The Oscar Wagner forehand

sureshs · Apr 1, 2013

Povl Carstensen said:
You used an example of a ball on the ground and arguing that it would not move foreward if you pulled the racket away from it...

It cannot move forward if the racket is pulled inwards. What you call away is just a trajectory which has forward and sideways components, and then a backward component well after impact. At impact, there is no backwards component. Away is not inwards. Away is to the left while still going forwards and upwards.

The swiping is nothing but sidespin in some direction while the racket is still moving forwards. It has nothing to do with this. If the swipe is top to bottom and fast enough, the ball goes further than it would otherwise do (which may not be happening at all, as I said). Please don't mix separate topics together.

A rigid body (the strings are not rigid but that doesn't matter here) cannot be pulling anything inward without itself moving inward. That occurs only after impact when the forward apex has been reached. No amount of jugglery can change this fact. You can make motions in the air and imagine that this can happen, but it cannot.

luvforty · Apr 1, 2013

suresh is absolutely right

arche3 · Apr 1, 2013

So basically suresh used 5 paragraphs to say the racket goes into the ball when you swing a racket.... lmao.

Simple version, "when racket is swung at tennis ball it will go forward"

One sentence.

Povl Carstensen · Apr 2, 2013

No he also said that if you pull it backwards, it wil not move forward. Groundbreaking news.

Povl Carstensen · Apr 2, 2013

sureshs said:
It cannot move forward if the racket is pulled inwards. What you call away is just a trajectory which has forward and sideways components, and then a backward component well after impact. At impact, there is no backwards component. Away is not inwards. Away is to the left while still going forwards and upwards.

The swiping is nothing but sidespin in some direction while the racket is still moving forwards. It has nothing to do with this. If the swipe is top to bottom and fast enough, the ball goes further than it would otherwise do (which may not be happening at all, as I said). Please don't mix separate topics together.

A rigid body (the strings are not rigid but that doesn't matter here) cannot be pulling anything inward without itself moving inward. That occurs only after impact when the forward apex has been reached. No amount of jugglery can change this fact. You can make motions in the air and imagine that this can happen, but it cannot.

No I meant away as in backwards, as you were arguing. Thus arguing against something no one had argued for, and imo wasting peoples time. If you swipe across, pull across, call it what you may AT impact, it has an impact. And it happens, and is not "wrong" per se. But ofcourse it wil be combined with action in the two other planes as well. Not really so strange or provocative...

President · Apr 2, 2013

This thread is a great example of why suresh is a TALK TENNIS GURU!!

sureshs · Apr 2, 2013

Then if away=backwards at impact, then away cannot produce forward motion of the ball. The only time when players hit backwards is when they hand over spare balls to the ball kids. Let me know when you find a video of a pro hitting a forehand which goes backwards. Even a slight backward pull would be devastating, as the ball is already moving towards the player.

arche3 · Apr 2, 2013

Wow.... just wow.
My assistant just asked what I'm cracking up about. I said one word.... "Suresh"
She is like. "Wut"?

luvforty · Apr 2, 2013

Suresh is absolutely correct.. whoever laughs only demonstrates his own lack of tennis knowledge.

Povl Carstensen · Apr 2, 2013

sureshs said:
Then if away=backwards at impact, then away cannot produce forward motion of the ball. The only time when players hit backwards is when they hand over spare balls to the ball kids. Let me know when you find a video of a pro hitting a forehand which goes backwards. Even a slight backward pull would be devastating, as the ball is already moving towards the player.

So again you are arguing about something no one, no one is advocating. A very easy way to be right. This, and hitting across the ball (call it pull, swipe or what you want) and late acceleration of the racket has been thoroughly discussed in the deleted Oscar Wegner thread and http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=451641 and http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=453098 .
I do not want to start all over. A widespread consensus seemed to be that the stroke at impact can have both foreward, upward/downward AND sideways components. If you happen to disagree with that, so be it. And to me, the Ferrer video is an example of what I would call late racket acceleration. If you disagree on that, so be it too. Peace, so to speak.

sureshs · Apr 2, 2013

Povl Carstensen said:
A widespread consensus seemed to be that the stroke at impact can have both foreward, upward/downward AND sideways components. If you happen to disagree with that, so be it.

