SuperSpinner
Semi-Pro
Can you point me to where they actually say it's active? Last video actually said it's a REACTION to supination, which is correct.
Pretty cool links about ATP vs WTA forehand
- Thread starter FiReFTW
- Start date
Can you point me to where they actually say it's active? Last video actually said it's a REACTION to supination, which is correct.
ByeByePoly
G.O.A.T.
I just finished a ball machine session, and intended to try some more active pronation on the FH. I pretty much just work on the 2hbh ... and just hit some FHs at the end today. I hit my max fh in the normal way, and then tried to hit the exact same stroke but more active effort pronating into contact. There was an obvious increase in pace, but I would want to verify from a side video view that I didn't simply introduce more lag in the process of being more active at the forearm. I doubt I spend the time to check, time spent messing with fh is time that could have been spent on 2hbh. We need more 2hbh threads ... I intended to never talk about FHs in 2018. That went well.
ByeByePoly
G.O.A.T.
I don't think we will find the terms "passive" and "active" in these types of videos. Those are ttw strong held beliefs/terms.
But I thought the football pass was a good case of pronation that isn't a simple passive release of supination. The supination is actively set (or if you prefer manually set) like trophy position on serve. With the pass, this supination preset defines pronation range of motion. From that supination preset to that tight spiral two possibilities: 1) simple relaxed unassisted unwinding to release creating tight spiral 2) active pronation creating tight spiral. We can't measure it ... I pick door #2.
ByeByePoly
G.O.A.T.
Continuing on with I don't give a sh!!t about FHs ... but:
I now am thinking:
1) throwing really isn't a good analogy for flip fh
2) pronation is a major source for rhs (isn't that same as power?)
I think those two are related. The difference that makes the throwing analogy inaccurate imo is the atp flip really isn't a racquet throwing motion. The racquet is helicoptering (not a word) around the hand from the arm rolling. Helicoptering is not throwing. That late helicoptering is a major source of rhs/power. Even if the arm rolling is 100% passive ... the result of arm rolling on that lever we call our racquet added A LOT of rhs/power. I always thought that was the consensus on why the shorter ATP flip fh backswing was able to match WTA longer backswing pace... added late supination/pronation flip (helicoptering). Late release ... like golf.
The relevant question is can we reach max helicoptering from 100% passive arm rolling ... or properly timed active rolling?
Dragy
Legend
Arm rolling is active and enhanced by muscles pre-stretch. But it's mostly ISR just because ISR-responsible muscles are significantly more potent in terms of power generation than pronation-responsible forearm muscles.
FiReFTW
Legend
Continuing on with I don't give a sh!!t about FHs ... but:
I now am thinking:
1) throwing really isn't a good analogy for flip fh
2) pronation is a major source for rhs (isn't that same as power?)
I think those two are related. The difference that makes the throwing analogy inaccurate imo is the atp flip really isn't a racquet throwing motion. The racquet is helicoptering (not a word) around the hand from the arm rolling. Helicoptering is not throwing. That late helicoptering is a major source of rhs/power. Even if the arm rolling is 100% passive ... the result of arm rolling on that lever we call our racquet added A LOT of rhs/power. I always thought that was the consensus on why the shorter ATP flip fh backswing was able to match WTA longer backswing pace... added late supination/pronation flip (helicoptering). Late release ... like golf.
The relevant question is can we reach max helicoptering from 100% passive arm rolling ... or properly timed active rolling?
SuperSpinner
Semi-Pro
I don't think we will find the terms "passive" and "active" in these types of videos. Those are ttw strong held beliefs/terms.
That's the point, it's #1 not #2. You are claiming #2, which is incorrect.
ByeByePoly
G.O.A.T.
mad dog1
G.O.A.T.
And you picked the wrong door...yet again.
ByeByePoly
G.O.A.T.
It's been a bad week ... someone won my $1.5 billion.
ByeByePoly
G.O.A.T.
I would say the only passive arms are those hanging down by your sides. Those arms didn't get up their by themselves.
Passive:
Active:
My guess is @user92626 finds this debate a little less Ridiculous now.
