More Power for your Tennis Strokes

[AngeloDS]

Heh, I edited post. I go through several edits before I get what I want to say right. Re-read .

True, excess of anything will be bad. But we already know that. The best thing to do is to go to a trainer, and see how much you should gain in muscle mass and fat percentage to be healthy.

The problem with increasing body weight, is keeping the same speed and such. But it isn't impossible to do. The harder part is to lose weight and keep the same power -- very difficult.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

I like to use the inner game approach which works very well. If I have a player that wants to hit hard I feed his some balls and ask him to hit hard. So he does and usually uses a lot of muscle.

I also ask him to remember the speed of his shots.

After 15-20 shots I ask him if he can hit with same speed but less effort.

Most people get this and they just look for the speed with more loose muscles. Eventually they find out that you don't need to be very strong to hit hard, just relaxed and think about speed not hard.

You don't need to tell your body to stay low or to transfer weight. You need to know your outcome and let go and "listen to your feel".

Tommy,

This is good if you are coming from the perspective of showing someone that muscling the ball is "over doing" and they dont need to.

There is a drill that I use that is similar but the focus is different. I call it the winner drill.

As you can imagine, a player learns to hit the ball hard but in a a relaxed and balanced state. During this time, I encourage the player to hit the ball very hard but to maintain the balance and relaxed arms.

After about 50 balls fed for this, I have them drop into a drill (still being relaxed) but hitting at a rally pace. Then I mix the hard hit ball back in.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

Heh, I edited post. I go through several edits before I get what I want to say right. Re-read .

True, excess of anything will be bad. But we already know that. The best thing to do is to go to a trainer, and see how much you should gain in muscle mass and fat percentage to be healthy.

The problem with increasing body weight, is keeping the same speed and such. But it isn't impossible to do. The harder part is to lose weight and keep the same power -- very difficult.

Well, I dont know about that. I am having trouble trying to understand what you are trying to say. In some things I agree and others I am not quite sure.

I dont think you made it obvious on "how much" weight is appropriate. You came out saying "gaining weight will improve power" but failed to mention the more important areas to gain power in a stroke.

It is not hard to "lose weight" and maintain power. In tennis, power comes from the ability for one to flexible and be relaxed. It is not muscle. I am not saying that ones wieght does not contribute to power, I am saying it is a minor area. One can improve their speed in transferring wieght (footwork and footspeed) to increase power as well.

So one can lose weight and maintain power if they transfer their weight quicker and more efficiently into the ball while being relaxed and flexible.

I would take a more flexible, lanky player over one that his heaviier and not as flexible and nor relaxed.

POWER = CLEAN CONTACT + TIMING

 

[Marius_Hancu]

being aware of where the racquet hand is makes it easier for many to make clean contact and to have better timing and control since the racquethand is closer to your body and eyes than the racquet head at key points of the swing ...

but to get to an advanced level, you really need to know what the racquethead (tip) is doing.

good points here.

 

[Marius_Hancu]

I would take a more flexible, lanky player over one that his heaviier and not as flexible and nor relaxed.

Well, yes, there's too much insistance on "muscling up" in North America.

I think people really interested in tennis should keep the optimal weight for tennis via proper diet and conditioning (which is pretty light, say 175lbs for Sampras at 6'1), and get more strength and explosiveness, without bulking up, perhaps just a tad, but barely.

Now, if you are skinny like Agassi was (145lbs) in his younger years, you can bulk up to 170lbs, if all you add is muscle, and not fat.

But keep your flexibility by all means, or you're dead in the water.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

Well, yes, there's too much insistance on "muscling up" in North America.

I think people really interested in tennis should keep the optimal weight for tennis via proper diet and conditioning (which is pretty light, say 175lbs for Sampras at 6'1), and get more strength and explosiveness, without bulking up, perhaps just a tad, but barely.

Now, if you are skinny like Agassi was (145lbs) in his younger years, you can bulk up to 170lbs, if all you add is muscle, and not fat.

But keep your flexibility by all means, or you're dead in the water.

Ageed! Very good response Marius.

