Acceleration

Mattle

Mattle

Rookie
I'm now talking about the forehand and backhand (i'm one backhand)

We all know, that our strokes got an acceleration. Now, When I do top spin, my acceleration starts at contact point so i really explosive can pull this ball up. But.. what if i'm going to hit a flat one.. when do i have to start the acceleration?
 
sorry, VERY poor understanding on your side. read up.

read my posting Forehand Issues in the Sticky.
find there:
Acceleration at contact (observations on Sampras's running FH)

the acceleration starts way ahead of the contact, you can't control 4 milliseconds of contact; in any physical process, acceleration takes time, it's not instantaneous

it's the trajectory of the racquet head which mainly determines whether's top or "flat."

In the same place, find the link to:
How do they hit their forehand with a so closed racquet face? (see pic inside)
 
You could start it earlier, like Sharapova, Davenport or Tracycakes.
Or start it right there at contact as Doug King teaches on TennisOne.
He springs but doesn't swing. The acceleration comes from the body
and hand movement doesn't do much more than caress the ball.
Oh, he likes you to push as if pushing a beach ball with both hands.
Another time he said something about hand motion as if shooting pool.
It's the center of the racket for him, and for the neuroscientist Ray
Brown, too. These guys produce topspin but one could think of the
strokes they're teaching as essentially flat. Ray Brown would best
answer your question since the third of his four stages (contract,
rotate, accelerate, straight line interval) occurs BEFORE contact.

If you're feeling well for the ball, though, and keep the racket near to it,
and only go back a short distance and not till the bounce...and can rip
the ball for topspin, why not be satisfied and keep exploring in this direction?
The modern way? The way to play like the pros (especially the men)?

Why not combine use of the biceps, actually shortening the arm, while
whipping it it across the body? This can get you a followthrough over the
shoulder or by your vaccination mark or by the left hip.

I used to think the elbow must fly up or sideways. Both things seem to happen, but more as a result of other things you can do. I say, for
good racket head speed, bend your arm to a right angle and whip the
forearm around to your left side. I would only do it for a demonstration of
getting blood out to your fingers so you feel a sensation. My Eastern grip
has taught me to get the arm pretty long and then contract it at the same time.

Tennis is always different strokes for different folks, but I'm a believer in
the Wegner method which all smart players should at least try. One bizarre feature of it is that every ball gets hit on one edge or the other of the racket!

Isn't this an amazing difference? And I've almost never heard anyone discuss it. I'm not the only person who thinks Oscar Wegner is the most effective tennis coach in the world, and he's easily found.
 
Mattle said:
I'm now talking about the forehand and backhand (i'm one backhand)

We all know, that our strokes got an acceleration. Now, When I do top spin, my acceleration starts at contact point so i really explosive can pull this ball up. But.. what if i'm going to hit a flat one.. when do i have to start the acceleration?
Click to expand...

Yeah, gonna have to agree with Marius on this one. He gave you some very good advice. I am noticing a little impatience in Marius these days. :)

The acceleration is an "educated" acceleration. It is not wild. One link in the kinetic chain speeds up, then slows down, while the next speeds up. The consistent and fluid transfer of energy eventually transfers into the ball.

It is not muscled or forced. It flows like a wave through your body.

You should be accelerating right after your hip snap. the hip snap is not a jerking. It is a "soft" snap or an "educated" snap (really getting into this "EDUCATED" word). When the hip snaps, everything just flows from it or accelerates over it. Fluid, think water falls, pretty girls, Corona's, etc...

The overall motion accelerates into the ball. Smaller links move faster like the wrist.

Relax and and let it go from the hip. Load up and let it go. Relax the arm and wrist and let it fly through. You will feel like you have tremendous control but will also feel like you can hit it faster and faster.

Make sure you have a "WOOOOA, NELLY" in there. Maintain rally speed. Go lower then the ball before contact then up through it.
 
What arrogance. Get Oscar Wegner's new DVD's. You'll never see such
smooth, linked shots. That goes for all three of youse.
 
bottle said:
What arrogance. Get Oscar Wegner's new DVD's. You'll never see such
smooth, linked shots. That goes for all three of youse.
Click to expand...

I own Oscar Wegner's DVD's. I like some of Mr. Wegner's ideas. However, while I think I know what he attempts to accomplish with some of his ideas, other key points, when taken literally, simply don't hold up, especially as to how the pros actually do it, and especially the men.

All of the male pros hitting groundies from the baseline have completed the unit turn and have completed the take back (off hand released with the racquet/arm at the top of the backswing pre-drop) by the time the ball has bounced on their side of the court. In fact, if there is a commonality timed to the ball bouncing on the hitting pro's side of the court, it is that they plant the foot and have started loading their weight on that leg from which they will hit the shot. This isn't arrogance. See for yourself, at a site like www.tennisplayer.net, where John Yandell is offering a free week at this time. Find any pro hitting a forehand, Sampras, Agassi, Federer, Ferrero, on and on, where the ball bounce appears in the frame and see where the racquet actually is at that time. Every one. Every time.

Don't believe me, go see for yourself.

Now I ask you, if the racquet/arm must move from that high-ish top of the back swing, drop into the slot behind and lower than the ball, then "find the ball" (a cue I like) and travel to contact, through contact up to the wrap follow-through, what is the racquet/arm actually doing? Slowing down? Travelling at a fixed controlled speed until contact? If so why is there a lag of the racquet, causing a stretch of the wrist and forearm ligaments and tendons, which again is evident on all pro's fh's at JY's site, from the bottom of the drop as the pros advance the racquet to and through the contact zone? It's acceleration, starting from a point well behind the contact point, to and through the contact which causes this.

Don't believe it? Again, go through all the clips.

Follow through. Oscar says from contact to wrap. Point A to point B, right? Go to the clips. Watch how the pros actually drive the racquet face forward through the contact point on a linear path well past and forward of contact before ending in whatever natural follow was dictacted by the speed and angle of the low to high forward swing path. No? Again look at the clips.

Choose any clips of the pros hitting fh's. If you wish to see the ball bounce to see where the pros racquets are choose the rear view where the bounce appears in the frame most often. After that the front view is where the bounce is visible. There are hardly any with the player and the ball bounce appear in the side views.

Check the bounce, stop the clip, where's the racquet?

Advance the clip to where the racquet/arm drops into the slot behind/below the contact point and as the swing starts forward, stop the clip again, what's happening to the wrist/forearm? Why does the angle between forearm and racquet shaft increase at that time? Ask yourself.

Advance the clip to contact, then advance the clip frame by frame from there, and see just how far the racquet face continues forward toward the target before transitioning to a follow-through over opposite shoulder or to the opposite hip.

Use Quicktime, advance the clips one frame at a time. See what is being refered to by Oscar and by other teaching professionals. See what is actually happening in those key phases of the stroke. See with your own eyes. No one is arrogant about this here. I see some good things in what Wegner advocates. But many of his key points, taken literally, simply don't scan.

I'm not trying to shatter your beliefs about OW's system. But if you see with your own eyes maybe you will be better able to determine for yourself what is fact and what is not. Keep an open mind, something Oscar tends to accuse others of not having.
 
