I thought you were part of mtm? Or am I wrong? Modern Tennis Methodology.
I dont understand this rent free thing.
You are the guy that thinks ATP players try to hit the ball "NOT" in the center of the strings. Lol. And we are supposed to give weight to your tennis methods?
Sure Oscar. Sure. Why don't you say it to my face at the next mtm luncheon?
Yes Oscar. The money you send from the cult people buys a lot in Beverly Hills
www.tennisfever.it
Fake news!!!!! Fake news I tell you. Ironically. Russia also plays into the history of Knox and mtm. Coincidence? I think not.
That is what the Russian spy agencies want you to believe. I think they call it deep cover.
I feature in my upcoming book "The HIstory of US Tennis Instruction: 1874-2020" a quote from a female instructor who wrote a book (OVER A HUNDRED YEARS AGO) that it was desirable to hit the shot close to the throat of the racket as possible. 5263 had determined this was desirable before we began our discussions in 2007 that resulted in my partnering with him on court in early 2017.Various sweet (& other) spots on a racquet:
Three 'Sweet Spots' on Tennis Rackets, Professor Says
Conventional tennis wisdom is all wrong, says a physics professor who has found that a racket has 3 "sweet spots," not one, and that loose rather than taut strings will yield more cross-court winners.www.latimes.com
Rod Cross:
.
Actually, since he has written two chapters, the first in which he calls for a new vocabulary to better understand modern tennis, he has always claimed since we started speaking in early 2007 that one of the secrets was to hit the ball nearer the throat, which is why I replied to Harold Brody's claim that it was one of the 3 sweetspots. These different sweetspots were known by engineers who taught and played tennis a century ago, particularly one who helped design the modern wood racket in the early 1900s. Also, Tom Okker, considered the best forehand in the game in the late '60s, wrote that to get more topspin, he closed the racket face on his forehand.
Is this analogy from Oscar's original book also used in your book?
Let's go on the record so everyone knows where I stand. My book was originally 1,300 plus pages of quotes from tennis coaches throughout history plus 100 pages of my arguments. I am almost to the 650 page cutdown mark. I was Oscar's right hand man for 12 years in a campaign to simplify instruction. Whatever you or I think of him, objectively, his impact on the game was huge. But as I realized that many of his tenants had been known for over a hundred years I began to wonder why you can find an "Oscar Wegner" contrarian teaching much like he did every year since 1900 (including "major" tournament winners when the greats all used to write books because they couldn't teach for money nor accept prize money.....books were the only tennis outlet to make money). I parted ways with him over non-tennis matters in 2016 but partly because I realized that 5263 was rising up in my estimation of innovative tennis pioneers in the 140 plus years of known tennis methods. I told 5263 that I was only with Oscar because I knew historically that he had many things correct and that many of the claims (particularly on this site) about him were incorrect, particularly about exactly what he taught, but my real goal was to grow tennis and I stuck my sword in the grassroots niche alongside Oscar. I told 5263, Yandell, and others I was looking for the best tennis method yet devised. We look for a certain "symmetry" in tennis instruction that matches and makes sense. Oscar does call me a fraud now when anyone asks, and may have helped cause me to lose a contract for a 24 court facility three miles from my house when they called him wondering why I did not list him as reference after I had brought him and a team of great coaches to that facility in 2015 (when we all met 5263 finally to test his tennis methods). Though Oscar still badmouths me, I don't take it personal and I rate Oscar an important tennis pioneer in history despite the fact he, like Yandell and other prominent coaches, have claimed I am a fraud (Yandell has since likely changed his mind about me as we have been corresponding here and there). With Oscar, it's over my observations and questions about a cultish mafia like business that masquerades as a religion. He and tennisangel were forced by mafia cult decree to disconnect and never speak of me. I don't regret what I learned from Oscar nor the time I spent because it led me to do 14 years research on a book whose goal is to resolve many of the conflicts in tennis and finally reverse the per capita decline of a game that extends life spans an average of ten years for good reasons because it also builds your brain, something we need more than ever. However, Oscar taught exactly like a revolutionary PRE-world war one coach who was called the best tennis coaching expert on both sides of the Atlantic. I have studied every tennis method published in English language I could find since 1874. Go to my facebook page under John Carpenter of Fairburn, GA if you wish to see the first part of the book. The page behind the cover tells a lot of what is in the book. Many of the debates on here such as open vs closed stance existed in the 19th century. So did hitting above or below the sweet spot versus in the sweet spot. My quote that begins Chapter 3: “Legend tells us one thing, history another. But every now and then you find something that belongs to both.” Nick Fury of Marvel movie fame portrayed by Samuel L. Jackson
Thank you for giving information on your upcoming book. I didn’t see your answer to my question.
I didn't use those particular quotes in the book since you want to know specifically. I quote hundreds of coaches and books particularly on how the forehand was taught and Oscar is the third author/contrarian I delve into deeply before I have 5263 introduce a call for a higher resolution of tennis instruction to unite us rather than divide us.. I began to see patterns reading over 1,200 books. Who would have thought the straight elbow arm hitting structure versus the bent arm debate had been written about in the 19th century but when you think about it, there are only so many ways the human body can move and it stands to reason in the first 30 years of tennis until 1904, they pretty much figured out the different ways to strike the ball. By 1904, they pretty much had taught what they teach today in 2020 other than the 2HBH. They were teaching the bolo "buggywhip" forehand in the 19th century which I have stated before on this site ten years ago. Players were trying two handers in the 19th century but were discouraged for reasons such as women wearing heavy dresses and corsets originally. I think 1920 was the first Wimbledon played without a woman having to wear a corset. Pants made certain moves not easily executed which is why Jack Kramer said shorts (not rackets and strings) were the greatest innovation allowing a freer range of easier movement. The only difference I see today is in the speed of the game. I didn't know Bill Tilden had admitted he didn't figure certain things out and that advances would likely be in this particular area, which I credit 5263 as the first coach to solve one of tennis's biggest debates. Once the book is out in first edition this year, if I have missed anything, I'm sure this site will be the first to let me know. Second edition will then update any relevant things I missed since coaches like Tom Stow never wanted anyone to know what they really taught and thus only published one short book in 1948. I can only go by what I find in writing (and I found things that no one has ever drawn attention to and a lot of history will be corrected, which happened when my editor (Richard Hillway)...his 2018 book "The HIstory of Lawn Tennis" that he coauthored, came out. It took him nearly 20 years of research to write one of the most fascinating books on tennis. Wimbledon paid him an his co-author a lot of money to write that book. If you don't know, nearly every article on the history of tennis in the US and how it began is full of errors. I push "The History of Lawn Tennis" so that the internet sites will start to correct their timelines.
lol, nice try to cover that didn't know of more than one sweetspot. Remember I posted first on this, so it is YOUR comment that needed to be relevant to mine to matter. Your comment was relevant but incorrect.
but he was responding to my comment and he was exactly right.
He has mentioned it before. I think he said it was almost finished. I also think that's when the whole scientology thing came up and I started goofing all of them mtm people on it. So I might of derailed some discussion of it....
Don't worry. My editor and a lot of people make sure I am not so verbose. A lot of trained eyes have seen it and offered suggestions.
Can you list the tennis books you read? I like reading about tennis history and technique.
