Discussion in 'Tennis Tips/Instruction' started by mr_fro2000, Sep 28, 2012.
You know the answer to that. New technology aided these changes and hastened them.
Well done OP, trolled the lot of them.
You should listen to Suresh or read my post.
I haven't seen what an isolated racquet would look like in either case, but, I would think the difference would be very obvious, if not drastic. That's the whole point isn't it?
What part is not correct? I think the "modernness" of a stroke is a matter of degree. No one was hitting forehands quite like like Federer, Nadal or Djokovic with wood and gut. As I mentioned, some hit with modern technique, but, not with the extreme grips, rotation and swing paths that these players hit with today. Maybe Vilas was the closest.
Right, matter of degree. Occasional elements versus normative when we look at the history. And I am sure Novak knows what he is talking about. His forehand would have looked very different if he had to play with wood.
Limp, we have gone over this several times and reached agreement to an extent.
This is a thread asking about MTM, and the MTM modern Strokes were developed
in the late 60's and in use by early 70's with wood rackets; modeled
and based on strokes with wood rackets well before poly, and well before
MTM, as MTM was modeled on previous great strokes. Maybe your comment
is true to a large degree based on some general sense of modern, but the modern of MTM
in the OP was well before both modern rackets and string.
We agree that the strengths of modern played well with the new tools, but who
can say which was more important. A case could be made that the modern strokes were
key to the widespread use of the tools since power of the new
tools would have been harder to control without having the modern strokes
out there to take advantage of their qualities. I'm not making a case either way,
as to me it is silly to speculate on the chicken or the egg.
You are entitled to your opinion of course, but 1000% used here is absurd,
especially given we have the fact that Oscars instruction came earlier than
the new tools.
Interesting that all 3 players you cite have very different looking Fhs to most,
but can all be tied together by fundamentals of MTM instruction that predates
all 3 of them. Each of them meets the basics of the MTM Fh even though that
instruction was developed well before all of them hit the tour. Much different
than someone like JY reviewing tape for years after they are great to bring any
relevant point to bear.
Yes, to a matter of degree that is far less than 1000, and more like 900+%
Was 1000%, but now it's normative and occasional elements.
I'm not sure Novak has any idea how he would fare if he and all the others were
using wood now. Odd you would take his gracious type comment, showing respect
for the history of the game to mean something of actual substance related to
how he would fare. Another example of the type of evidence you accept for your
theories. I would gladly bet that he would still be able to be at the
very highest levels of the game if all were using wood rackets, but would give
Fed an edge. Even that is complete and pure speculation,
If you mean made it more obvious that the modern strokes were easier to learn
and use, yes. I agree that the new tools greatly sped up the change that was already
happening and maybe even added a level of amplitude as well; but that is not
close to what was stated imo.
From my view, there is no chicken and egg debate. A degree of the modern technique being used today was being used by many players (some more than others), before modern racquets were developed. By degree, I mean the amount and speed of upper body rotation, the amount of arm supination/pronation, the severity of the ascending swing path, the racquet speed, the grip, etc. But, the technique being used in 1970, which incorporated these elements, continued to evolve to the degree they are being used today as the racquets got bigger, lighter and more rigid, and the strings able to impart more spin. I would think that Oscar's MTM approach evolved with the equipment. That only make sense. The severity of today's technique just wasn't practical with wood racquets.
I always appreciate you non-biased view (with respect to MTM) and
You know we generally agree on most things here and even with JY most of the
time when he's not twisting things to take a poke a Oscar.
I agree that the strokes evolve and often gain amplitude. I agree that is likely to
continue as well, but that is not the same as what was posted earlier.
Quote-"two fundamental differences between the two styles of hitting.
Both of these differences are made possible by the size of modern tennis racquets"
If the rackets made it possible, then it was not possible before. I felt I knew what
you meant, and was only making a comment on this due to the 1000% claim
that was so out of place here.
What we see today still works off the fundamentals that MTM
published in the late 80s, just like MJ built on the basics learned with Dean
Smith. That's what great players do...they build on solid basics and take them
further. I think that is what you share on here each day. Now I don't know
where Dean learned those basics just like I don't know where Fed's coach learned
modern ones, but that is largely irrelevant to this discussion.
Yes if I disagree with Oscar I am twisting that on top of my own values to "take a poke" at Oscar. That's just crap.
Anyone who disagrees with him is clearly motivated by factors other than truth. Again, crap.
It must be sad and lonely here for you now without the leader and his yap yaps.
