Pretty cool links about ATP vs WTA forehand

[Dragy]

Huh? These are inherent issues of recreational tennis.

I don't want to argue how you call it. I want just to get you understand my approach. There're ways to be better tennis player. All the issues you list don't cancel the fact. They are obstacles for particular players, which either find solutions or don't or decide not to. That's it. Now one reason we hold this discussion is to get the idea to accidential reader: if you manage to - definitely go for fundamentals. If you cannot justify effort and expenses, well, don't. But make an informed decision.

 

[TennisCJC]

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.

In no way does your experience with one good player with crappy strokes/fundamentals invalidate a need for fundamentals. Even at the pro level, their are players outside the bell curve of normalcy. Look up Karsten Braasch for a guy ranked 38th in the world but who had a pretty ugly tennis game. Robin Soderling had a pretty ugly game and he was in the top 5. Of course, there are players with odd looking strokes who win at 4.5, 5.0 and even 7.0 levels but if you look at the bell curve, you will see that the overwhelming majority of players begin to practice better and better fundamentals the higher you go up the tennis chain. It is a common trait of good players that they begin to look smoother and more fundamentally sound the higher you go. I too once played a guy who won consistently at 4.5 level whose strokes were awkward. Although, he did have quick feet, early prep and was a really good athlete. But, in the warm-up, most of us would pick his opponent to win because they almost always had better fundamentals.

 

[TennisCJC]

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?

Some players prefer to play within their comfort level and will not try to change to improve. I have never understood that but you see it all the time. Others will play to improve and make changes to improve. There are lots of high 4.0, 4.5 and above level tennis players and all of them weren't born with tennis skill. They took the time to learn new things and improve. And, many of them didn't start playing regularly or at all until they were adults. It isn't impossible to improve.

 

[user92626]

In no way does your experience with one good player with crappy strokes/fundamentals invalidate a need for fundamentals. Even at the pro level, their are players outside the bell curve of normalcy. Look up Karsten Braasch for a guy ranked 38th in the world but who had a pretty ugly tennis game. Robin Soderling had a pretty ugly game and he was in the top 5. Of course, there are players with odd looking strokes who win at 4.5, 5.0 and even 7.0 levels but if you look at the bell curve, you will see that the overwhelming majority of players begin to practice better and better fundamentals the higher you go up the tennis chain. It is a common trait of good players that they begin to look smoother and more fundamentally sound the higher you go. I too once played a guy who won consistently at 4.5 level whose strokes were awkward. Although, he did have quick feet, early prep and was a really good athlete. But, in the warm-up, most of us would pick his opponent to win because they almost always had better fundamentals.

Of course not with only my experience. You said it yourself that you know those players too, and those players also exist higher up.

That makes my assertion true that it's unnecessary to go looking for so called fundamentals (even if you can agree on what they are in your level).

 

[user92626]

Some players prefer to play within their comfort level and will not try to change to improve. I have never understood that but you see it all the time. Others will play to improve and make changes to improve. There are lots of high 4.0, 4.5 and above level tennis players and all of them weren't born with tennis skill. They took the time to learn new things and improve. And, many of them didn't start playing regularly or at all until they were adults. It isn't impossible to improve.

You are a liar. You are also comfortable with your level and won't change. Don't tell me your level keeps going up and up and up.

 

[user92626]

Now one reason we hold this discussion is to get the idea to accidential reader: if you manage to - definitely go for fundamentals. If you cannot justify effort and expenses, well, don't. But make an informed decision.

And I'm here to tell you and any newcomers that aiming to achieve a bunch of "fundamentals" is complete hogwash and 110% chance that you will hit limits eventually and have to make compromise. At some point in your recreational career, you will have to accept your less than ideal tennis and be happy and move on. How's that?

 

[snoflewis]

Sounds like someone is insecure about hitting his ceiling prematurely

 

[5263]

I found this read pretty interesting, maybe people here will like it too.

Of course you could make argumens for some of these things but I think in general its well written and researched.

http://adventuresintennis.com/atp-vs-wta-forehand-part-1-power-and-topspin-generation/

http://adventuresintennis.com/atp-vs-wta-forehand-part-2-is-one-forehand-easier-to-time/

http://adventuresintennis.com/atp-vs-wta-forehand-part-3-a-closer-look-at-the-womens-forehands/

http://adventuresintennis.com/atp-vs-wta-forehand-part-4-choosing-forehand/

Its very cool, I highly recommend reading all 4 parts if your interested.

