Pretty, picture perfect form or strokes...eh

[guitarplayer]

Someone could post a video of Nadal or Fed playing and superimpose a their own face on them and all the armchair quarterbacks would be giving all their expert advise as to all you are doing wrong and how they would do it. Just saying. Paralysis by analysis.

Pretty strokes do they really mean that much? Seems like many hear on these boards are way to focused on having perfect strokes. I've seen too many pretty strokes at my golf clubs (Ohio and Florida) from guys who can't break 90. Sure, there is a limit to the basics and proper form, but can you make your strokes work and win? That's the key for me. I've seen many a golfer with a nasty looking loop, bad form, poor grip, who could score low. I've seen and played many a tennis player like Brad Gilbert, with not so pretty strokes, use what they have and win over the "pretty" strokes people.

It seems here that most are too focused on pretty strokes, vs. strategy and tactics. In Ben Hogan's interview many years ago at the Masters. Someone said, "You played with Sam Sneed two days in a row, but never once looked over to watch his swing. He has the perfect swing in golf today." Ben replied, "Exactly, I do not want to see his swing, I would then find myself trying to swing like him and ruin myself. By the way, I am winning the tournament by 6 strokes at this time......Sam...Mr. Perfect Swing.....is tied for 32nd."

I gave a guy a golf lesson once. He came to the range with a sheet of paper in his pocket. He had a 12 point swing check list he looked at constantly on every tee shot! I made him throw it away and only think of "where he wanted to hit the ball". He improved immediately.

I find I play my best when I forget about my strokes and just focus on where I want to place the ball.

What say ye?

 

[pushing_wins]

Someone could post a video of Nadal or Fed playing and superimpose a their own face on them and all the armchair quarterbacks would be giving all their expert advise as to all you are doing wrong and how they would do it. Just saying. Paralysis by analysis.

Pretty strokes do they really mean that much? Seems like many hear on these boards are way to focused on having perfect strokes. I've seen too many pretty strokes at my golf clubs (Ohio and Florida) from guys who can't break 90. Sure, there is a limit to the basics and proper form, but can you make your strokes work and win? That's the key for me. I've seen many a golfer with a nasty looking loop, bad form, poor grip, who could score low. I've seen and played many a tennis player like Brad Gilbert, with not so pretty strokes, use what they have and win over the "pretty" strokes people.

It seems here that most are too focused on pretty strokes, vs. strategy and tactics. In Ben Hogan's interview many years ago at the Masters. Someone said, "You played with Sam Sneed two days in a row, but never once looked over to watch his swing. He has the perfect swing in golf today." Ben replied, "Exactly, I do not want to see his swing, I would then find myself trying to swing like him and ruin myself. By the way, I am winning the tournament by 6 strokes at this time......Sam...Mr. Perfect Swing.....is tied for 32nd."

I gave a guy a golf lesson once. He came to the range with a sheet of paper in his pocket. He had a 12 point swing check list he looked at constantly on every tee shot! I made him throw it away and only think of "where he wanted to hit the ball". He improved immediately.

I find I play my best when I forget about my strokes and just focus on where I want to place the ball.

What say ye?

have you posted your video yet? would very much like to see your game.

 

[guitarplayer]

have you posted your video yet? would very much like to see your game.

So you can comment on my strokes? That's my point. Looks like you missed it.

THe point is, are we too focused on the perfect swing or should we focus more on playing and being able to score and win?

 

[pushing_wins]

What does that have to do with anything? So you can comment on my strokes? That's my point. Looks like you missed it.

my bad. thought you were somebody else.

 

[user92626]

IMO, So called pretty stroke is a sign of efficiency. Your seeing a stroke ugly means your intuit knows there's an awkwardness or limitation somewhere.

I think as far as non profession tennis goes, efficiency, prettyness is probably all we could go for. You don't make a dime from winning, but you'd stay injury-free and gain satisfaction from honing a nice looking, efficient technique, like working on your "race" car.

 

[guitarplayer]

IMO, So called pretty stroke is a sign of efficiency. Your seeing a stroke ugly means your intuit knows there's an awkwardness or limitation somewhere.

I think as far as non profession tennis goes, efficiency, prettyness is probably all we could go for. You don't make a dime from winning, but you'd stay injury-free and gain satisfaction from honing a nice looking, efficient technique, like working on your "race" car.