No, sorry, but nice try. I can't count the times I've caught you and corrected
the mis-info you put out about MTM. Either you were twisting it or just mis-
informed. I gave you the benefit of knowing your subject.
By the way, I didn't say anyone, but that is just you twisting again isn't it. lol
Thanks for giving me a quick example of how you operate.
About the lonely part...maybe you need to share more info with me, as I have
no idea what you are referencing there.
But I'll be glad to share with you the many wonderful things happening in my
life right now if you are so interested. What email would you like me to use?
Indeed, that is the point. So much so that if I were to prioritize the characteristics of modern tennis going from the most important to the least, I would say that the path of the racquet relative to the ball is the primary distinguishing feature of modern tennis. The next prominent feature is an enormously improved awareness, and use, of body kinetics in stroke making. I would put equipment at the bottom of the heap from the point of view of defining modern tennis, but it is significant in that the resulting increase in speed and spin has fostered new tactics and forced players to achieve ungodly fitness levels.
I am trying to have an intelligent discussion with Limp. Why don't you just butt out since you can do nothing but suck up to the leader. You have nothing to contribute that is substantial, either on your own part or as part of the cult.
When you say you have caught me in lies about Oscar that is genius. A basic liar's premise.
And please don't email ever. I have absolutely zero interest in what may be happening to you. Wait--unless the new is you have decided to stop posting permanently like the other yap yaps--email me that and I will send you a present.
I guess suck up is right there on your mind as you try to work that on limpin.
He's a pretty sharp guy and likely will see right thru your efforts though
He values his position as unbiased and realizes the new tack taken now that
efforts to paint him as a MTM person have rightly failed.
It will be interesting to see if you can get him to go for your strawmen
Probably have to try your usual of taking you efforts to email, but I bet he is
on to your game, lol.
Chuck do us all a favor and just shut up. You alone are the master that puts the suck in suck up.
Now Johnny boy, is that anyway to act?
Are we Cross?
I repeat. You have zero credability. Just go back to crashing navy jets.
More twisting there, but lets just give it a rest, oK?
Yes. Shut up and that will be fine.
and we were doing so well... delete thread...
i haven´t found anything on footwork from mtm, but contrary to you i´m not mad at them for it.
maybe i haven´t looked closely enough or in the wrong places or should just buy some of their dvds
with my advanced players i´m obviously doing movement drills
lots of excellent info available on the internet like the one you mentioned.
with a lot of seasoned players who come to me hoping to improve their game it´s more a process of unlearning bad habits.
i find that in the past, too much emphasis has been put on teaching ´proper´footwork to beginners, thereby confusing them. some people move so awkward on a tennis court, like they would never do on a soccer field, for example.
These are not scientific terms to be "defined." It is well commented on by many pros (verified ones LOL) who have become commentators that larger heads with more sweetspot area, poly strings, and new lighter materials have revolutionized the game. There is no point is pretending that it did not happen because Laver could hit topspin in 1965. In fact, in his book, Oscar explains the concept of a "modern sweetspot" which was almost as big as the head itself. Now, you may laugh at that claim and rightfully so (we all did), but the point is he explained his "hitting on the lower half" idea using the expanded sweetspot (and you explained it again properly LOL). So it is clear that you have not understood his teachings regarding equipment.
Now boys this has really gotten ugly. Lift it up a notch OK.
What a rip off! My Tennis Channel disappeared last night. Turns out it has been moved to a higher package on ATT Uverse. Since I cannot live without the channel, I agreed to pay $15 more a month and get a bunch of more channels which I will never watch.
These guys kill any bill in Congress which mandates that viewers choose their channels and pay per channel.
I agree this is a better way to state it and agree this make a lot of sense.
I recognize it is beyond my expressive powers to get my point across to you in this forum, so I won't even try. Sorry! On the plus side, I believe I just saved everyone a barrage of redundant verbiage...
I don't agree. The equipment is what has allowed the game to evolve as far as it has. The degree of departure from traditional strokes to the modern strokes we see today would not be a practical way to hit the ball with wood racquets. Did you know that the sweet spot on a traditional wood racquet is barely the size of a tennis ball?
Laver was probably the hardest hitter, with fastest racquet speed, the biggest supination/pronation, the steepest ascent, and the heaviest topspin in the history of tennis with a wood racquet. But, Laver's stroke wasn't half of what today's players are doing in those respects. It couldn't be, even with Laver's amazing talent and freakishly oversized left arm. You just can't swing at the ball like that, with such a steep swing path, with a heavy wood racquet, and consistently hit the tennis ball size sweet spot, much less generate the racquet speed of todays game.