But here are the short summaries:

Series Summary
Force and topspin production in the ATP and WTA forehands

• ATP forehand produces more force by shortening the time between stretching and shortening of the internal rotation muscles of the shoulder and the extensor muscles in the forearm.
• ATP forehand produces more topspin by naturally tilting the racquet further forward at contact.

Timing

Arguments for why the ATP forehand might be easier to time:

• Forearm pronation at contact happens more automatically in the ATP forehand while it requires active manipulation of the forearm muscles in the WTA forehand.
• Delayed, faster, shorter swing allows player to understand the incoming ball path better before committing to the swing, helping him/her adjust to bad bounces and judgements.

Arguments for why the WTA forehand might be easier to time:

• Fewer moving parts in the WTA forehand mean fewer parts to coordinate.
• Longer window of suitable racquet position in the WTA forehand compared to ATP forehand.

Why don’t women on tour use the ATP forehand?

This could be due to a mix of biology (lack of strength, perhaps more difficulty with timing) and the strategy of the women’s game right now, which is to hit flat, powerful shots.

But is it even true that women on tour hit WTA forehands?

I think there are actually 3 categories of forehands. There are a lot of women not hitting WTA forehands. Maybe there will always be a range of forehands in the women’s game, or maybe their forehands are evolving away from the traditional WTA stroke.

Is one is better for recreational players?

If biology isn’t a factor (i.e. if plenty of power can be produced), I think the ATP forehand has a slight edge.

But I also think that the fundamentals of the forehand, which are mostly common to both forehands, are more important than the differences between the two. Also, the effect of your mechanics in any forehand outweigh the style of forehand you’re hitting on your results.

I think that recreational players should develop proper mechanics in any of the strokes. Regardless of which one you hit, solid fundamentals will produce an excellent shot at any level.

Not sure who wrote that blog, but it doesn't seem to understand the ATP Fh very well and buys into nearly every myth on the topic.

 

[5263]

And I'm here to tell you and any newcomers that aiming to achieve a bunch of "fundamentals" is complete hogwash and 110% chance that you will hit limits eventually and have to make compromise. At some point in your recreational career, you will have to accept your less than ideal tennis and be happy and move on. How's that?

how could "good" fundamentals not be worth working for? They are important by definition aren't they??

 

[5263]

Nah, your definition or understanding of "a proper form" is lousy and faulty in the first place.

Some 65 y.o men can't do "gentle weight transfer" or "core rotation" for whatever reasons. That's my point.

Sure they can. Maybe they don't do everything in a big bold way, but amplitude is not the test of a fundamental.

 

[user92626]

Sure they can. Maybe they don't do everything in a big bold way, but amplitude is not the test of a fundamental.

Then what is?

If you remove "amplitude" or "big bold way" then 65 y.o men already achieved fundamentals with their "small" hitting. I have, too. You just can't see them, they're very small. Hehe LOL. The advise is moot then.

 

[user92626]

Sounds like someone is insecure about hitting his ceiling prematurely

Haha...no idea how you came up with that.

but I should have kept all my experience to myself and let people find out for themselves.

Listen to Fire and spend "6 hours 6 days per week" to develop "proper fundamentals." Yeah! that's a very typical situation for rec players.

 

[mad dog1]

Listen to Fire and spend "6 hours 6 days per week" to develop "proper fundamentals." Yeah! that's a very typical situation for rec players.

Just curious what your idea of fundamentals is? Perhaps you and FireFTW have different definitions?

 

[One Handed Dynasty]

Of course not with only my experience. You said it yourself that you know those players too, and those players also exist higher up.

That makes my assertion true that it's unnecessary to go looking for so called fundamentals (even if you can agree on what they are in your level).

Using that logic you could find an unemployed lottery winner and say that no one needs a job or income to become a millionaire.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mad dog1]

but I should have kept all my experience to myself and let people find out for themselves.

Well considering you have admitted to having a waiter’s tray serve, yes, perhaps it would have been best to keep your experience to yourself since most tennis players I know including low level rec players don’t strive to attain a waiter’s tray serve. Admittedly they might never achieve the serve with proper “racquet on edge with pronation” technique, they don’t aim to serve with the WT technique.

 

[user92626]

Just curious what your idea of fundamentals is? Perhaps you and FireFTW have different definitions?

You'll need to read through this thread to find out. It's a bit lengthy to sum up!

 

[user92626]

Well considering you have admitted to having a waiter’s tray serve, yes, perhaps it would have been best to keep your experience to yourself since most tennis players I know including low level rec players don’t strive to attain a waiter’s tray serve. Admittedly they might never achieve the serve with proper “racquet on edge with pronation” technique, they don’t aim to serve with the WT technique.

