Acceleration

[papa]

Tlm, I think whats really needed is your understanding of "takeback" and when it starts. Are you under the impression that top players have their racquets in the ready position (out in front of them) untill the bounce?

I understand the "passion" that many have for Oscar but very often he's not even doing what he tells people to do - at least thats my observation.

There are many involved with this site that really know what they are talking about. They have become "students" of the game and have spent countless hours studying all aspects of tennis. Tune in and you might be amazed by what you read - its good stuff.

Also keep in mind that most tennis players aren't really as good as they think they are and their skill level increases proportionally with the distance from any court. Having said that, please realize the opportunity you have to improve your game with the suggestion of people here. You might not care for BB but trust me, he knows what he's talking about. Stay tuned for a couple of months and you probably will change your mind.

 

[tlm]

I have stated before that i have read many of bb's threads + i have learned a lot from them.I never said he doesnt know a lot about the game, i realize he does.But i dont understand being called stupid when there is video proof to back up my point.I stated there is evidence to show takeback both ways.Please go to tennisone, checkout slo mo action on the first page it shows tim henman+ down from there it says learn more about tennisone+ t1 super slo motion video. Go there+ it shows james blake in slo motion,now there is no question that he makes his takeback after bounce! You can watch this without being a member.And i would have to say that anyone who says he does not is stupid.If you are a member, i found numerous shots from the rear that showed the same thing.Roddick seems to do it a lot,+ so does agassi. But there are also a lot of shots of takeback earlier,Like i stated before the pros do it both ways.Remember there are no absolutes in tennis. When ever i make this claim the doubters never checkout the video i suggest. Or if they do i dont hear about it, they start suggesting other videos to watch or the one i said to watch is not conclusive.Well watch the one with blake+ see what you think.I have watched a lot of these clips+ you can see the pros making takeback before,right at bounce+ most definitely after bounce.But if someone wants to show video of the way they want you to think is the only way,then either side can do that.And i dont want to start hearing about unit turn+ preperation,grip change + the other detours from the point.I will repeat on tennisone watch james blakes slo mo clip,and there it is for the world to see, the takeback after bounce!!!!!

 

[tlm]

By the way papa i just watched the clip of blake again to make sure, because i have been accused of being blind.And to top it off, he is standing there with the racket in front of him right at bounce, then takeback starts.

 

[JohnYandell]

You know I went and looked at the clip. Surprise! You are still blind! It isn't that people have accused you of being blind--it's that you are blind. Or maybe you just do this because you are actually seeking to be abused and have found a way to achieve your goal by continual lying in order to provoke people of good will. If so, I guess the joke is on us, guys.

The psychologist M. Scott Peck wrote a book about that called "People of the Lie." I think we've got a live speciman right here!


I noticed you didn't single out the Henman clip above it--I wonder why?

Henman:
http://www.tennisone.com/membership/slo-henman.php

Yes and please forbid us from talking about the unit turn, or the start of the take back. I know you don't want to hear about it--so we should just respect your request.

You can't really see the ball bounce in the Blake clip, but I'd estimate that the tip of the racket has already moved about two feet by that time. Oh yeah, I forgot DON'T mention the unit turn.

Here is the clip the genius is touting:

http://www.tennisone.com/newsletter/template/3.22.05.newsletter.html

Let's see if I have this right: you are arguing that the racket is moving backwards but that is not a take back. That makes such friggin' sense I think I'll go burn my articles and video tapes.

This is a super high ball (mishit??) and Blake steps into the court a couple of feet. Again he is initiating the turn and spreading out the motion over the interval. It starts instantaneously. It is continuous, and it is timed to the interval.

Really why are we wasting time arguing with this guy? Maybe he and Oscar should get a hotel room where they can be alone. Then they can have their love fest privately and stop insulting the intelligence and wasting the time of the people on this board that actually have an emotional attachment to reality.

Someone needed to say it.

 

[tlm]

I stated that the pros takeback both ways depending on the player+ the time.The tip of the racket has moved 2 feet? From were in front of him, to even with his head.What is the rest of the motion after you see ball, forward swing? Let me see now if there is any motion going back at all that is the takeback.With all the time he has on this mishit?, thought the racket would be back a lot sooner.

