Is most tennis instruction completely wrong-headed?

[Limpinhitter]

Borami and 5263

Hmm interesting way of looking at it. As I understand it proprioception is the sense of feeling which identifies the location of parts of the body relative to other parts (and space). You point about learned technique matching proprioception results in "natural recognition" doesn't scan with my understanding (not to say my understanding is entirely correct ) - proprioception is a sense, senses (whilst inbuilt) must have interpretation to be useful, for example we all are born with a sense of touch, but it is only when we interact with the world and then other people tell us what that feeling is, do we relate that feeling to the object. To say that hitting a ball a certain way is more natural than another doesn't make sense with this understanding. Providing no method places the body into positions outside it's acceptable range of motion (which as far as i'm aware neither the "traditional" nor "modern" - whatever those terms actually mean - teaching systems do) then neither should be more or less natural than the other. The myelination process makes no distinction between movement - it simply creates and reinforces the neural pathway for whatever movement is being repeated - the more repetition of the movement the greater the myelination.

I take your point about stroke efficiency - I work with a simple premise that I want my players to have "minimum work in = maximum work out" and that proper use of the kinetic chain can result in improvements in this efficiency (stretch-shorten muscle cycle, angular, linear or vertical momentum depending on stance etc), but I still don't take the point that a certain hitting structure is more "natural". It may be more similar to something the player has done before (prior myelination) and therefore be quicker for the player to establish the new pattern of movement/s, but those prior movement are learned also - they are not born into them.

Fun discussion though - this is what Tips/Instruction should be about!!!

Cheers

Proprioception is position sense. Sensory peripheral nerves send feedback to the brain which interprets the feedback and thereby has an understanding of where your body parts are in space, and in relation to each other and surrounding objects. I suspect that pro golfers have extaordinary proprioception compared to the population at large.

I don't know if tennis technique can be characterized as more natural based on proprioception. But, I think it can be characterized as more natural based on biomechanics. For example, IMO, technique that employs upper body rotation as a primary device to swing a racquet is more natural than technique that employs primarily swinging the arm from the shoulder.

 

[Ash_Smith]

Proprioception is position sense. Sensory peripheral nerves send feedback to the brain which interprets the feedback and thereby has an understanding of where your body parts are in space, and in relation to each other and surrounding objects. I suspect that pro golfers have extaordinary proprioception compared to the population at large.

I don't know if tennis technique can be characterized as more natural based on proprioception. But, I think it can be characterized as more natural based on biomechanics. For example, IMO, technique that employs upper body rotation as a primary device to swing a racquet is more natural than technique that employs primarily swinging the arm from the shoulder.

Which I what I said - however, why would you think that golfers have a greater sense of proprioception than the general populace when it is a sense rather than a skill - unless you are saying senses be improved with practice?

why is it more "natural" to swing upper body rotation than to swing with the arm from the shoulder? It's more efficient certainly, but that doesn't make it more natural???

 

[r2473]

Hahaha! On the other side, I'll bet he was thinking "pulverize fuzzy yellow ball in to dust."

That is exactly what I say to myself when I'm playing.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Which I what I said - however, why would you think that golfers have a greater sense of proprioception than the general populace when it is a sense rather than a skill - unless you are saying senses be improved with practice?

why is it more "natural" to swing upper body rotation than to swing with the arm from the shoulder? It's more efficient certainly, but that doesn't make it more natural???

Genetics. I think that superior proprioceptive sense is what enables those who put in the work to attain the level of skill that it takes to execute the kind of consistent repeatable golf swing necessary to play pro level golf. If you play golf, you know how even minute variations in body position, balance and swing path can affect the quality of shot making. Similarly, the ability to process incoming information through the eye and have your body respond in a split second to set up to hit an oncoming tennis ball varies greatly among different levels of players. Sure, both of these inate skills can be worked on and improved. But, if you are starting with more natural ability in these respects, your improved level will be higher than it would be otherwise. Perhaps that's what separates champions from the rest.

Swinging with UBR occurs naturally with all swinging sports. Unfortunately, for 60+ years, that natural tendency was ignored, and in large part, purposely taught out of tennis.