By using similar methods to those indicated by FiveO (slow-motion) study a bit this clip:

http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/Q.Luo/tennis/sampras04.swf

use the slider on the left to slo-mo the picture
put it at its lowest level where you still see some motion

now start counting: 1, 2, 3 for each new frame which shows up from the Flash sequence, in order to realize the relative speed of racquet displacement

you will see that Sampras accelerates a LOT before contact, practically in the last 90 degrees of rotation before it, as the number of counts corresponding to that interval is very short in comparison with the backswing and the initial period of the forwardswing

(of course, different frames are separated by the same time interval, as in any usual film)
 
The answer is not to be so literal-minded and do things more by feel. Of course actual acceleration occurs slightly before the ball, at different times for everybody. In Oscar's MIT DVD Mr. Klick's thousand-frame-per-second
camera (oh, sorry, it belongs to MIT) clearly shows Randy Ardenfriend's
racket head accelerating from a ways back but nothing like Stan Smith or
Mary Pierce who are all the way out of the slot and then let the thing
rip most likely too soon. There is a feeling among us total Wegnerians
that Venus, who grew up on Oscar, has started taking the racket back
too soon. Remember how the major player who complained about the heavy
balls at the Australian Open was Maria Sharapova? She conks the ball,
that's why, and knew she was apt to get hurt. Feeling for the ball is what
Andre and Roger do. They get their shoulders around and run with hand
and racket out front. At time of bounce they take the racket back-- before,
if hitting on rise, after if a sitter, what does time of bounce mean anyhow,
let's take it to the Supreme Court.

Personally, I don't choose to be as technical as you gentlemen in my
tennis talk having been there and done that-- it got me nothing. Sometimes I can't help it of course. Get your shoulders around but keep the racket out front until the bounce. Then use four counts to take the racket back and forward to the ball again-- in some configuration you invented yourself. How about that-- using your own imagination to design a stroke!

The person I'm worried about is none of the males in this discussion but Mattle, who started it. If she wades through all this will she ever play tennis again? Somebody should tell her (I'd like to), that her instinct to accelerate from contact onward is wise and the way Guga, Serena, Nadal, Venus, Schrichipan, Roger, the Russians, countless others-- the very best-- learned the game. And as for Maria-- Russian? American?-- you sure can see her stop the racket right next to her head for tracking the ball on her two-hand backhand. Monica does a similar thing on both sides. They delay taking the racket back because they're smart and don't want to commit too soon.

Here's a question about timing. In view of the above, did Venus win Wimbledon because grass is faster?

One more thing. I like hodgepodges of ideas if they're new ideas. The tired
recital about kinetic chain really depressed me, reminding me of how
Vic Braden dressed himself up as a stegosaurus with slats all over his body
to show what moves and when. Despite that, I really didn't like him until I met him. There's a lot to learn from him still although he himself has publicly rejected a bit of the early stuff-- a Diogenes among tennis pros.

I guess I should address the straight-line interval stuff. Don't do it unless you want to play old fashioned (read "antiquated") tennis.

Stand by a fence and wipe your relaxed hand across it. Call the fence a Camry windshield. That's the way to play modern tennis. Racket head speed plus constant racket angle equals greater dwell than if you try to block the ball.

What else. The business about wrist layback: "Mondoing the racket" Johnny Yandell called it in the case of Roger, advising us mortals not to do it. I tried it for a month. Roger's feel for the ball seems to involve more body than most. Maybe he does accelerate a little early despite the sensuous slowness of his racket descending like milkweed. I'm not sure and would like to study this more all by myself with nobody giving me their own biased answer.

One thing I am very, very sure about. Anybody can lay the wrist back as part of a fro and to non-accelerative feel for the ball. What does Oscar say? Find, feel, finish. He shows, as I notice a lot of other pros nowadays doing too including Nick Bolletieri, how you can point your racket butt at the ball on a number of different shots (FH, BH, FHV, BHV) while not letting the arm go back anywhere near as far as it used to.

Oscar recommends getting the racket closed first and then letting
it naturally open for contact, rather than the alternative which would
be rolling during the swing, which adds a Joker to your deck. A gradually
opening racket goes to the discussion of lower edge hitting on topspin.
A gradually closing racket goes to the discussion of upper edge hitting on slice and volleys. I noticed that none of the other guys in this discussion wanted to touch this. "Edge" hitting in Oscar's view means edge supports contact. The worst you'd probably do is hit the ball in the middle. If rolling,
you might hit the ball on top, middle, or bottom, and the differences would
be dramatic, a crapshoot.
 
bottle said:
Roger's feel for the ball seems to involve more body than most. Maybe he does accelerate a little early despite the sensuous slowness of his racket descending like milkweed. I'm not sure and would like to study this more all by myself with nobody giving me their own biased answer.
Click to expand...

Well, study it, it's here for all to see:

Federer's and Hewitt's FH (high-speed camera clip):
http://www.araf72.dsl.pipex.com/1000FPS.mpg

Perhaps you can contribute some high-speed camera clips too, not just talk about what you saw here and there.

BTW, have you ever taken any physics courses at the university level?
That would honestly help you a bit to understand things the right way and not rely on Wegner (or on us here, for that matter).

One can't fight by "feel" the laws of physics. In order to generate acceleration in a very short time interval (i.e. 4 milliseconds of contact), one would need to suddenly generate a much higher force than it's humanly possible. This is why the racquet head speed has to be accumulated over a larger interval, starting say 90 degrees (in terms of rotation) before contact.

Any "instantaneous" changes in the speed of an object which has non-zero mass (and the racquet certainly has one) require quasi-infinite force.

Also, it's impossible to train the nervous and the muscular systems to respond to the contact per se, as it's so short, much shorter than the propagation of the contact perception to the brain and its response back to the muscles. The ball is gone by then:-)

And of course Federer is using his entire body to generate this acceleration. He's just more flexible than most.
 
bottle,

So I take it you didn't look at the video? What is IS. What I'm getting from what you instead is "listen to what Oscar says, but he doesn't mean what he says". Nice. Like I said in the beginning of my post, I believe I know what Oscar is trying to accomplish with his cues. No problem. If the one reading fully understands that. Problem is, few will understand that. Because when combined with Oscar's other mantras that the rest of the teaching world DOESN'T know what they're talking about it is understood by many that: Oscar is right and everyone else is wrong. Wegner and his devout followers hold up his exaggerated cues as some NEW truth, though it flies in the face of the video evidence, bio-mechanics and in some cases physics, at least on this planet. And HE accuses everyone else of being close minded. His Wegnerian cultist followers who talk about his teachings, steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that they are exaggerated teaching techniques intended to adjust timing, how lay back occurs, etc. Convention has progressed and continues to do so. Gone are the days of locked layed back wrists from grip change to follow through.

You now have apparently taken the stance of "Don't confuse me with the facts, I know what I know". Who's old school? In fact Wegner who began espousing his absolutes in the 1970's actually appears to be speaking in, if not antiquated terms, misleading ones, and is so committed to his "commandment" oriented system that he believes it to be one size fits all. If anyone is close minded it appears that Oscar and his Wegnerians are.