Just look at those arms ... spectacular.
SuperSpinner
Semi-Pro
I would say the only passive arms are those hanging down by your sides. Those arms didn't get up their by themselves.
Passive:
Active:
My guess is @user92626 finds this debate a little less Ridiculous now.
Have you ever tried the monkey drum thing? Swing your body ONLY from side to side. What happens to your arms? Do they continue to hang down by your sides? No, they will rise a bit without any active input to them.
ByeByePoly
G.O.A.T.
Are you trying to hurt me? Search my posts about that fricken monkey drum.
Monkey drum, mini tennis, and the armless fh has killed tennis and civilization.
SuperSpinner
Semi-Pro
Are you trying to hurt me? Search my posts about that fricken monkey drum.
Monkey drum, mini tennis, and the armless fh has killed tennis and civilization.
Yeah, I know you've gone on and on about that. But have you tried it?
ByeByePoly
G.O.A.T.
hahaha ... you are playing me. Well played ... now go away.
fyi ... yes ... shadow swung the hell out of the monkey drum, arms never took flight. I have a standing challenge for anyone to video themselves with arm and racquet hanging by their side ... then go full monkey drum and show us that slung noodle arm rope rise up from hanging down to full flight. You can be the first ...
SuperSpinner
Semi-Pro
hahaha ... you are playing me. Well played ... now go away.
fyi ... yes ... shadow swung the hell out of the monkey drum, arms never took flight. I have a standing challenge for anyone to video themselves with arm and racquet hanging by their side ... then go full monkey drum and show us that slung noodle arm rope rise up from hanging down to full flight. You can be the first ...
No shadow swung. Just stand with arms relaxed at sides. Twist from the hips, or just twist the trunk. Back and forth. The arms do what? Nothing??? Lies.
ByeByePoly
G.O.A.T.
Waiting for your video of your monkey drum swung arms. I want to see your arms swing parallel with your shoulders.
SuperSpinner
Semi-Pro
hahaha ... you are playing me. Well played ... now go away.
fyi ... yes ... shadow swung the hell out of the monkey drum, arms never took flight. I have a standing challenge for anyone to video themselves with arm and racquet hanging by their side ... then go full monkey drum and show us that slung noodle arm rope rise up from hanging down to full flight. You can be the first ...
It's already done. Watch at 1:10:
FiReFTW
Legend
hahaha ... you are playing me. Well played ... now go away.
fyi ... yes ... shadow swung the hell out of the monkey drum, arms never took flight. I have a standing challenge for anyone to video themselves with arm and racquet hanging by their side ... then go full monkey drum and show us that slung noodle arm rope rise up from hanging down to full flight. You can be the first ...
You mean like this?
SuperSpinner
Semi-Pro
Waiting for your video of your monkey drum swung arms. I want to see your arms swing parallel with your shoulders.
Why parallel? Answer the question, do the arms raise or not?
ByeByePoly
G.O.A.T.
Wow ... look at that arm mph slung like an elephant trunk ... kind of blows your skirt up.
Monkey drum video challenge update:
Video your armless monkey drum FHs without any arm muscles. Just hit FHs with a slung arm. Also remember to hit low to high.
SuperSpinner
Semi-Pro
don't need to do mine. You're not answering the questions I ask so what's the point in continuing.
ByeByePoly
G.O.A.T.
I am answering your questions ... ever heard of the Socratic method?
Try this:
Q: does your arms sling like an elephant trunk when you rotate?
A: does your slung arms hit your FHs without arm muscles?
This is only going to get productive if we can get those swimsuit models to monkey drum.
SuperSpinner
Semi-Pro
Can you throw your arm?
ByeByePoly
G.O.A.T.
No ... it's attached at the shoulder.
New question ... in my humble
opinion the monkey drum killer question.Have you ever noticed with all pro FHs, McEnroe, Aggasi, Djokovic, Nadal, Federer ... straight arms, bent arms, no flip, small flip, big flip, eastern grip, western grip, the hand travels with the shoulder line in the forward swing.