 

[Surecatch]

I've been playing seriously for 3-4 years after only messing around as a kid.

I've reached the point where I am winning nearly all 3.5 level matches in club and USTA play. At 4.0 I am losing nearly all.

When I took up the game in earnest a few years ago, my first lesson led me to the modern, SW grip, open stance forehand.

I've experimented with nearly every possible stroke style over the last few years. Modern with strong grips, classic with milder grips, two-handed on both sides, 1hbh and 2hbh, continental or variation thereof on everything like Mac and Laver.

It doesn't seem to matter HOW I hit the ball.

What matters is movement, anticipation, court position, tactics and focus. This is becoming more true as I try to break through to the next level.

HOW you hit the ball actually seems to be the least important part of the puzzle.

But every pro I've worked with and pretty much every piece of written or video instruction treats HOW you hit the ball as the most important part of the puzzle.

Thoughts?

In his book Think to Win, Allen Fox says that when he was forced to play left handed while recovering from an injury, he was able to beat all but the very top players in the club where he was the pro simply by hitting the ball 10-15 over the net deep into the court.

This is one of the best posts I've seen here. You sound exactly like me in what I'm trying to do. I practice every day, play in two leagues, get a bit of private lessoning, and take a class. I'm desperate to get better....and I am, incrementally. Right now I'm at the level of losing most 3.5 level matches. I haven't learned the fine art of concentration and winning yet, but it's getting better.

More to your point....I agree with most of what you say about grips, and I've come to the same conclusions the same way. The first lesson I had, I was taught a SW grip. I liked it for my style of play, but I don't really use it now. I cheat down and get a bit closer to an eastern grip. It works better for me. And I've come to the same conclusions about footwork and preparation being at least as important in how you hit the ball. I'd also add concentration of clean striking and proper mechanics in the swing. To me, that made more of a difference than which grip I was using. When I concentrate and focus, I hit cleanly with proper mechanics. When I lapse, I don't prepare and set up for the shot properly and my swing gets "wristy" as opposed to a good fluid across the body motion.

 

[r2473]

In his book Think to Win, Allen Fox says that....... he was able to beat all but the very top players in the club where he was the pro simply by hitting the ball 10-15 over the net deep into the court.

That is often the first tactic I try when playing someone I'm unfamiliar with, just to see what they do and if they know how to beat it.

 

[boramiNYC]

Which I what I said - however, why would you think that golfers have a greater sense of proprioception than the general populace when it is a sense rather than a skill - unless you are saying senses be improved with practice?

why is it more "natural" to swing upper body rotation than to swing with the arm from the shoulder? It's more efficient certainly, but that doesn't make it more natural???

It could be a small difference in perspective, but consider this. When an action is taken by the body there is a command from the brain, which is the feeling of need to take a certain action. This demand is the most basic aspect of what drives an action. When this process is not recognized or respected or skipped, the control of the action diminishes and random errors are introduced. Like an action potential on a nerve once it reaches a certain threshold the transmission becomes automatic but that threshold must be met. The brain command and automation of movements is kinda like that. The brain command must be there for this chain of event to be truly automatic with control.

This need from the brain creates something like a force field that propels the chain of muscle contractions. The most 'natural' mechanics is the one that meets the need with the least amount of effort or energy. Kinda like how an apple falls straight down in gravity because that is the most direct line of meeting the force field of gravity requirement. For functioning of muscles if the action stays very closely to the optimal contraction range to achieve a certain goal, the brain recognizes and memorizes the spatial properties of muscles for the best way for that action by the sense of proprioception. To be honest, I'm using the term proprioception because that is the only sensation feedback from the muscles to the brain, and it may as well be something else if there are more things known about this process.

Hope this makes some sense.

 

[sureshs]

It makes sense, but is it correct?

 

[boramiNYC]

It makes sense, but is it correct?

you can hold your breath. I'm not holding mine until someone else or many others do the research and find it correct or not. Science doesn't serve in the fields of performing art. Science follows where the money and litigations are except basic science. Arts don't have money and the failure doesn't lead to litigations. In this sense science lags many many years of tennis performance and it never will catch up imo. Science is useful for injuries but not that useful for tennis performance. Scientists just don't get paid researching it.