The implication of Venus Williams having initially been an Oscar discipal and now some old-schooler has somehow infected her with some old-world stroke mechanics ignores the fact that when she burst on the scene, NEARLY EVERY instructor expressed concern for her flawed stroke mechanics on the forehand, once past being blinded by her overall athleticism. She has always demonstrated some botched attempt at the Evert mechanic of racquet back to the fence almost before the opponent hits, except she (and her sister) SWINGS the racquet back (probably taking a pre-1960's term of backswing literally), then STOPS in an arbitrary, single point, with no relation to ball height, speed or distance, then attempts to START forward again from that DEAD STOP. The Williams sisters have ALWAYS demonstrated that disjointed "relationship" between take back, and forward swing. They have been able to overcome and mask those flaws through male-like movement and what WAS overwhelming athleticism. The reason she is more successful on grass is that she isn't forced to hit 4 or 5 fh's in a rally on that surface where her flawed mechanics can't be exploited as easily. If you're saying Oscar is taking credit for being responsible for the Williams sisters early mechanical base, and is actually admitting it, now I can see why he won't come off his exaggerations as to when the take back should occur. If I were responsible for that fh I'd be distancing myself from it as quickly as possible too. If it's true Wegner is responsible for the Williams's fh's he's painted himself in a corner.

The "Oscarism" of "Finding the ball" with the racquet face IS something that I feel is a good cue in this sea of convoluted instructions of "I know he says it but that's not what he means...'literally' " instructions. I believe it aids in making the take back, more intuitive for players, but won't work if you tell a player to absolutely NOT take the racquet until AFTER the ball bounces. That's an exaggerated cue that the pros don't employ as Oscar adamently insists they do and which is stated with such indignation that it has become a pillar of his system. It simply doesn't/can't work. In fact, sight unseen, if you follow his axioms, or perhaps teach them, were we to bring down some of those new-fangled video contraptions and took some moving pictures of you and your's hitting the ball well, convinced they are doing as they are told by Wegner, we would find that they are not obeying and that they're actually doing something very akin to what the pros really do. What is IS.

The last bit of accelerate after contact? Again, an exaggerated verbal/self-talk cue intended to create acceleration throughout the forward swing instead of the Williams-esque transition from a dead stop take back to full speed forward swing from the first movement forward. Where then, does the very obvious stretch of the wrist/forearm into a more laid back position come from as the hitting arm starts on its way forward from the take-back and drop? It's right there to see. How do you reconcile that? Be objective. It's another way of achieving an end. Another way to say the same thing. The same end that an understanding of the term to a-c-c-e-l-e-r-a-t-e>>>> accomplishes. Wegner does a disservice to the playing public, by setting his verbal cues, which now according to your description are not to be taken literally, as being the right way and that no one in the teaching world understands and resists. It implies that no one else knows what the hell they are talking about. Forgetting that Oscar has said as much outright. So the easy conclusion of a Wegnerite is that Oscar's right everyone else is wrong. Simply not so.

With an understanding of actual mechanics, some Wegnerisms work. Finding the ball is a good solid cue, for most, to grasp dropping and aligning the racquet behind and near the level of the ball.

Waiting until the ball bounces to initiate the take back after the completion of the unit turn is patently untrue. I actually believe Wegner started that in response to the ancient teachings of having a student point there racquet at the back fence before the pro fed them a ball. The entire teaching community has left that behind long ago. Oscar and the Oscarettes seem to be railing against windmills.

Accelerating after ball contact? An absolute falsehood. Knowing what I know, or rather seeing what is there for all to see, I understand that it is an exaggerated cue to encourage going through all the gears, accelerating and reaching the maximum intended racquet head speed in the contact zone. Will someone looking for a specific answer as to when acceleration really begins after watching film of the pros, understand? No. They're much more likely to argue the literal meaning of what is said and be confused when seeing what and when things actually happen on film.

Like telling someone habitually late hitting a 1hbh, to try to hit "too far out in front" to achieve on time contact these cues may work for some students struggling with achieving an end. It's not what actually is happening. It is intended to "mis-lead" the student into the proper path. On a court they work. When discussing them it should be pointed out that they are the exaggerated cues they are. Don't hold them up as some "new" truth.

Don't be what Oscar accused the whole teaching world being back in the 70's: closed minded. Open your eyes. Take a chance. Look at the video. Your world won't be shattered. The sky won't fall. Cats probably won't begin sleeping with dogs.

Hide your head in Oscar's sandbox if you wish. I suspect you will. Because if you look you might actually see that what you are arguing against is the truth. That brave new world of high speed video and frame by frame analysis would show you that it IS. Taken ver batim, Oscarisms don't work. Oh that's right, I'm not supposed to take him literally. Sorry. It's confusing w/o the caveat.
 
Marius, there are treatments for Turotte's Syndrome.

Five O. Did you look at the video I recommended?

I don't think we're supposed to insult each other, and I feel you both have done that to me. Too bad we can't play. I'd send a slow slice (serve) out wide. I'd bang the next deuce court serve hard down the middle.

You know, I've taught in horrible prisons and don't have much trouble identifying dismissive personalities since my life depended on it.

There are many things about Oscar that you don't understand. First, he isn't Satan, not even a demon. Or your father. He's a teacher. I don't think he's a professor of education, too, but clearly could be since he knows that less is more.

If you were an effective teacher, you too "backdoored" stuff. Oscar is perfectly outspoken about this. He guides. You as good student fill in stuff
between the guidelines. Self-discovery is what it's about. I find it interesting, even instructive, that in their formative days both Oscar and Vic had strong connections to Pancho Gonzalez.

I have a few questions. Who exactly are you to say that Oscarisms don't work? You mean I didn't actually finish second in the metropolitan seniors tournament after being just a crummy 4.0 the month before? Why do you
think it's a good idea to take anyone literally? The pro at Crooked Run
Racquet Club in Front Royal, Virginia, Jason Roberts, a champion player, used to say, "It's not what you actually do in tennis. It's what you think you do." And why did you quit as Teaching Pro? Here's my guess. YOU TALKED TOO MUCH!!!!!
 
Bottle,

Sorry to have insulted you by bringing Newton in the discussion:-)

I wish you a long happy tennis life following the Wegner principles.
 
bottle,

As a rule, I try to stay out of these ******* matches here. I can't help but notice that you are really quite emotional. However, some of your most recent statements beg addressing:

First- I said one Oscarism doesn't work. Taken literally, others don't. The pros don't take the racquet back after the bounce. Look at the video. Don't look at the video. It's there to see for anyone who chooses to look. Where something is in a point of time is not debateable, in my view. It's there or it's not.

Second- I said I used "backdoor stuff" as an instructor. If you read the reference to hitting a "1hbh too far out in front" to achieve "on-time" contact, you should have understood that. I also pointed out, several times, that I believed that to be OW's intent with much of his teachings and explained that. Something you omitted until your last post, like your use of the word "literal" in the prior one.