Is that not my point which you're just reiterating? That people might never achieve the proper serve (whether they aim or don't aim). So, don't go all too crazy about it, especially neglecting other parts and on your limited time and resources.




If you take up your rec tennis as a fun exercise of acquiring nice looking strokes on videos, go right ahead. That's your own idea of fun.

If you want match challenges, I will take my waiter tray serve along with other stuff I've learned against yours any day.

 

[mad dog1]

You'll need to read through this thread to find out. It's a bit lengthy to sum up!

Fundamentals aren’t lengthy. They are only a few fundamental elements to a good forehand. If it’s lengthy then it’s not a fundamental.

Definition of the word fundamental

1. a central or primary rule or principle on which something is based.

"two courses cover the fundamentals of microbiology"

synonyms:basics, essentials, rudiments, foundations, basic principles, first principles, preliminaries;

 

[mad dog1]

Is that not my point which you're just reiterating? That people might never achieve the proper serve (whether they aim or don't aim). So, don't go all too crazy about it, especially neglecting other parts and on your limited time and resources.




If you take up your rec tennis as a fun exercise of acquiring nice looking strokes on videos, go right ahead. That's your own idea of fun.

If you want match challenges, I will take my waiter tray serve along with other stuff I've learned against yours any day.

Didn’t you say it was too far to drive to Monterey Park to play with Matt?

 

[user92626]

Didn’t you say it was too far to drive to Monterey Park to play with Matt?

I had looked up the place. It's 30 miles in LA traffic for me. I'm not that crazy about recreational tennis, dude.

But let's not discuss Matt, who's not here and I don't see any relevant.

 

[mad dog1]

I had looked up the place. It's 30 miles in LA traffic for me. I'm not that crazy about recreational tennis, dude.

But let's not discuss Matt, who's not here and I don't see any relevant.

Yeah. I have no desire to go out of my way to play with an ignorant rec player. I’m not that crazy about rec tennis. There are plenty of cool rec players near me that I can play with already.

 

[Bender]

Mini-tennis can be done all-arm injury free.

@ByeByePoly how come you haven't jumped on this yet?

Anyway, @user92626 has a point in that not everyone is too fussed about becoming the best player they can be. Some people would rather reign in 3.0 hell than serve in 4.5+ heaven, so to speak.

However, I do think that the concept of fundamental techniques exist, otherwise analyses of pro strokes looking for common threads would by definition be a fruitless exercise. The source of confusion in this thread assuming I've skim read accurately is that @user92626 may be conflating techniques that are correct with techniques that are appropriate. These are not necessarily the same things, and often they are not.

Now in terms of fundamentals, they may differ depending on the type of shot that is being hit, eg a WTA style forehand as opposed to an ATP style forehand.

But if you were to take a number of pro players hitting a particular type of stroke and you boil their techniques down (therefore evaporating stylistic choices that distinguish one pro's shots from one another), then you should be left with a handful of commonalities that we could reasonably consider as being "fundamentals" or "core techniques"--at least in theory.

We know, for example, that in a semi-open / open stance ATP style topspin forehand, that takebacks are going to be relatively shorter, and rely heavily on rotation from the hips, which are driven from the legs and coiling at the hip, wheres with classic and WTA style forehands, takebacks are generally larger and there is a heavier emphasis on linear transfer of momentum rather than the coiling and uncoiling that is evident in ATP style forehands. But how much of this is considered "fundamental" is going to be rather blurred because pros (just like any other player) will pick and choose or emphasise or de-emphasise elements that best suit their tastes and results, and then there is always the possibility that certain pros may have technical errors or limitations in their techniques (eg the Djokovic serve in 2010, the Nadal serve in 2009). So really the difficulty is being able to distinguish the parts that are actually fundamental from parts that are advantageous but not required, and to point out where agreed fundamental elements are erroneously absent in pro-level shots (as opposed to blindly assuming that it's necessarily technically sound because they are professionals).

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Huh? These are inherent issues of recreational tennis.

For those who cannot find time to play during the weekdays. Understand that USA is not the world and everyone doesn't rush to reach office by 7/7:30. I get up by 5:30, get through the morning rituals and reach the courts by 6:10 and play for an hour. Right now, I am taking coaching and in a month, my footwork and form has improved a lot. Daily and focused practice does improve your game. Can't put an NTRP number to it because winning matches also depends on your mentality. But you can equip yourself to play better tennis through such coaching, nothing wrong with that and no, it's not fruitless. I wasn't an athlete at all in school and college, wouldn't be able to get anywhere in a sport like tennis without coaching.