You would think ... with a slung rope/noodle arm ... the hand would start behind the shoulder line at the start of the forward swing and then catch up and pass like a water skier behind a boat.
How to explain:
The FH, even this fancy
ATP flip is not monkey drum slung rope. What it is actually his a powerful swing of the lever we know as the arm attached at the shoulder. The upper arm comes with the legs/hips/torso/shoulder turn ... there is no choice ... it's attached. That explains the upper arm keeping up with the shoulder line in the forward swing. But what about that hand "way out there" ... with all these types of swings and arm positions and lags and flips ALWAYS tracking with the shoulder line. Smart rope maybe? Or maybe ... it's a wee bit of active arm muscling to keep that hand "way out there" stay in line. The fh is rotation of a rigid extended lever we know as the arm. McEnroe's is easier to see ... straight arm lever all the way. Fed came along and added the illusion his was no longer a rotated lever. Wrong monkey breaths ... his arm becomes straight at the bottom of pat the dog, and then the arm lever is swung, and then he adds a racquet lever that Mac never had. So Mac (arm lever), Fed/GOAT (arm lever + racquet lever). Which leaves those god awful looking bent arm FHs like Djokivic, or worse ... Sock. You say ... look BBP ... look at those elbows, how can these FHs be a slung lever. And I say ... you look at those deformed elbow positions ... I just look at the hands. A slung arm lever may be swung straight, or slung bent ... just don't stare at the bent ones very long.
There is a very good chance I am mostly
right about this, and yet don't really give a sh!!t. Someone took my $1.5 billion earlier in the week ... and now my $700 million. Am I suppose to now settle for $40 mil ... sad.
SuperSpinner
Semi-Pro
No ... it's attached at the shoulder.
New question ... in my humble
Have you ever noticed with all pro FHs, McEnroe, Aggasi, Djokovic, Nadal, Federer ... straight arms, bent arms, no flip, small flip, big flip, eastern grip, western grip, the hand travels with the shoulder line in the forward swing.
It should travel in line when in ESR. Even the monkey drum exercise put your arms in ESR and they will travel more with the shoulder line. But that doesn't change the fact that you should not independently power the arms from the shoulder.
Last edited:
Dragy
Legend
Shame you don't get it from written so many times. Luck I have a living room video:No ... it's attached at the shoulder.
New question ... in my humble
Have you ever noticed with all pro FHs, McEnroe, Aggasi, Djokovic, Nadal, Federer ... straight arms, bent arms, no flip, small flip, big flip, eastern grip, western grip, the hand travels with the shoulder line in the forward swing.
You would think ... with a slung rope/noodle arm ... the hand would start behind the shoulder line at the start of the forward swing and then catch up and pass like a water skier behind a boat.
How to explain:
The FH, even this fancy
The fh is rotation of a rigid extended lever we know as the arm. McEnroe's is easier to see ... straight arm lever all the way. Fed came along and added the illusion his was no longer a rotated lever. Wrong monkey breaths ... his arm becomes straight at the bottom of pat the dog, and then the arm lever is swung, and then he adds a racquet lever that Mac never had. So Mac (arm lever), Fed/GOAT (arm lever + racquet lever). Which leaves those god awful looking bent arm FHs like Djokivic, or worse ... Sock. You say ... look BBP ... look at those elbows, how can these FHs be a slung lever. And I say ... you look at those deformed elbow positions ... I just look at the hands. A slung arm lever may be swung straight, or slung bent ... just don't stare at the bent ones very long.
There is a very good chance I am mostly
ByeByePoly
G.O.A.T.
"But that doesn't change the fact that you should not independently power the arms from the shoulder."
Disagree, but probably not exactly how you think. When we start our forward shoulder rotation, the arm is going to come along one way or another ... no choice ... upper arm attached at shoulder. Whether we think the upper arm locks in place at the shoulder from esr, or we keep the arm structure in place from minimum active effort doesn't matter. We agree there is either no active effort to keep the arm structure in place at the start of shoulder rotation forward ... or very little. Doesn't matter ... we agree at start of shoulder turn power is from rotation delivered at shoulder turn. My example that we exert some effort to maintain arm structure at the start would be Djokovic. Seems swinging with bent arms wouldn't be their natural passive position. I think the arm needs to catch the ride with initial shoulder rotation. I don't think that comes from slinging the arm ... I think it comes from the arm being an extended lever from the shoulder line ... either esr locked or minimal effort to maintain arm structure/alignment. I don't view that as powering.
