Discussion in 'Tennis Tips/Instruction' started by Wegner, Dec 24, 2012.
If you have a problem, say something concrete. Your ignorance of basic physics is obvious, and is that of a couple of other posters here. If you have anything to say, say it and let us see what you have got. If you think a body can hit out on another body while itself moving in the opposite direction, say it, and I will rip you apart. Otherwise, your sarcasm just amplifies your ignorance. You have nothing to contribute other than taking sides here and there. I am done with you - answering your comments is a waste of time.
I think we have been over this.
Ofcourse the ball can be hit outwards, even if you pull inwards (across the body), it depends on the angle between ball and the racket, and deflection. Perhaps you are confusing inwards and backwards.
He also seems to miss that when the handle is moved one direction, it can
cause the racket head to move or pivot in the other direction.
Seems so obvious, but not sure how he doesn't realize how this can happen.
I am basically talking about that you can fx. hit an inside-out forehand moving the hand and racket outside-in. Perhaps we are talking about different things. But I can assure that I was not talking about hitting the ball backwards. That would truly be a waste of time.
Be nice to have one thread where Oscar could present his tips, and posters could judge them on one thing....did the tip work. No having to search for such reports through post after post of detailed analysis on what exactly is happening or not happening.
Just using the imagery or description of action that Oscar outlines, trying it out with no bias either way, and reporting if the stroke, etc. was improved or not.
What is preventing you from doing the same? Try the strokes and report it here. It is better than complaining about what others are doing (in the period between deleting your posts or being banned by the mods).
The last part of your post is not relevant to the discussion.
I DID exactly that. When the thread started I posted my experiences using Oscar's imagery of contacting the ball gently than accelerating. I told how my students responded.
I thought the thread would be filled with others saying how the tips either worked or did not work. If there were such reports, I would have to wade through post after post of other stuff to find them....no interest.
You can post 20000000 posts if you want. I also have the right to express my opinion. And my opinion is that you ruined this promising thread, as was expected.
excellent post and points here!
The last part is highly relevant. You take shots anonymously at proven coaches, then disappear or get banned, or show up under another name, and do the same thing over and over again, forcing people like JY to defend against your insults over and over again. Not to mention how much burden it is for the mods. You seem to have only contempt for them.
You never say what is wrong with what is posted here. I say that the facts show that the claims are not correct. You have no facts to post, and you take shots at coaches who don't post here, saying they charge exorbitant amounts of money, how you know they are useless from personal experience, how their fancy analysis does not work, etc. You have even made personal comments about them which I don't want to mention here. They cannot defend as they don't see your posts. You like Oscar's vague claims not because they work but because you don't like other successful coaches and he is a nice way of getting back at them. No one can prove or disprove that you use his methods successfully because guess what, every junior I see is also hitting open stance, across the body, and with huge amounts of top spin. You can add some more terms like "gentle contact" (if 70 mph is gentle) and then accelerate, and there is no harm done. They already learnt the right thing to do prior to that.
No coach is ever proven, not even Oscar. Coaches have evidence, more or less
to their contributions, but never Proof.
They may be proven as a Player, but never as a coach.
That is not the point. The point is you shouldn't take shots at anybody who doesn't post here, in a direct and insulting fashion. It is not even about tennis. But he is loved by parents of juniors so he is immune from any action.
So if Oscar goes back to not posting here, you and your merry band should
stop your scathing attacks? That is a not likely, lol.
I don't agree or see what them posting here has to do with posters sharing their
opinion. You don't really see it that way, and just came up with that as a lame
defense for someone your agenda is to protect.
Any coaching or instruction is up for discussion here.... or should be anyway!
Suresh you always go back to physics. I'm sure even your messiah "neo" aka john yandel does not use exact scientific language to express all tennis to his students. When neo says to his junior player try to extend the fh out a little bit more for more pace and hit it on the rise. Does he quantify the instruction by adding the extention is on a curve and the arc of the curve is ... etc. ... ? No. He just says extend a bit more into the shot. Your hung up on words and descriptions that do not need a exact computer modeled simulation. Its tennis. Your lack of tennis knowledge is so huge as shown by other posters here. And your ignorance and persistent posting of lame brained observations wear people out.