 

[alm]

tlm,

It's obsurd that you put forward the Henman clip from TennisOne.com as evidence of your claim. I've had a look at the clip and Henman is clearly taking the racket back before the bounce.

 

[predrag]

[snip]
You can't really see the ball bounce in the Blake clip, but I'd estimate that the tip of the racket has already moved about two feet by that time. Oh yeah, I forgot DON'T mention the unit turn.

Here is the clip the genius is touting:

http://www.tennisone.com/newsletter/template/3.22.05.newsletter.html

Let's see if I have this right: you are arguing that the racket is moving backwards but that is not a take back. That makes such friggin' sense I think I'll go burn my articles and video tapes.

This is a super high ball (mishit??) and Blake steps into the court a couple of feet. Again he is initiating the turn and spreading out the motion over the interval. It starts instantaneously. It is continuous, and it is timed to the interval.

Really why are we wasting time arguing with this guy? Maybe he and Oscar should get a hotel room where they can be alone. Then they can have their love fest privately and stop insulting the intelligence and wasting the time of the people on this board that actually have an emotional attachment to reality.

Someone needed to say it.

Actually there is a clip where blake is little late taking the racuet back:
http://www.tennisone.com/membership/images/blake-slo.mov

He turns his shoulders before the bounce, but finishes takeback after the bounce.
HOwever this is an exception and not the rule.

Regards, Predrag

 

[Bungalo Bill]

I stated that the pros takeback both ways depending on the player+ the time.The tip of the racket has moved 2 feet? From were in front of him, to even with his head.What is the rest of the motion after you see ball, forward swing? Let me see now if there is any motion going back at all that is the takeback.With all the time he has on this mishit?, thought the racket would be back a lot sooner.

I honestly don't think you know what a racquet takeback is. After making claims as to how great Wagner is, you would at least think he would teach you that. That racquet is back and pointing up for so many frames in the clip it is sick.

It is so clear that Henman has his racquet back well before the bounce, in fact, it is at his shin level when he is ready to drop the racquet and bring it forward. This is what the racquet back drill is all about.

The racquet back drill teaches a player to get their racquet back just like what Henman has demonstrated. When Henman is ready to drop his racquet for the forward swing, the ball is about shin hieght. He performed 99% of his backswing well before the bounce and the rest was just motion to bring the racquet forward.

For some reason I like you tlm, but I think you have become a bit foolish.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

I stated that the pros takeback both ways depending on the player+ the time.The tip of the racket has moved 2 feet? From were in front of him, to even with his head.What is the rest of the motion after you see ball, forward swing? Let me see now if there is any motion going back at all that is the takeback.With all the time he has on this mishit?, thought the racket would be back a lot sooner.

Sorry tlm, even on shots the pro is scrambling on, the racquet gets back and is up for the down and forward swing.

They have to, otherwise they would be late for some many balls and would not be playing in the pros, they would be playing with you at your public court.

We just proved it to you on your very own clips. The best thing for you to do is watch the Henman clip and get the racquet back just like he does. If you are having problems, the racquet back drill can help you turn those shoulders early and prepare the racquet early. Key to good tennis.

 

[JediMindTrick]

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".

I think bottle's knowledge of physics is severely lacking.

 

[FiveO]

I stated that the pros takeback both ways depending on the player+ the time.The tip of the racket has moved 2 feet? From were in front of him, to even with his head.What is the rest of the motion after you see ball, forward swing? Let me see now if there is any motion going back at all that is the takeback.With all the time he has on this mishit?, thought the racket would be back a lot sooner.

Let me see now if there is any motion going back at all that is the takeback.

What would you call movement away from the net and contact point? FYI, most published instructors refer to any rearward movement of the racquet is part of the seamless take-back, racquet preparation, backswing. Then the racquet/arm drops and then seamlessly transitions forward, when the racquet begins to be pulled toward contact by the body's movement again.