 

[sureshs]

I take the same view for herbal supplements (cannot bother to wait for research). Sometimes I have my own experiences that they do some good, but cannot prove it. And they also may do nothing or even be harmful. I do have couple of my own data points, though. Like a supplement once reduced my blood sugar by 25 points in 3 weeks.

Is there a concrete example of a choice someone has made about a stroke which is more natural and easier to commit to muscle memory versus a stroke which was not (other than the ones already known to everyone)?

 

[boramiNYC]

Which I what I said - however, why would you think that golfers have a greater sense of proprioception than the general populace when it is a sense rather than a skill - unless you are saying senses be improved with practice?

why is it more "natural" to swing upper body rotation than to swing with the arm from the shoulder? It's more efficient certainly, but that doesn't make it more natural???

Quality of senses-mind combination can vary greatly and also can be trained to make them more sensitive in terms of sensitivity and recognition of variety. Some people have better hearing senses, some have better smelling ability, blind people develop much greater touch sense, etc. I believe proprioception works exactly the same as the other senses. It can be greatly improved by proper guidance and training on top of strong need for it, and that is the basis for coordination for athletic or dance performance.

What repetition does is create the muscles strength and flexibility so the required movement can be performed over and over.

It seems to you someone who achieves amazing coordination and skill at such a young age even without much teaching can't happen, but they do happen tho not so often.

 

[daved]

we are all tennis scientists

you can hold your breath. I'm not holding mine until someone else or many others do the research and find it correct or not. Science doesn't serve in the fields of performing art. Science follows where the money and litigations are except basic science. Arts don't have money and the failure doesn't lead to litigations. In this sense science lags many many years of tennis performance and it never will catch up imo. Science is useful for injuries but not that useful for tennis performance. Scientists just don't get paid researching it.

Original poster again.

Thanks to all for your contributions...interesting discussion.

I like this post -- we have to be our own scientists in tennis, making observations and hypotheses.

I've made two separate but related observations and hypotheses:

Observation 1: I tend to compete about as well with any one grip or stroking style as with another. Related observation: players have played at the top of the game with a wide variety of stroking styles.

Hypothesis 1: Stroking style (STYLE, not efficacy) is probably not among the most important factors in determining competitive success.

Observation 2: The best tennis players I have seen over 40 have had simple strokes and often very simple approaches to gripping the racquet. These players were also at the top of the game in their prime years.

Hypothesis 2: Simple strokes can be effective at the highest levels of the game and in fact are likely more conducive to sustaining high-performance competition as the player ages. Related hypothesis: perhaps the typical non-pro player, who plays to compete and to enjoy and likely for a lifetime, would be better served (in terms of competitiveness, enjoyment and injury prevention) by learning simpler rather than more complex gripping and stroking styles.

 

[Timbo's hopeless slice]

I think your first hypothesis is well supported by available evidence however I fear your second hypothesis has a couple of problems.

You really need to define what you mean by 'simple strokes'.

I believe you are mistakenly attributing some perceived complexity to modern strokes that is simply not there.

A modern FH is no more or less 'simple' than a classic FH, they are just fundamentally different.

 

[daved]

"simple"

So you're saying that Connors's forehand is not "simpler" than Nadal's?

There have been "classic" players with complex strokes, as well.

For example, Leconte I believe played and plays Conti or close to it on all his shots and was very "classic" in that way, but how he whips the racquet through a groundstroke is every bit as complex and intricate as a Nadal or Federer. Likewise Nastase.

I would give anything to be able to play like Leconte or Nastase in their prime. But I think what they did and do with a racquet is every bit as complex and complicated as any modern player and likewise out of my reach.

Connors's forehand, on the other hand, is basically one simple lever, esp. relative to a Nadal or Fed.

 

[Timbo's hopeless slice]

Nadal doesn't make a good example, name another player on the tour who plays like him? See? He is like McEnroe in that his technique is very much his own..