You have to realise suresh has no working knowledge of playing tennis. I would pay money to see how he hits a tennis ball.
Oh man I was not even talking about Oscar (as the guy who attacks others). Why do you always look at things from one angle only?
Why don't you tell me what I said wrong, and we can discuss that? I stand by every thing that I said. There was a complete misrepresentation of a work done by a respected coach which contradicted totally what was claimed here, and I pointed to the original video.
I think you have nothing to contribute, so you just pick one side or another and enjoy the show.
People like you don't allow Oscar and others to have a discussion and get these threads deleted. I never heard back from Oscar - only from a bunch of others who would have probably believed the numbers if I had not found the video.
ok, so for the sake of an argument, could you illustrate how that is possible?
imagine a ball as a circle where 12 o'clock is toward the opposite court, straight toward the center mark. To hit inside out FH (for righthanded player) you need to hit the ball anywhere between 6 and 9 o'clock. If you pull the racket inwards, the plane of the racket face is moving from general area of 3 o'clock to 9 o'clock (meaning right to left).
Could you explain how the plane (a racket) can touch a round object (a ball) between 6 and 9 while that plane is moving from right to left?
I didn't say or imply you were talking of him, lol. I only used him as an example of
someone you and your lot have attacked often...even when he was not posting
here; showing how you didn't mean what you said related to comments about
those who don't post here.
Its obvious why your wrong. Your misapplied use of physics.
An in out fh is not literally hit on the ball at 8pm. If you actually made contact at 9pm the ball would go to the side fence.
See federer io fhs. There is a lot of side spin if he wants it. Meaning he is pulling the racket right to left as he made contact.
I think suresh needs to buy a faster computer so he and his "messiah" can do sub atomic physics modeling of tennis ball atom interactions so we can get to the bottom of all the arguments. Its obvious to me now 2000 frame per second video is not nearly enough to show what is really happening. Maybe nasa will let suresh use their computing power.
These days no need for that. I can buy cloud computing time from Amazon, Microsoft and others.
Going to NASA with a request for their supercomputer is traditional instruction. Modern technique is to use cloud computing. Some are still teaching the old way.
What am I missing here? You just described how to hit an i/o forehand with sidespin.
This is not exactly the point being discussed, which is an even more absurd claim, but it is a nice question. I would say that inward motion is not just right to left - it has to be a motion towards the body at contact time. I think some people found it too literal and want to think of right to left as inward also, instead of well, simply right to left!
In any case, the way you have framed it is what some people appear to be thinking, so let us go with that.
The answer is, of course, that it is not possible. Pro videos show the racket face both almost perpendicular to the ground, and perpendicular to the intended target direction, at contact. The racket continues in this path for a while before turning over.
He means right to left OVER the ball from 3 to 9, which will constitute an arc moving inward from right to left. Obviously, it is not possible, and that is his point. He would consider your side spin to be 3 to 9 UNDER the ball, with the arc moving away from the body to the left.
How do you know he means over the ball?
You can also hit i/o on the top half of the ball by swinging right to left.
isn't "not literally hit on the ball at 8pm" exactly the same as "you need to hit the ball anywhere between 6 and 9 o'clock" ? I think I'm missing your point here...
I was asking how it is possible to hit inside out FH while having the racket move from right to left (which I'm assuming is being claimed when one says to pull the racket inwards during the stroke). I just would like someone to draw how that is physically possible.
sure, the racket may have some forward movement. But if it moves --at all- from right to left than it seems to me it is impossible to have the racket contact the ball anywhere past 6 o'clock mark (meaning between 6 and 12). So it seems impossible to hit inside out FH that way.
does this help?
put in your own words or thoughts what you see.
This is how the stroke is done.
Personally I see the hand (with handle in hand) moving rt to left on the contact across the
Jy supplied a vid that showed it well also.
OK thanks for the clarification...
