Modern FH - comments?

[Bungalo Bill]

I do agree with BB that the pros make grip change+ start to turn before bounce, but i dont agree that they make takeback before bounce.

But that doesnt make sense. If the ball has bounced, how long does it take to get to the ideal contact point of the player? If it takes about a second for the ball to travel from one baseline to another, how long would it take the ball to get to the contact point from the bounce? Less than a second?

How long would it take for a player to perform their backswing? So in other words, the ball bounced, the pro now takes the racquet back to its furthest and highest point, the ball is coming quick. Then the pro begins the downward decent of the racquet for momentum, the ball is still coming. Then the pro begins his "lower" then the ball upward and forward ascent to the ball, the ball is still coming?

If this really happened and ALL pros were waiting to perform their backswing on the ball bounce we would probably see 5.0 tennis based on their level and athletic ability. To be able to time different ball speeds, spins, and angles with the bounce would be an incredible feat.

Please don't forget that when you watch a pro, you are watching a finished product. The claim that you will "play like the pros" is such a misleading phrase. Oscar neglects to tell you how many hours went into developing that early preparation. He neglects to tell you that the pros do play with rhthym. But! He also doesn't present the other side of the coin. The hours of court time and drill time honing the ability of the pro player to turn and execute his shot on time - every time.

I wish you would acknowledge at least one thing. Don't you think it is a bit farfetched for Oscar to imply that every coach that uses the "run with your racquet back drill" wants all his players to play like that in the match? How many players at the 4.5 and 5.0 level do you actually see playing with their racquet completely back? I would think their would be at least be one based on Oscar's claim.

 

[tlm]

Okay BB i dont deny that oscar does get carried away with his comparisons,i know that he makes it sound a little to easy.And yes he is selling his product so the more he can make other methods sound wrong the better he looks.I did not say he is right on everything,but i think he is right about a lot of instructors making things way to complicated.And i also know that me+ my wife both improved are games big time after watching his videos.I have 2 sons that started playing tennis a couple years ago,they started late one 19 the other 22. I had them watch oscars tapes +i would go out + feed them balls i was amazed at how fast they improved.After a couple of months of them playing with their friends at college they were hitting the ball very well.I would go out + rally with my son + i could not believe the topspin strokes he was hitting,of course being young+ strong they wanted to rip the ball.But that is what surprised me, my one son was blowing me back off the baseline with big forehands that were loaded with topspin+he was keeping a high % of his shots in .And he was definitely going for to much power but even at his level,he was keeping a lot balls in just inside the baseline.Here i am hitting with my son who has been playing a few months + he is ripping better ground strokes than a lot of men i play who hit more traditional flat strokes.This is no exaggeration ,i was really impressed with the progress they made.This is my own experience with beginners learning the oscar wegner method ,+ seeing results that were amazing.Me+ my wife went through the same thing after using his advice we picked up our games big time. I think the best part of the game he teaches is how to use topspin,i was at our club last night watching my wife in her team practice,i get a kick out of watching her load up a topspin forehand + watching her teammates hitting duds or foul balls off these shots.They look confused+ they even ask her how she does that,what appears to be a regular ground stroke to them eats them up a high % of the time, because of the jump from the topspin.And these are women who have been playing club tennis for years, this is her second season.And all of these women hit with flat strokes+ they have all taking many lessons from the club pros who teach the coventional mathods.None of them hit with much topspin ,so my wife can just line up those flat strokes +rip them .BB i am telling you the exact truth of our experience with using oscars methods.Now do i use everything oscar says to the tee, no does he exaggerate some points yes he does. But for the most part he teaches a lot of good things to help your game.Now for my buddy john,i think i did say that the pro swing does start up first + then loops back into backswing+ i did say that on some balls they start that motion right before bounce.But as now you are even admitting that the racket is not completely back till after bounce.You say maybe 2 feet at most, well that is not all the way back before bounce is it.And how did it get there, of course it was part of the takeback but it was not all the way back before the bounce was it,which i thought i was all wrong about. You helped me make my point, as far as nadal pictures it does look like he is all the way back right before bounce on that stroke.As far as you question im not sure what you are saying, are you talking about the nadal pictures? The racket got there by him bringing it there is this your whole case pictures .One more time have you watched any match play in slomo lately? Were you can see numerous forehands, not just one to your liking.And then tell me how they have racket back all the way before bounce,oh thats right you started to admit that with your last post.But you still have not answered the question of why on a ball that they have plenty of time to set up on the racket is not back waiting,dont want to touch that one huh.I watched federer again last night+ when he gets a sitter he waits extra long on backswing+ he definitely does not have the racket back before bounce.Please answer why with all this time does he not have racket back before bounce, you cant because he doesnt do that.I had my wife watch a couple of his forehands in slomo with me last night+ asked her if i am seeing things or what.And she agreed on most forehands we watched the takeback started after bounce,it does vary depending on the shot+ time but we did not see one instance were racket was all the way back before bounce.So i guess she cant see either.+ again the shots with a lot of time the takeback is after the bounce.