I do agree 100%. But I think many of us go to far. I've seen people critique a guy here's video with such minute detail....you need about 10% more weight on your front foot..etc........come to find later he is a top 25 college player!

 

[vijay_rb]

Imitating may give key fundamentals without realizing them

Imigating the Pros and having a pretty style or having a good form is not just visual. Here is what I found out (keep uncovering...)

When I first started following Fed, my immediate decision was to try and copy his every style, never knew each and every specific movement, posture, head movement has a meaning.

example: Fed's Forehand: When fed takes back his racquet, with the shoulder/trunk turn, with his left hand parallel to the ground and at about right angle to the net/ball, you will see that he takes his elbow before the racquet, meaning the elbow is raised, the racquet is acute angled-vertical.
> I found that tough to copy, because it seemed like an extra action just for style. I thought it would be easier to just keep the racquet position as near as possible so that it is easy to point the butt of the racquet to the incoming ball (the norm basic lesson).
Realization...
A few days back, I was reading Vic Braden's book and realized that Fed's FH racquet back position is not style. Here is why...
The basic lesson taught is to keep the butt of the racquet pointing to the ball/court direction to hit. what happens when you consciously try to keep doing this is, you get something called a 'wrist-laid-back' issue. meaning your wrist stays laid-back with the palm way back (to point the butt), when this stays in the same position when the racquet comes up at the contact point, you hit late and lose power and direction.
Hence by first taking your elbow back and high, makes the wrist be in a better position.

But this is very tough to do, your timing goes off and you need to re-learn your timing for this new movement. and keeping all this in mind long enough to make it muscle-memory... you may need a constant coach to keep reminding the wrongs you do.

There is also a bad in copying everything from the pro's, each pro would be coached to solve a specific problem they have or a specific incorrect fundamental they are not getting right. it may not be required for every person. for example, Djoker has been taught to throw his serve ball as high as possible, so that he can bend his legs and make use of the power from his legs. possibly he wasn't using his legs, so was taught this. but generally throwing your server ball high is bad, because the reciever gets a easy read on the serve and also its tough to get a consistent path when the serve throw is high.

in any case, its surely feels great when you get style /form in your strokes...
its just not style, it has fundamentals to make your stroke stronger, consistent... that is if you are patient enough to keep practicing it.

 

[FedExpress 333]

TBH, I do think that these are the most important. no offense, but i find ppl who say they dont care about strokes are usually 3.5 hack pushers who want to feel good about themselves.........

 

[aimr75]

To me, every pro or high level player has pretty strokes because they are employing correct and efficient technique.. its not so much about the look, but what they are actually doing.. correct footwork, loading, rotation, using the kinetic chain effectively.. to me, this makes the stroke look pretty regardless of the idiosyncrasies of takeback, follow through etc..

Cant see something wrong with improving technique.. do this and ultimately your strokes become more effective.. the strokes looking good is just a by product

 

[guitarplayer]

TBH, I do think that these are the most important. no offense, but i find ppl who say they dont care about strokes are usually 3.5 hack pushers who want to feel good about themselves.........

I would think there are many 3.5 players here. Way to insult people. Gee.

 

[FedExpress 333]

Sorry, did not want it to sound that way, but I was saying that most, not all ppl who say strokes are not important are just pushers who do not want to mess with success and develop strokes that can take them to a hgiher level. I do not think that strokes are overrated: but I DO agree that stradegy is underrated. However, usually if your stroke looks pretrty, it is a sign of good form. IMHO, the first and most important thing in tennis is reliable strokes. Everything comes after that.

 

[dozu]

learning / playing by 'feel' is better than by 'look'.

in other words, one needs to understand what an efficient stroke feels like, not looks like.

months ago we had someone here who compares his FH side by side to Fed's FH, but can't get out of the first rounds of amateur tournaments... he was trying to look like Fed, but had no idea what the FH should feel like.

 

[Limpinhitter]

To me, every pro or high level player has pretty strokes because they are employing correct and efficient technique.. its not so much about the look, but what they are actually doing.. correct footwork, loading, rotation, using the kinetic chain effectively.. to me, this makes the stroke look pretty regardless of the idiosyncrasies of takeback, follow through etc..

