You also do realize that Henman does not directly always answers the questions he receives on his website right?
The concept of the windshield wiper is bogus
- Thread starter David L
- Start date
You also do realize that Henman does not directly always answers the questions he receives on his website right?
Even some of the most classic hard nosed coaches agree that the Windshield Wiper motion, or hitting across the body with a lower finish, works better at higher levels of tennis (professional). Robert Lansdorp is a highly renown U.S. coach who teaches very classic methods of tennis. He's highly conservative in his views. Yet he still recognizes the WW motion as a legitimate follow through, especially for more "extreme" grips, such as the SW and Western.
Rick Macci is another coach who is highly conservative. He starts many of his students in the eastern FH grip to get them to learn how to drive through the ball. However, he too does not dismiss the WW motion as a non-legitimate follow through. That is because he realizes that the WW motion is a product of linear and rotational forces, along with the SW and Western grips. It is a natural event that happens once everything is put into place.
That's already two examples of highly renown names that are very conservative in their views, yet fully accept the WW motion. They do not dismiss it, and actually have learned a few things from it. I'm pretty sure they have more credentials than ANYONE on these boards also, considering Lansdrop has coached Sampras, Tracy Austin, Davenport, and Sharapova, while Macci has coached Serena, Venus, Roddick, and Jennifer Capriati.
Rick Macci is another coach who is highly conservative. He starts many of his students in the eastern FH grip to get them to learn how to drive through the ball. However, he too does not dismiss the WW motion as a non-legitimate follow through. That is because he realizes that the WW motion is a product of linear and rotational forces, along with the SW and Western grips. It is a natural event that happens once everything is put into place.
That's already two examples of highly renown names that are very conservative in their views, yet fully accept the WW motion. They do not dismiss it, and actually have learned a few things from it. I'm pretty sure they have more credentials than ANYONE on these boards also, considering Lansdrop has coached Sampras, Tracy Austin, Davenport, and Sharapova, while Macci has coached Serena, Venus, Roddick, and Jennifer Capriati.
Bungalo Bill
G.O.A.T.
Hahahahahaha...yeah, just as I thought.
And I expressed my criticism of your post. There is nothing wrong with using an analogy to explain something. Anaolgies are useful to paint a picture in someones mind as to how something works or can be viewed.
Anaolgies are just that, a tool to use to help explain a concept. Based on this, perhaps thousands upon thousands have accepted and understood what the "Windshield Wiping" motion is and how it can be executed.
Not everyone hangs on exact meanings and has to have perfect explanations before they get something. If you are one of those that thinks the Windshield Wiping analogy can be better explained, great!
However, when you come in here with your "history" lesson on tennis (which was incorrect anyway) and boast your claims about the WW not working, speak for yourself. Provide another anaolgy that can help those that dont quite get the WW analogy. However, dont bash something you largely DONT understand and took out of context from a few posts
Then say so! You made a broad statement which was incorrect!!!!! And if it is not significant, then why would you say it? Just to look smart? The problem with you is you started out wrong and now you are back peddling like this beat down dog that certain things are not important and if "only a few" get what you mean, you are okay with it. Give me a fricking break.
Ahhh, can you be more evasive? It is definietly my intention to debate. I will be sure to look at those videos and will respond accordingly.
And to think someone who originally makes bold statements wants to slither out of explaining them when challenged. Hmmmmm....
Last edited:
Don't bother Bungalo Bill. Even John Yandell couldn't crack through that thick skull of his, with photographic and video evidence to show that Henman was using an Eastern FH grip. He even disagrees that there are no "inbetween" grips, when clearly, they exist. Sure, some of us my disagree on the classifications of the grips, but I don't think any of us can say "inbetween" grips don't exist.
Also, I think he tried to say Ferrero has a Western grip, yet Ferrero uses the same grip as Nalbandian and Hewitt. Yet he classifies the latter 2 as SW grip users.
There's no point in trying to argue with him unless you want either a severe headache, or to make an example out of him. The 2nd would be quite hilarious though.
Last edited:
Bungalo Bill
G.O.A.T.
I just dont want people believing bad information. I want to counter his "claims" with better information so that people can at least have a better understanding and not just his.
He is already watering down his "claims" and backpeddling away from a response.