 

[JaisBane]

Tlm, I don't think either John Yandell or Buffalo Bill meant to imply that Pros complete the backswing before the bounce, only that they begin the backswing well before the bounce the majority of the time. The backswing and the stroke itself are supposed to be continuous, uninteruppted movements that establish a rhythm and manageable timing to your strokes. When Pros begin the takeback is unrelated to whether the ball has bounced or not, it has to do with how fast the ball is coming in. If the ball is coming in very fast you'll see them prepare earlier and use a smaller backswing, if it's coming in slow they'll prepare later and use a (comparitively) larger backswing. If the ball is a sitter then you have plenty of time to reach the ball and if you prepare too early then you'll be introducing a hitch into your swing. Normal balls at the pro level are not sitters and are travelling much faster, hence the need for an earlier takeback. If you waited until the bounce to begin the takeback against an 80mph forehand then your backswing would need to be as fast, or faster, than your actual stroke. There are instances where Pros will run to the ball with the racket back and there are instances where Pros will wait till after the bounce to begin the takeback, but these are exceptions and should not be the focus for describing fundamental technique. The main point to focus on is that every player has a rhythm to their strokes that begins with the takeback. Your rhythm and the incoming speed of the ball is what determines when the takeback begins, not when the ball bounces.

 

[Marius_Hancu]

Tim,

Make us a favor and put some paragraphs into your text.
It would help a lot its readability.
Separate them with empty lines.
Thanks.

 

[tlm]

Hey jaisbane you make some reall good points.Check the thread forehand early preparation ,bb says clear as day, all pros get get shoulders turned + racket back as soon as possible on nearly every shot,well before bounce.this is something i just dont agree with ,i have read many of bb's threads+ i think he points out many good things in the game.I just dont agree with this+ i dont understand the hatred from a lot of people on this site for oscar wegner.I am not saying oscar is god of tennis + everything he says is right,but if you read my last reply i told how much his method helped me+my familys tennis, so it is hard for me to hear him get ripped like he does. As far as your take on the pros forehands you make some great points.Your right a lot depends on the time + speed of shot.Its not like they say okay the ball bounced now i start swing,like you said the stroke is supposed to be continuous . That is why especially on shots they have more time on they dont takeback before bounce.I dont agree that there are times they run with racket back, that is an exception.Again i will state, watch match in slomo+ make your own conclussion.Please tell me how many times you see racket all the way back before bounce.As i stated earlier they will start to raise+takeback racket back right before bounce, but most of the time at least the last half of backswing is after the bounce.This is no exception+ like you said it depends on speed of ball+ their position, it does vary.That is exactly why you need to watch several strokes in a match in slomo to see my point.As far as speed of ball that can be deceiving, no doubt the pros hit very fast,But a ball they say is hit at 80mph is not going that fast by the time it gets to the other player in the backcourt.And there are alot of times they dont have much time to set up,but there are more times than you may think that they have plenty of time to get set up+take there full stroke.And these are the very times were if you were to watch in slomo you will see my point! And hey marius your right i am being lazy not using paragraphs i will try to improve.

 

[tennisplayer]

Tlm, with all due respect and no slight intended, it seems to me that you are splitting hairs. I think pros have to prepare early for the heavy shots, out of necessity. Who cares how they prepare for floating sitters - they can put those away in their sleep.

My coach, who happens to be a 5.5 level player, hits some awesome shots, and lets loose at me sometimes to give me a flavor what high-level tennis is like (and I love it). I can tell you, if I waited for the bounce to happen before I started my backswing, I would be dead - pure and simple. At that level, because of the extreme levels of spin and pace, sometimes the ball does some unpredictable stuff after the bounce - like a little hop to the side, or bounce a little higher or lower, and it comes at you at blinding speed. I have to believe that at the pro level, this will be much, much more extreme. Thus not only will they have to prepare really early, but also be prepared to make that last split-second adjustment for the shooter or the sideways hop. I don't know how they can do this for a deep ball if they are not most of the way into their preparation already. Of course, for a short ball that hops from behind the service line to the baseline, the considerations are completely different, and I can imagine more of the preparation happening after the bounce.

Anyway, I have exhausted my knowledge and experience in this area, and will leave it to BB, John and others to convince you!