Third- Evidently you enjoy labelling. You continue to do so in this last post. Someone who disagrees, presents an argument and offers the evidence (in the form of video) to support it, you elect to label as a "dismissive personality". You go on to say "(I) don't understand". Have you considered the possibility you may be projecting? For perspective review post #6 and paragraph 6 in post #9. Some things are feel. Some are black and white. Don't be surprised when someone reacts in kind.

Fourth- I never villified Wegner. I have pointed out that he has demonstrated a propensity to use the terms "lacking understanding" or "resistive" to describe his fellow teaching professionals. I also explained how, taken in the proper context, or as a "backdoor" some of what he teaches work. I've said several times that the "finding the ball" cue is a good one. I absolutely disagree about his assertion that the take-back occurs after the bounce, however, and offered the proof on which I base that conclusion. Problems begin when someone believing in the system regurgitates those cues, without truly understanding how they relate to mechanics and while denying certain realities.

Talking too much. Here? True. And you've certainly written your share in this thread as well. IMO you haven't addressed the points made nor said very much but, you have written alot.

Lastly, I'm reluctant to write about myself, as it often comes across as blowing one's horn. (see the above post) For clarity, I still teach a few kids on the side, who happen to be the children of kids I instructed in the '70's when I began that career. When I'm not doing that, I'm one of the guys "actively recruiting" that next "class" for someone like you, teaching in one of those awful classrooms you described, and have been doing so for the past 23 years. Oh, and my students are not and were not ever "recruited" in a like manner. I never had the luxury of a captive audience when teaching.

I will look forward to discussing/debating tennis with you, in a civil manner, in the future.


Your Friend,

FiveO
 
Okay. We're finally civil. I'll check the videos sometime in the future when the memory of this debate has subsided still further. I warn you, though, one photograph or filmstrip can never prove anything. The pro's take the racket back before the bounce, during the bounce, and after the bounce, and so do I.

More words, though-- I must. Mattle, poor girl, will never know where or how long to accelerate on a flat forehand. Dissed by Marius Hancu as having
"Very poor understanding," she may never again tune in to the internet.
How ironic since she displayed superior focus about where to make the rough adjustment that best allows one to generate maximum topspin.

Acceleration in tennis occurs before and after the ball. It it's all before the ball, the racket must decelerate during contact. (I only took Atomic Physics at Brown but still think this is so.) In the last century, Billie Jean King taught that to hit a slice serve the racket must be traveling faster after the ball.
She saw this as the most crucial reason for most hackers' mediocre serves of any kind. I suspect that with a single look at anybody she can detect if the racket was decelerating as it came off the ball.

Serve, ground strokes-- what's the difference when talking about acceleration. Some people can accelerate effectively during a short tract.
Others need more space. One extreme would be the free-wristed player the Australian Paul Metzler described in "Advanced Tennis," his 1967 book.
This was a fellow who swept powerfully but gradually toward the ball. His wrist was completely bent at the start of his long preparation. The wrist closed gradually and evenly on its long smooth trip forward. Not the way I want to play but awfully interesting.
 
bottle said:
....Acceleration in tennis occurs before and after the ball. It it's all before the ball, the racket must decelerate during contact....
Click to expand...


Respectfully, I don't see this as necessarily being so.

In lay terms, it's the 'difference' between an explosion and a race car leaving the starting line, w/o spinning its tires, gradually increasing speed until reaching its top speed when passing through the trap at the end of the quarter mile. I know, same physics for both but a far different result.

The acceleration and the point where it begins for that auto is at the starting line and to make even more similar to a tennis stroke lets say the car approaches that starting line at a very slow roll. I see that as analogous to the point where a player transitions from the drop, "finding the ball" and starts the hitting arm/racquet moving forward toward contact. As a result of that heavy acceleration the driver is pushed back in his seat by inertia. The inertia of the racquet forces it to lag behind the hitting arm under that initial acceleration where an increase in lay back is clearly visible in a standard professional rally ball whether the stroke itself is shorter to longer.

As the race car continues to accelerate up the 1/4 mile, so should the racquet as it advances forward toward the contact zone. And just like the the car continues to accelerate all the way through the timing lights at the end of the course, the racquet should continue to accelerate, increasing speed all the way through the contact zone (which by my definition is a linear path 6" prior and 6" after actual contact). So in the stroke I describe, the racquet/arm continues to accelerate after contact.

After the driver passes the finish line at the end of the quarter mile and lifts from the gas pedal, speed has peaked and deceleration begins at that point. In tennis after the contact zone, which again extends 6" or so forward of the actual contact point, is when racquet speed flattens and begins to slow into a natural follow through.

As I see it that while acceleration starts at the very beginning of foward movement of the arm/racquet, it continues the entire length of that forward motion to a point 6" or so past contact, before racquet speed finally flat lines and deceleration occurs. I don't see beginning to accelerate forward from a point at the bottom of the drop as being a cause or automatically resulting in deceleration as the racquet passes through the contact zone.

It can be a common problem for many players, and I understand the reason OW correctly emphasizes it and prefers his students to focus on acceleration from contact on to the exclusion of what precedes, (it can help some to get over that deceleration hump) but in actuality IMO it's not the true point where that acceleration begins
 
Thought so. We're more in agreement than we want to admit. Accelerate slightly before the ball and slightly afterwards. Be sure you're accelerating
afterwards; otherwise, you weren't doing it at contact. Keep your foot on the gas.

This other question of whether something that's no longer accelerating is
decelerating is pretty arcane-- of interest to the physicists and boy/girl
scientists all children of Richard P. Feynman (God love 'em). In a perfect vaccuum bereft of gravitational force I guess the object keeps accelerating.
If it's me on a tennis court, I hit a knuckleball.

Oscar says you have to find the point, personally, where you can best do the thing we just described. He makes statements like this all the time (but probably not to his thousands and thousands of beginners). I don't think
Bjorn Borg suffered from petty hangups about Oscar when searching for the best minds to help him achieve his comeback.

Overall, then, one might think you and I are not far apart. Undiscussed differences, though, include the contact question whether the elbow joint should be extending, contracting, or staying where it is. When I proposed
contraction, somebody in this discussion automatically assumed I meant a violent jerk. Neither he nor I is a jerk, but I tell you, I know from being an oarsman that silky smooth power is available from contracting with biceps
and gets the oar cleanly out of the water. Biceps and pectorals can work
together for smooth, muscular acceleration on forehand and two-handed
backhand (not at all the same as the acceleration-deceleration spin/pace
propounded by Uncle Vic along with kinetic chain-- I used to resentfully
brood that one or the other worked better than both).

Ray Brown, the scientist, may still think that contracting the arm is neurologically unsound. On the other hand, despite his open approach he seems committed to straight line interval and center string contact in hitting a tennis ball. Do scientists have biases? Of course, just like everybody else.

Does anyone remember the huge debate Oscar had with Johnny Yandell in the Tennis One website four or five years ago? It was all about when the racket accelerates and for how long, and how much a pro does or doesn't hit through the ball and whether he ought to cross his body immediately.

