff, and even the cases when there is heavy reliance on incoming ball speed to achieve a reflection effect by blocking, the speed is at least 40 mph.
40 miles per hour is calculated
APAS results are NOT reliable close to the contact point
The most reliable ones are quoted in my post in the JY's thread.
The link above
There is important difference in behaviour for a component vertical to a court vs a component vertical to a NET
More to come
40 miles per hour is calculated,NOT measured.
APAS results are NOT reliable close to the contact point
The most reliable ones are quoted in my post in the JY's thread.
The link above
There is important difference in behaviour for a component vertical to a court vs a component vertical to a NET
More to come
Isn't that obvious from what I said, that it is from a calculation menu from TWU? What was difficult to understand about it?
Which ones am I supposed to look at in the thread referred from that thread. The post which says "There is also good correlation between Federer FH (APAS) calculated data and above charts."?
Povl Carstensen
Legend
To me it looks like Federer hits across the ball from all angles. And the results do not say anything about whether he accelerates through impact. I would say though that I do not see much bending of the elbow around impact.
Last edited:
Whatever, man. You want to hit the ball at 17 mph with an abrupt acceleration from a couple of inches from it, go ahead. I really don't know how to respond to stuff like "Federer hits across from all angles."
JohnYandell
Hall of Fame
All,
I think the repeated misrepresentations of data from other researchers and the claims that violate even the most primitive understanding of physics destroy the credibility of any claims that Wegner is making.
It's clear that facts simply don't matter. In one of the nuked threads we actually had the statements from Andy Fitzell about the acceleration of the racket--how it maxs at contact and then decelerates.
When someone can't incorporate and learn from researchers and has no actual data of his own, that does not reflect well on credibility.
What we have here is just blind repetitions of assertions that don't corelate with reality.
Some people say they are getting teaching benefit out of these ideas and if so god bless them. But please let's have some semblance of an attempt at factual accuracy when you claim to be dealing in facts.
Bascially Wegner is refuting himself. If it's all metaphor just admit that.
I think the repeated misrepresentations of data from other researchers and the claims that violate even the most primitive understanding of physics destroy the credibility of any claims that Wegner is making.
It's clear that facts simply don't matter. In one of the nuked threads we actually had the statements from Andy Fitzell about the acceleration of the racket--how it maxs at contact and then decelerates.
When someone can't incorporate and learn from researchers and has no actual data of his own, that does not reflect well on credibility.
What we have here is just blind repetitions of assertions that don't corelate with reality.
Some people say they are getting teaching benefit out of these ideas and if so god bless them. But please let's have some semblance of an attempt at factual accuracy when you claim to be dealing in facts.
Bascially Wegner is refuting himself. If it's all metaphor just admit that.
arche3
Banned
I've had a great few days of tennis. And tried pulling across. Yanking the racket. Extending 5 balls thru ala Yandelz. Stepping into it. Lockn n Rolling it. I Salzied the reverse fh all day. I dont yellow ball because i dont really know what he is saying he has no definite point of view. All of it.
Result? I still pwn everyone however I hit it. And the stroke barely varied from my regular wrapper no matter what I did. They all worked.
I am focusing on my serve these days. Better forehands are wasted on the old farts. At least they appreciate good serves.
arche3
Banned
I agree. I'm all about the serve this past year. But during my fh experiments past few days I even fell back as I hit a lot. That works too. Just loopier when you fall back for me.I tried everything. I have decided as long as you have a good tennis base you can pretty much do anything against the typical club hack.
And it adds variety. I hit fh slices w side spin. Conti grip grand pa fhs. All of it.
tennisfan69
New User
John, this is how simple tennis is see the video link below.. you are kidding me with all your HD slow motion videos. Man anyone can be a multiple GS winner, if they can sit like that and do a DTL/CC forehand. Look he can even raise his legs up in the air and do a DTL/CC. i never realized tennis was this easy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOIBiPjgIW8
arche3
Banned
Please post video of your hitting. A lot of coaches teach angle of contact.