BTW, I have seen the Oscar Wegner tapes - they are great, and I believe they will get a beginner started nicely. He doesn't really address advanced tennis in them, I believe.

 

[JohnYandell]

Yeh man, I'm your best friend obviously. Why else would I spend my time trying to work a miracle cure on a blind man?

Sorry but this has become unproductive. (To say the least.) So far as I can tell you haven't understood one thing I have written.

I was going to respond again in detail, but I would just end up going back to the beginning again since you don't seem capable of following or thinking in a logical way.

I will say this: Yes I've watched a few pro matches over the years, and I'm pretty sure a few more than you. And you my friend, are blind!

So I've given it my best shot here. But for those who have been following I think the one thing this all does show is the incredible power of the Shaman. This is why people run point blank into bayonets, burn witches, etc. Thank god here it's just one guy with a bad forehand.

 

[tlm]

tennisplayer maybe i am splitting hairs here,i dont think you playing your coach who is at much higher level than you is a good comparison.Players should be of equal ability to make a fair judgement.Again i am not just talking about sitters here, i am talking about most forehands in a match the swing starts before bounce but rarely is backswing compleated until after bounce.When i am told that they get racket back as soon as possible on nearly every shot well before bounce, i do not buy this statement.Still have not heard from somebody who has watched some recent matches in slomo.It seems that if BB or john the prophet dont agree then case is closed.Hey john boy i tried to answer your last question, but i guess you have all these matches in your head so you wont answer mine .It is a simple thing to do if you have matches on tape watch several forehands in slomo + then tell me im blind.Can anybody else do that or do you just believe what the gurus on this site tell you.

 

[FiveO]

...what is half changed ?

What is half changed?! Here are your posts in this forum in chronological order:

If you see the whole picture they are not taking the racket back until the ball bounces, then it goes back with there swing.

watch roddick holding his racket with his left hand on the racket in front of him then the racket goes back with his swing after the ball bounces.

Again watch some pros swings were you can see the ball +there swing, most will wait till ball bounces +then there take back+ swing is all one motion.

Most of the time they would actually start to raise the racket at the beginning of swing, then they would take racket back+ continue with swing. On some strokes the the racket would start to come back right before ball bounces,but never would the racket get all the way back untill after the ball bounced! I did not see one time were the racket was back waiting for the ball,and the funny thing is the more time they have on an easier shot, the more you can see that they dont take back until after the bounce.

As i stated on some of the video i watched of match play, the take back would start just before bounce but never was the racket all the way back until after bounce.

****************************

...I just dont agree with this+ i dont understand the hatred from a lot of people on this site for oscar wegner....

You don't understand why you get the reaction you get. It's you getting the reaction not OW. Everyone here made a case why some of OW's axioms are not backed up by the objective eye of the camera, and these are your statements and conclusions:

you guys dont like oscar because his methods are right + your stone age methods suck.

The problem is the old school boys on this site cant admit that oscars methods are better than theres .

oscar knows exactly what he is talking about you old school boys have to wake up to what is going on!

Okay now let me get a laugh from the old school boys on this site who will debate it,just open your eyes+ throw the jimmy conners videos away + watch the new stuff.

I love how people still dont believe what oscar wegner says,watch the pros in slow mo it will show you old school players what is really going on.

You can really tell bb hates oscar, to bad oscar wegner is right on +bb is dead wrong,what does bb stand for buffalow bill.

OW is not getting the reaction. You are. Qualified people tried to walk you through it but you refuse to see it and/or have shifted your stance as in the first half of this post. You are the one who has taken the aggressive posture grouping anyone who doesn't agree with Oscar Wegner as "old school wrong". What response did you expect from your words above?

 

[FiveO]

tlm,

When you said this six or seven different ways...

The problem is the old school boys on this site cant admit that oscars methods are better than theres .

...which "old school guys on this site" were you refering to?

 

[JohnYandell]

Let's see 10,000 high speed forehand videos from match play--have I watched any of them?

No I just put them up on the site with my eyes closed!

Guess what? Those are slow motion video from recent matches. But no I didn't watch them, and I don't think I'll bother now. Why would I bother to investigate when I can just rely on your brilliant descriptions?

I guess if you're blind that also explains why you can't read other people's posts.


Not only blind, but beligerently blind.

Too bad we aren't all in a room with a little video tape--but at this point I'd only be interested if there were some serious money at stake. Let's say we each put up $10K and then a panel of experts decides.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

Okay BB i dont deny that oscar does get carried away with his comparisons,i know that he makes it sound a little to easy.

