Old school or new school tennis?

big ted

big ted

Legend
Racquets are different. Strings are different. Now strategy is different, and in some cases rightly so (dropshots, serving wide in the deuce court, etc.) teachers are telling players to push their opponent back, instead of going side to side. Bring your opponent in , before it was come to net as much as possible! Before it was hit ur approach shots deep. I could go on and on. Players today have different strengths and weaknesses than 30 years ago. Players used to volley better. Now they return serve better.
The cut off between old school and new school tennis is:
35 & under players play new school
35 & over players play old school


My question is for old school players 5.0 and under. Have you adapted your game to new school tennis? For example the forehand taught now is entirely different than the one taught 30 years ago. Now it’s a whip action. im not convinced these new techniques are better. They produce more power and spin but less control .
 
big ted said:
Racquets are different. Strings are different. Now strategy is different, and in some cases rightly so (dropshots, serving wide in the deuce court, etc.) teachers are telling players to push their opponent back, instead of going side to side. Bring your opponent in , before it was come to net as much as possible! Before it was hit ur approach shots deep. I could go on and on. Players today have different strengths and weaknesses than 30 years ago. Players used to volley better. Now they return serve better.
The cut off between old school and new school tennis is:
35 & under players play new school
35 & over players play old school


My question is for old school players 5.0 and under. Have you adapted your game to new school tennis? For example the forehand taught now is entirely different than the one taught 30 years ago. Now it’s a whip action. im not convinced these new techniques are better. They produce more power and spin but less control .
Click to expand...
I'm over 35. Adapted grip from continental to eastern for more spin on both sides. Pol;y strings help too.
 
big ted said:
Racquets are different. Strings are different. Now strategy is different, and in some cases rightly so (dropshots, serving wide in the deuce court, etc.) teachers are telling players to push their opponent back, instead of going side to side. Bring your opponent in , before it was come to net as much as possible! Before it was hit ur approach shots deep. I could go on and on. Players today have different strengths and weaknesses than 30 years ago. Players used to volley better. Now they return serve better.
The cut off between old school and new school tennis is:
35 & under players play new school
35 & over players play old school


My question is for old school players 5.0 and under. Have you adapted your game to new school tennis? For example the forehand taught now is entirely different than the one taught 30 years ago. Now it’s a whip action. im not convinced these new techniques are better. They produce more power and spin but less control .
Click to expand...
How much of this even applies to players 4.0 and under?
 
sureshs said:
How much of this even applies to players 4.0 and under?
Click to expand...
absolutely applies.

and judging from recent discussions... maybe 5% of the folks here understand modern.. the other 95% is still doing low to high 3m clearence starting with the hips.

does the ball care? no, if your just having fun.

will your players get crushed if you teach them to play like this in high performance? oh yeah.
 
10sbeast888 said:
absolutely applies.

and judging from recent discussions... maybe 5% of the folks here understand modern.. the other 95% is still doing low to high 3m clearence starting with the hips.

does the ball care? no, if your just having fun.

will your players get crushed if you teach them to play like this in high performance? oh yeah.
Click to expand...
You mean 3.5 and 4.0 players are able, on demand, to serve wide from the deuce court and push back the opponent with depth in their shots?

I don't see such skills in real league matches. Most don't have a shot tolerance of more than 2 and most can't even serve without footfaulting.
 
sureshs said:
You mean 3.5 and 4.0 players are able, on demand, to serve wide from the deuce court and push back the opponent with depth in their shots?