At the time I was extremely impressed with both guys. I remain enthusiastic
about their verbal and many other skills. "This," I thought, "is the greatest
tennis lesson I have ever seen." During the intervening years, however, as I studied all the Roger videos and conducted a thousand solitary drop-the-ball experiments and played more and more matches I started to veer to one side. Does this make me a hero-worshipping cultist? I don't think so. Would I hit a Ray Brown one-hand drive backhand as my personally best reply to a booming topspin serve? Of course. Are the others who believe in Oscar cultists? I don't think so. Consider Charlie Maher, the MIT coach. For him it's all about hand, eye and ball-- real simple.
 
FiveO,
I just took my embattled self to your letter again and noticed your 12 inches of "linear" acceleration-- very Ray Brownish of you. I can hit the ball that way but get more control ripping sideways/upward not out then sideways. In close. Think of a cross-body sidearm infielder's throw to first base with the the ball going to home plate. I'm not enough of a ballplayer
to know if the arm would be contracting, extending or staying as it was,
but I dig Oscar's analogy of an upper cut in boxing since I'm old enough to remember Joe Palooka and can imagine his arm in contraction (with yellow and red stars coming from his opponent's head). My own analogy on Yandell's website was a bear whapping sideways to eviscerate rather than
throwing a straight right. All of these analogies break down at some point.

One probably hits through one or two balls rather than six this way. The racket seems almost to come back at the body. I know I'm echoing Oscar here from his new McGraw-Hill book.

Oscar recently pointed out that loose grip enables the transition from horizontal to vertical movement on the forehand side, increasing consistency.
It's possible in a two hand backhand to go directly from horizontal to vertical because of the firmer arrangement, but this is almost too perfect. He suggested that Nadal adds a forward component to provide the transition
required for his notable backhand consistency.

Six5
 
bottle,

With your expanded description(s) I see we are now very much on the same page on acceleration. Especially that we now agree that said acceleration begins prior to contact. We both seem to understand that one can and will often accelerate even more just prior to and through the hitting zone.

For clarity, that hitting zone, that 12"-ish linear path I described, is rarely measured in a horizontal plane. It can be, but very rarely. That path can be sharply inclined, declined, almost vertical or anything in between, dependant on a player's choice of pace, placement and shape of shot. The path may only advance forward for two ball widths when the length of that zone is angled steeply up or down. It's not merely for the freight train efficiency of horizontal nrg transfer into the ball which for obvious reasons would not be wise to use f/t. Accentuating the zone also allows for a margin of safety of slightly mis-timed points of contact which in turn promotes accuracy and quality of shot despite those variances.

The linear path description I use is 'borrowed' from the Browns, as I found it to be a better description than the old-school '6 balls in a row' or 'railroad tracks', which were coined by other instructors way before I began to play. In fact I believe that the Browns themselves may have borrowed the term from Al Secunda who used "Linear Contact Section" to describe that segment of the stroke way back in the '80's or even prior to that.

The elbow joint used to increase acceleration at contact via contraction of the biceps? Remaining relatively fixed in a double bend when employing an upper-cut? Nearly straightening out prior to contact? Extending through the zone like the "punch" the Browns describe? Simply? Yes.

It depends on the target, the pace and the shape of the ball flight a player intends the ball to take. I don't see an absolute here. Federer is showing us all how many more variations are viable while IMO still demonstating commonalities in the contact zone throughout those variations. To me, the contact zone and how the string bed interacts with the ball in that zone controls the trajectory, direction, depth, pace, spin and shape of the resulting ball flight. IMO everything which precedes supports and enhances that zone, everything after, results from it.

Lastly, (and this is NOT a dig) your "bear whapper" reference caused me go to TennisPlayer.net and read some postings that I hadn't taken the time to read before. Most noticeable to me were the similarities of John Yandell's views on Mr. Wegner's beliefs and presentation of them, to those I expressed in this thread. Admittedly, without as much venom, for which I wish to apologize. In the end, I enjoyed this exchange.
 
Fifth Set

I'd like to thank Five0 for keeping me out here long enough so that my strokes began to work. I won't comment on outcome other than to say,
"I played very, very good today, and so did he. Tennis has been bery,
bery good to me." We could ask the 368 persons who witnessed us how we did; but, in a presidential debate, the entire country can go dumb in a half
second about who won.

Additionally, the reason I put my two certifications aside and quit teaching tennis freelance from a shopping cart is that I recognized my own tendency to talk too much. I may not have thought so until I met Oscar. Then, I immediately knew.

The reason I quit coaching crew is that the two universities that hired me
didn't live up to their promises to built boathouses by a specified date.

Surely the mark of a great coach in any sport, however, is the quality of encouragement he can give, and this is a subject more important than any
we have touched on. Before this debate started, Oscar Wegner granted me the Kingdom of the Carolinas and told me that I would win in five sets, with no tiebreak. Imagine my surprise, then, when Five0 and Marius Hancu strode
out on the court and each grabbed an elbow.

"Marius?" I thought. "Marlon Brando?" I didn't like the idea of playing two huge cops at once. Suddenly others jumped in. I thought for a minute I was facing sheep, not cops, but guess I was wrong.

Both I and Oscar, who is a hundred times more knowledgeable, thought I would be debating the mild Johnny Yandell, not Marius Hancu and FiveO.
 
Thanksgiving.

I swore I wouldn't write any more-- a sure sign I would. The difference between accelerating up the ball with straight line interval and ripping upward and sideways like a power wiper is the difference between intellectualism and passion.

As Vic Braden pointed out long ago, when the arm moves forward away from the rest of one's body the racket opens up, and fast.

One can deal with this phenomenon through elaborate schemes involving roll or hitting zones somewhat like sterile sex manual erogenous zones, so that one is always the exact same distance from the ball, and racket pitch, too, does the same thing from stroke to stroke.

Is this realistic, in a game of emergencies? One faces the same challenge in Wegnerian methodology, only racket pitch changes much less as one is in the acceleration of scraping the ball.

Secondly, isn't it better to accelerate once in a tennis stroke rather than twice? Or to be fair, to accelerate with uniform racket work rather than with two different genuses, gears or species? Keep the fanciest part of your racket work in advance of contact, and keep this "feel-for-the-ball" part smooth and slow, is my personal advice, and as you get older shorten your backswing if you have to wait that long.

Even Roger Federer's face gets pale when he contemplates Rafael Nadal's
or David Nalbandian's passionate, sensuous, muscular, uninhibited and paralyzing topspin. Muscular topspin is different from that produced by acceleration-deceleration or any other overintellectual, overly conscious method. It has snap or whip in it, too, but its primary characteristic is an atavistic return to the spine, sensors and movement of our ancestors, the cave men.

The result, always, is increased consistency; or, as a stranger just told me in an email, he went from 4.5 to 6.0 .

The one thing that people find most unforgivable about Oscar Wegner, though, is that he actually did change tennis in Russia, Spain, Latin America,
Thailand, Switzerland and elsewhere. It's tough for us Americans to admit, I guess, that we can learn from other places.
 
It's fun to ignore Mattle's String-- my favorite of any I've been a part of in
a number of different websites-- and then return to it for a fresh look.
Entry # 12 reveals a common view of successful black athletes. The truth is, no one wins Wimbledon without athleticism AND technique.