Cant see something wrong with improving technique.. do this and ultimately your strokes become more effective.. the strokes looking good is just a by product

I don't know about that! Ralph's forehand and serve, Soderling's serve, Roddick's forehand, Monfil's forehand, all pretty ugly.

 

[aimr75]

I don't know about that! Ralph's forehand and serve, Soderling's serve, Roddick's forehand, Monfil's forehand, all pretty ugly.

nah, when they are all in full flight playing, they all look good to me.. its the overall package to me that makes any pros game pretty

 

[LeeD]

Form vs function, always a tough fence to balance atop....
While SteffiGraf has reputedly the best forehand around, unconventional in it's long swing and late contact, the second best forehand in her era was probably AnkeHuber's, a short, violent explosion off a direct straight takeback.
Which is form and which is function? Probably closer to two ugly strokes which the talented player MADE work the best in their era.
Fast forward to Nadal and Federer.

 

[tennis_balla]

Its because people here, most coaches elsewhere etc get caught up in just technique. They teach, feed, correct, correct some more and only work on technique. Technique is only 1/4 of whats going on in a tennis match.

My line is, its not about how you hit the ball but how you play the ball. I've seen countless guys play matches (not club level) and the guy who understood the game, where he was on court, what to hit and what his opponent disliked etc etc won. Not the guy who's worried if he's slapping, pronating, supinating, hitting a windshield wiper forehand etc. and to me thats the #1 problem with coaching nowadays. Its not about who's modern or not, who's teaching open stance forehands and who's teaching closed stance. A lot of coaches are being one dimensional, concentrating almost all their energy on technique and neglecting other parts of the game, which are just as important in developing a player no matter what the level or age. Sadly though, its easy money, stand at the service T and feed for an hour repeating the same watered down crap and collect your $50/hr.

Here on the forum, technique is the first thing that people talk about because what can you correct out of a 30second video? or even if someone posts a full set? You're still only seeing a snippet of that player and are still far away from fully and accurately assessing their game.

 

[user92626]

learning / playing by 'feel' is better than by 'look'.

in other words, one needs to understand what an efficient stroke feels like, not looks like.

months ago we had someone here who compares his FH side by side to Fed's FH, but can't get out of the first rounds of amateur tournaments... he was trying to look like Fed, but had no idea what the FH should feel like.

Not necessary, dude. Any newbie or hacker would feel great with pushing, unorthodox strokes, but the whole point of hiring a good coach is that he can look at your strokes and correct them whether you (initially) feel good or not with the change. No?

 

[spacediver]

To me, every pro or high level player has pretty strokes because they are employing correct and efficient technique.. its not so much about the look, but what they are actually doing.. correct footwork, loading, rotation, using the kinetic chain effectively.. to me, this makes the stroke look pretty regardless of the idiosyncrasies of takeback, follow through etc..

Cant see something wrong with improving technique.. do this and ultimately your strokes become more effective.. the strokes looking good is just a by product

this.

an effective stroke is one that makes efficient use of the kinetic chain. This will naturally look balanced and athletic, and appeal to our deeper aesthetic sense of grace.

 

[rkelley]

IMO pretty strokes are the best means to effective strokes.

It's worth the time and effort to learn and use correct technique. Correct technique generally looks pretty, is efficient, and feels good. So if your technique is ugly and tortured there are probably some fundamental stroke issues that need addressing if you want to improve.

I think that there are lots of rec players who learn to hack a few balls over the net with pushy, blocky, and otherwise tortured strokes and then basically stagnate. They'd like to be better, but they don't really want to change the basic way they're hitting the ball because they've been able to achieve some level of success with it. I've hit with many folks who, for instance, want to improve their backhands. They'll shadow swing their non-shoulder turned, elbow leading push of a stroke and say something about they just don't quite have the right timing or something. The real problem is that the stroke completely sucks and if they really would like to improve they need to learn proper technique, which would be both prettier and more effective.

That said, I've seen some discussions on this board that go too far the other way. I've read detailed analysis of some college player's 70 mph, almost never miss forehand that criticizes minutia of the weight transfer or swing path. I'm not saying that even good players can't improve their strokes, but most of us would be doing well if we could even achieve this player's level of imperfection.