So now the mass of the arm and racquet have been sent on their way ... initially powered from body/shoulder rotation. The debate then becomes 1) arm only guides from there ... without much arm muscle involved ... or 2) we use significant arm muscle before contact. We can't measure this ... only observe it watching pros, or feel it in our strokes. I obviously have come to the conclusion we use a lot of arm in our FHs ... even though good strokes feel effortless. Curiosity use to agree with me on that, but one of the few. But I have a question about this minimum use of arm. McEnroe ... when ttw members refer to "arming a FH", where would Mac fit in that definition? To me anyone that takes a full shoulder does not "arm" the ball if their shoulder and arm travel together in the forward swing. I guess if Mac is arming the fh, a lot of us ttw members charged with that crime can take solace that a stinkin "armer" made it to #1.
I know at the start of my 2hbh forward swing I am not arming with my left arm/hand. I know before contact I most definitely am. Same with 1hbh ... at start of swing, pulled by shoulder without right arm arming, but by contact I'm robust arming. To me, that's how quality strokes are hit ... use big muscles to get the arm racquet mass moving, but then jump on that momentum and hit with the arm.
I'm going back to 2hbh and strings. I hit my fh in the court most of the time ... 2hbh needs to catch up.
ByeByePoly
G.O.A.T.
That was well done ... Topspin Shot worthy. I obviously remember the discussions ... but video always beats words. Quicker to.
I remember my thought process on this. I have to spend so little effort maintaining my arm structure at the start of the swing, I would not want introduce that move to avoid that minimum effort. Also ... not even sure if it feels like minimum effort because already doing that to a degree.Do you think Agassi is in that locked shoulder mode here?
Dragy
Legend
I actually haven't studied his FH. In this video he obviously uses his shoulder to keep arm in front and speeds up his racquet gradually, not like modern ATP pros. RHS is lower as well. Not touching his efficiency using that stroke though.That was well done ... Topspin Shot worthy. I obviously remember the discussions ... but video always beats words. Quicker to.
Do you think Agassi is in that locked shoulder mode here?
For recreational levels:
-there's really no such thing as "proper mechanics". But, there are sound/productive strokes relevant to specific levels. For example, you can bunt the ball well into the court by some weird strokes that only you have and rule your 3.0 level.
-it's extremely difficult if not impossible to define what is fundamental or not. This is inherent to the point above. You can skip a lot of the "fundamentals" - most 4.0's or whatever are usually missing a bunch -- and still produce excellent shots/results [within their particular level which is all that matters anyway].
Recreational tennis is unique in that it is forever played within an artificially constructed segment. Most rec players aren't interested nor capable of moving out of their segments. At best, they could move up 1 or 2 levels and stall and then decline the rest of their life. So in effect they only need to find the right combos of what they can do to become the best player [in their segment].
Some of you might say -- but I still want to learn better/more fundamentals so I can move up. Sure, but if (big IF) you succeed, the next level is still an artificial segment. Same rules apply.
Seems a bit of a fatalistic view of rec tennis.
I think some players can improve and part of that is to improve fundamentals to advance to 4.5 level. I personally consider 4.5 level to be pretty good tennis and a great accomplishment. I was pretty much self taught but of course took a fair amount of individual and group lessons. I played years of 4.5 USTA and did well. Played 1 year of 5.0 level and only won about 30%. I think for a rec player to go from 3.0 to top of 3.5 level is achievable and improving "fundamentals" would be a big part of improvement. If a rec player goes from 3.0 to 4.0 or 4.5, isn't as common but there are quite a few dedicated rec players that can accomplish this and improving fundamentals is required to make the jump.
user92626
G.O.A.T.