Seems like a crop of nonsense threads are popping up today. We have:
1. The concept of the windshield wiper is bogus
2. Forehand backswing sells subscriptions
I mean come on...#2 should belong in Rants and Raves. Please....
Last edited:
pushing_wins
Hall of Fame
yawn
10char
10char
Bungalo Bill
G.O.A.T.
LOL, you cant do it can you? You cant explain how to hit a forehand? LOL!
I wasn't being literal. I was making a point, but you obviously didn't get that, which doesn't surprise me.
Don't get what? That you're an idiot who has no idea what you're talking about?
The point is, nearly everyone disagrees with you. From regular people, to professional coaches, to international tennis organizations. Pretty much, 99% of the world. How many people really agree with you? Not that many. Tells you something doesn't it?
Last edited:
Hey nitwit, do you look as stupid as you sound? I mean, I've come across imbeciles before and I don't expect to find especially smart individuals on a random internet forum, but you are really scraping the barrel. I would indulge your idiocy if it wasn't so time consuming, but one has to draw the line somewhere. There's only so much comedy or use one can gain from a dumbbell such as yourself, so I'll leave you to ponder all these questions you have in the feral contents of your head.:lol:
Steady Eddy
Legend
Dis guy...he's just stoopid.
Using as much big vocabulary as possible is only a sign that you are losing the argument, which you are. Considering you've ignored all credible evidence that has been posted before you, I'd say the only idiot here is you.
Many credible posters here, such as Bungalo Bill, Yandell, and Jeff from Hi-TechTennis have all disagreed with you at some point or another. Typically, it takes alot to get a negative response out of Yandell. For Yandell to call you out on your blindness, it just shows how blind you really are to what people are saying.
Again, the Windshield Wiper is an analogy, it is the effect of a cause. However, it is just that, an analogy. Also, hitting across the body is not a bogus idea, especially when it is done naturally and effectively. Intentional hitting across the body while hitting with poor technique on the other hand, is.
What you do not realize is that the "hitting across the body" is not really hitting across the body. It is the result of the rotational forces created by the torso/hips and rotation of the shoulders. This is what causes the racquet begin to move in what most people would call the modern day forehand. Hitting with proper technique would result in you lining everything up properly, meaning your shoulders are about parallel to the court, and your racquet is out in front, your wrist laid back, and your racquet properly aligned to make contact with the ball. Hitting with poor technique will result in side spin, mishits, etc.
What you are not realizing is that the WW idea is not bogus itself. It is those teaching improper technique, or those using improper technique that are bogus. The WW motion is a follow through that is not consciously done; it is the result of proper use of rotational and linear forces, along with the proper alignment of these forces.
Most of your problems lie within your ignorance of the knowledge about modern tennis in general. It also lies within the fact that you are no better than Nadal_Freak in the General Forums, and it certainly takes alot for anyone to stoop down to his level of ignorance and blindness. Obviously, your only point posting here is to call modern tennis "fraudulent" and John Yandell himself a fraud. Anyways, this thread belongs in the Rants and Raves section anyways, since your purpose is not to inform anyone about anything, but rather to attack Modern Tennis and Yandell.
Many credible posters here, such as Bungalo Bill, Yandell, and Jeff from Hi-TechTennis have all disagreed with you at some point or another. Typically, it takes alot to get a negative response out of Yandell. For Yandell to call you out on your blindness, it just shows how blind you really are to what people are saying.
Again, the Windshield Wiper is an analogy, it is the effect of a cause. However, it is just that, an analogy. Also, hitting across the body is not a bogus idea, especially when it is done naturally and effectively. Intentional hitting across the body while hitting with poor technique on the other hand, is.
What you do not realize is that the "hitting across the body" is not really hitting across the body. It is the result of the rotational forces created by the torso/hips and rotation of the shoulders. This is what causes the racquet begin to move in what most people would call the modern day forehand. Hitting with proper technique would result in you lining everything up properly, meaning your shoulders are about parallel to the court, and your racquet is out in front, your wrist laid back, and your racquet properly aligned to make contact with the ball. Hitting with poor technique will result in side spin, mishits, etc.
