Jack Broudy coach?

cluckcluck

cluckcluck

Hall of Fame
A friend of mine asked me if I had heard of Jack Broudy before, he wanted to take some lessons in the SD area. I did some research, found his website and looked at his stuff. Pretty interesting stuff.

Apparently he teaches a non-traditional method of playing tennis it seems, lots of terms like non-linear, infinity, and 45 degrees.

To me at all makes perfect sense, I just wanted to know if any of you have had any experiences with him or know about anything about his methods?
I don't want to tell my friend to go ahead and spend the money if he's no good. Very much appreciate the insight!
 
cluckcluck said:
A friend of mine asked me if I had heard of Jack Broudy before, he wanted to take some lessons in the SD area. I did some research, found his website and looked at his stuff. Pretty interesting stuff.

Apparently he teaches a non-traditional method of playing tennis it seems, lots of terms like non-linear, infinity, and 45 degrees.

To me at all makes perfect sense, I just wanted to know if any of you have had any experiences with him or know about anything about his methods?
I don't want to tell my friend to go ahead and spend the money if he's no good. Very much appreciate the insight!
Click to expand...

Nice guy and very good. He told me he just got back from Europe last week
and doing well. I'm not using his system, but would like to check it out more
myself. He does Know his stuff.
 
====================================================
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yowch! $900?

I just watched the Federer forehand analysis on that site. I pretty much don't get it. It was like listening to someone apply geometry to a Leonado da Vinci painting. Can you apply geometry to that? Uh, I guess. Can it make you a better painter? Uh, I'm not so sure about that.
 
Watched his "tennis serve" free video. Apart from comments about several women players, there was a brief pic of Rick Macci (I think), without mentioning his name, showing the upper body isolation drill for the serve (feet in two ball hoppers) and a mention of how bad information like that is disseminated. As far as the actual content, it basically was to move the hip forward in the serve, which every advanced player on this forum has posted about.

The advertising seems to use jargon like secret science and non-linear mathematics.
 
Last edited:
mightyrick said:
You're awfully contrarian today.
Click to expand...

sorry, just thought that was an odd comment.
I do always compliment your many excellent comments as well, and
I see more and more from you.
Not sure you care what I think, but I just call em how I see them and
I think you are making some nice progress overall.
I think you will over time notice that no player consistently plays his best
when hitting hard for the lines and that sometimes they do get really hot
and get away with it...then it comes back to haunt them if they make
a habit of it.
 
Last edited:
mightyrick said:
Yowch! $900?

I just watched the Federer forehand analysis on that site. I pretty much don't get it. It was like listening to someone apply geometry to a Leonado da Vinci painting. Can you apply geometry to that? Uh, I guess. Can it make you a better painter? Uh, I'm not so sure about that.
Click to expand...

You mean like the Golden Ratio or maybe even Informal Subdivision for composition? Yep, it can be helpful but you wouldn't want to use it as a crutch all the time. There are no rules - just tools - as my teacher used to say!

Not so sure if the.... "SCIENCE of INFINITY" is applicable to art though...:lol: and I think I'm afraid to ask!
 
It's easy to make fun of Jack Broudy and his methods because of the over the top marketing and sometimes exaggerated claims.

I had actually entirely forgotten about this guy and visited his website yesterday night for the first time in something like 12 years. Had a look at the free articles on the serve and Federer's FH, today it made me play better.

Like someone else said, there's nothing new there. Maximizing your kinetic chain, using your hips, coiling/uncoiling, etc. It's all old stuff, but it's true nonetheless and Broudy reminds you of it in a unique way and simple way.

I see his methods as something you could go back to if one day you feel like you've lost your groove.
 
As with other coaches, I am sure he teaches very well and has solid results, and the marketing is a business tactic.
 
Last edited:
mightyrick said:
Yowch! $900?

I just watched the Federer forehand analysis on that site. I pretty much don't get it. It was like listening to someone apply geometry to a Leonado da Vinci painting. Can you apply geometry to that? Uh, I guess. Can it make you a better painter? Uh, I'm not so sure about that.
Click to expand...