Most published instructors refer to the completion of the 90 degree unit thru the release of the non-dominant hand (NDH) from the throat of the racquet as having completed half if not more than half of the take-back. What most people involved in this debate with you are saying that not only is that unit turn completed but that the racquet has been released by the NDH and the racquet is at the height of the take-back before the ball has bounced. Thus about 2/3rds of the take-back is completed on the vast majority of fh's the pros hit (with some extremely rare exceptions) by the time the ball has bounced on their side of the court.

Now by the OW school of thought the entire movement is forward swing from the unit turn and the false accusation projected on the rest of the teaching world is that any description to the contrary is saying take the racquet back, independant of the turn and run with the racquet in the position. That is not what we are saying. We are trying to identify the sections of a continuous non-interrupted fh stroke, by the direction the racquet travels. While OW describes everything after the turn as forward stroke, the reality is that the racquet moves upward and rearward during the unit turn to the top of the take back, then the racquet drops downward and into the slot, before advancing forward, toward the net, ball, contact point, all going in the diametrically opposite direction to what we identify as the take-back. It's all one continuous motion performed in synchrony but there is a 180 degree reversal of the racquet's movement from rearward to forward.

If for the sake of this discussion, you wish to define the drop to the slot before transitioning foward to the contact point, as part of the take-back or backswing, that's fine. No problem.

If you are saying that the pros do not complete that drop prior to the bounce that's okay with me.

With that understanding of "the backswing" (unit turn, racquet released drawn back and to the top, and drop to the slot), if you are saying that the backswing is not completed, on every fh the pros hit, you will get no argument. But if you say that the pros don't initiate the unit turn, which is the start of the take back, before the ball bounces, it's simply not true. In fact at least 2/3rds of the take-back or "backswing" is completed by the bounce of the ball by the pros the vast, vast, vast majority of the time.

Two questions:

Are you saying that the pros don't take the racquet back by the time the ball bounces? Keep in mind that most people would respond to that statement as meaning the pros don't initiate the take back until the ball has bounced.
or

Are you saying that the pros initiate the unit turn portion of the take back almost immediately, have completed the release of the NDH and taken the racquet up and back to it's highest point by the time the ball has bounced but haven't completed the drop before the ball bounces?

If you have changing the accepted definition of "take back" or backswing to say it occurs after the NDH has released the racket and the racquet has reached it's highest point rearward. That is a convenient change of the definition and disingenuous at least.

Also "conceding" the pros do it both ways (take the racquet back but prior to and after the ball bounces) is misleading in that the majority of players understand the take back is initiated by the unit turn which the pros perform almost immediately as the opponent makes contact. It sounds like you are saying that the pros initiate the unit turn both before and after contact and that "after contact" sounds like the pros do it equally 'depending on the' shot. Or that while some pros do complete 2/3 of the take-back before the bounce and some don't, implying personal style has something to do with it.
That's plain misleading.

So I would ask that you provide your definition of the terms being discussed because on their face, your posts appear to non-sensical.

If you are baiting the responses you are getting, then you have issues.

 

[tlm]

BB i would never argue the henman clip does not show take back early, never said that.I am talking about the blake clip,on the same site there are many clips of roddick doing the same thing.As far as five0's questions I am not talking about unit turn, i am talking about racket going back after bounce.It seems blakes racket is obviously still going back well after bounce + then drop of racket.If you consider the turn the takeback then i would agree that happens early.+ after watching many clips the same player will do it both ways depending on time+ type of shot they are going for.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

and again and again

 

[Bungalo Bill]

What would you call movement away from the net and contact point? FYI, most published instructors refer to any rearward movement of the racquet is part of the seamless take-back, racquet preparation, backswing. Then the racquet/arm drops and then seamlessly transitions forward, when the racquet begins to be pulled toward contact by the body's movement again.

Most published instructors refer to the completion of the 90 degree unit thru the release of the non-dominant hand (NDH) from the throat of the racquet as having completed half if not more than half of the take-back. What most people involved in this debate with you are saying that not only is that unit turn completed but that the racquet has been released by the NDH and the racquet is at the height of the take-back before the ball has bounced. Thus about 2/3rds of the take-back is completed on the vast majority of fh's the pros hit (with some extremely rare exceptions) by the time the ball has bounced on their side of the court.