What is about this sentence in my post #45 that seems to be in disagreement?

Everyone knows that there is up, across, and forward motions.

arche3 · Apr 2, 2013

Thanks suresh and dozu for reminding me to swing the racket towards the ball.

Povl Carstensen · Apr 2, 2013

arche3 said:
Thanks suresh and dozu for reminding me to swing the racket towards the ball.

Yes as if someone ever was against that.

sureshs · Apr 2, 2013

And nobody ever denied that hand roughly points to the ball, that is why these statements are useless.

arche3 · Apr 2, 2013

sureshs said:
And nobody ever denied that hand roughly points to the ball, that is why these statements are useless.

Don't forget the pull to the left. Or is that too advanced?

Povl Carstensen · Apr 2, 2013

sureshs said:
What is about this sentence in my post #45 that seems to be in disagreement? Everyone knows that there is up, across, and forward motions.

I am glad that we now agree, and that it also applies during impact.

sureshs said:
A rigid body (the strings are not rigid but that doesn't matter here) cannot be pulling anything inward without itself moving inward. That occurs only after impact when the forward apex has been reached.

This could be intrepeted slightly differently though. But I am happy that we are in agreance!

tennis_balla · Apr 2, 2013

thecode · Apr 2, 2013

Povl Carstensen said:
A widespread consensus seemed to be that the stroke at impact can have both foreward, upward/downward AND sideways components. If you happen to disagree with that, so be it.

You are correct, but you know that despite the tough art of communication, some will argue forever for their choice of words and against the words picked by others. They also don't seem to realize the both ends of the racket are not always moving in the same path/direction or how the hand leads with an action generating a lagging reaction of the racket head.

sureshs · Apr 3, 2013

These misconceptions seem to be very deep rooted. Both ends of the racket move in exactly the same way. The only way they could have different effects is if they were hitting two objects. Then, if you rotate the racket about its center, it can move one ball to the left with the head, and one to the right with the handle. Obviously that is not what goes on.

It doesn't matter if the racket is 27 inches or 27 feet long, or how it is oriented. If one atom is pulled inwards, every atom is pulled inwards, and anything that it touches does experiences an inward force. A ball cannot be hit outwards while being pulled inwards. No amount of arguing/sophisticated replies/humor/insults/evasion is going to change that.

These things are not a matter of communication. At least if it was honestly claimed that the statement is wrong but visually useful, there is something to work with. It is not visually useful either, as every well-known coach has said how important it is to extend solidly into the ball before coming across, and not to just brush up on the side.

arche3 · Apr 3, 2013

sureshs said:
These misconceptions seem to be very deep rooted. Both ends of the racket move in exactly the same way. The only way they could have different effects is if they were hitting two objects. Then, if you rotate the racket about its center, it can move one ball to the left with the head, and one to the right with the handle. Obviously that is not what goes on.

It doesn't matter if the racket is 27 inches or 27 feet long, or how it is oriented. If one atom is pulled inwards, every atom is pulled inwards, and anything that it touches does experiences an inward force. A ball cannot be hit outwards while being pulled inwards. No amount of arguing/sophisticated replies/humor/insults/evasion is going to change that.

These things are not a matter of communication. At least if it was honestly claimed that the statement is wrong but visually useful, there is something to work with. It is not visually useful either, as every well-known coach has said how important it is to extend solidly into the ball before coming across, and not to just brush up on the side.

If you watch a slow mo of a pro fh. At start The handle is ahead of the racket head. Just prior to contact the racket head speeds up and the handle slows down. They are not moving the same. This is pretty clear. I don't know why your arguing just to argue.

luvforty · Apr 3, 2013

Suresh is correct.

arche3 · Apr 3, 2013

luvforty said:
Suresh is correct.

Watch a chris evert fh. Suresh is correct.
Watch a nadal fh he is wrong.

Povl Carstensen · Apr 3, 2013

sureshs said:
These misconceptions seem to be very deep rooted. Both ends of the racket move in exactly the same way. The only way they could have different effects is if they were hitting two objects. Then, if you rotate the racket about its center, it can move one ball to the left with the head, and one to the right with the handle. Obviously that is not what goes on.