Tlm,

You are a smart guy. You see the pro fillm. You see that the preparation takes place earlier than the ball bounce. I fully agree with you that the pros are much more fine tuned as to how fast and when they perform their backswing. I understand that they can develop a unique rhthym that makes it look like they woke up out of bed one day and just started hitting that way.

I fully agree with you that it is very awkward to run with your racquet back. I have yet to see anyone do so in a match or throughout practice except when performing the "racquet back drill" or the coach is telling the student to do it because he is developing something or sees something wrong.

However, many of us know the purpose for the racquet back drill and that is to develop the preparation of the racquet exactly as you see the pros perform. It is a very good drill and it really works. Proper and professional preparation is not natural. It does take time to develop so it is second nature.

The split step, step out, shoulder turn, grip change, developing a shorter backswing, etc. takes practice.

All I am saying is this seemingly fluid and smooth aspect of their game came with a price. They worked their butt off to develop their strokes. It is like an Olympic skier after years and years of training makes it look so easy, so fluid. It seems they are turning on air and know exactly when to turn and how to handle it. The last time I went "skiing like the pros", I tried going down a slope like they did - it wasn't pretty.

I really don't care if you use Oscar's tips, I am sure there are some good ones. Just beware of how he positions his product. The us vs. them approach is where I tune out. He has a method of presenting his instruction and I am sure it works for some people. But to downplay other coaches and their drills to promote and elevate his own is not right.

 

[FiveO]

Too bad we aren't all in a room with a little video tape--but at this point I'd only be interested if there were some serious money at stake. Let's say we each put up $10K and then a panel of experts decides.

It still wouldn't work. They'd be asking you to produce the other 90,000 clips they'd claim you're intentionally hiding in some imaginary vault next to the missing JFK assassination evidence.

I own OW's DVD's. I must have got the copies w/o the subliminal messages hidden in them.

 

[JohnYandell]

Right it's like arguing with a Kennedy conspiracy believer. (And yes I am harboring more than 90,000 clips with stalking on each and every ball.)

Did you have to watch the DVDs the first time with tin foil covering your head? Is that how you were able to see and remove the shamanic spell before it could enter and your brain was under his control?

 

[Bungalo Bill]

double post again?

 

[Bungalo Bill]

Headline News: A man was arrested the other day for stalking a ball...tonight at 11

double post, see my interview with RF below.

 

[tlm]

Okay five0 i will admit coming on to strong with some of those comments.I guess i was surprised when i first read the reviews on this site about oscars videos.I have seen both sides, i took lessons went to tennis camps + it seemed to me the way they taught compared to what oscar taught was completely different.And the way oscar teaches is much better in my mind.And it definitely worked much better for me+ my family.So when i started reading what most replys were regarding his videos i was surprised.You want to talk about aggressive posture, a good % of the reviews on him were very negative.So i thought how could somebody that helped me with my game so much, get hammered to death on a tennis site.I really believe that a lot of people dont want to admit that the way they have been teaching is outdated,+ the newer methods are better that is what really lights the fire.I know first hand witch way worked much better for me+ my family.But i will admit i came on to strong + generalized to much. So i apologize for some of those comments.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

Headline News: A man was arrested the other day for stalking a ball...tonight at 11

Right it's like arguing with a Kennedy conspiracy believer. (And yes I am harboring more than 90,000 clips with stalking on each and every ball.)

Did you have to watch the DVDs the first time with tin foil covering your head? Is that how you were able to see and remove the shamanic spell before it could enter and your brain was under his control?

I liked the one where you said you put up the clips with your eyes closed and didnt even look at them.

I always thought you were suppose to be ready to come forward when the ball bounces. I think I need to rewrite my onehander article.

I can just here it now...an interview with Rodger Federer (((((((BB drifts into a daydream...))))))))

BB - So Rodger many of your fans want to know, how do you get to every ball so quickly?

RF - Well you see when I was little, my father was a stalker and taught me everything I know. When I was learning to play tennis, I thought to myself "maybe this stalking thing can transfer to tennis". So I tried it and at first when I snuck up on the ball, the ball ran away. Over time, I began getting good at stalking and eventually could sneak up on a ball and nail it.

BB - Wow, so this stalking thing really works. Why dont you think anyone else teaches it? I mean if it works for you, it could work for anyone else right?

RF - Well yes, I think so. In fact, my agent and I are thinking of getting a book published called "YOU CAN'T BE STALKING". It is all about stalking and sneaking up on things. It really works.

BB - So tell us, is it true. Is it true that you just woke up out of bed one day and waited for the ball to bounce before taking your backswing? I mean so many people out there are running with their racquets back that it looks hilarious and of course awkward.