 

[NoBadMojo]

Bill I really dont wish to get along with you. In fact you are still on my ignore list. I ony looked at your post because it seemed to be in response to something a guy who really knows his stuff said. Your response was classic BB..I read one thread in this forum, discovered this dude Yassis who clearly knows what he is talking about, and discovered you felt the need to barrage him with a bunch of babble just because you are obviously crazily insecure and feel this need to rule the forum with an iron fist in a Mother Hen/Hitler/Stalker sort of way even though you are wrong much of the time. Look what you did to my response which clearly ndicates there isnt a connection to Yassis and Wegner. I could do this with many of your posts. You didnt address anything i said which clearly proves you dont understand what Yassis was saying or what the Wegner method is, or you are just arguing because someone appeared on the board who easily treatened your reign as king of the board. So you choose to lay down a barrage of techno babble which isnt even related to what was being said. You do this quite a lot..there is a pattern and people I would think can see this. As for me, I have no desire to be king of the board, and dont think writing a bunch of words is a good way to learn tennis anyway. I rarely posted here when i posted here. I'm not those things you say I am, and you really are best ignored. So knock yourself out buddy, but you are doing this place a huge disserrvice by making people who really know their stuff avoid this forum..I'm not revisiting this thread, you are on my ignore list, and i've no interest in contributing to an environ made vile by you.

 

[AngeloDS]

I didn't explain the other points because they've been explained. But I know that clean contact and timing is the main role.

But when you throw your body into the ball like Roddick, weight does play a large role in the transfer of weight.

And for those who are skinny, I see a lot of them having a very unstable base. I.E. when they're faced with a fast or heavy shot, they aren't balanced. The ball literally forces them back. Adding weight helps stabalize a base, and helps lower ones center of gravity. That is fact.

And a stable base, and lowering your center of gravity can improve balance and stablity through shots which can help in getting clean contacts and such.

 

[JaisBane]

The problem with trying to bulk up is that it builds muscles that efficient at moving heavy weights but lack density and loose speed as a consequence. Dense muscles are fast twitch muscles and these are much more important than large muscles. Dense muscles are also much more difficult to injure, the connections between muscle fibers are much stronger and will protect joints, tendons, and ligaments better. Light weight with many repetitions is the usual recipe, but it's important to perform each repetition in a slow and controlled manner in order to strengthen the stabilizer muscles and make your lifting more efficient.

I'm interested in that chain training mentioned in the other articles, it seems like it'd be pretty easy to get tangled up in the chains, though. I use a similar training method where I stand in a waist-deep pool and hold a towel about arms-length in my racket hand. I stand in about a neutral or half-open stance (depends on if I'm practicing a forehand or backhand) with the tip of the towel in the water and I practice my stokes. The towel gains weight from the water and adds resistence to the beginning of the stroke. At first it will be difficult to do anything, but the goal is to get the towel to snap out of the water. If you have a longer towel you can also practice serves and overheads. I do this with both arms so that one doesn't become overdeveloped. I usually do 50 repetitions for each stroke, but it would be good to start off around 10 in you're in average shape as this exercises many muscles in a different way than they're used to and they'll get tired very quickly at first, the forearm in particular. This mostly exercises the arms, shoulders, and upper body so don't forget to work out the legs and the abdomen. I have a few unique exercises for the lower body that I'll post later if there's interest.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

I didn't explain the other points because they've been explained. But I know that clean contact and timing is the main role.

hmmmmm, you mean in other posts?

But when you throw your body into the ball like Roddick, weight does play a large role in the transfer of weight.

I think I can kind of see what you are saying. I think if you simply relax and allow the kinetic chain to work efficiently a "skinny" player can also hit a pretty darn good ball. Fluidity, flexibility, timing, and clean contact can go very far for those "skinny" players.

And for those who are skinny, I see a lot of them having a very unstable base. I.E. when they're faced with a fast or heavy shot, they aren't balanced. The ball literally forces them back.

Yeah, I think this is where we kind of get crossed up. I am not saying that a "heavier" player is better or worse, I just can't get there with you on the weight thing being so important to a players balance and them being able to "lower" their center of gravity.