I don't see such skills in real league matches. Most don't have a shot tolerance of more than 2 and most can't even serve without footfaulting.
Click to expand...

it's all relative right... you compete at your level.

but there needs to a foundatioinal strategy beyond low recs under 3.5

be it high heavy push;
be it s+1;

the modern equipment does make a difference. in the beast academy we have 4.0 guys +/- and what we work on mostly in stroke production, based on the modern equipment, absolutely makes a diff.

e.g past month worked with 1 particular 4.0 guy and we focused on

- fh: pec/lats use, rotational sequence;
- 2hb: wrist pre loading and swing path;

these are related to the modern swing due to the equipment. his fh is now 40% heavier in a month.
 
big ted said:
Racquets are different. Strings are different. Now strategy is different, and in some cases rightly so (dropshots, serving wide in the deuce court, etc.) teachers are telling players to push their opponent back, instead of going side to side. Bring your opponent in , before it was come to net as much as possible! Before it was hit ur approach shots deep. I could go on and on. Players today have different strengths and weaknesses than 30 years ago. Players used to volley better. Now they return serve better.
The cut off between old school and new school tennis is:
35 & under players play new school
35 & over players play old school


My question is for old school players 5.0 and under. Have you adapted your game to new school tennis? For example the forehand taught now is entirely different than the one taught 30 years ago. Now it’s a whip action. im not convinced these new techniques are better. They produce more power and spin but less control .
Click to expand...

mostly true about the forehand.

except that 'less control' is likely due to some issue in the techniques. The evidence is clear in the pros' game. fh's are likely hit with 20% more ball speed 30% high spin rate that makes the ball about 50% bigger in energy.. but there is no control issue.

There is no reason recs cannot learn the same techniques.

@sureshs this of course applies to all levels.
 
big ted said:
My question is for old school players 5.0 and under. Have you adapted your game to new school tennis?
Click to expand...

Somewhat, yes. There's a lot more baseline grinding going on whereas before I'ld be at the net like 6 balls earlier.

big ted said:
For example the forehand taught now is entirely different than the one taught 30 years ago.
Click to expand...

It's not "entirely" different. That's a gross exaggeration. In 1994/95 at the federation, it was all about open stance with a ww finish, the "pat the dog" stuff etc. You must be confusing it with 45 years ago when tennis just got out of the wooden racket era and people were still hitting forehands with a continental grip flat as a pancake

The fact is that modern forehands are a continuation of a trend that was already occurring in high performance places in the mid to late 90s. Several of my junior colleagues were playing semi western also. People like to act as if polyester forced people to go back to the drawing board and literally start over from scratch. This is just not true


big ted said:
Now it’s a whip action. im not convinced these new techniques are better. They produce more power and spin but less control .
Click to expand...
Can't say I agree with that. I in fact find high spin balls easier to control the flat high pace shots. The heavy spin gives more margin of error whereas the flatter shot needs the be executed in near perfection or it goes flying
 
ProStaffFanatic said:
Somewhat, yes. There's a lot more baseline grinding going on whereas before I'ld be at the net like 6 balls earlier.



It's not "entirely" different. That's a gross exaggeration. In 1994/95 at the federation, it was all about open stance with a ww finish, the "pat the dog" stuff etc. You must be confusing it with 45 years ago when tennis just got out of the wooden racket era and people were still hitting forehands with a continental grip flat as a pancake

The fact is that modern forehands are a continuation of a trend that was already occurring in high performance places in the mid to late 90s. Several of my junior colleagues were playing semi western also. People like to act as if polyester forced people to go back to the drawing board and literally start over from scratch. This is just not true



Can't say I agree with that. I in fact find high spin balls easier to control the flat high pace shots. The heavy spin gives more margin of error whereas the flatter shot needs the be executed in near perfection or it goes flying
Click to expand...
You are talking about generating spin. The flip side is returning spin, which is difficult for old school players with a 1 hander.

In fact, the only important difference is the use of the 1 handed backhand. Other things are manageable.
 
10sbeast888 said:
except that 'less control' is likely due to some issue in the techniques. The evidence is clear in the pros' game. fh's are likely hit with 20% more ball speed 30% high spin rate that makes the ball about 50% bigger in energy.. but there is no control issue.
Click to expand...

true. i do think older flatter strokes are easier to control for depth placement when you used a full arm stroke , but the benefits probly outweigh that


ProStaffFanatic said:
It's not "entirely" different. That's a gross exaggeration. In 1994/95 at the federation, it was all about open stance with a ww finish, the "pat the dog" stuff etc. You must be confusing it with 45 years ago when tennis just got out of the wooden racket era and people were still hitting forehands with a continental grip flat as a pancake
Click to expand...