 

[mad dog1]

@ByeByePoly how come you haven't jumped on this yet?

I believe he’s still on the court figuring out the monkey drum thingie.

 

[Bender]

I believe he’s still on the court figuring out the monkey drum thingie.

So @ByeByePoly is using his noodle to figure out if his arm should also be a noodle or not?

 

[Dolgopolov85]

And I'm here to tell you and any newcomers that aiming to achieve a bunch of "fundamentals" is complete hogwash and 110% chance that you will hit limits eventually and have to make compromise. At some point in your recreational career, you will have to accept your less than ideal tennis and be happy and move on. How's that?

Look at it this way. You can improve parcels of your game and in parts. Like being able to whip through the forehand and sustain rallies. Like movement, the biggest and most neglected fundamental.

 

[FiReFTW]

@ByeByePoly how come you haven't jumped on this yet?

Anyway, @user92626 has a point in that not everyone is too fussed about becoming the best player they can be. Some people would rather reign in 3.0 hell than serve in 4.5+ heaven, so to speak.

However, I do think that the concept of fundamental techniques exist, otherwise analyses of pro strokes looking for common threads would by definition be a fruitless exercise. The source of confusion in this thread assuming I've skim read accurately is that @user92626 may be conflating techniques that are correct with techniques that are appropriate. These are not necessarily the same things, and often they are not.

Now in terms of fundamentals, they may differ depending on the type of shot that is being hit, eg a WTA style forehand as opposed to an ATP style forehand.

But if you were to take a number of pro players hitting a particular type of stroke and you boil their techniques down (therefore evaporating stylistic choices that distinguish one pro's shots from one another), then you should be left with a handful of commonalities that we could reasonably consider as being "fundamentals" or "core techniques"--at least in theory.

We know, for example, that in a semi-open / open stance ATP style topspin forehand, that takebacks are going to be relatively shorter, and rely heavily on rotation from the hips, which are driven from the legs and coiling at the hip, wheres with classic and WTA style forehands, takebacks are generally larger and there is a heavier emphasis on linear transfer of momentum rather than the coiling and uncoiling that is evident in ATP style forehands. But how much of this is considered "fundamental" is going to be rather blurred because pros (just like any other player) will pick and choose or emphasise or de-emphasise elements that best suit their tastes and results, and then there is always the possibility that certain pros may have technical errors or limitations in their techniques (eg the Djokovic serve in 2010, the Nadal serve in 2009). So really the difficulty is being able to distinguish the parts that are actually fundamental from parts that are advantageous but not required, and to point out where agreed fundamental elements are erroneously absent in pro-level shots (as opposed to blindly assuming that it's necessarily technically sound because they are professionals).

He basically says you should forget about learning to split step, to unit turn, to use continental grip on serve, to pronate on serve, to watch the ball etc etc

According to him its pointless since you can play well at whatever level ur playing without that.

 

[Bender]

He basically says you should forget about learning to split step, to unit turn, to use continental grip on serve, to pronate on serve, to watch the ball etc etc

According to him its pointless since you can play well at whatever level ur playing without that.

He's not wrong.

A player playing at a given level without any of those things can continue to play well without those things...if only because adding those things would actually improve the player and move that person up a half level or more.

By definition a person playing at a given level (eg 3.5) cannot have gotten to that level by using skills that he does not have.

You can even improve a limit by honing in the same **** techniques that got you there in the first place--and by honing I mean forcing the same incorrect technique to give you the desired results until you can do it reliably, which is why you occasionally come across guys with a FH E grip on his 1HBH somehow hitting decent 1HBHs after 20 years of forcing the issue.

What you're saying is that only with proper technique can you reach very high levels, and while that is true, it is something else entirely. You can certainly become the king of mediocrity by doing what @user92626 says, and that's what the local pusher king is.

 

[Dragy]

He's not wrong.

A player playing at a given level without any of those things can continue to play well without those things...if only because adding those things would actually improve the player and move that person up a half level or more.

By definition a person playing at a given level (eg 3.5) cannot have gotten to that level by using skills that he does not have.

You can even improve a limit by honing in the same **** techniques that got you there in the first place--and by honing I mean forcing the same incorrect technique to give you the desired results until you can do it reliably, which is why you occasionally come across guys with a FH E grip on his 1HBH somehow hitting decent 1HBHs after 20 years of forcing the issue.

What you're saying is that only with proper technique can you reach very high levels, and while that is true, it is something else entirely. You can certainly become the king of mediocrity by doing what @user92626 says, and that's what the local pusher king is.