45 degrees is the perfect angle in nature.

The figure 8 is like infinity.

Make a sine wave pattern towards the 45 degrees line.

Ignoring the above, the gist seems to be that:

1. the body should be turned at 45 degrees for the forehand (though he shows only the inside-out stroke)
2. By coming around the ball in the curved line (figure 8 or whatever), the hip movement and rotation takes care of everything - don't focus on RHS and shoulder rotation - they happen naturally.
3. A comment about how open stance is not used (it is all 45 degrees).
 
Last edited:
Limpinhitter said:
Interesting. To me, Broudy's explanation of the Federer forehand, the figure 8, stoping the upper body rotation at 45 degrees to the target (momentarily), and the convex to concave shape of the arm, is talking about the same thing that Oscar Wegnar talks about when he talks about pulling back at contact.
Click to expand...

Actually the opposite. The emphasis on feet (not hands) and the comment of there being no open stance (delivered with a hint of condescension I think) in the stroke point to the very opposite.

As far as pulling back goes, there is no sudden pulling back or sudden change of speed and direction at contact, and cannot be (due to inertia).
 
Thanks guys (and gals?) for the feedback, it sounds like it's good technique but his personality might be a factor.
I'll tell my friend to give him a go and see what happens.
 
sureshs said:
Actually the opposite. The emphasis on feet (not hands) and the comment of there being no open stance (delivered with a hint of condescension I think) in the stroke point to the very opposite.

As far as pulling back goes, there is no sudden pulling back or sudden change of speed and direction at contact, and cannot be (due to inertia).
Click to expand...

You are confusing two different topics, as usual, sureshs. You really are analytically challenged, aren't you.
 
sureshs said:
Actually the opposite. The emphasis on feet (not hands) and the comment of there being no open stance (delivered with a hint of condescension I think) in the stroke point to the very opposite.

As far as pulling back goes, there is no sudden pulling back or sudden change of speed and direction at contact, and cannot be (due to inertia).
Click to expand...
No one 'pulls back at contact'--no one. Most absurd thing I've read here, and that says a lot.
 
JW10S said:
No one 'pulls back at contact'--no one. Most absurd thing I've read here, and that says a lot.
Click to expand...

Your certainty is exceeded only by your close mindedness. IMO, the up and out movement of the elbow that initiates the WW finish is an example of what Wegner means by pulling back.
 
Limpinhitter said:
Your certainty is exceeded only by your close mindedness. IMO, the up and out movement of the elbow that initiates the WW finish is an example of what Wegner means by pulling back.
Click to expand...
'Close mindedness'? Close to what? So you are Oscar's spokesman now? The WW and pulling back at contact (which doesn't happen) are very different concepts. But I'm not surprised you cannot grasp that...

As I said in another thread, even though this is a tips/instruction forum very few certified coaches post here...
 
Last edited:
Limpinhitter said:
Your certainty is exceeded only by your close mindedness. IMO, the up and out movement of the elbow that initiates the WW finish is an example of what Wegner means by pulling back.
Click to expand...

That is just a consequence of momentum and finite length of arm attached to the body. The arm has to swing back at some time if it continues to be attached to the body, and cannot grow in length like an elastic object.
 
JW10S said:
'Close mindedness'? Close to what? So you are Oscar's spokesman now? The WW and pulling back at contact (which doesn't happen) are very different concepts. But I'm not surprised you cannot grasp that...

As I said in another thread, even though this is a tips/instruction forum very few certified coaches post here...
Click to expand...

Why don't you stop making idiotic comments like "you are Oscar's spokesman now" and "I'm not surprised you cannot grasp that." I have made it perfectly clear to you and everyone else that I no nothing of Oscar Wegnar other than what I've read on this board. Further, I'm not surprised you can't grasp the relationship between the initiation of the WW motion and the whip effect.
 
sureshs said:
That is just a consequence of momentum and finite length of arm attached to the body. The arm has to swing back at some time if it continues to be attached to the body, and cannot grow in length like an elastic object.
Click to expand...