What you are not realizing is that the WW idea is not bogus itself. It is those teaching improper technique, or those using improper technique that are bogus. The WW motion is a follow through that is not consciously done; it is the result of proper use of rotational and linear forces, along with the proper alignment of these forces.
Most of your problems lie within your ignorance of the knowledge about modern tennis in general. It also lies within the fact that you are no better than Nadal_Freak in the General Forums, and it certainly takes alot for anyone to stoop down to his level of ignorance and blindness. Obviously, your only point posting here is to call modern tennis "fraudulent" and John Yandell himself a fraud. Anyways, this thread belongs in the Rants and Raves section anyways, since your purpose is not to inform anyone about anything, but rather to attack Modern Tennis and Yandell.
Last edited:
World Beater
Hall of Fame
landsdorp also has said federer's technique is flawed and that sampras has a better fh than federer. i wouldn't take that guy seriously.
sorry to go off-topic.
Actually, from the articles I read, I believe he said Sampras is a better forehand to emulate because it's simpler and less complex, and involves less components that can go wrong.
He never said Federer's forehand technique was flawed. Ever.
Tempest344
Professional
I was taught by my coach(and now boss)
to hit my forehand like that(as in the one in the video)
work well enough for me
to hit my forehand like that(as in the one in the video)
work well enough for me
Well, if someone is going to throw around insults, I myself can throw around insults with the best of them.
Well, if someone is going to throw around insults, I myself can throw around insults with the best of them.
Well, the truth is the truth. You are an idiot. There is nothing bogus about the windshield wiper motion, or the idea behind it. You are just misunderstanding the concept of the windshield wiper motion. By not understanding it, you then call it bogus. That shows that you are totally ignorant and refuse to understand anything about the concept, especially when many notable posters and coaches all disagree with you.
No, you're the idiot, idiot.
JohnYandell
Hall of Fame
This guy thinks that I am a devoted advocate of the windshield wiper forehand. Which is really funny to anyone who may have followed my work. Uh, it's a little more complicated than that. There is analysis and then there is prescription and then there are levels and variations. I don't mind being criticized but I think it is fair to ask that your views be correctly represented first. Now why is it I don't think this is likely to happen here?
The funniest thing is that I think the little girl in the first clip has a great basic forehand. Tremendous foundation. Pretty much just the way I teach it. Or Rick Macci or Robert Lansdorp for that matter. But I don't think we could call it a semiwestern grip. The other guy is less technically sound although he clearly has great, fast hands.
One thing I've learned from this forum is that evidence is no deterent to the pursuit of zealotry. Anyone remember jumpulse, because this thread is headed in the same direction.
The funniest thing is that I think the little girl in the first clip has a great basic forehand. Tremendous foundation. Pretty much just the way I teach it. Or Rick Macci or Robert Lansdorp for that matter. But I don't think we could call it a semiwestern grip. The other guy is less technically sound although he clearly has great, fast hands.
One thing I've learned from this forum is that evidence is no deterent to the pursuit of zealotry. Anyone remember jumpulse, because this thread is headed in the same direction.
Last edited:
Ignoring my points because you are losing the argument is a great way to make you look good.
It's alright John; I'm still a zealous subscriber to your site
Oh yeah, jump pulse. Didn't the author of that article dodge every type of evidence thrown at him? Sounds like the OP
Yeah, I read some of Lansdorp's articles, and it seems although he is highly conservative in his views and prefers the eastern FH, he doesn't dismiss the WW motion nor does he dismiss slightly more extreme grips.
Just ignore this guy. It's obvious the point of this thread was not to do anything but attack you and your work, and other people who have studied tennis fundamentals and technique.
JohnYandell
Hall of Fame
Again the funny thing is (other than the grip terminology) I agree with certain things he says.
If you are learning the game it's tremendously important to learn to hit through the ball and extend like that kid. After that you can add the wiper as a variable.
This means you can rotate the hand and arm and still move all the way thru the swing. Federer is the master of this.
Yes, you can also break off the swing for angles and on short or low balls, turn the hand more sooner, and finish across the body sooner. But by choice.
I see tons of kids who are taught the wiper first (or the extreme over the shoulder finish for that matter) who simply can't hit thru. This is another argument for the less extreme grips for beginners. The more underneath the more you have to wiper or turn the hand to get thru the ball.