I'm only concerned with movement in a plane parallel to the court. vertical plane movement obviously affects high/low the ball will travel - but that is beside the point.
To clarify: 12 on a ball is pointing toward the opposite court, 3 is toward the right fence, and so on.
I'm asking how is it physically possible to contact the ball past 6 (which you must do for inside out FH) while the plane of the racket face is moving from right to left (which what would be happening if one were to be pulling the racket in during the swing).
p.s. obviously if the 'pulling/yanking happens only after the contact - than it is a different story. but it would also mean the pulling/yanking has no affect on the ball as the contact has already happened.
No, it does not help. It is really a simple geometry question. You can't possibly propel the ball to the right (as what happens in inside out FH) without contacting the ball past 6 oclock. And you can't contact the ball past 6 oclock if the lane (plane of the racket) is moving toward the circle (a 2 dimensional representation of the sphere) from general area of 3 to 9.
So I'm not being argumentative. I'm asking for a drawing.
It's all about the exact path of the racket in three dimensions at the moment of contact. The swing is always inside out from the start and in my studies almost always on that curve at the contact.
Hit on the wall last night. Worked on taking the hand slowing to the ball and then pulling up, thru and across. Works very well for me. Also, use it in matches but don't think as much in matches. I don't think "yank" or "pull straight across". I think/visualize smooth approach to the ball with the hand to and will think "pull" at contact. In reality, the rackets speeds up just at or before contact but going slow into contact gives me good control and feel. Also, I think the racket actually is moving up, thru and across simultaneously.
By the way, you can hit the lower outside of the ball and still hit an inside out FH by catching the ball a bit later in your swing path. You can hook an inside out FH with R to L action for a righty, or you can catch it more on the inside or middle of the ball and have a bit of L to R action.
I try not to overthink it. Basically, take my hand slowly and smoothly to contact, pull the hand thru contact. I do not stop the natural rotation of the body which adds an element of thru to the shot.
I am also not too concerned that some pros separate their hands just before the bounce. I train by keeping both hands on the throat till the bounce but I may occassionally seperate a little quicker on a very hard and/or deep shop. Key is thinking wait and take the hand to contact very slowly and smoothly. I actually find I play better against pace if I think patience, smooth and compact to contact.
All in all - Oscar's technique works very well for me.
If I try to separate hands before the contact, and think stretch L arm parallel to baseline as part of the prep. I feel too mechanical and it does not work well.
Take the hand to the ball and pull the hand thru. Use the feel of the hand to direct the shot LtoR and height. Keep it simple. Pull faster for power but always accelerate on the pull even if using moderate rally ball pace.
you lay the wrist back more, swing right to left, make contact more on the side of your body and less out in front.
yes. I agree with that. But all you are doing, by laying the wrist, catching the ball 'late' and more on the side - is trying to negate the effect of right to left movement of the racket, no? Because that is the only way to have the racket contact the ball past 6 oclock mark.
If so - why would you than advocate the pulling/yanking if all the rest of the movement (as you have described) is solely to 'undo' what that yanking would normally do??
(sorry, it is not easy to depict in words, I hope you get the point).
I don't advocate yanking.
I don't understand what you are saying here. Can you elaborate or ask in a different way?
I don't know. I am guessing from his argument that is what he is saying, otherwise as you said, there is nothing to discuss!
If you are coming outside in, yes, it is impossible. Cheetah is talking about inside out.
To me, an inside out movement is a pull in initially, followed by a push out at contact, with the swipe first heading outward from the body. Eventually of course the racket will be pulled in in the follow thru. Kind of an S shape overall, rather than a simple arc.
Bounce the ball up in teh air with your racquet like you're doing "ups". the ball goes "up" because the face of teh racquet is up, not because your arm is moving up. Now, do your "ups" and then turn the racquet towards the side fence. The ball does not go up, even though your arm is moving up.. bottom line, the ball goes where the strings are pointed..It is very easy to swing across and hit down the line or inside out. The racquet head just lags a bit more.