Povl Carstensen
Legend
I have not said he hits with 17 mph with an abrupt acceleration from a couple of inches from it, or that I want to do it.
Sorry if I was not clear. In all the angles of the video, it looks to me like he hits across the ball. Okay, man?
Last edited:
arche3
Banned
Dont worry man. It looks like its across to me as well.
Comparing apples and oranges
Fitzell et al used some observations limited by METHODOLOGY.
Bringing BOTH of them at the same post is more or less comparing apples
and oranges.
I advice very strongly NOT to use NUMERICAL DATA of Fitzell.
I advise very strongly to understand the assumptions of the model of TWU-for example
how much spin is "ALLOWED" with those 40 miles for hour DATA.
Ps See as well the third sentence of post#98 of
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=5513700
Regards,
Julian
TWU uses a model which operates under some assumptions
Fitzell et al used some observations limited by METHODOLOGY.
Bringing BOTH of them at the same post is more or less comparing apples
and oranges.
I advice very strongly NOT to use NUMERICAL DATA of Fitzell.
I advise very strongly to understand the assumptions of the model of TWU-for example
how much spin is "ALLOWED" with those 40 miles for hour DATA.
Ps See as well the third sentence of post#98 of
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=5513700
Regards,
Julian
Last edited:
Dedans Penthouse
Legend
iF it wOrKs, uSE iT
And in mixed doubles, touch the left cheek (of your partner) with the palm of your right hand. This too will immediately improve your stroke.
Great tip.
And in mixed doubles, touch the left cheek (of your partner) with the palm of your right hand. This too will immediately improve your stroke.
Figure to see
I meant the figure shown in
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=6537769
post #198
I meant the figure shown in
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=6537769
post #198
JohnYandell
Hall of Fame
T Fan,
Yeah what was I thinking trying to understand the modern forehand when it was all there right in front of me...
Yeah what was I thinking trying to understand the modern forehand when it was all there right in front of me...
Thanks.
The forward RHS speed at impact comes out to be 76 mph, consistent with Vic's study. It decreases after impact to about 2 mph at the end of the swing (consistent with JY's numbers).
The upward speed at impact comes out at 27 mph, and increases after impact, reaching 38 mph at the end of the swing.
The resultant speed (by Pythagoras theorem), is 81 mph at impact and decreases to 38 mph at the end of the swing, showing net deceleration after impact, as pointed out by many people.
I hope 5263 seizes on my bolded italic word and uses it as ammunition, otherwise the thread will get boring.
We are talking about the face, right?
Even the assistant is not buying it, asking if there is a wrist motion involved between DTL and CC if nothing else changes. The advice works if you are hitting really slow at the beginner level and not making use of the legs and body at all. Beyond that, it is just not simple as claimed.
Now this instruction is good
Enough about the forehand.
Oscar's serve video is good:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wJNX1IA4hQ
Mainly the part about keeping the racket face closed. It produces top-slice, the most common pro serve today. Conventional instruction like throwing the racket etc does not really work. Ultimately, except for a few tall people who can hit truly flat serves, everyone realizes that closed face and some spin is what works. Other methods yield temporary good results, but cannot be relied on. Emphasis on foot placement, knee bend, tossing accuracy etc. do not lead to good results for beginners. If you are not practicing a 1000 tosses, there is no point in saying "a serve is only as good as the toss." You need to learn to hit with slightly inaccurate tosses, and the effects of sun and wind. The footwork emphasis does not work well with adults, neither does the shoulder rotation part. The first thing is to hit the ball properly with closed face and some spin without relying on any other part of the body.
Enough about the forehand.
Oscar's serve video is good:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wJNX1IA4hQ
Mainly the part about keeping the racket face closed. It produces top-slice, the most common pro serve today. Conventional instruction like throwing the racket etc does not really work. Ultimately, except for a few tall people who can hit truly flat serves, everyone realizes that closed face and some spin is what works. Other methods yield temporary good results, but cannot be relied on. Emphasis on foot placement, knee bend, tossing accuracy etc. do not lead to good results for beginners. If you are not practicing a 1000 tosses, there is no point in saying "a serve is only as good as the toss." You need to learn to hit with slightly inaccurate tosses, and the effects of sun and wind. The footwork emphasis does not work well with adults, neither does the shoulder rotation part. The first thing is to hit the ball properly with closed face and some spin without relying on any other part of the body.