It can move around three axis during the stroke, making the top of the racket move differently than the bottom (comming over the ball fx), and the head differently than the handle (head catching up with handle fx). Very simple.

sureshs said:
It doesn't matter if the racket is 27 inches or 27 feet long, or how it is oriented. If one atom is pulled inwards, every atom is pulled inwards, and anything that it touches does experiences an inward force. A ball cannot be hit outwards while being pulled inwards. No amount of arguing/sophisticated replies/humor/insults/evasion is going to change that.

It depends on incomming angle and deflection. But it has been discussed ad nauseam here. For instance you can hit an inside out forehand (with outward spin) with the racket moving outside in, providing the angeling is correct, and it is not even uncommon. The outward spin (often seen) is the result of the sideways swiping of the ball during impact.

sureshs said:
These things are not a matter of communication. At least if it was honestly claimed that the statement is wrong but visually useful, there is something to work with. It is not visually useful either, as every well-known coach has said how important it is to extend solidly into the ball before coming across, and not to just brush up on the side.

Lets say there are nuances and combinations of the two things you mention in the last sentence.

Povl Carstensen · Apr 3, 2013

When a ball is spun, by not being hit dead on, straight through, the ball will move in a different direction than the racket head, because there will be deflection. This very basic premise sometimes seems to be lost on Suresh.

antq21 · Apr 3, 2013

I have a friend who teaches mtm OW method. It's been awhile since I have taken a lesson, but yesterday I took one again. I think I have had a problem with not having a lot of topspin on my forehand, but after I was told to get my hand closer to the ball on the forehand I was injecting way more spin on the ball. I hit with my arm bent and I was hitting across my body, which got my legs body and chest involved in the forehand. The ball can be hit loopy but it is still a fast and hard shot and the topspin can make the ball go fast after the bounce. All that topspin also keeps the ball in the court and you can still hit deep.

antq21 · Apr 3, 2013

meant to also say gets my bicep involved in the shot

sureshs · Apr 3, 2013

antq21 said:
I have a friend who teaches mtm OW method. It's been awhile since I have taken a lesson, but yesterday I took one again. I think I have had a problem with not having a lot of topspin on my forehand, but after I was told to get my hand closer to the ball on the forehand I was injecting way more spin on the ball. I hit with my arm bent and I was hitting across my body, which got my legs body and chest involved in the forehand. The ball can be hit loopy but it is still a fast and hard shot and the topspin can make the ball go fast after the bounce. All that topspin also keeps the ball in the court and you can still hit deep.

The mistake many players do is to hit topsin like a wind shield viper (not to be confused with the forehand of the same name). They think that straight arm means that the whole arm is pivoting around the shoulder while remaining straight. The double bend forehand with the pat the dog motion brings the arm closer to the body in the backswing, and then lashes out at the ball when the arms straighten, along with a wrist snap/pronation/controversial term at impact. What you were taught is the forehand taught by every coach and used by most pros and juniors. Nothing new about it, and there is no pulling back at impact.

Povl Carstensen · Apr 3, 2013

antq21 said:
I hit with my arm bent and I was hitting across my body

sureshs said:
The double bend forehand with the pat the dog motion brings the arm closer to the body in the backswing, and then lashes out at the ball when the arms straighten, along with a wrist snap/pronation/controversial term at impact. What you were taught is the forehand taught by every coach

It does not sound quite the same.
And certainly a controversial viewpoint that every coach teaches the same forehand.

arche3 · Apr 3, 2013

Not all coaches teach the same. Suresh is a fool. Watch a bolleteri fh vid. Then watch landsdorp. Then watch the lock n roll guy. They all explain it differently.

sureshs · Apr 3, 2013

Povl Carstensen said:
It does not sound quite the same.
And certainly a controversial viewpoint that every coach teaches the same forehand.

Obviously every coach does not teach the same. But the double bend forehand, pat the dog, and the similarities between Nadal and Federer forehands are well known. This coach is teaching the same thing but probably adding a little spice to try to make his teaching appear unique by claiming to follow some methodology (quite a good marketing strategy). Otherwise he would just be another coach. Notice that all the advanced players here don't post such stuff about their coaches, meaning that he is actually successful in his marketing. You will not hear Nadal say "my coach follows a methodology and that is why I hit with topspin." It is just routine. People will laugh and tell him dude, can't you see the whole world hits with topspin, there is nothing special about your coach.