You need to get it across to Oscar, not me, because he was the one who pointed out the role of the modern sweetspot in current frames and its role in topspin. It is OK if you don't agree with him and think that it is easy to hit with topspin with a 65 sq inch frame. Actually, I was able to do it too, but probably not at the pro level.
Agreed, absolutely! Equipment has influenced the evolution of the modern game. But my point is, when you are trying to define what the modern game is, where would you fit in equipment? Let's say you watch a Laver/Rosewall game and a Federer/Nadal game and are asked to point out what the differences are. Where would equipment come in, in your description? One can play modern tennis with older equipment, and one can play classical tennis with new equipment. That's why I believe that equipment is not a defining characteristic of modern tennis, although it is a primary enabler. Maybe I am just quibbling and we are all actually in agreement...
Chris Evert has said that most of the attention in her time went into making solid contact with a tiny sweetspot leaving little room for anything else. I guess Bhupaes knows more than her though I personally will go with what real pros say.
Your premise is wrong, that is the problem.
"One" is too vague. Surely one person like Laver can hit with a lot of topspin. But it is extremely difficult for most people, even pros, to play the modern game with old equipment. As has been pointed out before, Djokovic has confirmed it. Chris Evert said that a long time ago. JMac has said it a hundred times. Wayne Bryan tried to prevent his sons from playing a wood expo before the USO out of fear of injury.
Read the expert Rod Cross here and learn the facts before arguing:
i love that article by rod cross
rosewall and hoad barely breaking a sweat.
players grunting and screaming and reaching for their towel because of the demands of the modern game.
do post that in the former pro forum
Here is very good analysis of the typical Nadal FH racquet path http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...is/Speed-and-Spin-Nadals-Lethal-Forehand.html.
The picture 1, clearly demonstrates that around impact, frames from #5 to #7, there is no “special” horizontal across motion at all. It occurs after impact, frame #9.
The picture 2 shows that during contact racquet’s path is almost straight forward. IMO, it must be this way if we want to hit powerful FH.
There also is no compact swing and sudden, 3” before impact, racquet acceleration.
So far I see zero correlation between Wegner recommendations and real professional game. That’s why virtually nobody can comprehend MTM. We cannot see what is not there.
Are you serious?? That is what you see when you look at that?
Pic 2 bears little resemblance to pic one to start with.
You really can't see how the arc starts at #6 and is very heavy by #7 on to 8?
Wow. That explains a lot about your observations.
Not sure what a "special horizontal across motion" is?
But it is clearly across.
Doesn't the greater gap between #s indicate more speed?
And it's only from 2D perspective right?
Are you the one who did that pic 2? which seems to have come from an
entirely different observation.
Why have you never read messages from other parties carefully? The picture 2 has come from The New York Times video, see please post 135.
I didn’t insert all frames in picture 1 in order to demonstrate the ball’s path clearly. So, you cannot evaluate speed and acceleration of the racquet.
About arm speed and acceleration see my old post.
I analyzed Federer inside out hard FH on the APAS System http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPLmCqGIotM
There are data about his arm speed and acceleration around the wrist during forward swing.
Figure 1. Speed and acceleration of the arm
The picture demonstrates that Federer is able to increase acceleration/force of the arm from frame #1 to #9. The magnitude of the force declined after frame #9. Around impact, frame #24, acceleration decreased more than 70%.
So, he is not able to accelerate the arm significantly near impact. But, this is very hard FH and without doubt he is trying to produce maximum acceleration/force.
Question: What is wrong with Federer?
There is figure from http://sanderroosendaal.wordpress.com/2010/07/26/muscle-power-vs-contraction-speed/
Figure 2. Muscle force versus muscle contraction speed
Figure 2 shows the muscle force versus muscle contraction speed. It’s a very important graph because it marks where classical mechanics stops and exercise physiology starts. Note that the graph is idealized, with no absolute values on the axis. Each athlete will have a slightly different graph, which will probably also change as a result of training.
This fundamental property of muscle has numerous biomechanical consequences, including limiting racquet speed and force around impact.
So, there's nothing wrong with Federer. It's just a biomechanical law that he must unquestioningly obey!
If you don’t like my analyses, please reveal your own, enough already useless words without any proof. :evil:
Why do you want to convince 5263 (and other amatures)? He is a very part time teacher. I am a full time professional who can hit almost every pro stroke. All your observations about the serves and ball trajectories are correct. The MTM observations (up, across and ?) are so naive. Maybe that happens but is so general that you can maybe help an intermediate player. It is not describing the far more complex arm and racket action of the pro's. I am making models of these actions. It is as naive as the Smart Targets System which is already a system and what you can buy next year.