RF - Well BB, I will let you in on a little secret (((Federer leans over))) I don't get my racquet back. (crowd reacts, huh???) I really don't believe in it. I just wait for the ball to bounce and then perform my swing. When I was little I really wanted to "play like the pros", it was really easy to see that they waited for the ball to bounce and that is when I decided to do it. Within an instant I was at the 5.5 level after three days. I can wait for the ball to bounce on grass courts and hard courts. It doesn't matter how fast someone hits the ball or how fast the surface is, my racquet goes back ONLY after the ball bounces or my name isn't Rodger FedEx Federer (winks to the crowd).

BB - Wow, you are truly revolutionizing tennis. I hope all those "old schoolers" have learned a lesson today. So there you have it folks, Rodger says stalking and waiting for the ball to bounce before you take the racquet back works!

 

[JohnYandell]

New Category for Tennisplayer:

Satiric Teaching for Those Times When All Else Fails

You and I will definitely be the lead writers, although AJ and Scott Murphy can get in some ad libs after a few beers...

 

[ShooterMcMarco]

BB - So tell us, is it true. Is it true that you just woke up out of bed one day and waited for the ball to bounce before taking your backswing? I mean so many people out there are running with their racquets back that it looks hilarious and of course awkward.

RF - Well BB, I will let you in on a little secret (((Federer leans over))) I don't get my racquet back. (crowd reacts, huh???) I really don't believe in it. I just wait for the ball to bounce and then perform my swing. When I was little I really wanted to "play like the pros", it was really easy to see that they waited for the ball to bounce and that is when I decided to do it. Within an instant I was at the 5.5 level after three days. I can wait for the ball to bounce on grass courts and hard courts. It doesn't matter how fast someone hits the ball or how fast the surface is, my racquet goes back ONLY after the ball bounces or my name isn't Rodger FedEx Federer (winks to the crowd).

You forgot all the "You Know"s that he says. So it would be more like this:

BB - So tell us, is it true. Is it true that you just woke up out of bed one day and waited for the ball to bounce before taking your backswing? I mean so many people out there are running with their racquets back that it looks hilarious and of course awkward.

RF - Well BB, you know, I will let you in on a little secret (((Federer leans over))) I don't get my racquet back. (crowd reacts, huh???) You know, I really don't believe in it. You know, I just wait for the ball to bounce and then you know, perform my swing. When I was little I really wanted to "play like the pros", it was really easy to see that they waited for the ball to bounce and you know, that is when I decided to do it. You know, Within an instant I was at the 5.5 level after three days. I can wait for the ball to bounce on grass courts and hard courts. It doesn't matter how fast someone hits the ball you know or how fast the surface is, you know,my racquet goes back ONLY after the ball bounces or my name isn't Roger FedEx Federer (winks to the crowd).

 

[Bungalo Bill]

New Category for Tennisplayer:

Satiric Teaching for Those Times When All Else Fails

You and I will definitely be the lead writers, although AJ and Scott Murphy can get in some ad libs after a few beers...

What makes you think I didnt write that after a "few" beers? I have a mug in hand that holds two frosties.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

You forgot all the "You Know"s that he says. So it would be more like this:

Yeah, very true! lol

 

[JohnYandell]

The secret to lucidity? Frosty time...

 

[FiveO]

tlm,

apology accepted.

 

[FiveO]

What makes you think I didnt write that after a "few" beers? I have a mug in hand that holds two frosties.

The secret to lucidity? Frosty time...

Careful boys. The next OW convert may see this and label you "drunken old school dinosaurs".

 

[Bungalo Bill]

Careful boys. The next OW convert may see this and label you "drunken old school dinosaurs".

Arrrrrgghhh! :mrgreen:

 

[sureshs]

When i am told that they get racket back as soon as possible on nearly every shot well before bounce, i do not buy this statement.

Saw an interview on Tennis Channel with Wayne Bryan recently. He seems to be a big fan of match play and less formal teaching. As part of his conversation, he mentioned that "taking back the racquet early" advice in formal training "by the way, happens to be wrong".

Just mentioning this. I am not qualified to comment, specially with John Yandell here (I am a member of tennisplayer.net).

 

[JohnYandell]

Hey we're not that old...

And Wayne is correct--it's not about independent racket movement "early..." that's one of the points we've been having a hard time getting across here...

 

[Marius_Hancu]

BB,

you must've seen many of Roger Federer's interviews, because you caught very well his style, including the "you know"-s and his politeness

it is hilarious. good writing.

still, might want to run a spell checker on his first name though

 

[Bungalo Bill]

I agree with the first parts of this, but once the article goes into explaining strokes I disagree with.

The elbow has little to do with it BB, it's just like the wrist. I feel that the shoulder has more to do with it.