Again, if weight was the best thing to do to increase power, then we would see a lot more heavier players. When Rafter played I believe he weighed around 170 to 175 lbs. and wasn't he around 6' 1"? I can tell you this, that isn't heavy whatsoever. I mean in general, tennis players are not heavy for their hieght. I do agree they are heavier then the past because of wieght training and do feel that is important but the emphasis is what I am having a hard time with.

I think weight can help but I do think you are over emphasizing its benefit to a player.

Adding weight helps stabalize a base, and helps lower ones center of gravity. That is fact.

A fact huh, well if you say so. I guess Justine Henin is a freak of nature.

And a stable base, and lowering your center of gravity can improve balance and stablity through shots which can help in getting clean contacts and such.

Well I agree with this very much so. Lowering your center of gravity is a good thing. I also agree it helps distribute weight better as well. Pat Dougherty agrees with you as well on the lowering of the Center of gravity.

 

[troytennisbum]

Hmmmmm,

Well, Yasis I hope you continue to post and contribute to this board. I thought you stated some good/intelligent/interesting points.
Please remember, as everyone should, that debating and even arguing is part of a discussion board. It's all good. No one should take it too seriously.

With that said, I would agree with Bungalow Bill about the backhand though. I believe that a fairly closed stance backhand is still being used a lot and with good effectiveness at the pro/college level. Of course there are tight situations when an open stance backhand is needed, and yes there some people who may even prefer to hit the BH out of this stance. But I still believe that the closed stance BH is still very effective in the modern game. I personaly like hitting some shots out of a closed stance simply because, from this stance, it is easier for me to hit through the ball. With regards to Roddick, it seems to me the reason why he appears to give up court space is simply because he has relatively slower foot speed compared to faster guys like Nadal or Hewitt.

Yes, fast raquet speed or fast/powerfull shots is a staple of today's modern game, but your comment that "Fast racket head speed gives you increased control, consistentcy, and accuracy" needs to be put in it's proper context. Yes, this may be true for top level players, but for an intermediate player (and espcially for beginners) trying to learn the game, gaining consistency/control/accuracy with a "moderate" raquet head speed MUST BE MASTERED FIRST! In short, you can't learn to run before you can walk.

Also, I think your comment about asking a pro "do you start your backswing before or after the ball bounces" may have been misunderstood. I think you would readily agree with Bill's notion that your raquet must already be back and ready before the ball bounces....especially with one of those heavy/high velocity, killer forehands coming at you. I think you were simply stating that these pro-guys just do this naturally, without having to think about it. So while I do agree with your notion that "paralysis can result from over-analysis", I do find that one common mistake made amongst intermediate players is that they are late in their backswings and/or raquet preparation and hence they do need to be corrected in this regard.

I do agree with you that being loose and not using a really tight grip during the stroke can increase racquet head spead.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

Bill I really dont wish to get along with you. In fact you are still on my ignore list. I ony looked at your post because it seemed to be in response to something a guy who really knows his stuff said. Your response was classic BB..

Actually I gave some pretty good information that you failed to address and ignored (like normal).

I read one thread in this forum, discovered this dude Yassis who clearly knows what he is talking about, and discovered you felt the need to barrage him with a bunch of babble

Yeah all I do is babble. Too bad for you others dont think so.

just because you are obviously crazily insecure and feel this need to rule the forum with an iron fist in a Mother Hen/Hitler/Stalker sort of way even though you are wrong much of the time.

Feel the need to "rule" the forum? Are you serious? lol This is classic poor little ol me. What are you weak in the mind? Crying like a baby left and right. This is sad.

Look what you did to my response which clearly ndicates there isnt a connection to Yassis and Wegner. I could do this with many of your posts. You didnt address anything i said which clearly proves you dont understand what Yassis was saying or what the Wegner method is, or you are just arguing because someone appeared on the board who easily treatened your reign as king of the board.

Actually there is not quite the connection with Wagner, but there is a connection with something else that I was interested in getting to.

So you choose to lay down a barrage of techno babble which isnt even related to what was being said.