But it is good marketing strategy to throw some names here and there. "Quantum" "Holistic" "Natural" "Kinetic" etc are used in many fields to increase the appeal.

Ash_Smith · Apr 3, 2013

treblings · Apr 3, 2013

How cool is it to have a forehand named after yourself

can anybody explain to me, what is the wagner forehand? how is it different to other forehands?
btw, is it wagner or wegnar?

babyhagrid · Apr 3, 2013

Ash_Smith said:

It gets really boring, same people arguing all the time.

sureshs · Apr 3, 2013

Ash_Smith said:

London roundabouts are so irritating. What is the idea? To increase the rate of traffic at a 4-way junction without the slowdown caused by a signal or stop signs?

arche3 · Apr 3, 2013

I just tried something. Swing fh. Pullng butt cap towards contact. As you get towards the contact point stop the hand as much as you can. The racket head whips thru and your forced to wrap arm to finish. Or it kinda hurts your wrist.
Try it. Handle and head of racket is always at different velocities.

Sorta of what oscar describes.

sureshs · Apr 3, 2013

Quite the opposite of what was actually preached: abrupt acceleration just before impact (which does not happen)

arche3 · Apr 3, 2013

sureshs said:
Quite the opposite of what was actually preached: abrupt acceleration just before impact (which does not happen)

I didn't do that because I didn't want to hurt my wrist by swinging too fast. And my experiment proves your clueless. The two parts of the racket does not have to be always in sync perfectly.

If you watch pros they start the swing slower. Then speed up into the stroke. They do this a lot to maintain control. This Is basically what oscar says. And me trying to stop the racket is wjat oscar says to pull back. To stop the handle.

I actually do this as well start slower and speed up into stroke as I start the power move.

arche3 · Apr 3, 2013

My shadow swings were simply experimental to see how to apply oscars methods. I see no reason if you practiced it you would have an inferior fh.

sureshs · Apr 3, 2013

And then you "stop the hand" just before impact. Right, that is what all the pros do.

arche3 · Apr 3, 2013

sureshs said:
And then you "stop the hand" just before impact. Right, that is what all the pros do.

No. I don't. I posted here the jerk back does not work for me. But.... it does speed the racket head up. Just like oscar claims. And you said was impossible. That the racket head would go backwards. Your totally wrong on all accounts in your argument.

This is not about oscar being right. But rather showing you having no clue. Anyone can do what I just did and see the gist of oscars assumptions.

sureshs · Apr 3, 2013

So you are posting wrong stuff which does not work just to contradict what I supposedly said?

This is getting very confusing.

arche3 · Apr 3, 2013

sureshs said:
So you are posting wrong stuff which does not work just to contradict what I supposedly said?

This is getting very confusing.

No. It does not work for me. I can make it work. But too many years of tennis to really change.

And you did say those things. You were wrong.

You like to twist words and act ignorant of their meaning to try to prove a point.
Fact is you were wrong on all counts. Oscars methods are no worse than any other coach. Your bogus science assertions are easily proven wrong by anyone willing to swing a racket.

Basically your just lame.

FrisbeeFool · Apr 3, 2013

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxUPDHegz98

Go to about 4:20 in the video. If you think the stroke he is demonstrating resembles the Federer forehand, and it's a shot you want to be hitting, by all means take his advice.

Right Oscar, Federer doesn't step into the ball, he falls over to his left, like you're demonstrating...

As far as I can tell, here Oscar is trying to describe angular momentum. You can go online and find countless videos of the "traditional" coaches, that Oscar derides, explaining angular movements in a much more coherent manner.

I don't know how many times I have to say this. And how much simpler I can make it. Let's try this. Draw a circle. Then trace the outside of the circle with your pencil. The tip of the pencil will have two components to it's movement. The x and y direction. One component represents movement outward towards the target. The other component represents the movement across the body. If you look at a player like Federer he has a lot of outward movement through his contact zone out towards his target. Oscar has noticed the movement across the body at the end of the stroke. Oscar likes to emphasize this component of the stroke in his teachings. But to claim that federer is just falling to his side and isn't going through the ball is just ridiculous.