Now by the OW school of thought the entire movement is forward swing from the unit turn and the false accusation projected on the rest of the teaching world is that any description to the contrary is saying take the racquet back, independant of the turn and run with the racquet in the position. That is not what we are saying. We are trying to identify the sections of a continuous non-interrupted fh stroke, by the direction the racquet travels. While OW describes everything after the turn as forward stroke, the reality is that the racquet moves upward and rearward during the unit turn to the top of the take back, then the racquet drops downward and into the slot, before advancing forward, toward the net, ball, contact point, all going in the diametrically opposite direction to what we identify as the take-back. It's all one continuous motion performed in synchrony but there is a 180 degree reversal of the racquet's movement from rearward to forward.

If for the sake of this discussion, you wish to define the drop to the slot before transitioning foward to the contact point, as part of the take-back or backswing, that's fine. No problem.

If you are saying that the pros do not complete that drop prior to the bounce that's okay with me.

With that understanding of "the backswing" (unit turn, racquet released drawn back and to the top, and drop to the slot), if you are saying that the backswing is not completed, on every fh the pros hit, you will get no argument. But if you say that the pros don't initiate the unit turn, which is the start of the take back, before the ball bounces, it's simply not true. In fact at least 2/3rds of the take-back or "backswing" is completed by the bounce of the ball by the pros the vast, vast, vast majority of the time.

Two questions:

Are you saying that the pros don't take the racquet back by the time the ball bounces? Keep in mind that most people would respond to that statement as meaning the pros don't initiate the take back until the ball has bounced.
or

Are you saying that the pros initiate the unit turn portion of the take back almost immediately, have completed the release of the NDH and taken the racquet up and back to it's highest point by the time the ball has bounced but haven't completed the drop before the ball bounces?

If you have changing the accepted definition of "take back" or backswing to say it occurs after the NDH has released the racket and the racquet has reached it's highest point rearward. That is a convenient change of the definition and disingenuous at least.

Also "conceding" the pros do it both ways (take the racquet back but prior to and after the ball bounces) is misleading in that the majority of players understand the take back is initiated by the unit turn which the pros perform almost immediately as the opponent makes contact. It sounds like you are saying that the pros initiate the unit turn both before and after contact and that "after contact" sounds like the pros do it equally 'depending on the' shot. Or that while some pros do complete 2/3 of the take-back before the bounce and some don't, implying personal style has something to do with it.
That's plain misleading.

So I would ask that you provide your definition of the terms being discussed because on their face, your posts appear to non-sensical.

If you are baiting the responses you are getting, then you have issues.

FiveO,

I am agreement with John, I dont think tlm is going to get it.

The evidence is there that pros prepare early. Now, if Wagner is thinking that a couple of 2.0 players get together for a rally, then yeah maybe I can agree with tlm about being able to start their backswing near the bounce or very shortly after.

However, a 2.0 rally usually consists of high lobby balls that are moving slow through the air and have little spin on the ball. In other words, when it bounces a player has plenty of time to perform the backswing because the ball bounced so high and slow! lol

This is where tlm is getting his signals corssed up. The ball with Blake is a slow high bouncer which allows a pro to time his swing, shorten his takeback, and go through the ball.

I wish tlm would isolate that and tell us that on nearly all occasions, early racquet preparation is critical and is performed over and over again by the pros. This is a staple.

Wouldnt you agree?

And this acceleration stuff AFTER the shot is a real lulu. I

 

[Bungalo Bill]

and again and again

 

[Bungalo Bill]

hit the send button to many times.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

i was losing my patience with my slow computer.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

and again and again

 

[LoveThisGame]

Pete and repeat.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

BB i would never argue the henman clip does not show take back early, never said that.I am talking about the blake clip,on the same site there are many clips of roddick doing the same thing.As far as five0's questions I am not talking about unit turn, i am talking about racket going back after bounce.It seems blakes racket is obviously still going back well after bounce + then drop of racket.If you consider the turn the takeback then i would agree that happens early.+ after watching many clips the same player will do it both ways depending on time+ type of shot they are going for.

But tlm, you are not being truthful. The Henman clip clearly shows what pros do on 99% of their shots so it nullifies what Wagner says, or at the very least begs for a better explanation from him.