I started playing in 1982 lol

ProStaffFanatic said:
The heavy spin gives more margin of error whereas the flatter shot needs the be executed in near perfection or it goes flying
Click to expand...

not sure about that since theres smaller moving parts in a modern forehand compared to an older style forehand where ur swing comes from larger body parts.. ALTHO the new forehand does give more power and spin
 
sureshs said:
You are talking about generating spin. The flip side is returning spin, which is difficult for old school players with a 1 hander.

In fact, the only important difference is the use of the 1 handed backhand. Other things are manageable.
Click to expand...
I play a two handed backhand :p
As I recall, of my generation it was actually only henin and the rochus brothers that played one handed.
 
I listened to this video many times. It cleared up a lot for me regarding the 'step forward, shift your weight, linear forehand' and the more 'modern circular forehand'. In one case the head and neck are seen to move forward and in the more circular there is a much more circular motion.

In this case he is correcting a torque on the players knee. If you single frame through looking at his knee you can see the stress twisting his knee.

Listen to what he says very carefully and put the captions on.


Excellent use of video overlays for displaying the more linear vs circular forehands.

One of the most informative videos that I have ever seen. I was able to identify the linear vs circular forehand techniques and recognize the current ATP circular forehands
 
Last edited:
Chas Tennis said:
I listened to this video many times. It cleared up a lot for me regarding the step forward shift your weight linear stroke and the more modern circular strokes. In one case the head and neck are seen to move forward and in the more circular there is a much more circular motion.

In this case he is correcting a torque on the players knee.

Listen to what he says carefully and put the captions on.


Excellent use of video overlays for displaying the more linear vs circular forehands.

One of the most informative videos that I have ever seen.
Click to expand...
I love this video. Watched it a million times the first time you posted it
 
big ted said:
Racquets are different. Strings are different. Now strategy is different, and in some cases rightly so (dropshots, serving wide in the deuce court, etc.) teachers are telling players to push their opponent back, instead of going side to side. Bring your opponent in , before it was come to net as much as possible! Before it was hit ur approach shots deep. I could go on and on. Players today have different strengths and weaknesses than 30 years ago. Players used to volley better. Now they return serve better.
The cut off between old school and new school tennis is:
35 & under players play new school
35 & over players play old school


My question is for old school players 5.0 and under. Have you adapted your game to new school tennis? For example the forehand taught now is entirely different than the one taught 30 years ago. Now it’s a whip action. im not convinced these new techniques are better. They produce more power and spin but less control .
Click to expand...
I tried. Some stuck but muscle memory is b.

 
Rosstour said:
@Chas Tennis I try to mimic that motion, but I usually end up landing on the same right foot I take off with
Click to expand...

Danny's thread was deleted... not sure if you saw a bunch of stuff there about the rotation sequence.

I remember this vid.. 18 years old(!), and the coach is making the same mistake in describing the chain sequence.... I suppose in live lessons this subtle mistake may not be an issue as any sequential errors can be fixed on the spot... and the 4.5 in the vid does end up with a correct sequence.

from the wind up if you follow his literal description of 'power from the ground up' and fire the legs/hips first you will likely end up leaving the upper body behind, resulting in a incomplete weight transfer.

however with the correct sequence - "see ball, rotate trunk" from a standard 45 deg semi open stance with the weight distributed ~50/50, once you do the 'rotate trunk" you will feel the instant Ground Reaction Force (GRF) on the instep of the right foot, this will likely facilitate a full weight transfer to the left side, which may happen before/at/after the contact depending on the situation.
 