That's the same concept that Wegner and Broudy are trying to describe that you conflated with unrelated issues like open stance earlier.
 
Limpinhitter said:
Why don't you stop making idiotic comments like "you are Oscar's spokesman now" and "I'm not surprised you cannot grasp that." I have made it perfectly clear to you and everyone else that I no nothing of Oscar Wegnar other than what I've read on this board. Further, I'm not surprised you can't grasp the relationship between the initiation of the WW motion and the whip effect.
Click to expand...
Then why are you speaking for him? You are not a coach. Hitting a tennis ball and cracking a whip are not things that can be compared--they are different, with different physics involved. A racquet is not flexible like a whip so the comparison ends there. And I agree that you 'no nothing'...
 
Last edited:
Limpinhitter said:
That's the same concept that Wegner and Broudy are trying to describe that you conflated with unrelated issues like open stance earlier.
Click to expand...

OK you have a point here, but there is a history to this. I had something that I edited out, and your post was almost like you replied to the edited out part. Never mind.
 
Limpinhitter said:
That's the same concept that Wegner and Broudy are trying to describe that you conflated with unrelated issues like open stance earlier.
Click to expand...

Didn't you hear him Limpin...they can't be compared! lol He doesn't have a narrow view
either he said. You have to pay attention:)
If he doesn't get, it can't be. Now you understand?
 
Limpinhitter said:
That's the same concept that Wegner and Broudy are trying to describe that you conflated with unrelated issues like open stance earlier.
Click to expand...

Question is, if the motion is actually a pull back or momentum. My take on on the issue is that its momentum and the limit of the limb. It is not a conscious moment.

The "Whip' is in my opinion is a miss understood concept, as in most circumstance to create a whip effect and the crack that comes with it (with a whip); a user has to snap or pull back, near to the opposite direction; like a radio wave.

/shrug
 
JW10S said:
Then why are you speaking for him? You are not a coach. Hitting a tennis ball and cracking a whip are not things that can be compared--they are different, with different physics involved. A racquet is not flexible like a whip so the comparison ends there. And I agree that you 'no nothing'...
Click to expand...

STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. IT'S NOT MY ARGUMENT! I was making an observation that two coaches were describing the same effect in different ways. The flexibility of the racquet is irrelevant to the arguement. The relevant flexibility is in the shoulder, arm and wrist. But, the inflexibility of your thought process, and your entrenched belief system, are relevant to your inability to grasp the argument. And from what I've read of your posts, YOU are not a coach.
 
Last edited:
connico said:
Question is, if the motion is actually a pull back or momentum. My take on on the issue is that its momentum and the limit of the limb. It is not a conscious moment.

The "Whip' is in my opinion is a miss understood concept, as in most circumstance to create a whip effect and the crack that comes with it (with a whip); a user has to snap or pull back, near to the opposite direction; like a radio wave.

/shrug
Click to expand...

Okay. But, which direction is that? This goes to the debate about hitting down the target line and hitting up and across.
 
Limpinhitter said:
Okay. But, which direction is that? This goes to the debate about hitting down the target line and hitting up and across.
Click to expand...

Yep, agree its a huge debate between the swings paths (modern and linear). There is not an easy explanation that can satisfy everyone and its too difficult to write, it has to be shown.

/shrug
 
connico said:
Yep, agree its a huge debate between the swings paths (modern and linear). There is not an easy explanation that can satisfy everyone and its too difficult to write, it has to be shown.

/shrug
Click to expand...

I agree it's not so easy to write about. Also if you can think of like a whip, BUT
not exactly like a whip(close). It's like it in that you consciously change directions with
the hand and create an accelerating effect on the extend object (the racket face).

Also helps if you can have an open mind and try it a bit. When trying it, it may
not be like your current concept and more of a sharp turn of about 130 degr.
look at :59-1:02 in this vid at a horizontal whip crack, and if you can freeze
with hand moving across in front I think you can see it's more like it than you
expect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKOu5OwU3_U&feature=player_detailpage#t=62s

there is a diagonal crack that has the over the shoulder finish.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like an ultimate racket head speed.... creating a little sonic boom at the tip of the racket.:)
 
5263 said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKOu5OwU3_U&feature=player_detailpage#t=62s

Not quite like you thought though, right?
Click to expand...