Using the Blake clip is not a good one. Since Blake is fully aware that early preparation is critical as evident on the overwhellming majority of his clips. But if you are going to use this clip for your mantra, you are sadly leaving out the rest of his clips that prove otherwise.

The takeback after the bounce is what you and Bottle are implying that the pros do based on your understanding of what Wagner says. That is the basis of your argument. But it is not true in 99% of the cases. It only happens on certain shots and rightly so. But it is not the rule as you have learned from Wagner.

If you want to be an good tennis player, take some of the things Wagner says, but I would discard this one. It is simply not happening and if it does it is happening on those shots you worked for like the one you see Blake hitting.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

If you consider the turn the takeback then i would agree that happens early.+ after watching many clips the same player will do it both ways depending on time+ type of shot they are going for.

When do I consider the racquet is back? That is a very good question.

The racquet is back when the:

1. Grip has changed

2. Shoulders have fully turned or will turn back a tiny bit more to only generate more force

3. The racquet is at or very near the point where it can be dropped and eventually accelerated forward.

4. The snap shot of Henmans position before the bounce is the essence of getting the racquet back.

The racquet is not down (at thigh level) and back, because that is part of the forward swing and not the backswing. But one could consider the racquet back at thigh level as being back if they did not have a looped swing (hence some twohanders).

If you look at Henman, his racquet head is pointing up, his shoulders are fully turned, and his grip is changed. He remains this way for a long time. This is getting the racquet back.

So, what does the "Racquet Back" drill teach? It teaches the position exactly as you see Henman's position in, therefore it is not "old school" and begs OW to explain himself.

Now, the question I want to ask you, would you consider this position as equal to what you believe "stalking" means? Would you be able to accept that a player can move in this position over a small distance to get to the ball? Now although I would not recommend a player running like this over a large distance, coaches can use the "racquet back drill" to emphasize getting the racquet back early and it would not be wrong as Wagner indicates.

Would you agree?

 

[tlm]

Well at least predrag did see the takeback after bounce.As far as bb's question, i dont know about racket back early drill being important.I know when i had lessons the instructor had me taking back as soon as the other player hit the ball + it did not work for me.After using oscars method of not thinking about takeback at all, it improved my groundstrokes immediately.I said before when i have noticed takeback after bounce by pro's, it is on slower shots they have plenty of time to set up on.By the way the same kind of shots that are common in 3.5 to 4.5 matches. If you are member of tennisone there are plenty of other pro's doing the same type of swing as blake.Especially roddick+aggasi ,You can only see it on rear views, were you see ball bounce. If you guys think that as soon as player turns+ starts to raise his racket,that this is the entire takeback then you are right.I guess i dont understand the part were the racket keeps coming back after bounce, like with blake clip+many others like it that i have seen on tennisone, to not be at least part of takeback. I mean racket is clearly moving backwards but that doesnt mean takeback?

 

[Midlife crisis]

tlm, think of it this way. Let's say an average pro groundstroke hits the ground at 40 MPH. That's 58.6 feet per second. If the ball bounces ten feet in front of where it's hit, that means there's 10/58.6, or 0.17 seconds to take the racket back and then move it forward to meet the ball. Do you really think that you can take the racket back and move it forward to the contact point in less than one-fifth of a second?

 

[JohnYandell]

Folks this discussion is no longer about tennis--if it ever was. It's about being played by someone with a personality disorder.

Let's elaborate a little bit on that theory from noted pyschologist Scott Peck I mentioned in a previous post.

What Peck found in his brilliant and innovative work "People of the Lie" was that habitual liars tell lies to vent passive aggression. They do this, to all appearances, in the course of normal discourse. But that isn't really their intent.

They enjoy the process of frustrating people who actually seek the truth. They do this by never acknowledging the truth or even the efforts of others to point it out and simply come back with yet another restatement of the same lie.

They argue and blame others and change their story with the wind to fit the objection of the moment but they never admit they are doing this. They assert that they are the ones who have been telling the truth the whole time, and that their story has never varied, no matter how many obvious facts to the contrary.