The differences in strokes from Federer, Nadal, Roddicks and a lot of the pros is their swing. Where they start and finish and this is all depended upon the shoulders ability and how it rotates. Even on windshield wiper, your shoulder rotates down and causes your arm to windshield wiper. It's your shoulder that moves your arms.

As well as after strengthening ones shoulders. You'll notice the difference in power compared to strengthening other muscles.

The elbow is like the wrist, it's not the source.

AngeloDS, how many times have I proven over and over again what is going on with the modern forehand? Please don't walk down the path of ignorance. Don't put words in my mouth either. There are only a hand full of ignorant people here.

I have never said the elbow and the wrist are "THE" source of power. I dont know how many countless posts I have writtten where I have mentioned using the shoulder to swing the racquet and therefore the arm.

You are ignorantly wrong about the role of the elbow and the wrist. I wish you would do more studying before offering us your "insight".

I think you have completely misunderstood the role of the elbow/wrist and what I am saying. I really feel sorry for you because after all the posts trying to explain this - you still dont get it. If you have followed my posts you would know I support the role of the shoulder for solidity and the driving force of the arm.

You also failed to mention another important muscle area that works with the shoulder and that is the chest muscles.

One of the major keys to the modern forehand is the independent and initiating role of the elbow. The elbow is brought forward initially by the shoulder and continues on. The shoulder rotation and shoulder strength follows and propels the shot further. The role of the elbow initiating is HUGE!

The role of the wrist is equally important. It is to remain loose throughout the entire swing. So in essence it is PRE-RELEASED. When the racquet drops back it sort of falls into a slot, then the shoulder tugs on the elbow and rotation and the lower arm follow.

This sudden tug on the elbow to move places the arm in motion going forward. Since the wrist is loose, it is forced back into a laid back position. When the arm catches up, the wrist is slung forward.

It is ALL working together for the modern forehand.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

Saw an interview on Tennis Channel with Wayne Bryan recently. He seems to be a big fan of match play and less formal teaching. As part of his conversation, he mentioned that "taking back the racquet early" advice in formal training "by the way, happens to be wrong".

Just mentioning this. I am not qualified to comment, specially with John Yandell here (I am a member of tennisplayer.net).

For some match play works. For others it doesn't. Also, for others a balance of match play and teaching works as well. For Wayne, that probably is the case. For others, not so.

Taking the racquet back early and running with it is wrong. It is not what you are suppose to do.

Taking the racquet back to learn to prepare the racquet and turn the shoudlers is right. It is a drill folks. Only a drill.

Once again, the drill is not intended to teach a player to get the racquet back well before the ball crosses the net (although the drill promotes that as an exxageration to condition the mind to perform a shoulder turn, grip change, and to setup quickly and early).

ALL PROS PREPARE THE RACQUET WELL BEFORE THE BOUNCE. ALL PROS PERFORM A SHOULDER TURN (WHICH GETS THE RACQUET BACK!!!!!!!!) WELL BEFORE THE BOUNCE.

If a player has ever performed the racquet back drill for a good amount of time, any one of them would tell you first hand what it taught them. It simply taught them early preparation.

 

[tlm]

I am pretty new to this site+i am trying to add a video clip to reply with no luck.At the bottom it says you may not post attachments,can someone explain this to me.I wanted to show clip from windshield wiper forehand by shcmad.I have taken a lot of criticism from my view of takeback after bounce opinion.I will not resort to the gradeschool humor that is being dumped on me,although i guess its pretty funny depending on your maturity.But anyone that wants to see why i made these statements about takeback being after bounce please go to windshield wiper forehand+ check out post from shcmad. It shows roddick with his classic ww forehand+ it shows multiple views at same time.Please watch this + then tell me i am blind, stupid,oscar wannabee.It appears to me that my opinoin is pretty close,i did notice that on a lot of forehands that i have watched they do start to raise racket + bring it back some right before bounce.So i will correct my first statements of saying that all of takeback starts after bounce.But if you watch this clip closely even though it does not show ball the whole time ,you can obviously see that a good part of takeback is after bounce.If you dont agree fine but please check it out+ then see what you think.Of coarse my biggest critics wont even watch it,because they dont like to deal with reality.Its more fun to hide from the truth with childhood humor.

 

[KingBugsy]

Can you post a link to the video/post you are talking about?

 

[Marius_Hancu]

Can you post a link to the video/post you are talking about?