 

[dozu]

Not necessary, dude. Any newbie or hacker would feel great with pushing, unorthodox strokes, but the whole point of hiring a good coach is that he can look at your strokes and correct them whether you (initially) feel good or not with the change. No?

lol - conti grip push can only do so much.

once the newbie starts to mimic topspin FH etc, technically wrong strokes will NOT feel right, period.

arming the ball -- hitting arm often collide with the chest, giving this 'crowded' feel.... contact is often late, put a jarring feel on the shoulder

flipping the racket face - lack of control, brain often feel 'confused' and 'jittery'.

technically correct strokes feel relaxed and powerful and steady all at the same time.... how the stroke looks is a different thing...

sometimes we look at Sod's FH or Rafa's FH and we think 'hm, ugly', that is because we try to map these pro's motion into our own central nervous system and we think it will be awkward for our body.

I once posted that Fed's game looks so beautiful, is because his body type represents the ultimate 'average' of the human body and we perceive as flawless.

 

[Netzroller]

Well, I do see the OP's point. I think especially the younger players often don't care about strategy enough but rather about technique and power. So they end up losing to older guys with "worse" technique who know where to put the ball.

Nevertheless, I think technique is very important in the long term. You hardly see high level players with ugly technique. Some might have weird ideosyncracies but they all have fundamentally sound basics. There is just no single tennis player in the top 1000 who is arming the ball like some rec players. This just wouldnt allow you to advance to that level.
Another important point is injuries. Good looking strokes are usually very efficient and put little stress on the body. Ugly serves and backhands might work for a while but it's usually those guys who end up with shoulder, elbow etc. pain.

 

[guitarplayer]

You said exactly what I was trying to say! My thoughts exactly.

Its because people here, most coaches



elsewhere etc get caught up in just technique. They teach, feed, correct, correct some more and only work on technique. Technique is only 1/4 of whats going on in a tennis match.

My line is, its not about how you hit the ball but how you play the ball. I've seen countless guys play matches (not club level) and the guy who understood the game, where he was on court, what to hit and what his opponent disliked etc etc won. Not the guy who's worried if he's slapping, pronating, supinating, hitting a windshield wiper forehand etc. and to me thats the #1 problem with coaching nowadays. Its not about who's modern or not, who's teaching open stance forehands and who's teaching closed stance. A lot of coaches are being one dimensional, concentrating almost all their energy on technique and neglecting other parts of the game, which are just as important in developing a player no matter what the level or age. Sadly though, its easy money, stand at the service T and feed for an hour repeating the same watered down crap and collect your $50/hr.

Here on the forum, technique is the first thing that people talk about because what can you correct out of a 30second video? or even if someone posts a full set? You're still only seeing a snippet of that player and are still far away from fully and accurately assessing their game.

 

[TennisCoachFLA]

Its because people here, most coaches elsewhere etc get caught up in just technique. They teach, feed, correct, correct some more and only work on technique. Technique is only 1/4 of whats going on in a tennis match.

My line is, its not about how you hit the ball but how you play the ball. I've seen countless guys play matches (not club level) and the guy who understood the game, where he was on court, what to hit and what his opponent disliked etc etc won. Not the guy who's worried if he's slapping, pronating, supinating, hitting a windshield wiper forehand etc. and to me thats the #1 problem with coaching nowadays. Its not about who's modern or not, who's teaching open stance forehands and who's teaching closed stance. A lot of coaches are being one dimensional, concentrating almost all their energy on technique and neglecting other parts of the game, which are just as important in developing a player no matter what the level or age. Sadly though, its easy money, stand at the service T and feed for an hour repeating the same watered down crap and collect your $50/hr.

Here on the forum, technique is the first thing that people talk about because what can you correct out of a 30second video? or even if someone posts a full set? You're still only seeing a snippet of that player and are still far away from fully and accurately assessing their game.

A good deal of truth here. The coaches that I learned from start with solid fundamentals, then let the individual adapt them to their own style. Then we move on to tactics and strategy, mental training, etc.

So we want the entire package, solid strokes followed by the other aspects of the game. Sadly many coaches only focus on technique.

 

[Chanto]

I feel like many of today's "pretty" strokes started off as ugly. Imagine yourself being accustomed to seeing the classic forehand, and then all of a sudden seeing a reverse forehand for the first time? You'd probably consider this forehand as ugly and dismiss it entirely. However, it's been proven as effective, and is now not considered ugly.

As such, I think that strokes that work are the most important, and getting them to be considered pretty is something that will happen if the stroke does its job well.