Techno babble? You mean I dont know anything about tennis and shouldn't post? Is that what your saying? So it is okay for others to make long posts but not me? What are you afraid of? Haven't a lot of people liked my posts?

You do this quite a lot..there is a pattern and people I would think can see this. As for me, I have no desire to be king of the board, and dont think writing a bunch of words is a good way to learn tennis anyway.

Yeah this makes a whole bunch of sense.

I rarely posted here when i posted here. I'm not those things you say I am, and you really are best ignored.

Cool then please ignore me for real! I would really like that. Why dont you go to a forum where you know something? Like the strings and racquets forum. Many people feel you are better at that stuff then giving advice. Didnt you read the opinions from the post you put up?

So knock yourself out buddy, but you are doing this place a huge disserrvice by making people who really know their stuff avoid this forum

Really, so are you saying I dont know anything about tennis? So you completely disagree with my view on how the wrist works and it is not the TIP of the racquet that pros concentrate on? So you think my article on the onehanded backhand was incorrect? You think my analysis on Tommy Haas;'s backhand was wrong? do you think the thousaands of posts I have put are all wrong?

Please answer the question.

..I'm not revisiting this thread, you are on my ignore list, and i've no interest in contributing to an environ made vile by you.

LOL, see ya next post, what a joker, hilarious...

 

[Marius_Hancu]

The problem with trying to bulk up is that it builds muscles that efficient at moving heavy weights but lack density and loose speed as a consequence.

Dense muscles are fast twitch muscles and these are much more important than large muscles. Dense muscles are also much more difficult to injure, the connections between muscle fibers are much stronger and will protect joints, tendons, and ligaments better.

Light weight with many repetitions is the usual recipe, but it's important to perform each repetition in a slow and controlled manner in order to strengthen the stabilizer muscles and make your lifting more efficient.

Lifting slowly has been quite controversial here.

I'd recommend sprinting, olympic lifting (light weights) and plyometrics (if your age and conditioning allows that) for power/explosiveness, besides a basic strength program, which in my opinion can be more or less slow.

Some might want to check these articles in Health/Fitness:

How to build lean muscles using lighter weights?
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=78752

Lifting question 6 second reps
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=71796

Weights with a balancing twist
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=364291

Also, check Plyometrics in my signature here:

Great Fitness Sites
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=33800]

 

[Marius_Hancu]

JaisBane,

I think your "towel in the pool" method is a good one.
I prefer surgical tubing for the same purpose.

 

[AJK1]

I tend to agree with NBM, i enjoyed Yassis posts, and i feel that he could have made some worthy contributions, regardless of his authenticity, but these so called coaches bombarded him and now he's gone. Pretty ordinary to say the least. I will be ignoring those who did this. By the way, how do we really know that Bungalo Bill and Marius Hancu are not frauds themselves. We are on a talk site don't forget.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

By the way, how do we really know that Bungalo Bill and Marius Hancu are not frauds themselves. We are on a talk site don't forget.

Brother...

 

[odessa]

"A third major theme is the use of the open-stance backhand on the backhand side. More and more players are adding this to their arsenal of weapons, for one-handers and two-handers alike. The concept is exactly the same as hitting an open-stance forehand and it gives you greater court coverage and leverage in defensive situations.

1) Not giving up ground. When you hit a closed-stance backhand on the alleys of the court, you are having to take an extra step after you hit the ball. You are losing time. However, when you hit that exact same shot with an open stance backhand, you can immediately take a crossover step and not lose any time. Agassi does this so well and this is what makes him play at such an old age. He does not waste steps. Roddick on the other hand gives up a lot of court as he will hit closed-stance backhands all day.

2) Defense to offense. Open-stance allows you to hit a quality shot from hopeless situations. Nadal does this very effectively. Rarely do you see Agassi or Nadal slice a ball, it is because they are hitting open-stance backhands. For one-handers a good exampe of someone who hits a lot of open-stance backhands is Guga and Gasquet. "

This is Yassis statement about why open-stance backhands are benefical and when they are used.

He never states that that the one handed open-stance backhand is the only and better way to hit a backhand.