In this way they are able to unload tons of (passive aggressive) negative energy on positive people who (initially anyway) try to help them--and at the same time they cry that they are the victims because no one understands what they are saying.

They especially love it when people continue to try to argue them out of their lies. They may coyly imply that they are starting to see the light. Then people fall into their trap and keep the game going. At some level they know this is inflicting pain and frustration on others and that makes them feel important, even happy.


Remind you of anyone is this discussion?

 

[Bungalo Bill]

I guess i dont understand the part were the racket keeps coming back after bounce, like with blake clip+many others like it that i have seen on tennisone, to not be at least part of takeback. I mean racket is clearly moving backwards but that doesnt mean takeback?

But tlm, honestly, there aren't many other clips that support your theory. If you want to base your game around the clear minority that is okay. Maybe someday when it dawns on you that what Henman and everyone else does is a good thing, you can come back and post. But I really think you either dont get it or dont want to admit it.

The overwhelming majority clips shows Henmans type of take back - well before the bounce. You are basing your game on what is not there. Pros prepare well before the bounce, film proves it.

I dont think you are really saying things properly about the "racquet back drill". This is such an innocent drill that you really can't say "it didn't work." How can it not work? Once you get your racquet back early, it worked!

I mean think about that for a second. That is like saying after you failed an academic exam, "yeah, studying is for oldschoolers, it never worked for me".

 

[Bungalo Bill]

Folks this discussion is no longer about tennis--if it ever was. It's about being played by someone with a personality disorder.

Let's elaborate a little bit on that theory from noted pyschologist Scott Peck I mentioned in a previous post.

What Peck found in his brilliant and innovative work "People of the Lie" was that habitual liars tell lies to vent passive aggression. They do this, to all appearances, in the course of normal discourse. But that isn't really their intent.

They enjoy the process of frustrating people who actually seek the truth. They do this by never acknowledging the truth or even the efforts of others to point it out and simply come back with yet another restatement of the same lie.

They argue and blame others and change their story with the wind to fit the objection of the moment but they never admit they are doing this. They assert that they are the ones who have been telling the truth the whole time, and that their story has never varied, no matter how many obvious facts to the contrary.

In this way they are able to unload tons of (passive aggressive) negative energy on positive people who (initially anyway) try to help them--and at the same time they cry that they are the victims because no one understands what they are saying.

They especially love it when people continue to try to argue them out of their lies. They may coyly imply that they are starting to see the light. Then people fall into their trap and keep the game going. At some level they know this is inflicting pain and frustration on others and that makes them feel important, even happy.


Remind you of anyone is this discussion?

Reminds me of several of them here.

 

[JohnYandell]

Well I had someone particular in mind.

 

[papa]

I enjoyed reading about Peck and his work (assume its a book) "People of the Lie" - never heard of him before but think it interesting and plan to explore more. I've encounted quite a few of these folks along the way and never could quite understand what was going on.

Having said that, I think we all have to realize that there are many, many skill/understanding levels of tennis involved in this forum. Some have just recently been introduced to the sport while others have been around fifty years or more.

There is a great deal of MM tennis being played these days all over the place and its probably not realistic to expect these people to have the same respect/knowledge/skill sets of most serious players. People trot down to their local courts and are able to whip someone who doesn't know what they are doing either and bingo, you have an instant expert. Sound familiar like "Learn to Play Tennis in 2 Hours".

If you think I'm wrong, I'll bet (really won't) that Wal-Mart, Target, K-Mart, etc, sell more racquets under $20 bucks than the sales of all the pro shops. All the manufacturers are into it now - Prince, Head and Wilson. Every other person who buys one of these things (and they are better than we might think although I certainly would not recommend them for a serious player) probably considers themselves a player within a short period of time - like a weekend. Do any of us really think they are even capable of discussing the sport at a serious level?

I hope many will become serious players but they buy their little racquet (which ever one is the lightest) and three balls (which are used for three months or more) see/buy into one of Oscar's tapes and again bingo, they become an expert/teacher. All you have to do is read some of the stuff posted in this forum to realize this wide difference in ability/interest/background. Take a trip to your local courts and watch the husband/wife duo (husband will be the one telling the wife and anyone else within earshot how to do it "properly"), or a couple of kids (bigger one in this case is the expert), etc, etc, - its really quite amusing -- the blind leading the blind.