big ted said:
Racquets are different. Strings are different. Now strategy is different, and in some cases rightly so (dropshots, serving wide in the deuce court, etc.) teachers are telling players to push their opponent back, instead of going side to side. Bring your opponent in , before it was come to net as much as possible! Before it was hit ur approach shots deep. I could go on and on. Players today have different strengths and weaknesses than 30 years ago. Players used to volley better. Now they return serve better.
The cut off between old school and new school tennis is:
35 & under players play new school
35 & over players play old school


My question is for old school players 5.0 and under. Have you adapted your game to new school tennis? For example the forehand taught now is entirely different than the one taught 30 years ago. Now it’s a whip action. im not convinced these new techniques are better. They produce more power and spin but less control .
Click to expand...

adaptation is very difficult due to:

- the #1 reason is people don't want to come out of the local maximum... if you have played the old way for decades it's tough to deal with the short term loss (and this 'short term' can be quite long!)

- even if the player wants to rebuild, the old techniques may be so deeply entrenched that the change can take a long time and often go thru regressions.

currently in the beast academy however, I am delighted to be in company with a bunch of guys who apparently started tennis pre-poly but are now very motivated to transform. and progress is being made.
 
I see two different forehands (both really good) that can be used in different situations. I would question the “zero strain” claim on that left knee. He landing all of his weight on it after that explosive movement.
 
Last edited:
Rosstour said:
Oh. Then why post it I’m confused lol. You gotta get back to hitting the FH like that again
Click to expand...
That vid was the last time I hit a fh like that. My brain just wont do it. Racquet always goes full Serena.

The op asked if we changed. I think that vid answers the question and shows how its not easy to change perm
 
I would pick a model ATP player as a model for the forehand. Disregard techniques by lower level players. Then we will understand more about the best available techniques performed by the best athletes.

Compare the circular forehands of this player to Djokovic's Forehand. Start by comparing their forward head motions.

I see that the ATP players rotate the line between their 2 shoulders earlier in the forehand and then they use their shoulder joint before impact. I see this 2 phased sequence in top spin ground stroke of the ATP. It is very clear in the Djokovic video that he is untwisting then using his shoulder joint.

See Djokovic Video for What Goes On. Things are left out in word descriptions. The logic of it seems to me that the first phase - of the line between the 2 shoulders turning - gets the shoulder mass and Humerus turning with acceleration and then the entire shoulder mass & Humerus & racket are also turning to some degree. Then when the shoulder joint activates the added forward motion at the Humerus is in addition to that from the uppermost body turn. (There are 2 axes of rotation, spine and shoulder joint.) I see a bit of how the legs and torso contribute with the 2 phased motion. But I don't emphasize the legs, I emphasize the torso muscles and the Stretch Shorten Cycle effects of forehand separation because they are clearer and in the right direction. The effect of the right leg is not so clear to me as the more direct forward turn produced by the abdominal muscles with forehand separation. Perhaps motion capture multi-camera systems can measure acceleration from a leg pushing on a hip, but videos don't yield force measurements. Ground forces vs time have been measured with ground force plates many years before it was learned that ISR was the most significant joint motion for the serve. Some of Djokovic's forehands don't appear to have very strong leg motions. So what should we trust?

How exactly does an upward leg force on the hip become a forward acceleration for racket head speed? Can anyone on the forum write that?

In any case, I don't believe that it is 'all in the legs'. Pretty sure it's mostly from the torso muscles directly with their forward turn. Legs vs torso vs other sources to be determined by some scientific measurements of stroke forces or references.
 
Last edited:
ProStaffFanatic said:
Somewhat, yes. There's a lot more baseline grinding going on whereas before I'ld be at the net like 6 balls earlier.