He clearly says when and why pros or advanced player use it.

he gives examples of players who use open-stance one handed backhands alot.
Gustavo Kuerten and Gasquet. Why do you not discuss these players ?
Or for that matter Justine Henin-Hardenne or James Blake (I thought thats one of your fav player, Blake is looks very comfortable hitting open stance)

For teaching open stance onehanded backhands the article of Bob Hansen at tennisplayer uses the pretty natural approach :
You set up with the back foot behind the incoming ball and when you have time you step in and if not you just let go from the open stance.
Thats good teaching and not only reasonable for 5.0 plus player.

My point is if Mahob Kaan had written the exact same thing, you probably would have been full of praise, maybe mention the importance of the return (which is a good point by the way).
Or do you think that is not true ?

Also there were same points in yassis original post that were offensive that was not at all the over all tone of his post.

This could have the beginning of an interesting discussion. (i believe more in holding the racquet head through contact and i also believe in standing on the line or very close to the line and in fact i have believed that Federer Safin or Hass are not going back without a fight, but maybe i am wrong)

But your reply was hostile and unbalanced ended this debate before it started.

 

[tennisplayer]

Just read the posting by Yassis... it is brilliant, and the viewpoint presented by him is sorely required on this board. So I appeal to Yassis to keep on posting, personal attacks notwithstanding.

I also appeal to BB, whose instructional posts I regard very highly, to tone down the harshness of criticism in responses.

Wish you all a very Happy New Year and great hitting in 2006!

 

[Orbital]

edit edit edit

 

[Bungalo Bill]

Just read the posting by Yassis... it is brilliant, and the viewpoint presented by him is sorely required on this board. So I appeal to Yassis to keep on posting, personal attacks notwithstanding.

I also appeal to BB, whose instructional posts I regard very highly, to tone down the harshness of criticism in responses.

Wish you all a very Happy New Year and great hitting in 2006!

I am not going to tone down a thing to "YASSIS". I did not say anything except to challenge him on some issues!

Open stance, the harsh words about "old skool" coaches, the real loose grip, the tip of the racquet...if he has so much knowledge why run away like a little kid. Why shout and say Buffalo Bill IS GOD like a little kid? This response sounds like a response someone I know would say - not a professional coach of his stature.

I will tell you why my response stands, because my challenge was appropriate and I still have my doubts he was even real.

If he is so knowledgable why not just answer the questions? Why not answer the challenge. Why not just provide the details so I can go see if what he says is true?

I reviewed 37 clips of Federer, NO OPEN STANCE. I probably can take a guess as to how many open stance onehanders I have seen, it probably would be about 3% and they came from service returns and defending shots.

Since I am also a student of the game, I can challenge here as well. Is he above someone saying "PROVE IT"?

So I really dont casre what you want ot believe, I care what I want to beleive and if someone says something like he says byt CAN'T back it up, BYE BYE.

If he comes on the scene again, I will challenge him again, you can count on it.

 

[dannyjjang]

The guy's name is Wegner..Oscar Wegner..not Wagner, and the Wegner methodology is all about being aware of where the racquet hand is positioned and not the racquethead (tip). Yassis was suggesting players should be aware of what the racquethead is doing not the racquet hand and that is contrary to the Wegner (not Wagner) methodology. The Wegner method works for many because beginners and low skilled players are rarely aware of where their racquethead is during key parts of their swings..being aware of where the racquet hand is makes it easier for many to make clean contact and to have better timing and control since the racquethand is closer to your body and eyes than the racquet head at key points of the swing...but to get to an advanced level, you really need to know what the racquethead (tip) is doing. Yassis clearly knows what he is talking about. it's a shame another knowledgable poster got assaulted and doesnt wish to post here anymore..I dont blame him.
So no kathy, this isnt a matter of two dogs piddling on the hydrant..it is a matter of one dog piddling and crapping all over a knowledgable poster...someone who this board could have learned from. I have no idea who Yassis is by the way, nor do I teach the Wegner method unless someone is really struggling with other teaching techniques as the Wegner method teaches tennis in a very robotic/sameness sort of way. Yassis was suggesting people learn tennis in a more individual natural sort of way. I dont see similarities connecting Yassis to Wegner at all and I dont think other knowledgable people would either. I suspect Yassis dropped in to promote the ModernTennis site which he mentions in one of his posts, which is not the Wegner site.

i agree half of his posts are...debates, the pride in his knowledge has corrupt the man!!antichrist he is....i say we have a match of TENNIS!(??)you VS Bungalo buffalo BIll!