You actually go on to argue my case for me.

 

[Limpinhitter]

So you're saying that Connors's forehand is not "simpler" than Nadal's?

There have been "classic" players with complex strokes, as well.

For example, Leconte I believe played and plays Conti or close to it on all his shots and was very "classic" in that way, but how he whips the racquet through a groundstroke is every bit as complex and intricate as a Nadal or Federer. Likewise Nastase.

I would give anything to be able to play like Leconte or Nastase in their prime. But I think what they did and do with a racquet is every bit as complex and complicated as any modern player and likewise out of my reach.

Connors's forehand, on the other hand, is basically one simple lever, esp. relative to a Nadal or Fed.

There was nothing classic about Leconte's groundstroke technique. He had big, looping, wristy, heavy topspin strokes with a Continental grip similar to only a few players in tennis history including Hoad, Laver, Okker and Nastase.

 

[boramiNYC]

I take the same view for herbal supplements (cannot bother to wait for research). Sometimes I have my own experiences that they do some good, but cannot prove it. And they also may do nothing or even be harmful. I do have couple of my own data points, though. Like a supplement once reduced my blood sugar by 25 points in 3 weeks.

Is there a concrete example of a choice someone has made about a stroke which is more natural and easier to commit to muscle memory versus a stroke which was not (other than the ones already known to everyone)?

yeah there are parts in life where science is not that relevant. that doesn't mean science doesn't have authority. within its boundaries it has no match in solidity of knowledge. some people simply don't understand those boundaries. anyways I think solid reasoning and communicating abilities should be enough for designing experiments with acceptable level of trustworthiness of the results in real life.

I would say Djok's serve is a good example of how the prep became more natural and biomechanically more sound and resulted in much better consistency and control meaning the new motion is favorable to muscle memory. I bet he spent much more time practicing the old faulty motion than the new one and still the new one can be executed much more reliably.

 

[5263]

So you're saying that Connors's forehand is not "simpler" than Nadal's?

Nadal's is far simpler if you want to hit the ball hard with excellent spin! Nothing
really complex about Nadal's stroke...he just ads a lot of amplitude to the basic
modern strokes.
Try to get some major spin and power with Connors Fh while keeping it in the
court and you will learn that it is no simple task for that stroke. IMO Connors is
pretty good proof of how much tougher and deeper the field is today. I don't see
any player who could hit with his style and make a dent in the tour. If anyone
could, it is Connors himself since it was his and part of what made him tick.

 

[5263]

Ah, this explains why it was such a long painstaking journey for me to convert from old school to modern technique. I'm TOO talented.

Probably a lot of truth in this. I think it held me back in much the same way. I
could make many if not all of the adjustments that classic tennis required and
had my pet shots...things I could do special in just the right situations to pull
out the point. Hard to give up all that hard earned ground like my little dipper
that just barely cleared the tape before dropping and forcing everyone to volley
up at net. Initially I only gave classic up for attacking high bouncing mid ct balls, then
Oscar showed me how much it would help my rally shots as well....then slices
...then volleys. Initially I didn't even want to try his slice, thinking mine was too
good to mess with...but shortly I found how avg it really was once I learned the
modern slice...then volley.

 

[treblings]

Probably a lot of truth in this. I think it held me back in much the same way. I
could make many if not all of the adjustments that classic tennis required and
had my pet shots...things I could do special in just the right situations to pull
out the point. Hard to give up all that hard earned ground like my little dipper
that just barely cleared the tape before dropping and forcing everyone to volley
up at net. Initially I only gave classic up for attacking high bouncing mid ct balls, then
Oscar showed me how much it would help my rally shots as well....then slices
...then volleys. Initially I didn't even want to try his slice, thinking mine was too
good to mess with...but shortly I found how avg it really was once I learned the
modern slice...then volley.

could you explain the difference between a modern slice bh and a traditional one? because most of the talk about modern strokes seems to focus on the fh

 

[5263]

Borami and 5263
Providing no method places the body into positions outside it's acceptable range of motion (which as far as i'm aware neither the "traditional" nor "modern" - whatever those terms actually mean - teaching systems do) then neither should be more or less natural than the other.