It's not "entirely" different. That's a gross exaggeration. In 1994/95 at the federation, it was all about open stance with a ww finish, the "pat the dog" stuff etc. You must be confusing it with 45 years ago when tennis just got out of the wooden racket era and people were still hitting forehands with a continental grip flat as a pancake

The fact is that modern forehands are a continuation of a trend that was already occurring in high performance places in the mid to late 90s. Several of my junior colleagues were playing semi western also. People like to act as if polyester forced people to go back to the drawing board and literally start over from scratch. This is just not true



Can't say I agree with that. I in fact find high spin balls easier to control the flat high pace shots. The heavy spin gives more margin of error whereas the flatter shot needs the be executed in near perfection or it goes flying
Click to expand...
Or into the net since it’s much lower. As an older player I’ve had to continually adapt and learn especially with newer equipment, though it’s hard to break old habits. It’s very hard in a paced baseline rally to alter to an effective short angle, so easier to keep baseline hitting going either flat or topsin.
 
saw somewhere it takes 20k reps to build a new motion.

problem is this 20k is often reset to zero.

locally have been working with a few adults to transform to the ATP fh.. some of them used to do D1, good players. But here is an annoying pattern... we'd work on stuff for a week, the fh starts to look modern... guy(s) go play a match and everything reverts to the old sh1t.

when people want to win they will revert, they cannot come down into a performance dip that leads to the promise land.

for some guys I had to explicitly suggest that they either don't play matches at all, or just commit to losing everything for 6 months.
 
Chas Tennis said:
I listened to this video many times. It cleared up a lot for me regarding the 'step forward, shift your weight, linear forehand' and the more 'modern circular forehand'. In one case the head and neck are seen to move forward and in the more circular there is a much more circular motion.

In this case he is correcting a torque on the players knee. If you single frame through looking at his knee you can see the stress twisting his knee.

Listen to what he says very carefully and put the captions on.


Excellent use of video overlays for displaying the more linear vs circular forehands.

One of the most informative videos that I have ever seen. I was able to identify the linear vs circular forehand techniques and recognize the current ATP circular forehands
Click to expand...
Very nice video.

Now I am considering more seriously to be able to play traditional on neutral rallies. It looks so more effortless and less rushed.
 
Last edited:
Tenthinker said:
Or into the net since it’s much lower. As an older player I’ve had to continually adapt and learn especially with newer equipment, though it’s hard to break old habits.
Click to expand...
I don't really feel like I really had to go through some "adaption" period as I quit playing near the end of the gut era and was dropped right into the "new world" in 2023.
So the first year was really all about getting fit and finding rhythm again, with a "modern" frame, as in: light weight, head-heavy (to my "old" standards at least) and more baseline grinding.
I tried polyesters (rpm blast) in the summer of 2024 and while it felt great the first hour, I wanted to rip my arm off the second hour.. So went back to multi RIP control.
Start of the summer of 2025 I was given the softer (co-)poly Luxilon Element when I got my frames tuned and have been playing with that ever since. It's almost like cheating :X3:
Have lost just two matches since I switched to those lol

The biggest "old habit" I had to break is probably the impulse to constantly approach the net every time I felt like I played a decently paced deep angle.
But after seeing passing shots being ripped multiple times, you quickly learn to stay longer back lolol

Tenthinker said:
It’s very hard in a paced baseline rally to alter to an effective short angle, so easier to keep baseline hitting going either flat or topsin.
Click to expand...

I like playing short crosses. Always have. We trained on those a lot back in the day.
When pulled wide I'll either go for short spinny cross or deep cross with high net clearance.
I also like playing flatter though. The higher my contact point, the flatter the shot will be. Especially when also inside the court. I call it the "Forehand SMASH" :-D
 
big ted said:
this video looks good.. the footwork seems to be alot more important with a modern forehand
Click to expand...
One of the very few videos online that provides the building block details that can start a linear or arm-the-ball rec player on the path to a pro modern FH biomechanic, imo.
 
liimey86 said:
One of the very few videos online that provides the building block details that can start a linear or arm-the-ball rec player on the path to a pro modern FH biomechanic, imo.
Click to expand...
You are literally blind if you don’t see his shoulders moving at the same time his lower body does, even when he is trying to say his hips are moving first. Watch the demo at :58. Trying to start with the hips has ruined as many forehands as pat the dog.
 
ballmachineguy said:
You are literally blind if you don’t see his shoulders moving at the same time his lower body does, even when he is trying to say his hips are moving first. Watch the demo at :58. Trying to start with the hips has ruined as many forehands as pat the dog.
Click to expand...
Yeah I'm starting to think we might be saying the same thing, but with different words.