In fact, Richard Williams started his daughters on traditional tennis instruction, then changed to the Wegner method. He also kept Venus and Serena out of juniors tournaments for extra incubation. Smart girls and smart dad-- a thousand times smarter than most tennis dads.

For this student of the game, however, the string got most interesting when two combatants, having killed off the others, decided to be civil to each other
(entries #15 and 16). The result was illumination of mainline contemporary
American instruction-- a dense, dark failure as far as I'm concerned.

The key is entry # 17, when FiveO starts to explain forward acceleration.
He further elaborates in entry # 21, that, in forehand contact zone, arm
extends sometimes, contracts sometimes, stays constant sometimes. He also suggests a player might hit through six balls, five, four, three, or two-- at two balls I begin to think a little Wegner method has seeped into mainline view.

Let me re-emphasize my main point. The acceleration FiveO describes goes
FORWARD except when it goes sideways. The acceleration I describe goes
SIDEWAYS all the time. To quote Oscar on Andre: "He accelerates enormously with the ball inside the racket...The fastest part of his swing is well past the impact."

A main trouble with American technique, as it is most commonly taught except at the highest level, is that it has too much variety in it (read
"unforced errors"). We come back to Vic Braden: "Just hit the same old
boring shot."
 
Marius_Hancu said:
Bottle,

you managed quite a hodgepodge of ideas in that posting, sorry to say.
just confusing the other people.
Click to expand...

I thought I was the only one! Man, what a difficult read and was bored to death! Every single one of his posts makes you feel like you are walking through sludge!

The bottom-line to what Bottle said is, well, he didnt say anything!

You definitely don't want to "shorten" your arm. Any pro that performs the windshield wiping method clearly goes through the ball. You definitely want to go accelerate through the ball.

This stuff on Wagner is simply just another teaching method and he certainly doesn't have a corner on the market in teaching. It is funny about the Williams sisters because Mr. Williams called Vic Braden to thank him for his instructional videos as they were the foundation for the Williams sisters success! In fact, Mr, Williams called Braden to be their coach when they were juniors!

Not one pro I see and have studied uses his "wait for the bounce" to prepare garbage. Every pro turns those shoulders well before the bounce.

Not one pro "stalks" the ball as if they are in complete control and know where the ball is going all the time. They react the same as us, they have just honed their skills much much better then we have.

The stuff he says about traditional coaches is simply laughable and makes it seem ALL the coaches (besides him of course) are moving in slow motion and are stuck in yesteryear.

I just love when Wagners little kiss-ups come through here to "preach the good news". If you strip down Wagner, he is just another coach. The truth is everyone can learn a lot from every coach. You may like the way Wagner teaches the volley and how Braden teaches the backhand. Find what works and develop it.
 
FiveO said:
bottle,

As a rule, I try to stay out of these ******* matches here. I can't help but notice that you are really quite emotional. However, some of your most recent statements beg addressing:

First- I said one Oscarism doesn't work. Taken literally, others don't. The pros don't take the racquet back after the bounce. Look at the video. Don't look at the video. It's there to see for anyone who chooses to look. Where something is in a point of time is not debateable, in my view. It's there or it's not.
Click to expand...

LOL, I love those Wagner clones. Not one pro does his "stalk" the ball crap. It is hilarious to hear these guys chant their masters words.
 
To make it simple, acceleration is due to a delay before the hit and your body acting in steps to unload what you've coiled. I call it lagged acceleration.

Coiling should be done before the shot, and the point of acceleration is a few milliseconds after uncoiling.

Acceleration should not happen throughout the whole shot. Only a few seconds or right at contact. To transfer the most amount of energy.

Imagine dropping a ball on a coiled spring. You can coil that spring, drop the ball and if it's too early it will still hit the spring but won't transfer much energy and won't go up as high. Although, it has acceleration. The transfer of energy is not there. If you're too late it will transfer a great deal of energy, but it's impossible to "grab" a tennis ball in midair and try to do such lol. That's why the contact point between the ball and the spring need to be right as it uncoils not before, not way after, just as it uncoils to release a great deal of energy.

So timing + point of acceleration + point of contact = power. Acceleration = power, but the power you produce it relies on timing and contact point. Too late, you will produce power but not a lot. To early the same happens.

Acceleration on the forehand is not from brute force. Rather, a sling shot affect of rotating the shoulders and letting the arm fall behind the shoulders. The arm will naturally whip around faster.
 
AngeloDS said:
To make it simple, acceleration is due to a delay before the hit and your body acting in steps to unload what you've coiled. I call it lagged acceleration.

Coiling should be done before the shot, and the point of acceleration is a few milliseconds after uncoiling.

Acceleration should not happen throughout the whole shot. Only a few seconds or right at contact. To transfer the most amount of energy.

Imagine dropping a ball on a coiled spring. You can coil that spring, drop the ball and if it's too early it will still hit the spring but won't transfer much energy and won't go up as high. Although, it has acceleration. The transfer of energy is not there. If you're too late it will transfer a great deal of energy, but it's impossible to "grab" a tennis ball in midair and try to do such lol. That's why the contact point between the ball and the spring need to be right as it uncoils not before, not way after, just as it uncoils to release a great deal of energy.

So timing + point of acceleration + point of contact = power. Acceleration = power, but the power you produce it relies on timing and contact point. Too late, you will produce power but not a lot. To early the same happens.

Acceleration on the forehand is not from brute force. Rather, a sling shot affect of rotating the shoulders and letting the arm fall behind the shoulders. The arm will naturally whip around faster.
Click to expand...

You need "clean contact" in your equation.
 
Sorry, but you guys are confusing the crap out of me. All I want to do is hit a 5.0 forehand with good consistency and pace without all the babble running through my head.
 
Simply, hit against people and against the wall. Play for a couple of years day in and day out. And you will have that 5.0 forehand you want.

It doesn't come over night. It's something you need to develop over time through experience.
 
I think that the windshield-wiper is actually a fairly good description of the modern forehand, you simply have to remember that the windshield on a car is not vertical. The most important part of a 5.0 forehand, however, is natural, effortless acceleration through the stroke. Shadow hitting can help with this, practice swinging naturally and with good technique and slowly increase the speed while mainting fluidity and minimal effort. It should be your opponent running you around the court that tires you out, not your strokes.
 
Thanatos said:
Sorry, but you guys are confusing the crap out of me. All I want to do is hit a 5.0 forehand with good consistency and pace without all the babble running through my head.
Click to expand...

When you post, you have no control on which direction the post is going (nature of this board).

If you are only a 3.0 player and want to hit a 5.0 forehand, then do us all a favor, use the search engine and start studying and quit crying. There are plenty of write-ups on the darn subject. I am getting tired of retyping information for lazy people.

Also, get your butt out on the court and take lessons from a good coach and practice like hell.
 
Hooray for Bungling Bully! No sludge for him. A limpid mind. Except that he
doesn't understand that Roger Federer shortens his arm as he accelerates it across his body. We bore each other, sir!!!!!
 