Fun discussion though - this is what Tips/Instruction should be about!!!

Cheers

I agree, fun discussion on this.
I feel I understand this better than I can explain, but I'll try.

I'll refer to the above about body's range of motion. IMO it's about range of design or
designed range...meaning that while the body can extend the hand
in a variety of ways, it can't do it with the great speed & precision required by
classic tennis' extension thru the ball directly down the target line. Yes it can
sort of do it, or at least come close, especially
with a slow to moderate ball, but as the speed raises,
this approach becomes unworkable at the required speed of high level rallys and
mid ct attacks, at least at the consistency level required today.

Classic/linear breaks down at a lower level/speed than modern/arcing swings, especially
as you add the requirements of spin with the power. It may be as
simple as modern allows you to be more consistent with racket face presentation,
but I think it is more. IMO the crossing aspect of the modern extension serves
to mitigate some portion of racket face error and also imo using the big core
muscles and shoulder levers of modern to create the power to the hand, allows
the hand to be more relaxed & precise in it's role. IMO the torque to the hand
in classic requires more gripping effort, tensing the hand and robbing it of the
precision and timing it needs for high speed rallys.

My theory is the hand can provide feel & timing OR strength and power....
But Not both...
If I can get the power somewhere else, then I can have the feel and timing of
the hand.
Good questions and comments Ash...thanks

 

[5263]

could you explain the difference between a modern slice bh and a traditional one? because most of the talk about modern strokes seems to focus on the fh

Sure,

the traditional slice is following the same principle of continuing thru contact
down the target line...extension down that vector.

With modern, you drag the racket butt towards the ball, then just like with TS,
you work across the target line on an arc for your extension.
Of course the slice tends towards high to low, although the stroke can be
quite flat with both classic and modern.
Just like with the modern TS Fh, the working across the contact helps for precision
with controlling net clearance.

You can see a lot of how it works in these volleys-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL10B6D29DB900B5A4&v=K-MRV14rG3Y&feature=player_detailpage#t=13s
Notice how it is more pronounced on the Bh, which is part of why the Bh slice and
volley are superior if you do them correctly. It's more natural to work it this way
on the Bh side. On Fh side it can work better when you have to reach a bit.

 

[treblings]

Sure,

the traditional slice is following the same principle of continuing thru contact
down the target line...extension down that vector.

With modern, you drag the racket butt towards the ball, then just like with TS,
you work across the target line on an arc for your extension.
Of course the slice tends towards high to low, although the stroke can be
quite flat with both classic and modern.
Just like with the modern TS Fh, the working across the contact helps for precision
with controlling net clearance.

thanks, that´s what i thought same with the volley, isn´t it? going across

 

[5263]

thanks, that´s what i thought same with the volley, isn´t it? going across

Yes, ck out what I added in an edit to the previous post.
thanks

 

[treblings]

Yes, ck out what I added in an edit to the previous post.
thanks

i saw a video where Oscar explained that the modern volley meant coming across, but also opening the racket face and then closing it at contact, whereas in olden days it was the other way around. did i understand him correctly?

 

[sureshs]

Sure,

the traditional slice is following the same principle of continuing thru contact
down the target line...extension down that vector.

With modern, you drag the racket butt towards the ball, then just like with TS,
you work across the target line on an arc for your extension.
Of course the slice tends towards high to low, although the stroke can be
quite flat with both classic and modern.
Just like with the modern TS Fh, the working across the contact helps for precision
with controlling net clearance.

You can see a lot of how it works in these volleys-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL10B6D29DB900B5A4&v=K-MRV14rG3Y&feature=player_detailpage#t=13s
Notice how it is more pronounced on the Bh, which is part of why the Bh slice and
volley are superior if you do them correctly. It's more natural to work it this way
on the Bh side. On Fh side it can work better when you have to reach a bit.

That is just one type of volley where the intention is to place it somewhere other than DTL and put as much as side and back spin together as possible and keep it short. It is also possible only the ball is slower and you are not scrambling, and when the intention is not to hit a deep forcing volley as an approach shot.