There are different type of whip cracking motions as he demonstrates on several of his videos as well as the one you linked.

The one specifically linked is an overhead one? this is the one that uses a sharp pull back motion by bending the elbow to generate the crack? I agree that he changes direction and that it is concious, resulting in acceleration because of the flexibility of the whip. This is similar to a punching technique where the puncher flexes back and an open hand strike where the striker strikes a target and pulls back like his touching a hot plate. It generates more power.

But, whilst I agree with the above. I don't agree that for natural tennis stroke the pull back motion is necessary or concious as long as the swing patch is correct and the correct technique is being utilised. It should all happen naturally. Its hard to explain but easier to demonstrate.
 
vil said:
Sounds like an ultimate racket head speed.... creating a little sonic boom at the tip of the racket.:)
Click to expand...

Obviously, there is nothing in a forehand (from shoulder to racquet tip), flexible enough to crack like a whip. But, that doesn't mean that some degree of that process doesn't occur. From one of Broudy's videos, it seemed to me that he was describing the same process that Oscar Wegner describes as "pulling back" to create acceleration of the racquet head. Broudy refers to it as changing the shape of the arm from concave to convex. That also seems to be the same thing I have described as keeping the elbow in and forward on the forward swing and moving the elbow out and up at contact initiating the WW motion.
 
connico said:
The one specifically linked is an overhead one?
Click to expand...

No, the one that I mentioned was at 1:00 in the vid that is a horizontal crack.

Not saying anything is exactly the same, but it is much closer than those who
said their is NO comparison must realize. I had said before that they didn't know
much about cracking whips, but they continued, so I put up this vid to show
there was way more here than they had realized. Cracking the whip does NOT
require a aggressive pullback, and can be much like the type pull back of a stroke.
 
Limpinhitter said:
Obviously, there is nothing in a forehand (from shoulder to racquet tip), flexible enough to crack like a whip. But, that doesn't mean that some degree of that process doesn't occur. From one of Broudy's videos, it seemed to me that he was describing the same process that Oscar Wegner describes as "pulling back" to create acceleration of the racquet head. Broudy refers to it as changing the shape of the arm from concave to convex. That also seems to be the same thing I have described as keeping the elbow in and forward on the forward swing and moving the elbow out and up at contact initiating the WW motion.
Click to expand...

What would that be called? Wild guess - moving the elbow out and up at contact.

Not pulling back.
 
sureshs said:
What would that be called? Wild guess - moving the elbow out and up at contact.

Not pulling back.
Click to expand...

Ahh sueshs, you never fail to amuse. It would pulling back if you are swinging up and across, wouldn't it? The sooner you stop fighting it, the sooner you'll get a set off of your buddy, Cheetah.
 
Last edited:
Limpinhitter said:
You aren't trying, sureshs.
Click to expand...

I think for some they are so focused on hitting out thru the ball, it is
hard for them to see how when the contact is very near full extension of
the forward stroke and more in front, how the arm is going to be coming
back to some extent, as it leads the racket head in the kenetic chain of
events. To accel the shot and racket head, you can pull to accel the
hand in that curve back right before or at contact really helps to get
more pop on that shot. It does not come straight back due to the
momentum of the stroke at that point.

Prolly not understanding how to separate what the hand does and how
it leads the chain (relative to racket head) is most of the disconnect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Should I take lessons from a coach who teaches traditional strokes?
3 4 5
Replies
244
Views
31K
Limpinhitter
L
B
Robert Landsdorp as a coach.
3 4 5
Replies
202
Views
30K
TCF
T
M
Inner Game of Tennis question
Replies
18
Views
2K
mitchishere21
M
X
How to find a good coach?
2
Replies
90
Views
8K
AlexSV
A
Cindysphinx
  • Poll Poll
What Practice Tools Do You Own?
Replies
38
Views
5K
tennisFanful
T
Back
Top