T
TCF
Guest
Not so fast my friend!
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Of course the speed has decreased at the end of the swing, it has to stop some time. Also the racket will be slowed by hitting the ball. The question is, does the player stop acceleration (applying of force) before hitting the ball, or maintain it through contact? I am not saying one of them is "wrong".
Also, I do not think anyone has said Federer hits the ball with 17 mph, or advocated that.
Also, I do not think anyone has said Federer hits the ball with 17 mph, or advocated that.
They did.
"Vic Braden has measured Federer's stroke, in one instance, going from 7 MPH in the racquet head drop, 17 MPH just prior to impact, and over 50 MPH in front of his chest."
This was supposed to justify the theory (I suppose) that players continue acceleration after impact (a LOT more acceleration), as would be expected with a yanking motion started close to contact.
It is wrong, plain and simple, and a misrepresentation of the work of a proven coach and scientist.
Even casual players will be shocked if they are told that Federer forehands are hit with 17 mph RHS.
Last edited:
Obviously the image is to have a follow-thru, which has been taught by every coach for ever.
The wrong image to teach is that the racket is slowly brought close to the ball in a "finding" phase till it is almost "caught," and then suddenly yanked/pulled back/accelerated across the body. This will lead to less RHS and more injuries (and more importantly, pros don't do it). The correct image is continuous build up over the forward swing and proper finish.
Remember you need to add the reflected component of the incoming velocity too to get the final ball speed.
A RHS from 40 mph is credible and in line with TWU calculations.
The methodology may be good for absolute beginners.
5263
G.O.A.T.
not sure how good the wording is above since the poster tends to re-word the
info, but you can see here freezing at a few frames into 4:59
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=pPLmCqGIotM#t=298s
how the hand IS in front of the chest at contact and should have max or near
max rhs at the point in front of the chest.
So the wording seems to make sense based on the words above except not
knowing what is meant by "just prior to impact". Sounds like a lot of accel
right before contact though.
Last edited:
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Yes well, maybe they meant the hitting speed was more than 17, because there should be a lot of acceleration just before contact. Perhaps, I dont know.
There is a small difference between follow-through, and accelerating through contact, which was what I was talking about (apart from the whole across the ball-thing).
5263
G.O.A.T.
Just prior to impact means at the last instant it is possible to record the speed before impact, because after that the collision happens.
And no, the wording does not make sense, even if the numbers are off, because a speed of 17 just before impact and 50 later on in the follow through are not right, even in a relative sense. The poster not only claimed these as the numbers, but also implied that they were very different from what had been said before, showing he really believes this stuff and knows what he is referring to.
I understand the desperate need for damage control, but please, do not try to justify the wrong claims.
Wegner
Rookie
Transferring from tracking the ball with the hand to hitting it with the racquet.
transference |transˈfərəns; ˈtransfərəns|
noun
the action of transferring something or the process of being transferred
5263
G.O.A.T.
Actually sound like your damage control for your poorly worded comment.
Sounds like your "Just prior to impact " is about the same as "over 50 MPH in front of his chest".
Yep, clearly you are in the desperate mode with your explanations, lol.
okay, outside psychology I just never encountered the word used as the simple noun of transfer since it also can be a noun. thanks for the answer.
T
TCF
Guest
Once again I am baffled by this need of the analysts to apply detailed science to this thread. I teach kids to find the ball, act like the racquet is going to catch or kiss the ball, but then trick the ball and explode into it while pulling across.
Is that what really happens? No. But the symbolism and imagery works. I have kids with great forehands, doing great in juniors, my share of D-1 players.
It is what it is, Oscar's methods of explaining things transfer with a high success rate to my students, no matter what detailed video analysis shows.