Range of Motion

What a discussion. Well IMO, the racquet starts to accelerate as soon as the forward motion is started and it continues to accelerate right through the contact zone and depending on the shot may continue to accelerate even after contact. It is just like a golf swing, the closer the club or racquet gets to the ball the faster it is going. Granted Andre looks like he is keeping his racquet in a holding pattern and then accelerates very quickly with a short range of motion. The strength required to do this is tremendous. The average person cannot achieve significent racquet head speed with a short range of motion.

You got to love the game.
 
Another Victim Steps Into My Domain

bottle said:
Hooray for Bungling Bully! No sludge for him. A limpid mind. Except that he
doesn't understand that Roger Federer shortens his arm as he accelerates it across his body. We bore each other, sir!!!!!
Click to expand...

Really? Wanna bet on it? I also would appreciate you properly using my name - I think I have at least earned that.

Well we at least agree on one thing, he accelerates. But let's bet on the second. At my disposal I can watch many clips on Federer's forehand. Without even looking at them I can safely say you are flat out wrong and have no clue what you are talking about. :cool:

First, Federer can hit the ball with several different types of swing paths. When he is simply wiping up the ball (and is usually stepping into the court to do so) he will come more across his body - but like anyone else that hits consistently, he will go through the ball.

However, when he is rallying he will lengthen his shot just like anyone else.

Are you sure you want to battle me on this one? Better subjects to beat me on are things like tennis rules, who is who, what players do on their off time, rants and raves, odds and ends, who makes the best string, shoes, clothes, etc...

But if you want go head to head on technique, professional stroke technique, game improvement ideas, that is something I am very confident in and love to argue about. :cool:
 
The Old Guys Win Again!

FiveO said:
Federer's fh:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1273724609613333533&q=federer
Click to expand...

Wow, what a short swing. :roll:

Can you believe this Bottle guy? This is why many years back I decided to contribute to this board. All the lame advice people like him gave. "Federer has a short swing", unbelievable. lol

But you know what FiveO, I am a little mad at you. Now that you posted this clip, Bottle isn't going to bet. So I lose out on some cash. :-|

I do like that comment about Federers forehand being like a sling shot. Definetly supports the educated wrist, dropping the racquet in the slot, and maintain a loose wrist, while allowing acceleration to perform the wrist lay back.

Chalk up one more for the "old guys". :shock:
 
Tim Tennis:

Your post is worthy of reply. I wonder why no one else did.

If an average person can snap a wet towel, he can achieve significant racket head speed within a short range of motion. Get the racket barrel moving at a nice, easy (and I would suggest, constant) rate. Now abruptly change the direction of movement by ninety degrees. On the forehand you can do this by firing biceps and pectoral all at once (and by rotating your body of course). The upper arm rotates. It throws the hand around. I believe the
elbow should stay down, maybe squashing a fly, before it rises up, but maybe that's my personal preference. In any case, this is a fast, efficient throw.

I didn't think so much instant acceleration was possible either until I studied
the slice backhand on Oscar Wegner's new DVD, "Advanced Tennis Techniques." That's how a tennis breakthrough occurred for me-- with viciously sidespun slice. There, clenched shoulderblades provide huge force
(if racket barrel is sliding initially in a different direction). Then I immediately wanted to apply the principle to all my strokes-- it was that good.

I'm sixty-five years old for another week-- so, if I could do it, you can, too.
 
bottle said:
Tim Tennis:

Your post is worthy of reply. I wonder why no one else did.

If an average person can snap a wet towel, he can achieve significant racket head speed within a short range of motion.
Click to expand...

True.

Get the racket barrel moving at a nice, easy (and I would suggest, constant) rate. Now abruptly change the direction of movement by ninety degrees.
Click to expand...

What do you mean abruptly change the direction 90 degrees? Is this the forehand we are talking about? Are you describing the "sideways" hammer motion that we have already posted about? If so, the other important thing to consider is to get that elbow in front of the body plane before angling or pulling across. This is also illustrated and taught in the forehand video by Nick B.

Additionally, you want make sure you lengthen your stroke to go through the ball and not veer off too soon or pull away. This is why it is important to get the elbow moving forward first so the rotation can be behind it.

On the forehand you can do this by firing biceps and pectoral all at once (and by rotating your body of course). The upper arm rotates. It throws the hand around. I believe the elbow should stay down, maybe squashing a fly, before it rises up, but maybe that's my personal preference.
Click to expand...

You believe? Or do you know. The elbow should progress naturally, once the elbow is tugged forward from the shoulder, the pectoral muscles should or will assist the shoulder for substance behidn the swing. But the elbow needs to come forward of the body plane at contact before veernig off for a consistent forehand.

Plus, I believe Tim Tennis already knows this.


In any case, this is a fast, efficient throw.
Click to expand...

Throw of what? Although in the modern forehand the wrist is released and uses a change in direction to force the laid back wrist, it is important for players learning this to maintain a decent amount of pressure on the handle with their fingers for solid hitting.

I didn't think so much instant acceleration was possible either until I studied the slice backhand on Oscar Wegner's new DVD, "Advanced Tennis Techniques." That's how a tennis breakthrough occurred for me-- with viciously sidespun slice. There, clenched shoulderblades provide huge force
Click to expand...

Wow, out stretching the non-dominant arm on the onehander and slice is old news. doing this promotes clean contact because it keeps you from overrotating. Clean contact + Timing = Power.

(if racket barrel is sliding initially in a different direction). Then I immediately wanted to apply the principle to all my strokes-- it was that good.

I'm sixty-five years old for another week-- so, if I could do it, you can, too.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this thing on shorter strokes has been around for a long time. How long have you been playing tennis? all pros go through the ball and hit with long strokes, this goes for clay courters - everyone.
 
Hello Bottle,

"Your post is worthy of reply. I wonder why no one else did." Oh, they always ignor me, probably for good reason.
 
Well, what works for someone 65 probably isn't going to be the "right/correct" advice for everyone else for a variety of reasons - I think everyone would realize this or at least I hope they would. Its nice to think a "senior" can duplicate strokes of players forty or fifty years younger but really, does anyone really believe it? Can they "learn/improve", of course but there are limitations that we all have to unfortunately face as we age.

I don't know much about "bottle" but I spend a great deal of time on the courts - not saying I spend more then him/her but I average three plus hours a day. All this stuff takes time/practice and Oscar, who incidently is also a senior, has his approach which people have found appealing. Depending on the type/style/level of tennis in question, maybe his stuff has certain merits - probably a lot if you listen what folks are saying. I think a lot/most of his stuff has merit for the "older" market and that might be good - if younger people are attracted to his stuff and it get them into the game, so what. I'm not going to pretend I like some of his principles because they simple do not work in higher levels of tennis. If I waited for the ball to bounce before I took my racquet back, I'd simply miss a lot/most shots because nobody is gracious enough (to me anyway) of hitting nice and slow - I'll speak to everyone but think it will do little good.