This is also how Rick Macci teaches kids. Eastern or mild semi western, hit through with on edge finish, then evolve from there.
If you are learning the game it's tremendously important to learn to hit through the ball and extend like that kid. After that you can add the wiper as a variable.
This means you can rotate the hand and arm and still move all the way thru the swing. Federer is the master of this.
Yes, you can also break off the swing for angles and on short or low balls, turn the hand more sooner, and finish across the body sooner. But by choice.
I see tons of kids who are taught the wiper first (or the extreme over the shoulder finish for that matter) who simply can't hit thru. This is another argument for the less extreme grips for beginners. The more underneath the more you have to wiper or turn the hand to get thru the ball.
This is also how Rick Macci teaches kids. Eastern or mild semi western, hit through with on edge finish, then evolve from there.
Last edited:
S
Slicendicer
Guest
Just to add, to my mind, the windshield wiper concept is a new and false idea, not an old one.
I disagree in the sense that a "windshield wiper" motion is very effective to imparting topspin. Obviously the racquet must continiue forward motion, unlike an actual windshield wiper, but the "basic" idea is to relate a un-normal motion to a concept that is normal to most people... a windshield wiper.
Would you prefer..
"OK, everybody make rainbowswith your forehand!" :shock:
The "wiper" has worked fine for me, and I used to could hit a damn good tennis ball.
JohnYandell
Hall of Fame
Like the kid in the first video. Not a hard and fast rule but roughly with the racket face on edge or perpendicular to the court on the forward swing. No big turnover or wiper.
S
Slicendicer
Guest
Sorta redundant, because the racquet basically has to be perpendicular to the court in order to hit the ball. The "windshield wiper" is more about arcing the finish than ball striking...
JohnYandell
Hall of Fame
The finish controls the path of the racket. So the angle at the finish is important. It either effects the speed and/or the angle of the racket face at the "brush" when the spin is created. Your hand could be in the same position as that kid lengthwise toward the net and either be on edge or turned over in the many degrees of the wiper. That's where a lot of the extra topspin comes from in the modern game.
S
Slicendicer
Guest
First let me say I know the mechanics of hitting a tennis ball, you do too.
Now to your post... actually the finish is a product of the swing.
"extra topspin" is just topspin and it is caused by "skinning" the ball. Racquet speed, force of impact, and amount of direct impact on the ball is what determines the amount of topspin.
I hear what you saying, though it matters not what degree the racquet face is at impact in the sense that I've hit with guys who hit alot of topspin with a continental grip forehand... totally perpendicular at impact.
The "wiper" motion that we... errr... you are hating on is just a metaphor... like a windshield wiper. The idea is to arc or elipse through the swing plane so as to not be linear or "hitchy".
Bungalo Bill
G.O.A.T.
John,
I am gonna disagree here about the finish controls the path. The finish to me is the end result which is subordinate to the path and swing the player takes.
Or did you mean that the player starts with the finish in mind and proceeds to swing in such a way to get that finish? In essence, thinking with the finish in mind would tend to make the finish control or dictate the swing path. I dont know if control is the right word in this case.
So if I want a particular finish, I would need to swing in this manner to get that. Is that what you mean?
I am not so sure this is a good way to teach since the major focus is on the position of the racquet at the finish and less focus on the forward swing, contact with the ball, and the extension.
Last edited:
JohnYandell
Hall of Fame
I think there are multiple ways to create that gorgeous perfect moment of contact--which of course is what it's about.
This idea of using the finish I first got from Dick Gould when I was teaching for him in the 1970s. You said it exactly right. With the idea or the image of the finish in mind, your racket naturally follows a certain path. So if you can identify the finishes associated with the various shots, you can use them as mental guides.
Dick's theory was if the turn is right and the finish is right (and assuming you are looking at the ball...) everything in between is likely to be right as well.
Doesn't necessarily work for everyone but I've found it to be one of the two or three most powerful concepts I've encountered in teaching groundstrokes.
This idea of using the finish I first got from Dick Gould when I was teaching for him in the 1970s. You said it exactly right. With the idea or the image of the finish in mind, your racket naturally follows a certain path. So if you can identify the finishes associated with the various shots, you can use them as mental guides.