We shouldn't disregard helth and only speak about performance. It's not (luckily) applicable to each and every player, but some of them doing just ok at their level expose themselves to injuries using bad techniques. I strongly believe good fundamentals are key to efficient and safe performance. This is the only way pro players' bodies survive those hours and years of practice. And remarkable example being Roger still playing at the very top of the game levels - while referred to as one of the best players techniques-wise.

 

[Bender]

We shouldn't disregard helth and only speak about performance. It's not (luckily) applicable to each and every player, but some of them doing just ok at their level expose themselves to injuries using bad techniques. I strongly believe good fundamentals are key to efficient and safe performance. This is the only way pro players' bodies survive those hours and years of practice. And remarkable example being Roger still playing at the very top of the game levels - while referred to as one of the best players techniques-wise.

Well yes, that’s pretty much a given.

I am a firm believer that most of those who complain about tennis elbow and blame their racquets and strings ought to look at their techniques first.

But my post isn’t really about that, unless you want to incorporate injury risks into the appropriateness of certain fundamentals.

Sometimes, the physical state of a player may prevent the ability to incorporate proper fundamentals. Someone with knee issues for example will not be able to bend them as much, and so may try to address the deficiency by other means, such as dropping the hitting shoulder and arm lower under the ball to improve consistency. This may invite future wrist, back, and hip issues, but again such things are only relevant if the player wants to get better. A player may decide to be content doing none of those things and therefore staying at the level they were already prior to considering knee bend in the first place.

 

[Dragy]

Well yes, that’s pretty much a given.

I am a firm believer that most of those who complain about tennis elbow and blame their racquets and strings ought to look at their techniques first.

But my post isn’t really about that, unless you want to incorporate injury risks into the appropriateness of certain fundamentals.

Sometimes, the physical state of a player may prevent the ability to incorporate proper fundamentals. Someone with knee issues for example will not be able to bend them as much, and so may try to address the deficiency by other means, such as dropping the hitting shoulder and arm lower under the ball to improve consistency. This may invite future wrist, back, and hip issues, but again such things are only relevant if the player wants to get better. A player may decide to be content doing none of those things and therefore staying at the level they were already prior to considering knee bend in the first place.

I agree, all about decisions. We are not actually talking about making a bill to oblige every tennis player improve. We are busting ideas like "better improvement without addressing flawed techniques" or "it's impossible to improve working on better techniques for rec players". Also I'm personally more worried about players starting their tennis endeavors to establish proper basics and to remember to revise them as they progress, rather than aged hacks playing the same style for 30 years. The latter, and some individual cases, may truly have issues preventing them from working on technique or making such work unreasonable. But those with decades of tennis in front of them? Definitely go for.

 

[FiReFTW]

He's not wrong.

A player playing at a given level without any of those things can continue to play well without those things...if only because adding those things would actually improve the player and move that person up a half level or more.

By definition a person playing at a given level (eg 3.5) cannot have gotten to that level by using skills that he does not have.

You can even improve a limit by honing in the same **** techniques that got you there in the first place--and by honing I mean forcing the same incorrect technique to give you the desired results until you can do it reliably, which is why you occasionally come across guys with a FH E grip on his 1HBH somehow hitting decent 1HBHs after 20 years of forcing the issue.

What you're saying is that only with proper technique can you reach very high levels, and while that is true, it is something else entirely. You can certainly become the king of mediocrity by doing what @user92626 says, and that's what the local pusher king is.

If thats your goal then fine, just play and ignore anything fundamental and technique wise, but what if thats not your goal, what if your goal is to maximize your potential and try to become the best player you can, should you still ignore those things?

 

[Bender]

If thats your goal then fine, just play and ignore anything fundamental and technique wise, but what if thats not your goal, what if your goal is to maximize your potential and try to become the best player you can, should you still ignore those things?

I’m not following your point?

That question was already answered in the post that you quoted.

 

[FiReFTW]

I’m not following your point?

That question was already answered in the post that you quoted.

You said that he is right, im telling you that his opinion his regardless of what someones goal is, its a waste of time and useless to improve technique and learn better fundamentals, you play like you play, just keep playing like that and ul do fine at the level ur at.

 

[Bender]

You said that he is right, im telling you that his opinion his regardless of what someones goal is, its a waste of time and useless to improve technique and learn better fundamentals, you play like you play, just keep playing like that and ul do fine at the level ur at.

I did not say whether his point is meaningful or not; in fact his point is pretty much meaningless and a waste of time.