I like your thoughts and studying. Please continue. Answer people like 5263 once and than let them think what they want to think.
IMO, given the target path (DTL) and his arm extension, there cannot be a lot of horizontal motion, but some will be there because of his wrist movement. His big controlling spin is TS, and lots of it.
You mean a super pro of inner systems like you who can hit nearly every shot
isn't sure or doesn't know?
You have been talking inner characteristics for over 5 yrs now and I've never
seen anyone who had a clue what you are saying, despite numerous request
for you explanations by full time coaches, so really can't wait to hear of your
advanced models, lol.
Ok, first, sorry I didn't find that Pic 2 that was on the screen for a couple of secs
during that vid, but to my defense, it was mostly blocked on my screen
by a big pause symbol for some reason.
On the bright side, that symbol was helpful once I located that frame. It was
very useful to show how incredibly inaccurate that stroke path illustration was.
Watching the few secs prior where it had the swing, I could use the pause for
reference to the path and then see how way off the pic two lines were drawn in.
Its not even close. It's like they used something totally different, like say
a traditional perspective on extending the swing path down the target line.
So maybe you also need to look at things more carefully and see there is the
evidence (not Proof of course) you request.
As to accel, why do you bring it up that you don't see it there, then come back
and say it is not set up to use for that purpose? Maybe that is why you don't
I’m retired engineer and have too much free time. But, my brain cannot quit working. So, to keep it busy and happy I decided to analyze tennis strokes from engineer point of view. This is really fun for me.
Concerning the bolded part, I suppose you could, but, it wouldn't be optimal. In other words, I think Don Budge would play a higher level of tennis with his racquet than Djokovic would, and vice versa.
Here is picture that combines the racquet path and its approximation from New York Times. It seems they did very good job.
If you know any better approximation algorithm, just let me know. However, I must warn you that no one has yet invented a perfect approximation.
Did you read post 137?:shock:
Wouldn't be difficult to determine rhs from a graphic like that because that kind of pic only shows the horizontal movement? What about the low to high movement and the wrist flex and pronation which all contribute to the speed of the face. You can't really see the wrist and forearm movement contributions in that pic only horizontal movement of the entire racquet. no?
So even if the arm itself isn't accelerating at contact the racquet head should be because of the above movements. You can't see wrist and forearm movements in that pic but we all know it's there and with nadal he uses a lot.
acceleration... you brought it up in 135 I think with this..."There also is no
compact swing and sudden, 3” before impact, racquet acceleration."
Then you come back in #137 and say, "So, you cannot evaluate speed and
acceleration of the racquet."
So first you claim that sudden accel is not there
(never mind MTM does not claim sudden accel),
then come back and say it cannot be evaluated.
I'm just asking, which way you want it?? Are you going to claim it's not there
or claim it cannot be evaluated from the info??
And NO, that is a very poor job with the illustration and shows several inches,
if done to scale, of straight forward swing where there is none and has the
last part of the straight section up at the frame instead of the middle where
it started and was tracking! Those are the critical inches
where the face is coming across. The small straight section would be the
lead in and rt before contact the face is coming across at greater than the
angle this illustration has at the end of it's straight segment. Don't want to be
mean, but surely you were not that sloppy with your work as an engineer, right?
in my view toly's latest graphic from NYT is pretty accurate depiction of how I imagine Nadal's swing path would be. it's from the top view so the vertical path can't be seen but it's surprising how little pulling across there is on that graphic. don't want to knock MTM, just saying. 5263 your latest comment sounds pretty harsh kinda unbecoming.
Hey, I will apologize. But, must say I'm quite astounded. Just shows how 2 folks
can look at the same thing, but see it different. I don't know what you expected
to see but the swing is just what I knew it would be and is critically different
from the pic#2. I'm not surprised some won't get the importance of it, but
for you and an engineer...I'm sort of floored.
But I do apologize if I've been unbecoming and don't really intend to be harsh so
much as to drive an important point.
And thanks for letting me hear that in a direct and positive way. I'll work on it.
wish I had somewhere to send my version of that pic with the proper line
drawn for the path, so to show what a huge difference it makes. tinypic
was not working for me.
Don't you see how the fat yellow line is inside the contact point at contact,
(instead of over the contact area)
then well outside the contact point in the next ref pt?
(again, instead of over the contact area)
Proper line should be more than 30 degr off of the target line.
What did you expect?
Click to view full size!
Separate names with a comma.