 

[dannyjjang]

by the way bungalo...whos oscar wegner?

 

[Noelle]

Oh goodness, do a search, would you dannyjjang?

http://www.tennisteacher.com/

 

[dannyjjang]

i just watched oscar wegner's clip....my life has changed..i now can play like pro!...his the lamp of my life...the way to eternal life...call me now danny the great...jesus..his like Jesus...

 

[GrahamIsSuper]

bungalo, most times I agree with you, but Yassis does make some good points from the novice standpoint. Whether or not he is who he claims to be doesn't matter, a lot of his sayings are dead on.

On open stance: yes, its very hard to generate depth and power from an open stance 1hbh. I know I have problems with it, and would much rather just take the extra step across the body and hit it "ultra closed" instead, so I can get more shoulder turn. Agree with you here.

Technical/"Old Skool" coaching: agree with you here, as well. It is necessary to have some form of foundation, HOWEVER, it is quite possible for people to literally pick up a racquet, swing it a few times, and get the hang on tennis. I have seen it in person several times. A player who has been taking lessons from my same coach for around 3 months has been beaten 3 & 0 by a person who had never even watched tennis before. This has happened on several occasions, and isnt nearly as rare as you claim it to be. BUT, that same player who is so natural DOES require formal technical training, at least guidelines, in order to get the most out of their shots.

On/behind the line: I personally play on the line, and the information yassis gives regarding deep balls is spot on, which makes me have some sort of respect for his information. It is very very difficult to make a neutralizing half volley if the player puts balls on the line. This is when you MUST back up, or you are 1) not able to create your own power and 2) not playing your game, since you are just half volleying. Playing on the line is my preffered way of playing since it allows you to get the ball early as well as transfer your forward weight into the ball when physics dictates it will have the optimal return force.

On people's over-technical postings: It annoys me quite a bit to read the micro-technical details people are worrying over. This is my strongest agreement with Yassis. It is not necessary to focus that much on rudimentary technique. Technique is as much learned as it is taught. Before you get your breeches in a twist over this statement, let me say this: no student automatically does everything perfect immediately after you tell them what to do. If this were the case, coaches at bolleteri etc would be churning out Federers by the hundreds.


Swing speeds HAVE increased since the days of wood racquets, do a search on serve/forehand/backhand RPMs before and after graphite and metal racquets hit the scene. A racquet alone does NOT generate more rps, if the two in comparasin have comparable string patterns.

Yassis' swinging from the tip standpoint is a bit risque, it makes for a very wristy (and uncontrolled) shot. You would be slapping the ball instead of hitting it, if you were even slightly off here.

Accelleration and racquet head speed does transfer to more control, since spin = control because it allows for a greater margin of error. So, racquet head speeds have a profound now, but they always have, as BB said.

Loose grips are important, i dont know how many times i've missed volleys/backhands due to "stone hands".

Reverse forehand: I've actually never heard that term anywhere but this board. I hear it more as the "inside-out" forehand/backhand. It makes more sense. Reverse forehand would be a backhand, and vice-versa.

"Many of the people (club level professionals) who analyze the game have never played at a high level themselves."
So true, I can give you about 100 high school "coaches" who analyze the game but suck to no belief.

"Winning is something you can't teach."
Again true, but as BB said, you can give players the TOOLs to win, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they will win every match just because they are technically more sound. This is why everyone gets so pissed off when they play pushers, who dont have a care in the world regarding weight transfer/form/spin amounts; they get the ball in play any way they can. Technique loses to match experience, pretty much in every case.