The problem is people don't seem to agree on (or understand) what constitutes "fundamental". For you and a few others like you, "fundamentals" are so called unit turn, split steps, etc. but they aren't required or necessary to reach 4.5.
I played in a league years back. The #2 ranked guy (for quite a long time) had crappy looking stroke (no unit turn) and certainly didn't do split steps, but he destroyed almost everyone and rated well above 4.5. So, this certainly invalidates your assertions on the fundamentals or requirement.
I had (and still do) questionable techniques; waiter tray serve. I didn't lose to any 4.0 on my typical days.
FiReFTW
Legend
There are a wide range of 4.0 and 4.5 ratimgs depending on area.
Some strong 4.0s would beat the hell out of some 4.5s.
If you are saying a very strong national 4.5 beats other 4.5s and wins most matches with walter tray and no split step no unit turn, im gonna say you are full of crap.
But in any case its not that it matters anyway, so what if you can win up to x level with a few poor fundamentals? The point is if you had better ones you would be a better player and have a higher ceiling.
Your logic is very weak.
user92626
G.O.A.T.
@FiReFTW
You always go astray with your argument and logics, Where did I say "national" this or that? Or applicable as a rule?
I brought up real situations where they actually matters to everyday players. And you know what I am talking about because these situations aren't uncommon. You see "missing fundamentals" players who play very well alot if you pay attention.
Playing well tends to be what matters most for most people, except the obsessed purists. Obsessed purists, perfectionists look for proper-, perfect looking stuff (usually only achievable with a few rally balls) and never prove their achievement in matches. In matches things become very different. That's recreational tennis for you.
You wrote: The point is if you had better ones you would be a better player and have a higher ceiling.
I told you, it's never that clear cut. Aiming for great fundamentals (we need to define the target here, pro-looking caliber or something) is so far out that it's like aiming to become rich by winning a mega million jackpot. Most sane people just don't aim it. But they still like to work on something here and there or buy a few lottery tickets here and there; and hope for whatever may come.
You always go astray with your argument and logics, Where did I say "national" this or that? Or applicable as a rule?
I brought up real situations where they actually matters to everyday players. And you know what I am talking about because these situations aren't uncommon. You see "missing fundamentals" players who play very well alot if you pay attention.
Playing well tends to be what matters most for most people, except the obsessed purists. Obsessed purists, perfectionists look for proper-, perfect looking stuff (usually only achievable with a few rally balls) and never prove their achievement in matches. In matches things become very different. That's recreational tennis for you.
You wrote: The point is if you had better ones you would be a better player and have a higher ceiling.
I told you, it's never that clear cut. Aiming for great fundamentals (we need to define the target here, pro-looking caliber or something) is so far out that it's like aiming to become rich by winning a mega million jackpot. Most sane people just don't aim it. But they still like to work on something here and there or buy a few lottery tickets here and there; and hope for whatever may come.
Dragy
Legend
Fundamentals are not about reaching particular level. They are about having foundation to build on and key prerequisite to maxing out one's potential. Every time you see a player lacking fundamentals or with flawed techniques, it's all about how better he could be if he owned them. Works for up to elite level (e.g., Kiki Bertens serve; or @Gregory Diamond ).
Now if we speek of trade-offs, most of them don't lie within tennis level area - if any but lazyness, they are mostly about conflicting with other life priorities. Or "have limited time for tennis wanna play not drill" - well, stay the level you are.
FiReFTW
Legend
Someone with a proper serve technique will have a far far bigger potential for a better serve.
More variety
Much more spin
Much more pace
Those are pure facts.
So tell me 1 reason why you would teach someone a technique that is much more limited?
You can get a walter tray serve to a prettt decent level, but at one point you will maximize its potential and can no longer go any higher with it, while with a proper serve you would have alot more room.
So tell me 1 reason why you would not teach someone a technique that will give him much bigger ceiling over a technique that might hold them back in the future becauxe they maximize it and cant go higher unless changing it?
And im talking about fairly new players here, playing for a couple of years or whatever.