No, Tim doesn't know how to post that.
And he hasn't learned how put some paras in his text.
He needs to learn many things

I will post it for you:
http://www.pyramidtennis.com/library/library.php?pid=241&lang=th
(courtesy of shcmad)

And it's obvious there that:
- the picture is incomplete, as it doesn't show the full flight path of the ball
- ARod starts his movement very early (he's already turned in both clips probably immediately after split-step, and before the ball is in the frame)

 

[tlm]

Sorry marius, but you are right i am new+ need to learn a lot more about how to post correctly.But thanks for showing link.

 

[FiveO]

tlm,

I don't believe the grade school humor is being directed at you personally, instead I think it is directed at a repeated behavior of those coming from your side of the fence, which had become frustrating. I haven't seen JY join in these discussions until now, but the fact that he joined in, should indicate at least something is may require a re-analysis within the OW follower mentality. Unfortunately, your initial wording, which can be viewed as a tad over-zealous, seems to be a commonality of OW himself and people who are, IMO, overly enthusiastic about his methods who tend to attack all alternate methods to develop modern technique with a solid base. Not your fault but it is a common thread.

The way the premises are presented by the OW side seem to be stating them as absolutes, either/or propositions and seem to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It comes across as overly aggressive and myopic to many, and often insulting.

Again no one is saying that OW's methods are wrong per se. I do think that those of us understand his axioms to be well intended means to an end or a corrective measure to a misinterpretation of a drill. But cues are not necessarily what actually occurs in a stroke or what can be seen in high speed video. These discussions pitting cues vs. what is are what I find interesting. Maybe it's poor wording by those coming from the differing schools of thought. Commonly used terms are being mixed, changed, in this conversation.

What constitutes a take back or where a backswing begins and ends is hard to debate when one school believes there isn't one and the other believes there is but it by no means precludes a linked continuous flowing fh. It leads to conversation which culminates with:

"It's as plain as the nose on one's face"

answered with:

"That's not my nose."

For clarity this side is saying that the unit turn initiates the take back, from there the racquet continues on a rearward track reaching the top. It's my stance that on standard depth and paced rally balls this portion of the rearward track of hitting arm and racquet is completed the vast, vast, majority of the time by the time the ball has bounced on the player's side of the court. Also by this time that the player is loading or has completed loading the back leg. Now if you are claiming that the racquet drop into the slot is backswing I think this disagreement is moot as that drop occurs after that point. However the OW methodology seems to say its all part of the forward swing. I understand the cue and the reason for it. But if we're talking about it in your terms, that it is part of the forward swing, then we are discussing the part of the forward swing which commences rearward. We still believe in the linked continuous motion.

As a word of caution about not viewing high speed or slo-mo video. Normal speed video of Andre Agassi's fh appears to the naked eye to involve a wrist snap. This caused heated arguments between those stating what they saw at speed vs. those who sensed what was really happening. It wasn't until viewing the AA's fh in high speed video that those arguments for wristiness were put to bed.

That being said as far as posting your vid if from another internet site:
1) open 2 browser windows
2) one to Talk Tennis
3) the other to the video source
4) copy and past the link to the vid in the Talk Tennis narrative box.

Like I said I accepted your apology. The boys will be boys humor I don't see as directed at you as an individual but at a mindset that has been seen here since before you began posting. If you were offended my apologies.

 

[FiveO]

tlm,

sorry I was typing while Marius was helping you out.

 

[Marius_Hancu]

F. Gonzalez and J. Johansson FHs

Better clips are here (you can run them step-by-step in QuickTime), and they are of course available for the studious in the Sticky:

F. Gonzalez FH:
http://www.tennisads.com/tennis_media/gonzo_forehand__tennisgods.mov

J. Johansson FH
http://www.tennisads.com/tennis_media/joachim_forehand_groundies.mov

but they don't show either the full flight of the ball or the bounce.

However, one can see those players are NOT waiting, they are turning as quickly as they can after the small split-steps they are performing here (and this is just a warmup, for both). This is what happens in most of the typical exchanges.

If I find a good clip with the bounce, I'll post it.

 

[Marius_Hancu]

G. Kuerten running FH

OK, I got a better clip, it shows the bounce (even if it's at the bottom of the frame), and of course, for those who want to illuminate themselves, it was available for a long time in the Sticky (topmost thread there, my posting on Forehand Issues; is that clear, Tim?):

Guga Kuerten running FH:
http://www.uspta.com/html/e-lesson-Running forehand.swf

And of course, it supports what has been said all along here: Guga turns immediately, much before the bounce.

This is in Flash, thus can't be step-by-stepped.
If I find a QuickTime with a bounce, I'll post that too, don't worry
The advantage of Flash is of course that most of you can see it on their browsers.

 

[tlm]

Hey marius why are we showing all these other clips? i didnt hear your comment on the roddick clip, our we trying to get away from that clip for some reason?