"You always have to prove yourself and the only way to get better at winning is to play a lot of matches. "
I have said this myself about 50 times, at least. Playing matches is the only way to improve after you learn the strokes. Match mentality is what seperates top 10's from top 100's. They all possess the strokes and can hit 1000 balls in a row without any problem, it is how they use them that makes the difference.

BB, seriously man, just because he disagrees with some of your stuff doesn't mean he's saying "IN YOUR FIZACE I PIZOWWNED YOU, OLD TIMER!", there isn't really a cut-and-dry way to play the game, anymore.

 

[GrahamIsSuper]

Actually, I just re-read some of your later posts, Bill, and it really offended me that you would say things like this and act in this manner. I have seen a steady decline in the overall quality of your posts. Perhaps you should go back to what you do best: limit yourself to posting your advice instead of trying to back it up. "prooving" it to be right isnt going to make anyone adhere to your advice over somone else's. If somone disagrees, you will have the fun abillity to sit back and snicker at the person who posted the incorrect advice. What we all DONT need, is somone going around being overly-protective of everything they say. People are different by nature, and as such, do and believe different things.

I am not going to tone down a thing to "YASSIS". I did not say anything except to challenge him on some issues!

Yes, bill, except all he did to you was post information that went against some of the things you said, and you jump all over him in the fashion of some school-yard bully when the bigger new kid moves into town. Is it really necessary for you to prove that you can beat him in cyber/techno-tennis?

Open stance, the harsh words about "old skool" coaches, the real loose grip, the tip of the racquet...if he has so much knowledge why run away like a little kid. Why shout and say Buffalo Bill IS GOD like a little kid? This response sounds like a response someone I know would say - not a professional coach of his stature.

In all reality, he probably had a tennis match to go play. When you leap all over somone with an overly aggressive tone, what do you expect them to do? Let's face it, if he is who he is, he has more experience than you. Im not saying you dont have experience with tennis or know what you're talking about, you have proven yourself to already. I am however, saying that he has a different kind. He has played against people who do everything exceedingly well, and he can give people first-hand advice that you, as much as you might try and say you can, cannot.

I will tell you why my response stands, because my challenge was appropriate and I still have my doubts he was even real.

Santa Clause is fake, but would you rather tell a lie that brings a smile or a truth that makes you cry? Who cares?

If he is so knowledgable why not just answer the questions? Why not answer the challenge. Why not just provide the details so I can go see if what he says is true?

Because no matter what he says, it's going to be wrong.

Since I am also a student of the game, I can challenge here as well. Is he above someone saying "PROVE IT"?

There is a big difference between a challenge and a b#$ch slap.

 

[Roforot]

After reading this ridiculous post, it sure sounds like one of our friends has resurrected themselves (Bottle, tlm???) What is most interesting is the way you spell "SKOOL", but spell all other words correctly.

Sounds like an Oscar Wagner fan is back…lol!

Every good coach knows that learning the fundamentals in any sport is extremely important. When you study pro film, they are not that different from each other that we can say "okay everyone, do what you want to do, it's a free-for-all!" That would be very irresponsible and literally stupid.

*snip*

Well "Oscar", I know for a fact that this is not true and this is a sure giveaway you are not a coach. All players developing sound technique come from understanding the fundamentals.

I play with three x-Division I Top 20 players and all of them have had extensive training on their technique.



No, you are stupid or blind. When you look at pro film, nearly EVERY pro has prepared the racquet WELL before the bounce. You dont know this?????


Letting the racquet do the work, wow, now that is a new concept. Wow, “encourage people to “STOP” taking lessons from “old skool pros”? Then who would you suggest? Take them from Oscar?

I found this post with so many holes in it, I can't wait for your reply.

The majority of this post is a sound challenge; however there are certain parts that do not make for good dialogue. There are more diplomatic ways of calling someone or their ideas "ridiculous," "blind," or "stupid."

I can understand how a doctor would be offended or threatened by some guy coming out and saying Medicine's B.S. don't pay any heed to that old "institution," try these magic herbs! I imagine a Tennis Pro would have similar reaction to Oscar's "old school" assault; but I take it as a sales pitch or marketing ploy.