However he is right to the extent of the following rather circular line of reasoning: “I got to 3.5 without split stepping, therefore I can stay at 3.5 without split stepping.”

Of course that statement is correct. It’s impossible to get to any level (3.5 for our purposes here) by using a technique that you never had, so in theory you won’t need to learn to split step in order to stay there.

If you do incorporate properly a split step and a whole host of other fundamentals, then your level should increase—but you wouldn’t be doing fine at the level you were already at, you’d have moved on to bigger and better things.

My original point is that he is conflating what is correct and what is appropriate, and that is the part I am disagreeing with him over. Those two aren’t necessarily the same. A person who is happy where he is and has no desire to get better would find advice on split stepping, trunk rotation, proper weight transfer, etc inappropriate, even if the advice is correct.

 

[user92626]

You said that he is right, im telling you that his opinion his regardless of what someones goal is, its a waste of time and useless to improve technique and learn better fundamentals, you play like you play, just keep playing like that and ul do fine at the level ur at.

Actually it was you FireFTW who dished out the advice without considering people's backgrounds, goals. Read your first post that I quoted.

I was the one who argued that rec people's goals, abilities need to be considered since every rec player has a bunch of limitation.

It's essentially useless to advice people to simply take on split steps, etc when you don't consider a 65 years old man with a bad knee.

But you are a loud mouth and one with poor understandings and logics, so things have to be repeated ad nausea, and it doesn't help that you keep changing your argument, modifying your position, like this post that I quoted.

 

[user92626]

He basically says you should forget about learning to split step, to unit turn, to use continental grip on serve, to pronate on serve, to watch the ball etc etc

According to him its pointless since you can play well at whatever level ur playing without that.

^---- here's another post from you that erroneously changes my argument. Says something that's completely nonsense.

Here's one time for your thick skull:

While it's nice to suggest that we all should learn "continental grip, leg bend, upper body coil, throphy pose, kinetic chain and racquet drop, pronation.", it's practically useless because:

1) you don't consider people's background, limitations. Example, old men can't bend legs; busy daytime workers don't have time for practicing "kinetic chain". Got that?
2) how much "leg bend" "body coil" ? You don't define. Useless. I already bend half an inch. I'm done. No need for your stupid advice. Got that?
3) like @Bender and others have pointed out, rec people DON'T NEED to have all or most of "continental grip, leg bend, upper body coil, throphy pose, kinetic chain and racquet drop, pronation." to play at their levels. Rec players seldomly like to move much beyond their group. Again, limitations, interests.

Stick to the arguments

 

[FiReFTW]

First you said rec players in general should forget about learning fundamentals and technique, its a waste of time and waste of effort, its pointless.
Now that people are proving you wrong you changed the argument to, well certain people shouldn't bother, based on their background.

What a joke, what a waste of time this has been, im done.

 

[user92626]

@ByeByePoly how come you haven't jumped on this yet?

Anyway, @user92626 has a point in that not everyone is too fussed about becoming the best player they can be. Some people would rather reign in 3.0 hell than serve in 4.5+ heaven, so to speak.

However, I do think that the concept of fundamental techniques exist, otherwise analyses of pro strokes looking for common threads would by definition be a fruitless exercise. The source of confusion in this thread assuming I've skim read accurately is that @user92626 may be conflating techniques that are correct with techniques that are appropriate. These are not necessarily the same things, and often they are not.

You got it! It's not easy or clear for people to become the best player they can be with so much limitation that people have, and every recreational player faces one or more limitation.

You understand my point about "techniques that are appropriate." I use terms "productive to relevant level". IMO, this is much more relevant and a better focus. As you said, you can play very well, reign in 3.0, without a fancy serve. Why? Limitation and interests.

(This is like the first time I have to repeat an argument so many times!)

 

[user92626]

First you said rec players in general should forget about learning fundamentals and technique, its a waste of time and waste of effort, its pointless.
Now that people are proving you wrong you changed the argument to, well certain people shouldn't bother, based on their background.

What a joke, what a waste of time this has been, im done.

Everything is still there. My first post was pretty elaborate, 4 or 5 paragraph.

Leave it to you to dumb it down to a couple of lines and completely wrong. Nice!

He basically says you should forget about learning to split step, to unit turn, to use continental grip on serve, to pronate on serve, to watch the ball etc etc

According to him its pointless since you can play well at whatever level ur playing without that.

 

[Bender]

You got it! It's not easy or clear for people to become the best player they can be with so much limitation that people have, and every recreational player faces one or more limitation.