There is nothing "modern" about this. It is just a situational thing.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Sure,

the traditional slice is following the same principle of continuing thru contact
down the target line...extension down that vector.

With modern, you drag the racket butt towards the ball, then just like with TS,
you work across the target line on an arc for your extension.
Of course the slice tends towards high to low, although the stroke can be
quite flat with both classic and modern.
Just like with the modern TS Fh, the working across the contact helps for precision
with controlling net clearance.

You can see a lot of how it works in these volleys-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL10B6D29DB900B5A4&v=K-MRV14rG3Y&feature=player_detailpage#t=13s
Notice how it is more pronounced on the Bh, which is part of why the Bh slice and
volley are superior if you do them correctly. It's more natural to work it this way
on the Bh side. On Fh side it can work better when you have to reach a bit.

I would not hold up Federer's volley technique, or his net play, as any kind of model to emulate. There have been dozens of significantly better volleyers and net players over the past 50 years than Federer. At the USO, Fred Stolle commented on Federer's chop volleys (my term not Stolle's), and the lack of understanding of how to play the net among current pros generally.

 

[5263]

That is just one type of volley where the intention is to place it somewhere other than DTL and put as much as side and back spin together as possible and keep it short. It is also possible only the ball is slower and you are not scrambling, and when the intention is not to hit a deep forcing volley as an approach shot.

There is nothing "modern" about this. It is just a situational thing.

Well at least you are partially right in that you have great control and placement
with this technique for the volley, but well trained player will also have a great
ability to modulate the power from very strong all the way down to a light drop
shot. If you, Suresh, have this technique in your skillset, you should expand your
usage of it and yes it is modern...described in the modern tennis books.
Thank goodness for Oscar he published his work decades ago, so folks like you
can only do so much to discredit and folks who care enough to read can see
beyond your misinfo.

 

[5263]

I would not hold up Federer's volley technique, or his net play, as any kind of model to emulate. There have been dozens of significantly better volleyers and net players over the past 50 years than Federer. At the USO, Fred Stolle commented on Federer's chop volleys (my term not Stolle's), and the lack of understanding of how to play the net among current pros generally.

I would agree about Fed's match volleys, but they are not half bad in the vid I
used and also
notice I used the vid to show aspects of the modern slice.

 

[5263]

i saw a video where Oscar explained that the modern volley meant coming across, but also opening the racket face and then closing it at contact, whereas in olden days it was the other way around. did i understand him correctly?

I think this tends to be true on the Bh volley, but discussed with him how the Fh
volley seems for me to be more vertical at the start, then opening more near and
at contact. He is open minded and entertained the idea to some extent.
For me, this is one of the subtle details of the modern volley.
Try laying back the Bh volley on tk back, then compare the amount of lay back
on the Fh volley tk back. Maybe I'm just tight (and my sons) but on tk back
my Fh doesn't lay back much and I actually open it a bit moving to contact, as
moving forward and across allows for it...part of what I refer to as more natural.
What do you think? Good questions you bring up.

 

[sureshs]

Well at least you are partially right in that you have great control and placement
with this technique for the volley, but well trained player will also have a great
ability to modulate the power from very strong all the way down to a light drop
shot. If you, Suresh, have this technique in your skillset, you should expand your
usage of it and yes it is modern...described in the modern tennis books.
Thank goodness for Oscar he published his work decades ago, so folks like you
can only do so much to discredit and folks who care enough to read can see
beyond your misinfo.

Everybody already does that. Good that Oscar was learning about it decades ago by looking at other people doing it, but that fact is not relevant today.