I think we, at times, are taking some of these people a little too serious. Its like taking a kid who has read/seen a Harry Potter book/movie and having a discussion of world literature with them - certainly doesn't mean they are stupid or won't get their PhD in Literature but at the moment, they are not prepared to actively participate in a meaningfull discussion. If you took a professor from lets say Yale, and stuck him in a third grade situation, would the kids learn more than they presently do from their regular teacher - I think not. Which one would get more frustrated? -- I think the one from Yale because his/her expectations might be a lot higher. Does any of this even apply to tennis - thats for all of us to think about.

Well, the people with PhDs around here are BB, MK, Marcus, etc. John Yandell is more like the Dean. Unfortunately, some folks don't/can't yet appreciate the qualifications represented by these people who have exceptional knowledge about our sport.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

Well, the people with PhDs around here are BB, MK, Marcus, etc. John Yandell is more like the Dean. Unfortunately, some folks don't/can't yet appreciate the qualifications represented by these people who have exceptional knowledge about our sport.

I appreciate your intelligent post and it was well written!

I would say the order is the followiing:

- John Yandell - Dean
- MK - Assistant Dean (could be equal with John)
- BB, FiveO, Marius, KK - Dedicated Students of the Game

Although I may post more, I definetly do not consider myself as knowledgable as Mahboob or John. When they post, I carefully read the post and take mental notes on any new insights to further my own knowledge in tennis.

I respect the above mentioned coaches very much and read their posts as well.

 

[JohnYandell]

Papa,

Thanks for that measured and balanced reply... I don't disagree with anything you said. I think the point of a forum, though, any forum, is that there is an honest give and take of information and opinion.

I often find that I have to expand or revise my views when I consider the questions and responses I see here. That's why I do it. For example the new perspective on the relaxed wrist developed by BB--that's something that I have really been stimulated by.

There is plenty of room to agree, disagree, and agree to disagree, but there are, at times, bottom line facts that if unacknowledged, freeze the discussion. Nobody can be right all the time, but if you are in a white room and one guy decides to insist to the death that the walls are all blue--that's not the spirit, now is it?

Yeah it's a book by Scott Peck. Makes you understand that you are not crazy when you encounter certain seemingly inexplicable behaviors...

 

[papa]

John, thanks for the response. Managed to get a copy of Pecks book yesterday and have only gotten to page 60 so I must reserve any comment other than say its interesting. I had forgotten Pecks other books, two of which I've read - "Road Less Traveled" in addition to another with a similiar name.

I understand and appreciate what both you and BB are saying. Tennis is an easy game to play but a hard game to play well - one has to constantly work at it like anything else. I think both you guys, along with others, have really helped those that want to learn, play a better game. However, it seems some peoples minds are like 1/2" boiler plate and regardless of the logic presented/applied they seem unwilling or prehaps unable to grasp any form of help. I don't think anyone is going to get very far in this sport without a serious effort to understand whats going on in every aspect of the game. I've known many (sad to say most) that have the tallent/ability but get just so far and stagnate - can't progress further. They become their own worst enemy - too bad but you see it all the time.

 

[JohnYandell]

Wow--we'll have to start another category on this board--philosophic implications of tennis analysis...

 

[Mattle]

Yea, you're in the wrong thread. I've look here for 89 times, because i thought people wrote something new about acceleration

 

[Simon.R]

great clips with federer gonna watch it a bit fopr sure!

 

[Simon.R]

hmm i dont understand 1 thing, wouldnt it be waaay to late to take racquet back after the bounce? i thought u would start get ready for the swing as soon as possible, to be prepared and get stable as much as possible b4 the actual swing? pls correct me if im wrong;

 

[nViATi]

hmm i dont understand 1 thing, wouldnt it be waaay to late to take racquet back after the bounce? i thought u would start get ready for the swing as soon as possible, to be prepared and get stable as much as possible b4 the actual swing? pls correct me if im wrong;

You're right. TLM is being a moron and trying to waste our time.