Incidently, we're about the same age but probably play in different circles. Look, have fun and enjoy the game. If you think Oscar is your man, fine, do things his way (or what he thinks is his way) and be the best you can be - thats what its all about.
 
papa said:
Well, what works for someone 65 probably isn't going to be the "right/correct" advice for everyone else for a variety of reasons - I think everyone would realize this or at least I hope they would. Its nice to think a "senior" can duplicate strokes of players forty or fifty years younger but really, does anyone really believe it? Can they "learn/improve", of course but there are limitations that we all have to unfortunately face as we age.

I don't know much about "bottle" but I spend a great deal of time on the courts - not saying I spend more then him/her but I average three plus hours a day. All this stuff takes time/practice and Oscar, who incidently is also a senior, has his approach which people have found appealing. Depending on the type/style/level of tennis in question, maybe his stuff has certain merits - probably a lot if you listen what folks are saying. I think a lot/most of his stuff has merit for the "older" market and that might be good - if younger people are attracted to his stuff and it get them into the game, so what. I'm not going to pretend I like some of his principles because they simple do not work in higher levels of tennis. If I waited for the ball to bounce before I took my racquet back, I'd simply miss a lot/most shots because nobody is gracious enough (to me anyway) of hitting nice and slow - I'll speak to everyone but think it will do little good.

Incidently, we're about the same age but probably play in different circles. Look, have fun and enjoy the game. If you think Oscar is your man, fine, do things his way (or what he thinks is his way) and be the best you can be - thats what its all about.
Click to expand...

Bottle has posted his position on John Yandell's site as well. Even with proof from video that shows pros going through the ball, extending, and followthrough, he avoids admitting that Oscar may have not given his admirers the complete story.

It is also clear an overwhellming majority of videos that pros prepare early. They prepare the stroke (backswing completed or at least 95% complete) BEFORE the ball bounces. It just doesn't make sense in this fast paced game to do otherwise.

Timing is a huge key to consistency and if a player is performing his backswing when the ball bounces - he will be late and inconsistent.

Certainly, you are correct in saying that the older you get the tougher certain things are to perform a certain way. But I truly believe you can perform it in a way that you can do a majority of the "way" the modern stroke can be performed. It is not something only limited to young people. All of us know how to relax our hand/wrist.

All of us can turn into the ball to hit it with near pro movement. It just needs to be taught and emphasized in training. Maybe you can't get to the ball like you used to, or maybe you are a little stiffer then you would like to be, but you can have strokes that are good enough and close enough to what the pros are hitting like. I really believe that.

I am 46, and I can say that my serve is not what it used to be, my movement is not what it used to be, and I dont plan on that changing since I spend time raising a family and working. I know you know what I mean.

But! We can always improve and change. When we were young and the "new" thing came in, we tried it. Sometimes we really enjoyed trying it that we incorporated it. You can still do that if you want.
 
JediMindTrick said:
This is priceless!!!:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Body English helps too. I find that often when I hit a ball that's going to be long, if I jump just right it will come down inside on the baseline.
 
Bottle: I agree with you ,after watching many clips of pros forehands some takeback right before bounce, some right at bounce+some definitely after bounce.Go to tennis one + watch the slomo of james blake the entire takeback is after bounce.Also watch some of roddicks rear view forehands no doubt takeback after bounce. you can really watch them slow by using arrows on computer.Also i noticed some of aggasis forehands same way after bounce.But some of the other pros i watched did takeback before bounce,but still at least part of takeback was usually after .+ most that takeback before are usually right at bounce.So it can be said both ways different pros do it there own way.Also you can see the same player do it both ways.But it is definitely not true that they never takeback after bounce.Tennisone proves that beyond any doubt.As far as your thoughts on oscar wegners teaching methods, i agree 100% his methods work period.I know by going to conventional teachers+ then using oscars methods there was no comparison.I used his techniques on my own sons + the results were great.I think he comes on pretty strong against conventional teaching ,so thats why he is hated so much.It just surprises me someone who has so much good to bring to tennis, would be talked about so badly on a tennis site.
 
tlm said:
Bottle: I agree with you ,after watching many clips of pros forehands some takeback right before bounce, some right at bounce+some definitely after bounce.Go to tennis one + watch the slomo of james blake the entire takeback is after bounce.Also watch some of roddicks rear view forehands no doubt takeback after bounce. you can really watch them slow by using arrows on computer.Also i noticed some of aggasis forehands same way after bounce.But some of the other pros i watched did takeback before bounce,but still at least part of takeback was usually after .
Click to expand...

Not one of the clips I watched on Yandells site shows what you say. Every single pro (Blake, Roddick, Agassi, Haas, etc.) had their racquet prepared for the drop and forward swing BEFORE the bounce. This happened over and over again. So you are either lying, or you have no clue what racquet preparation is.

The only time where the racquet did not reach its absolute peak was when the pro was rushed and the ball was hit deep. But all of them showed the pros shoulders and racquet back well before the bounce.

I got a feeling you dont know what "racquet back" means.


+ most that takeback before are usually right at bounce.So it can be said both ways different pros do it there own way.
Click to expand...

No sorry, they dont do it their own way. Every single pro prepares early. This is their bread and butter livelyhood. Over the years, they have learned how to read the balls speed, spin, and other aspects to help them time their forward swing into the ball. But racquet preparation is 100% done early.

Also you can see the same player do it both ways.But it is definitely not true that they never takeback after bounce.Tennisone proves that beyond any doubt.
Click to expand...

Never? There will always be times the pro is trying to stay in the point, but all pros prepare early. This is an overwhelming fact that it makes Wagners point of waiting for the boounce to bring the racquet back foolish. I wish I could hit a couple forehands to you and have you use Oscar's technique. I can guarentee that if I see you prepare the racquet at the bounce on whatever wing, I would be going there all day long.

As far as your thoughts on oscar wegners teaching methods, i agree 100% his methods work period.
Click to expand...

If Wagners methods work for you great, but dont tell me that pros prepare and use his methods. These pros have had years of training and will prepare that racquet early - this is a trademark of a professional tennis player - early preparation (which includes the backswing).

I know by going to conventional teachers+ then using oscars methods there was no comparison.I used his techniques on my own sons + the results were great.I think he comes on pretty strong against conventional teaching ,so thats why he is hated so much.It just surprises me someone who has so much good to bring to tennis, would be talked about so badly on a tennis site.
Click to expand...

LOL, okay. But dont tell us the pros prepare after the bounce. That is ridiculous and near stupid.
 
JediMindTrick said:
This is priceless!!!:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I know isn't this a ridiculous statement? Acceleration occurs AFTER contact? lol

That is priceless. Either whoever said this is real stupid or they just are punning around.

I wonder how he envisions what happens when the racquet drops and then is suddenly thrusted forward? Isn't that acceleration?

You are right that is "priceless".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

1
acceleration starts at impact
2 3
Replies
101
Views
885
paperweight36
P
Mattle
Kick Serve acceleration
Replies
3
Views
1K
mucat
mucat
N
A good habit to employ to ensure racket acceleration in 1HBH?
Replies
0
Views
698
New Daddy
N
watungga
How to Federer your forehand...
Replies
9
Views
2K
justballtennis
justballtennis
maxpotapov
My best forehand technique so far/ever?
2 3
Replies
100
Views
19K
maxpotapov
maxpotapov
Back
Top