If you take a player who plays for 15 or 20 years then it might be arguable if changing the technique at this point has any merits at all since the one they use is engrained and they also mastered it, so changing to something else would be a slow and difficult process and would probably take years to get that to the level of the current one.
user92626
G.O.A.T.
You always need to define some sort of progress as a goal for you to measure the fundamentals you embark on. You said it there. One has to see that it has to make him better.
Speaking of Gregory, that's actually a good case against your argument and supporting mine. Greg is good and winning where he is, because he spent time improving his 2hand FH, instead of chasing things you call fundamentals.
user92626
G.O.A.T.
It's useless for us to debate without you telling me what's your definition of "a proper serve technique". You don't need to use words if it's too complicate. Is it like Federer serve? Your local 5.0 serve? What?
FiReFTW
Legend
Thats completely useless for argument purposes but fine
Proper serve = continental grip, leg bend, upper body coil, throphy pose, kinetic chain and racquet drop, pronation.... basically a fairly decent proper serve
Lacking serve can be many combinations
1. No leg bend, no upper body coil
2. Fh grip, water tray pancake no pronation
Etc..
You can get a decent rec tennis level with quite sub optimal serves like this, even your serve can be quite good in many years of practice, but ur missing alot more potential that ur serve is limiting you at
So what kind of argument do you have to teach someone an improper serve from the start instead of trying to teach them all the right fundamentals so he has a good base to build on and a much bigger potential later down the road?
There really is none
The only situations where I would agree that it might be useless is either
1.the person simply wants to casually play tennis for fun here and there with friends for fun and is not intereted in really improving the serve or any stroke to the best he can
2 someone who already uses a certain technique for like 10, 15, 20 years and mastered it and is good at it, so it would take way to long to completely change it and get it to the same level, unless he really wanta to move up a level and this might be the best chance to do so since its holding him back at most, and is ready and patient for a long slow process
FiReFTW
Legend
Infact, i think most adults are very limited in the level they can reach precisely because of this (amongst other things).
Because they start tennis and just play however they think is fine for years and years, and they keep improving since you improve alot by just playing.
Then when they stagnate for a while and want to improve they seek coaching but by now their technique and strokes and footwork and everything is so engrained its extremely hard to make big changes and many changes, so they do with time slightly improve some things but many many flaws remain and are basically impossible to change, specially since they revert to old habits whenever they go play again.
I know many such people, my coach has a few aswell, and she told me all about this.
Thats why most people specially kids and juniors who started young are so much better (of course there are some other reasons aswell), because they all start at tennis schools and academys, where they go slow from the start and learn proper fundamentals and fundations that they slowly build on.
Because they start tennis and just play however they think is fine for years and years, and they keep improving since you improve alot by just playing.
Then when they stagnate for a while and want to improve they seek coaching but by now their technique and strokes and footwork and everything is so engrained its extremely hard to make big changes and many changes, so they do with time slightly improve some things but many many flaws remain and are basically impossible to change, specially since they revert to old habits whenever they go play again.
I know many such people, my coach has a few aswell, and she told me all about this.
Thats why most people specially kids and juniors who started young are so much better (of course there are some other reasons aswell), because they all start at tennis schools and academys, where they go slow from the start and learn proper fundamentals and fundations that they slowly build on.
user92626
G.O.A.T.
Good. I will work with your definition, and it's not useless because it is needed for clarity.
Your original assertion: "recreational players should develop proper mechanics in any of the strokes." which started this debate.
You ain't the first person that suggests that. I play with a lot of people and most of who are frustratingly bad. Naturally I had essentially advised, requested them with the very same statement you did "you should develop a proper ____ (FH, overhead, serve, hitting stance, etc.)".
They answered: I already did. I already spent all of my 8 recreational hours for tennis. This is as good as I can.
I insisted: but you can still improve your FH timing. You miss alot. Hey, use continental grip for serving, you'll do better.
They responded: How? who's gonna show me? I don't have money for a coach or more time than 8 hours on the weekend. If I work on the serve, I'll drop my match instincts. Look, this is a recreational sport. There's always alot of limitation, you'll run into one fast!