I am not saying there is a lag or sequencing between leg drive, back hip, and torso rotation via the hip/pelvis, the shoulders.

The rib cage rotation is driven directly via the leg drive, no sequencing. And since the shoulder unit (including shoulder blades / lats etc) are all fully stretched an instant before that, all of it goes at the same time. Visually it all goes at the same time.

Myself I think that entire thing is driven from the back leg driving up from ground, through the hip (if you are able to load the back foot, which will be less true on running or sliding groundstroke). That's what I mean by ground "first". Maybe we disagree on that part (?), but for sure I am also saying they all go at same time.
 
Last edited:
liimey86 said:
Yeah I'm starting to think we might be saying the same thing, but with different words.

I am not saying there is a lag or sequencing between leg drive, back hip, and torso rotation via the hip/pelvis, the shoulders.

The rib cage rotation is driven directly via the leg drive, no sequencing. And since the shoulder unit (including shoulder blades / lats etc) are all fully stretched an instant before that, all of it goes at the same time. Visually it all goes at the same time.

Myself I think that entire thing is driven from the back leg driving up from ground, through the hip. That's what I mean by ground "first". Maybe we disagree on that part (?), but for sure they all go at same time.
Click to expand...
I say you swing to contact with what hits the ball shoulder/arm and whatever the lower body does whatever it does as a reaction. Believe me, we are talking about two different things.
 
ppma said:
that CAN'T happen lol.
Click to expand...
You’re right. A terrible sentence from somebody with a college education. That should never happen! I need to proofread. What it should have said was, “whatever the lower body does, it does it as a reaction” to what the upper body does.
 
ballmachineguy said:
You’re right. A terrible sentence from somebody with a college education. That should never happen! I need to proofread. What it should have said was, “whatever the lower body does, it does it as a reaction” to what the upper body does.
Click to expand...
No. The body is not a rigid element fixed to the ground. To generate motion on the upper part it must be done in one of two ways:
A) preparing to "extract" momentum from the floo
B) losing balance

In any case, teaching this is nonsense. The body already does what need to be done to perform the specific action. I guess a person that starts playing tennis has spent at least 4 years being a bipedal animal.
 
ppma said:
No. The body is not a rigid element fixed to the ground. To generate motion on the upper part it must be done in one of two ways:
A) preparing to "extract" momentum from the floo
B) losing balance

In any case, teaching this is nonsense. The body already does what need to be done to perform the specific action. I guess a person that starts playing tennis has spent at least 4 years being a bipedal animal.
Click to expand...

already does? so there is no need for tennis instructions.
 
10sbeast888 said:
already does? so there is no need for tennis instructions.
Click to expand...
If the instruction is that the initiator of an horizontal or upwards motion does not start from the ground, better not.

Players that don't do the right motions don't do them because they don't start from the support of the ground. They just don't know what the motion is. Once they know they'll use legs appropiately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

5
What Is Old School Tennis
Replies
21
Views
4K
phoenicks
phoenicks
eb_tennis_247
Old school to beat new school
Replies
10
Views
593
socallefty
socallefty
D
Old school or modern game for long-term improvement?
Replies
28
Views
3K
ATP100
A
cadfael_tex
Marrying Old School and New School
Replies
8
Views
1K
cadfael_tex
cadfael_tex
Nick b
  • Poll Poll
old school vs new school tennis
Replies
44
Views
4K
ThePro101
ThePro101
Back
Top