You understand my point about "techniques that are appropriate." I use terms "productive to relevant level". IMO, this is much more relevant and a better focus. As you said, you can play very well, reign in 3.0, without a fancy serve. Why? Limitation and interests.

(This is like the first time I have to repeat an argument so many times!)

Well okay then that makes sense. I was under the impression you were deliberately being obtuse by stating the obvious and now it’s clear you just couldn’t quite find the words you were looking for.

But I do have to ask why you phrased yourself in a way that makes you sound as if fundamentals don’t matter to anyone? I got the gist of it because I skim read but if I read more carefully I may have interpreted you completely differently!

 

[ByeByePoly]

So @ByeByePoly is using his noodle to figure out if his arm should also be a noodle or not?

Yeah ... that one just took minimum noodle processing time. Where mini tennis is a 5 minute silly parlor game , the monkey drum noodle arm fh is an existential threat to the future enjoyment of future rec tennis players. I will not sit idly by (bye?) while this generation passes on the noodle arm debt to our children, and their children. Freedom, free will ... and freedom to hit that f***ing ball with your f***ing arm. Freedom to bear arms. Give me armed FHs or give me death.

Move over Monkey drum old fake news ... say hello to the Solid Snake (Jolly the mad pirate scientist has come through yet again ... they will write books about him ... but just eBooks):

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...-the-monkey-drum-analogy.630167/post-12839471

 

[ByeByePoly]

Hey @Bender, my Hong Kong son ... you appreciate some good irony ... think about this. If you spend anytime reading the string forum or string reviews ... you will find a lot of good players like to "feel connected to the ball". Then many of these players will do everything in their power to "feel disconnected from their arm". This place can be so confusing.

 

[Deleted member 23235]

Yeah ... that one just took minimum noodle processing time. Where mini tennis is a 5 minute silly parlor game , the monkey drum noodle arm fh is an existential threat to the future enjoyment of future rec tennis players. I will not sit idly by (bye?) while this generation passes on the noodle arm debt to our children, and their children. Freedom, free will ... and freedom to hit that f***ing ball with your f***ing arm. Freedom to bear arms. Give me armed FHs or give me death.

Move over Monkey drum old fake news ... say hello to the Solid Snake (Jolly the mad pirate scientist has come through yet again ... they will write books about him ... but just eBooks):

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...-the-monkey-drum-analogy.630167/post-12839471

lol. i'm trying to identify those pieces...
cotter pin
battery wire of some sort (looks too thin though)
what the heck is the gear from? looks too flimsy to be part of timing chain

 

[user92626]

Well okay then that makes sense. I was under the impression you were deliberately being obtuse by stating the obvious and now it’s clear you just couldn’t quite find the words you were looking for.

But I do have to ask why you phrased yourself in a way that makes you sound as if fundamentals don’t matter to anyone? I got the gist of it because I skim read but if I read more carefully I may have interpreted you completely differently!

oh ok... maybe I wasn't clear in my first post to FireFTW that started all this when I wrote:

...there are sound/productive strokes relevant to specific levels. It has to be repeated a few times




Anyway, what do you think about my post#137 where I assert:

Advice to learn a bunch of stated fundamentals is practically useless because: 1, 2, 3
?

 

[ByeByePoly]

lol. i'm trying to identify those pieces...
cotter pin
battery wire of some sort (looks too thin though)
what the heck is the gear from? looks too flimsy to be part of timing chain

You know car stuff based on your posts ... if you can't figure it out imagine me trying. That's Jolly solid gold ... laughed the rest of the day. I showed the video to my wife ... and she had two comments 1) what is wrong with us? 2) what made the Jolly's creation move/spin?

Then she proceeded to tell me the monkey drum originated with street beggars and their monkeys.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

oh ok... maybe I wasn't clear in my first post to FireFTW that started all this when I wrote:

...there are sound/productive strokes relevant to specific levels. It has to be repeated a few times




Anyway, what do you think about my post#137 where I assert:

Advice to learn a bunch of stated fundamentals is practically useless because: 1, 2, 3
?

But in the same breath, you give a general advice to newcomers (and @Dragy who doesn't seem to be a newcomer) that it's useless to aim for a bunch of fundamentals. Shouldn't you account for the fact that maybe not everyone is constrained by time as you and the people you play with are? Further, aiming to achieve those need not also include feeling constant frustration at not achieving all of them. It all depends on one's outlook. If one has a healthy amount of patience, one can keep learning rather than give up very early into the chase.