 

[treblings]

I think this tends to be true on the Bh volley, but discussed with him how the Fh
volley seems for me to be more vertical at the start, then opening more near and
at contact. He is open minded and entertained the idea to some extent.
For me, this is one of the subtle details of the modern volley.
Try laying back the Bh volley on tk back, then compare the amount of lay back
on the Fh volley tk back. Maybe I'm just tight (and my sons) but on tk back
my Fh doesn't lay back much and I actually open it a bit moving to contact, as
moving forward and across allows for it...part of what I refer to as more natural.
What do you think? Good questions you bring up.

about the same as you i guess. with the fh volley i open up at contact, can´t figure out how to do it the other way round. bh volley, particularly with higher balls, i open at takeback and close the racket slightly on follow through.
coming across on the bh volley has done wonders for one of my students who is able to hit with lot more confidence, since we tried this.
i tried coming across on the bh slice today and while i´m not quite sure yet if it´s better, i didn´t have any difficulty at all changing the follow-through

 

[Limpinhitter]

I think this tends to be true on the Bh volley, but discussed with him how the Fh
volley seems for me to be more vertical at the start, then opening more near and
at contact. He is open minded and entertained the idea to some extent.
For me, this is one of the subtle details of the modern volley.
Try laying back the Bh volley on tk back, then compare the amount of lay back
on the Fh volley tk back. Maybe I'm just tight (and my sons) but on tk back
my Fh doesn't lay back much and I actually open it a bit moving to contact, as
moving forward and across allows for it...part of what I refer to as more natural.
What do you think? Good questions you bring up.

I keep my racquet in front of me, virtually no take back, hold the racquet face in the path of the oncoming ball with the racquet head above the hand and a bent elbow, carve under the ball at contact with a nearly level swing, and step through the shot toward the net, not planted and stationary.

 

[treblings]

I keep my racquet in front of me, virtually no take back, hold the racquet face in the path of the oncoming ball with the racquet head above the hand and a bent elbow, carve under the ball at contact with a nearly level swing, and step through the shot toward the net, not planted and stationary.

avoid stationary at all costs. take back imo depends on the pace of the incoming ball.

 

[Limpinhitter]

avoid stationary at all costs. take back imo depends on the pace of the incoming ball.

There are exceptions to every rule. If it's a floater I may take a full swing at it.

 

[treblings]

There are exceptions to every rule. If it's a floater I may take a full swing at it.

i basically agree with what you say about volleys but don´t see a floater as an exception to a rule but as one of many possible balls i have to deal with at the net. the key is to be flexible and be able to react to different paces and angles. and never be stationary of course

 

[5263]

Everybody already does that. Good that Oscar was learning about it decades ago by looking at other people doing it, but that fact is not relevant today.

lol, and that is about as true as you being and unbaised poster on this
thanks for your personal interpretations on it.
But anyone can go to clubs and academies all over the US and hear many who even
think they coach modern, as they instruct player to extend thru contact as far
down the target line as they can. good try though

 

[5263]

i basically agree with what you say about volleys but don´t see a floater as an exception to a rule but as one of many possible balls i have to deal with at the net. the key is to be flexible and be able to react to different paces and angles. and never be stationary of course

This is pretty much the way I see it. You face all varieties of pace at net and
the more time you have, the bigger the tk back can be, even though you don't
have to use a big tk back......but with higher paced passing
shots the racket movement can be extremely short like Limpin describes.

Glad to see how this is helping your student and this shows how not everyone is
doing it already as sureshs tries to say.

 

[treblings]

This is pretty much the way I see it. You face all varieties of pace at net and
the more time you have, the bigger the tk back can be, even though you don't
have to use a big tk back......but with higher paced passing
shots the racket movement can be extremely short like Limpin describes.

Glad to see how this is helping your student and this shows how not everyone is
doing it already as sureshs tries to say.

as a coach you have the duty to improve and learn all the time. not every coach i know does that. the older guys often teach the same way they did decades ago.

 

[5263]

as a coach you have the duty to improve and learn all the time. not every coach i know does that. the older guys often teach the same way they did decades ago.

Yes, I agree.
2/3s of why I'm on here is to help players who are eager to learn.
1/3 of it is I learn things every day on here. Little stuff here and there, but
always picking up something. It is also a great window into the mind of the
student, when you read the many comments on here.

 

[connico]

Oh, I agree with you. I'm just saying that, as easy as it may be, it wasn't that easy for me. Jeez, a guy can't even be ironically self depricating without getting his head bitten off around here.