"The players don't hit in the center, they hit way below." Ok I'll remember that one too.

The Wegner camp claims that in the history of tennis, innovative players play a modern style, but these same players don't accurately describe their own style of play, because they don't use the Wegner cult's terminology. Check out Wegner's website. I know this sounds radical, but just maybe, all these players are accurately describing how they hit, and Wegner is wrong. Crazy I know.

Go watch some Bolletieri videos about the forehand. There is a lot of emphasis on really extending your contact zone out through the stroke as far as you can and finishing with a long follow-through. This helps create clean solid contact every time. You get that solid, clean, loud, booming sound. Lots of people were taught this way and they're hitting great modern forehands.

When I try to hit the Wegner forehand as demonstrated in this video, I just get a tinny, dampened sound of a glancing blow, and I lose power and control on my groundstrokes.

sureshs · Apr 3, 2013

arche3 said:
Oscars methods are no worse than any other coach.

That is a rousing endorsement

FrisbeeFool · Apr 3, 2013

sureshs said:
That is a rousing endorsement

Sureshs, we just don't understand, if we only knew how to massage over the ball with our hand, and wipe over it, without hitting through it, as we fall to our left, while loosing our balance, like oscar does in the video, we would know the true secret to the federer forehand.

I need to get the device in the video and practice my windshield wiping for max power and control. I'll just have to remember not to hit through the ball and to wipe over it, contacting the ball near my frame and not in the sweet spot. That is the secret to "A New Kind of Power"

thecode · Apr 3, 2013

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=I_36O-nJUfQ#t=87s
Nice standard rally shot from the forehand side where Federer has lots of time to do as he likes.

FrisbeeFool · Apr 3, 2013

He isn't hitting through the ball here is he.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LCxyahryGI&NR=1&feature=fvwp

FrisbeeFool · Apr 3, 2013

thecode said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=I_36O-nJUfQ#t=87s
Nice standard rally shot from the forehand side where Federer has lots of time to do as he likes.

At the start of the video he's returning a serve, where he got jammed. I just see him hitting the same old federer shots. Is there a point in the video where he's doing what Oscar is demonstrating??

Edit: Ok so you're talking about 1:27 in the video where he's hitting open stance. Telling someone to fall to their left like oscar does in the video is not how I would teach someone to hit open stance.

toly · Apr 3, 2013

There are sets of pictures copied from Frank Salazar Inside-Out Forehand Above Fuzzy Yellow Balls on Blip video - http://youtu.be/lDt-1Y5dvLc.

Maybe these pictures can help somebody to analyze real double bend forehand.

Fig.1 Low Speed

Fig.2 Medium Speed

Fig.3 High Speed

sureshs · Apr 3, 2013

FrisbeeFool said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LCxyahryGI&NR=1&feature=fvwp

To me, it is very quantitative. Measure the distance into the court of the racket tip at impact, and then the maximum distance before it turns around. The second is more than the first. That is all.

From a physics point of view, the extension cannot do anything to the ball. So, it is just a manifestation of the forward component of the momentum built up prior to impact. In a similar way, the up and sideways momentum before contact persist for some time as up and sideways extensions. It is just a matter of continuity of a 3D arc due to inertia, combined with the constraint of the arm being attached to the body, and the desire of the player to finish the stroke quickly and recover.

The Oscar Wagner forehand

Bionic Poster

Banned

Banned

Legend

Legend

Legend

Bionic Poster

Banned

Banned

Legend

Bionic Poster

Banned

Legend

Bionic Poster

Banned

Legend

Hall of Fame

Banned

Bionic Poster

Banned

Banned

Banned

Legend

Legend

New User

New User

Bionic Poster

Legend

Banned

Bionic Poster

Legend

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Bionic Poster

Banned

Bionic Poster

Banned

Banned

Bionic Poster

Banned

Bionic Poster

Banned

Rookie

Bionic Poster

Rookie

Banned

Rookie

Rookie

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Similar threads