 

[Bender]

oh ok... maybe I wasn't clear in my first post to FireFTW that started all this when I wrote:

...there are sound/productive strokes relevant to specific levels. It has to be repeated a few times




Anyway, what do you think about my post#137 where I assert:

Advice to learn a bunch of stated fundamentals is practically useless because: 1, 2, 3
?

Your first post only makes perfect sense if you go to that post already knowing what you're trying to say.

That means you could have phrased it better...took me a few re-reads to figure out what exactly you were trying to say, because you start with:

there is no such thing as proper mechanics"

...which could be a true statement only if you define it extremely narrowly, whereas your following sentence:

But, there are sound/productive strokes relevant to specific levels.

is really the heart of what you are trying to say, and is something many could agree with.

The following points in your post are repeated in my own posts earlier, which I now quote below. I notice now that it is rather wordy so it's not that much better in terms of getting the point across (emphases added):

Now in terms of fundamentals, they may differ depending on the type of shot that is being hit, eg a WTA style forehand as opposed to an ATP style forehand.

But if you were to take a number of pro players hitting a particular type of stroke and you boil their techniques down (therefore evaporating stylistic choices that distinguish one pro's shots from one another), then you should be left with a handful of [distilled] commonalities that we could reasonably consider as being "fundamentals" or "core techniques"--at least in theory.

We know, for example, that in a semi-open / open stance ATP style topspin forehand, that takebacks are going to be relatively shorter, and rely heavily on rotation from the hips, which are driven from the legs and coiling at the hip, wheres with classic and WTA style forehands, takebacks are generally larger and there is a heavier emphasis on linear transfer of momentum rather than the coiling and uncoiling that is evident in ATP style forehands. But how much of this is considered "fundamental" is going to be rather blurred because pros (just like any other player) will pick and choose or emphasise or de-emphasise elements that best suit their tastes and results, and then there is always the possibility that certain pros may have technical errors or limitations in their techniques (eg the Djokovic serve in 2010, the Nadal serve in 2009). So really the difficulty is being able to distinguish the parts that are actually fundamental from parts that are advantageous but not required, and to point out where agreed fundamental elements are erroneously absent in pro-level shots (as opposed to blindly assuming that it's necessarily technically sound because they are professionals).

For post #137, said, I would actually disagree with your point about "how much knee bend". "Bend your knees" is always going to be a relative thing because no-one would reasonably assert that you need to bend your knees by X degrees or lower your body by Y inches.

A similar example is when people ask "how do I deal with high balls?" "High" is a relative term because what's high for you may not be high for me, but we know what is meant regardless. Similarly bending the knees is merely a matter of bending your knees "enough", and it's then a coach's job to be able to give his student a physical idea of how much is "enough" (I speak from experience because I thought I bent my knees adequately until I saw a video of myself hitting once and realised I was not even close).

Also, I'd avoid the insults; someone who disagrees with you is far less willing to accept your point even if they realise you're right, when you are trying to humiliate them.

 

[Bender]

Hey @Bender, my Hong Kong son ... you appreciate some good irony ... think about this. If you spend anytime reading the string forum or string reviews ... you will find a lot of good players like to "feel connected to the ball". Then many of these players will do everything in their power to "feel disconnected from their arm". This place can be so confusing.

Well I have a simple explanation for that:

Just because I am of the belief that it is fine to have a slight hinge in the shoulder (thereby "disconnected" in your words) during the forward swing does not mean that the arm will remain at that angle at contact. Besides, regardless of whether you agree on the loose noodle analogy or not, at contact the arm is not in line with your shoulder anyway so actually it is your riddle that is disconnected logically, really

Plus, I find that if I try to lock my shoulder too much, the tightened arm if anything makes it difficult to feel feedback at impact so I feel even more disconnected to the ball, whereas a forehand that is slung forward has such a buttery pop feeling at contact.

 

[user92626]

But in the same breath, you give a general advice to newcomers (and @Dragy who doesn't seem to be a newcomer) that it's useless to aim for a bunch of fundamentals. Shouldn't you account for the fact that maybe not everyone is constrained by time as you and the people you play with are? Further, aiming to achieve those need not also include feeling constant frustration at not achieving all of them. It all depends on one's outlook. If one has a healthy amount of patience, one can keep learning rather than give up very early into the chase.

I'll go out on a limb and say if you're a recreational player, you're constrained by time one way or another. If you're rich and don't have to work, rec tennis is likely definitely not your fulltime focus. If you're old and retired, you need to go to bed at 6pm.

Lighten up.

Newcomers aren't stupid. Are you stupid that you jump into a conversation midway and immediately absorb things? I don't think so. You're smart, as everyone else. You come in and first ask..what's going on, and read up.