Muscle memory requires reprogramming, Whilst you brain knows what it wants your body takes a lot longer to accommodate these changes...

 

[connico]

I'm 47. Why would I want to emulate Nalbandian or Nadal, when Mac is playing at or near the highest levels at 50+? Wouldn't he be the more viable model?

If you only want to get from point A to point B, Why would you buy a new Toyota over a 60-70s Ferrari? Because the Toyota is more efficient and reliable.

This is the same of tennis strokes and instruction. Tennis instruction to me is based on 3 things.

1. Effectiveness - How effective is the instruction to the individual
2. Efficiency - How efficient the technique is for the individual
3. Ergonomics - How ergonomic is the technique to the individual

Whilst I agree with you that you wouldn't want to emulate Nalbandian or Nadal, why would you want to emulate McEnroe.

Have you been playing high level tennis all your life? Are you as fit as McEnroe and possess the same athleticism? Do you have the same kind of hand eye coordination?

Modelling a player is the wrong way to go about instruction, what you should be doing is consulting a professional (a good one) and working out what is best for you and if the professional isn't appropriate then move on to the next.

I agree that some tennis instruction is completely flawed, but its up to you to find the instruction that fits your style and level of play.

 

[Timbo's hopeless slice]

^^^^^^

excellent post

I also think McEnroe is an awful choice as nobody else can really play like him!

sometimes it is almost as if he is not so much 'hitting' the ball so much as catching it and throwing it back with his racquet, just unreal

 

[Limpinhitter]

^^^^^^

excellent post

I also think McEnroe is an awful choice as nobody else can really play like him!

sometimes it is almost as if he is not so much 'hitting' the ball so much as catching it and throwing it back with his racquet, just unreal

Heck, his own brother can't even play like him.

 

[Mahboob Khan]

Better strokes (technique), better tactics, and better conditioning will improve your results.

 

[5263]

Better strokes (technique), better tactics, and better conditioning will improve your results.

It's just about that simple, but this hits on many things that usually need work.
Nice post.

 

[daved]

"Better strokes" is not easily defined. That's the whole point of this thread. Better fitness and tactics are undeniable. Hence my original post suggesting that perhaps strokes are the least important part of the puzzle.

 

[5263]

"Better strokes" is not easily defined. That's the whole point of this thread. Better fitness and tactics are undeniable. Hence my original post suggesting that perhaps strokes are the least important part of the puzzle.

There is some truth to your point assuming the strokes are serviceable and you
can get the ball where it needs to be. Tactics and fitness will mean nothing if
you miss or hit poor spots due to poor strokes.

 

[daved]

True. The thing that makes club or tournament-level tennis more interesting than pro tennis in some ways is that the mix of these factors can be way out of balance.

At the pro level, if you don't have the strokes, fitness and tactics, you're never going to get anywhere. Different players rely on different strengths (an Isner vs. a Ferrer, for example), but they all are at the 99.9% level in strokes, fitness and tactics.

Below that level, people win all sorts of ways.

We're all familiar with the super-fit pusher.

Per you comments, at the other end of the spectrum is the out-of-shape blaster, often the guy who was a great junior player and then got out of shape or didn't play much for years. He'll beat you with strokes alone if you can't keep the ball out of his wheelhouse and/or he has a huge serve.

 

[5263]

Below that level, people win all sorts of ways.

I'm in agreement with your point. At club level and even higher you see some
strange strokes ....sometimes very effective strange strokes.
Of course we aren't going to try to teach those odd strokes, as it wouldn't work
too well. I don't have a problem with good traditional strokes as some would have
you believe.
The key there is when a coach/instructor is needed or involved, it is to help with
a problem in most cases. Nobody has ever come to me because their stroke was
so good and they wanted it even better.
So at that point, I'm going to teach them to suit their objectives. If they want
help to improve traditional strokes, then that is their prerogative. As long as
they realize the limitations and are willing to work within those, they will be fine.
On the other hand if they want bigger power along more spin etc.., they need to
consider some modern aspects to the strokes.