 

[Marius_Hancu]

Hey marius why are we showing all these other clips? i didnt hear your comment on the roddick clip, our we trying to get away from that clip for some reason?

sorry, can't you read? I said there:
---------
And it's obvious there that:
- the picture is incomplete, as it doesn't show the full flight path of the ball
- ARod starts his movement very early (he's already turned in both clips probably immediately after split-step, and before the ball is in the frame)
----------
thus the ARod clips do not support your assumptions at all.

 

[tlm]

Thanks five0 for your help,+ i have always noticed humor on this site.And thats fine but when it is used to detour from the point, that is when i find it irratating.I have never said there is no takeback that is what i have been arguing,i thought this clip of roddick shows pretty clear that a good % of it happens after bounce.

 

[tlm]

Okay marius but are you going to tell me you you cant see the ball coming up without backswing complete yet?Even though you dont see initial bounce you can see ball come in picture before backswing is complete.If it showed the ball bounce also, it would just support my claim more.I believe you dont want to watch this clip to closely.+ turn+ backswing are two different subjects lets not get turn + backswing mixed up here.

 

[Marius_Hancu]

Okay marius but are you going to tell me you you cant see the ball coming up without backswing complete yet?Even though you dont see initial bounce you can see ball come in picture before backswing is complete.If it showed the ball bounce also, it would just support my claim more.I believe you dont want to watch this clip to closely.+ turn+ backswing are two different subjects lets not get turn + backswing mixed up here.

talking about the ARod clip? it's not complete.
look at the Guga clip I posted. you can see the bounce here.
end of discussion for me here. pls talk to others.

 

[Marius_Hancu]

Haas 1HBH with bounce

Another clip from the Sticky (topmost thread here)
in my posting on 1HBH

Haas 1HBH
http://www.uspta.com/html/e-lesson-Backhand back view.swf
which is many times used by Bungalo Bill in his comments on the 1HBH

same conclusion: Haas started the turn long before the bounce (in effect, immediately after split-step, which is captured here beautifully) and practically completed most the backswing (just like Guga in the clip above on FH) by the time of the bounce, in a continuous fashion

 

[JohnYandell]

If the Germans had a few thousand more guys like this to make blind charges and and impale themselves on bayonets they might have broken thru the trenches and captured Paris in WW I.

When Marius loses patience that says something.

 

[Kevo]

This is quite a fascinating thread. It seems that both sides appear to be arguing with themselves. Of course I might get my nose squashed in the door for sticking my head in, but I couldn't resist. I think both sides are correct. One side is better informed and has more understanding, and is therefore more correct. However, they have failed to impart their wisdom to the other side who is also correct, but with a less complete view of the picture.

I would compare it to relative motion and the position of the observer. Until the two observers decide to enter the same frame of reference they will not be able to communicate meaningfully.

Thank you all for the entertainment though. Unfortunately I don't have anything helpful to add. :-(

 

[Bungalo Bill]

This is quite a fascinating thread. It seems that both sides appear to be arguing with themselves. Of course I might get my nose squashed in the door for sticking my head in, but I couldn't resist. I think both sides are correct. One side is better informed and has more understanding, and is therefore more correct. However, they have failed to impart their wisdom to the other side who is also correct, but with a less complete view of the picture.

I would compare it to relative motion and the position of the observer. Until the two observers decide to enter the same frame of reference they will not be able to communicate meaningfully.

Thank you all for the entertainment though. Unfortunately I don't have anything helpful to add. :-(

Allow me to kick the door in on your nose! If I were you, I would stay out of this because we have provided a tremendous amount of insight as well as evidence that has yet to be accepted by the other party.

Just ease back in your chair and be entertained.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

This is quite a fascinating thread. It seems that both sides appear to be arguing with themselves. Of course I might get my nose squashed in the door for sticking my head in, but I couldn't resist. I think both sides are correct. One side is better informed and has more understanding, and is therefore more correct. However, they have failed to impart their wisdom to the other side who is also correct, but with a less complete view of the picture.

I would compare it to relative motion and the position of the observer. Until the two observers decide to enter the same frame of reference they will not be able to communicate meaningfully.

Thank you all for the entertainment though. Unfortunately I don't have anything helpful to add. :-(

Well allow me to kick the door in on your nose!

If I were you, I would stay out of this because we have provided a tremendous amount of insight as well as evidence that has yet to be accepted by the other party. We are not looking to win, we are looking to provide the truth as to what is happening in how it got there.

Just ease back in your chair, eat your popcorn and be entertained.

 

[Marius_Hancu]

Well allow me to kick the door in on your nose!

do I detect some Quentin Tarantino (Jules) influences here?