My 8 year old has been playing with 2 sisters she met recently, one 10 and one 11. Rich family, all the best equipment, trips to Macci for 3D video analysis, play 4 hours a day, dad shoots video all the time and analyzes it at night. Boy do their strokes look text book.
Yet my lowly kid, just taught to find the ball and think you will catch it....but actually instead explode into it, accelerate at contact, while pulling across.....wipes up the court with them. Go figure.
Is that what really happens? No. But the symbolism and imagery works. I have kids with great forehands, doing great in juniors, my share of D-1 players.
It is what it is, Oscar's methods of explaining things transfer with a high success rate to my students, no matter what detailed video analysis shows.
My 8 year old has been playing with 2 sisters she met recently, one 10 and one 11. Rich family, all the best equipment, trips to Macci for 3D video analysis, play 4 hours a day, dad shoots video all the time and analyzes it at night. Boy do their strokes look text book.
Yet my lowly kid, just taught to find the ball and think you will catch it....but actually instead explode into it, accelerate at contact, while pulling across.....wipes up the court with them. Go figure.
user92626
G.O.A.T.
"Transference" as word and idea work very well for me, Mr Wegner. So, thank you for your contribution.
Before aware of this idea in this form I was already doing something similar and it has always done wonder for me. Basically I track the ball's moving with my nonhitting arm. None of that pointing to the ball thing. I keep the hand on the racket and it "activates" along with the ball's movement. Works great as a cue to get into action. Nonhitting arm needs more job, and it preceeds the swing so it works well to help determine the amount of takeback, thus power, by tracking the ball's movement.
I think tracking the ball with the hitting hand is great too. It's more direct.
Cheers
Actually sound like your damage control for your poorly worded comment.
Sounds like your "Just prior to impact " is about the same as "over 50 MPH in front of his chest".
Yep, clearly you are in the desperate mode with your explanations, lol.
Give it up. You cannot just cover up this shocking lack of knowledge of how the forehand works.
A post #326
of
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=449122&page=17
maybe of some interest
WildVolley
Legend
I know beggars can't be choosers, but could you try to summarize your ideas into a few coherent sentences? Your cryptic form of commenting has me confused and you tend to send people thread hopping.
Is your point that evidence shows that maximum racket velocity is not necessarily just prior to ball impact when studying the way that pros hit?
5263
G.O.A.T.
In a nut shell
1.A maximum HORIZONTAL speed of a HEAD Of A RACKET is achieved prior a contact or at THE CONTACT (to be more specific you may replace the word HORIZONTAL by the word perpendicular to a net)
2.A maximum VERTICAL speed of a HEAD of A RACKET can be achieved prior a contact or at the CONTACT or AFTER the contact
3.I know reliable results for which #1 and #2 is true for forehand
4.Backhand and serve are a bit more complex
What else would you like to know?
My basic problem is that we are in the middle of a preseason for high schools and I am quit busy
In a nut shell:
1.A maximum HORIZONTAL speed of a HEAD Of A RACKET is achieved prior a contact or at THE CONTACT (to be more specific you may replace the word HORIZONTAL by the word perpendicular to a net)
2.A maximum VERTICAL speed of a HEAD of A RACKET can be achieved prior a contact or at the CONTACT or AFTER the contact
3.I know reliable results for which #1 and #2 is true for forehand
4.Backhand and serve are a bit more complex
What else would you like to know?
My basic problem is that we are in the middle of a preseason for high schools and I am quit busy
Last edited:
LoL, that is rich coming from a newbie that can't handle a young jrs Fh or sidespin
How is your 70 year old student doing? Has he learnt about top spin yet?
WildVolley
Legend
Thanks, that was a helpful post.
I can well believe those empirical claims. Just watching the professionals hit in slow motion, I can see fairly flat racket approaches with respect to the plane of the court. The rackets also transition from forward motion (toward the net) to primarily up and across shortly after contact. In fact, I find this direction change somewhat startling to see, though it appears the ball can significantly brake forward racket motion.
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Plausible. Seems like we posted at the same time.
Last edited:
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Rich from someone who wrote:
- Status