I suspect that Oscar's approach and communication/visualization may be different but what he teaches is probably more similar.

 

[tlm]

Thanks yassis for the modern tennis site,what a breath of fresh air, you + the modern tennis site are.Funny on that site there seems to be a whole new way of thinking, compared to what goes on here.But dont say to much that disagrees with the popular opinion here or you will be ripped on relentlesly.I have said before bb+ others have a lot of good advice, but i dont think they are right all the time.I think that it just kills these guys that there is a new way of thinking on tennis + a lot of it is the opposite of what they have been preaching for years.And the worst part is that it is being proven to be better,+ inside they know there is truth to it but they will never admit it.

 

[vin]

But dont say to much that disagrees with the popular opinion here or you will be ripped on relentlesly.I have said before bb+ others have a lot of good advice, but i dont think they are right all the time.

You know, it doesn't really matter who is right. And who's to say what is right anyway? There is a lot of room for opinion in tennis, and besides, this is a discussion forum. It would certainly be a lot nicer if people could state their disagreement without emotional tone and move on. Even doing so most of the time would probably be sufficient.

The people who are genuinely interested in helping people here, but can't refrain from emotional disagreements, need to realize that the best they can do is offer their own advice and make points (not attacks) against the advice they disagree with. It's up to the reader to evaluate all sides and make their own choice. If they choose advice that will hurt them, that's life. They can't say they made an uninformed choice.

When people continously get involved in lengthy personal battles, it makes me question their stated motivation for helping the other readers of the board and the sport itself. It also gives me a sense of embarrasment for the people involved. I highly doubt I'm the only person feeling that way.

Regardless of Yassis' correctness or the validity of his qualifications, I was very curious to hear more from him, but now that won't happen as if I started reading a new book only to have it ripped from my hands. I don't appreciate that.

This board has potential to be a great resource, but if it hasn't already, it's self destructing. I much prefer John Yandell's board. There's not nearly as much activity over there, but it's much more civil and much more densly packed with good information.

That's been on my mind for a while. I'm happy to have finally spit it out.

 

[vin]

Oh yeah, thank you Marius for the original post. This Kelvin Miyahira guy is pretty interesting although I think he goes a bit overboard trying to debunk the big names. It sort of reminded me of Mark Papas (revolutionarytennis.com).

How do you find this stuff?

 

[tonyjh63]

You know, it doesn't really matter who is right. And who's to say what is right anyway? There is a lot of room for opinion in tennis, and besides, this is a discussion forum. It would certainly be a lot nicer if people could state their disagreement without emotional tone and move on. Even doing so most of the time would probably be sufficient.

The people who are genuinely interested in helping people here, but can't refrain from emotional disagreements, need to realize that the best they can do is offer their own advice and make points (not attacks) against the advice they disagree with. It's up to the reader to evaluate all sides and make their own choice. If they choose advice that will hurt them, that's life. They can't say they made an uninformed choice.

When people continously get involved in lengthy personal battles, it makes me question their stated motivation for helping the other readers of the board and the sport itself. It also gives me a sense of embarrasment for the people involved. I highly doubt I'm the only person feeling that way.

Regardless of Yassis' correctness or the validity of his qualifications, I was very curious to hear more from him, but now that won't happen as if I started reading a new book only to have it ripped from my hands. I don't appreciate that.

This board has potential to be a great resource, but if it hasn't already, it's self destructing. I much prefer John Yandell's board. There's not nearly as much activity over there, but it's much more civil and much more densly packed with good information.

That's been on my mind for a while. I'm happy to have finally spit it out.

Very well said, VIN. And might I add, in the immortal words of that great American diplomat, Rodney King, "can't we all just get along?".

 

[zorg]

Yes well I don't agree with him at all. Topspin is very important to have in your game, I agree finishing like Federer, across the body, I do it, but I put topspin on my shots. Playing flat is the old style of play, now its all about the spin.

 

[Duzza]

great article Marius, i think thats what i seem to hit these days, my friends always tell me i hit it way too flat and go for too little top spin but i love it works for me