I respond: so my advise is pretty useless, then. Moot, inapplicable?
They: of course, are you new to this hobby?
FiReFTW
Legend
Thats their problem then, they obviously dont want to improve and are content with their level.
FiReFTW
Legend
But if a player that started recently or in the past few years came for you for coaching and wanted to learn tennis and you started with the serve what would you tell him?
Hold with a continental, leg bend, coil, trophy etc...
Or yeah just hold it in ur fh grip throw the ball up and hit it, you can reach an ok rec level with that
Which one?
Because thats the whole point of my argument
Hold with a continental, leg bend, coil, trophy etc...
Or yeah just hold it in ur fh grip throw the ball up and hit it, you can reach an ok rec level with that
Which one?
Because thats the whole point of my argument
user92626
G.O.A.T.
That's the problem for every rec player. Hit a limitation.
"obviously dont want to improve"?
I also made the same stupid, naive thinking about adults thinking they were stupid or unreasonable for not wanting to improve. Why did they want to stay at 3.5, 3.0.
Until I ran into a much younger guy (who said he was 5.5 - and beat me like a joke) who pointed out to me that I should do this, do that, practice like this, to be better.
I thought "What the phuk! I already tried very very hard to get to my level. It's ridiculous. I'm not in college like you or have free time like you".
Dragy
Legend
These are all issues of approaching your tennis. These are not issues within tennis.
FiReFTW
Legend
Well, ultimately it depends on the player.
1.What is their goal and what level do they want to achieve?
2.How much time, effort, money are they willing to put in to reach that goal?
user92626
G.O.A.T.
FireFTW and Dragy
I have 8-10 "free" hours on weekends. I spend all of it on tennis to get the BEST serve, FH, BH, footwork, volley experience and not least excitement that I can get.
I frequently "complain" to my peers why they can only play so little, leave so early. I (wrongly) thought they didn't want good tennis and excitement. I still complain (a little) when they play badly!
Every single time they seem to respond to me that I am wrong. They do want the best things like everyone. Want the best level, most wins, and they are already trying their best.
Then, I'm reminded.
My 8-10 hours on weekends only afford me certain serve, fh, bh, etc.
I want to get "the leg bend, upper body coil, continental, variety spin serve" like I see from very advanced players -- I'm not ambition-less or stupid, but do those guys only spend 8-10 hours a week and on a limited hobby budget?
It's no difference between mine and a 3.5 person situation.
I have 8-10 "free" hours on weekends. I spend all of it on tennis to get the BEST serve, FH, BH, footwork, volley experience and not least excitement that I can get.
I frequently "complain" to my peers why they can only play so little, leave so early. I (wrongly) thought they didn't want good tennis and excitement. I still complain (a little) when they play badly!
Every single time they seem to respond to me that I am wrong. They do want the best things like everyone. Want the best level, most wins, and they are already trying their best.
Then, I'm reminded.
My 8-10 hours on weekends only afford me certain serve, fh, bh, etc.
I want to get "the leg bend, upper body coil, continental, variety spin serve" like I see from very advanced players -- I'm not ambition-less or stupid, but do those guys only spend 8-10 hours a week and on a limited hobby budget?
It's no difference between mine and a 3.5 person situation.
user92626
G.O.A.T.
Huh? These are inherent issues of recreational tennis.
FiReFTW
Legend
That schedule is way sub optimal, just pointing out, not that its related to anything.
Someone would have way better progression if he played 6 hours 6 days per week than 10 hours 2 days per week.
Frequent practice is the most important thing in honing skills.
The brain can handle only so much at one time, according to studies the focus and learning capacity starts to drop off at around 1 hour mark of practicing something, so its most efficient and optimal to practice something 1.5 to 2 hours max at one time.
Its much more efficient to practice in the morning and afternoon for 1.5 hours each than practicing 6 hours at once.
Its also very important to practice often, best is almost every day.
Btw juniors practice 12-20 hours per week, not that huge of a difference from your 8 hours, but they do it every day apart from sometimes 1 day per week and sometimes 2 times per day.
Similar threads