Wrong. The racket head will follow thru with extension towards the target (CC or DTL) before it turns over, maintaining an almost vertical string plane. It is all in the contact. The ball doesn't care if the racket is lagging or not, or how how the racket moves after contact.
A former pro and famous coach, Peter Burwash, explained in a Tennis Mag article last year how eyes are deceiving. High swing speeds make the casual observer think the pros are not extending through the ball, which is debunked with slow motion video. He also cautioned that rec players employing abrupt across motion produce ineffective strokes and injure themselves.
Peter is a (verified) pro from around Oscar's time whose tournament career record is up for all to see, and owns a huge coaching and management chain and has coached thousands of players. Unlike anonymous coaches here, you can see what he puts it writing and stands by it.
Hi Cheetah, just curious... what does the term "yank" convey to you?
Who are these anonymous unverified coaches you keep referring to? John yandell? Dave smith? Oscar? Me?
Idk... an abrupt pulling or jerking in a different direction?
I think for Oscar it means to use the biceps to quickly pull to the side or across the ball or something like that.
Personally I don't use my biceps in any conscious discernible manner. However I do often use other parts of my body to pull across on some shots just before contact to increase rhs.
For example I swing with a very loose arm. It couldn't be any looser and it just goes along for the ride (unless I'm having a bad day on the courts where it's not clicking and i'm arming the ball etc). As my chest approaches facing the net and my arm and racquet are still behind and my torso is pulling my arm around i can feel tension in my shoulder and chest from the lagging racquet head. If I choose to I can use my left arm in such a way or increase my torso rotation or the angle of my shoulders etc and it will change the direction or angle that the racquet was originally travelling in. This change in direction will increase the rhs or change the angle of attack for more spin or whatever and I suspect this would accomplish the same effect as Oscar's bicep move. When I do this it's not a huge movement. Just a slight weight shift somewhere or an increase in muscle tension somewhere or just a pull of only an inch or so and that's enough. It looks like I'm swinging with a normal continuous motion but in fact there was a modification in there. I don't suddenly 'yank' abruptly where it would be noticeable.
Imagine if you had a soccer ball on a rope and you were swinging it around and around your body in circles over and over. You feel the weight of the ball lagging behind your pull. Like a hammer thrower in the olympics. While you are swinging the ball around you can pull / tug / yank / jerk / adjust your pull and the ball will go higher or lower and pick up speed right? The greater the difference that you adjust your pull the more the ball will pick up speed and you can feel it because of the tension of the ball lagging behind the pull. It's that kind of feeling and action.
my uneducated opinion...
inside out means hitting a forehand from the backhand side of the court to the opponents backhand (assuming both right-handed players).
At contact the strings (racquet face) point to where the ball will go, regardless of if you are pulling, pushing, keeping the racquet stationary or moving it from side to side or up to down. as long as the strings are pointing to the opponents backhand the ball will go there. remember, the ball is moving towards you, it will bounce off your strings and head to where the strings are pointed.
of course, if you want your forehand to be more than just a dink stroke, you will need rotation and/or extension through the ball, but you can hit inside out without moving the racquet as long as the ball is coming to you strongly enough.
Thanks, I get what you are doing. What I do will probably qualify as a legitimate "yank", I think. I pull the racquet by the handle towards the ball (I hope smoothly!), and then apply a combination of ISR and biceps contraction close to the contact point, which can be quite abrupt. I think this is what Oscar means by "yank". Like in your more subtle shift, this movement really speeds up the racquet head, and releases the wrist. One of these days I will get a video camera going and compare notes... I don't have a decent one at the moment since I've never been interested in photography.
I will continue in
Look at the video of Federer hitting an inside out FH - check out the top slow motion views at around 3:55 through 4:10 and it looks to me there is a significant amount of across motion through the contact zone. To me, you are not compensating to work the pull motion into the stroke but rather the pull motion makes it easier to hit the stroke. Earlier in the video, it states there is an up motion through contact of about 15 degrees. And, you can also see the arm fully extend before it bends at the elbow and wraps into WW finish.
Separate names with a comma.