 

[Simon.R]

ah ok im relieved cuz how would federer on a mark philiphousis forehand begin takeback at bounce and still get ready properly?

 

[tlm]

I just went to tennisone again+ watched clips of roddick+ agassi from rear view,both players showed numerous shots with takeback after bounce.So you can say the pros never do that + i am all wrong.But if you go to that site + watch the clips maybe you will see things different. It seems that on this board not to many people think for themselves, if they are told that this is the only way then that is it, they just follow what they are told.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

I just went to tennisone again+ watched clips of roddick+ agassi from rear view,both players showed numerous shots with takeback after bounce.So you can say the pros never do that + i am all wrong.But if you go to that site + watch the clips maybe you will see things different. It seems that on this board not to many people think for themselves, if they are told that this is the only way then that is it, they just follow what they are told.

tlm, the racquet dropping and then coming forward is not the takeback. The takeback is the shoulder turn, preparing the elbow, and preparing the racquet before the dropping of the racquet. Nearly every pro on nearly every shot does this BEFORE the bounce, if they dont they will be late on many balls due to the pace of their game.

For onehanders they must get the racquet back or they die.

 

[Simon.R]

nice tlm "new user" bungalo bill "hall of fame" who to believe when one got a crazy argument, and the other a more reasonable?

 

[erik-the-red]

OK, this is a really long thread, and my answer is probably in here somewhere, but may I confirm my understanding of acceleration of the racquet head? I'm not talking about the kinetic chain, just the racquet.

1. You take the racquet back via some sort of a loop. This loop is based on personal preference.

2. Once the racquet is taken back to initiate the full swing, acceleration begins. The wrist is laid back, and the racquet head drops with a slightly closed face.

3. The acceleration continues through contact. The racquet is extended fully through the ball and finishes around the shoulder or waist.

Is this correct?

 

[Bungalo Bill]

OK, this is a really long thread, and my answer is probably in here somewhere, but may I confirm my understanding of acceleration of the racquet head? I'm not talking about the kinetic chain, just the racquet.

1. You take the racquet back via some sort of a loop. This loop is based on personal preference.

2. Once the racquet is taken back to initiate the full swing, acceleration begins. The wrist is laid back, and the racquet head drops with a slightly closed face.

3. The acceleration continues through contact. The racquet is extended fully through the ball and finishes around the shoulder or waist.

Is this correct?

Yes, it is the initial acceleration that causes the laid back wrist in the modern forehand.

 

[tlm]

To: BB, okay Then if the shoulder turn is the takeback then you are right.I was watching tennisone + they show the shoulder turn of 4 different pros+ they all raise the racket to at least head high or even higher + hold there, elbow up then drop racket into swing.I have film of myself + i do the turn okay but i have racket more by my waist, i then take it back+ drop some + make my swing.So i have been trying to raise it more + drop into swing but i am having hard time with consistency.At the last practice i was just keeping racket up a little,but making sure elbow was up+ that worked pretty well.Should i just stay with that or should i keep trying to raise racket more + then make drop?

 

[papa]

Well, what do you know. Sometimes it takes a lot of light to illuminate some little dark spaces. Sounds like tlm has learned something here which will make him a better player.

 

[bottle]

About # 91, erik-the-red: Doesn't seem bad description, except that you'll get more surge if you wait till just before contact, same as a golfer delays letting his hands come through.

Also, I don't think you want to extend fully through the ball, unless you wish to play like Maria, Lindsay or Mary. If you want to play like Justine, Kim,
Amelie, or the men, you'll cross the ball instead.

If you want to play like Roger, you'll let body throw a passive wrist before
crossing your body (muscularly!) with your arm. Acceleration would be from right to left, ending higher than it started-- not hitting through the ball,
in my view, although there certainly is one micro-second where racket tip points toward the net.

Some guy suggested, in the thread I just started, "How to Hit the Federer forehand," that evserything I'd said had been said a thousand times before.

I don't think so. I have read a LOT of tennis literature and never heard anyone describe Roger's use of wrist exactly as I'm doing here.

The racket tip becomes the last skater in snap-the-whip.

This is my sincere opinion.