Dick's theory was if the turn is right and the finish is right (and assuming you are looking at the ball...) everything in between is likely to be right as well.
Doesn't necessarily work for everyone but I've found it to be one of the two or three most powerful concepts I've encountered in teaching groundstrokes.
And progressively. The posts get shorter and shorter. The replies characterizing an increase in stupidity.
What is this amateur hour?
Perhaps you should just leave. Or something more productive, that doesn't have you displaying the retardation spreading across the masses of your brain.
Your contradictions are just so frustrating.
SOOO FRUSTRATING.
Frustrating is not a good feeling...usually.
This is in perfect agreement with my limited universe...
I have experienced great improvements by concentrating on two things, mainly: the spot on the ball I want to contact, and how I want to finish - that is, "visualizing" the stroke. In this sense, "windshield wiper" is nothing but a visual cue for me.
No, I'm ignoring you because you're an idiot. Kapeesch?
I can concede it works for some, but it also confuses others. My suggestion would be to concentrate on what one wants to do with the ball i.e. spinning it forward, spinning it backwards etc, similar to what the coach suggests in the comments section.
Jackie T. Stephens
Professional
The wind-shield whipper was how I was taught topspin and that was a long time ago when my forehand had just spin, no power.
Yes, I'm not intimately familiar with your methods. Someone else brought up your name, so I responded. However, not all coaches endorse the windshield wiper idea, as the video I posted indicates and not all benefit from this notion, as some posters have indicated. So while promoting the analogy of a windshield wiper may produce positive results for some, it can also hinder others. Obviously, I don't know what all the coaches all over the world are doing, but I believe the windshield wiper analogy itself is misleading for the reasons I have already stated.
Another moron. You must be friends with Namranger.
Jackie T. Stephens
Professional
Windshield wiper is mainly for beginners to learn topspin, I was taught that by my first coach and currently he's on tour right now playing ATP, the results show it.
JohnYandell
Hall of Fame
David,
May I suggest that in the future you determine the actual facts before forming your opinions?
Much of my work has been trying to unravel the truth from the reality of what happens in pro tennis. Because everyone and every pro references the pros with greater, or lesser degrees of accuracy unless they have studied video themselves. So my work includes explaining what happens when the hand and racket turn over radically in the course of the swing--the so-called wiper.
But if you read my work, you'll see that I am very circumspect in what I suggest in coaching. In fact I have argued that teaching the wiper first or at the expense of extension through the ball is one of the major mistakes in coaching. And thinking that players like Federer always move quickly across to the left side is one of the major fallacies in opinion about the pros.
May I suggest that in the future you determine the actual facts before forming your opinions?
Much of my work has been trying to unravel the truth from the reality of what happens in pro tennis. Because everyone and every pro references the pros with greater, or lesser degrees of accuracy unless they have studied video themselves. So my work includes explaining what happens when the hand and racket turn over radically in the course of the swing--the so-called wiper.
But if you read my work, you'll see that I am very circumspect in what I suggest in coaching. In fact I have argued that teaching the wiper first or at the expense of extension through the ball is one of the major mistakes in coaching. And thinking that players like Federer always move quickly across to the left side is one of the major fallacies in opinion about the pros.
Very good point. I don't really mind the windshield wiper label, however, it is important to understand that the result of an action can look like the intended action itself, but that is not necessarily the case.
Wow, I just finished reading through this entire thread, and I think some of us need to really remember to take our meds. Now where's my prozac! 
Anyway, I like the contrast brought up by Yandell's bold and unconventional assertion: the finish dictates, and the responses saying the finish is the result of the start.
Both are perfectly valid viewpoints once you take the time to consider and understand the perspective from which they came.
It's great to have alternate points of view and to get other angles to understand the game from. It's especially helpful for teaching. You never know what is going to finally help the light turn on for someone.
(I wonder what the response would have been to Yandell's finish dictator had it come from a less respected name? (That's finish with one 'n' and a lower case 'f'. I have no knowledge of any puppet governments in the possession of Mr. Yandell or any other TW Forum participants.))
Anyway, I like the contrast brought up by Yandell's bold and unconventional assertion: the finish dictates, and the responses saying the finish is the result of the start.
Both are perfectly valid viewpoints once you take the time to consider and understand the perspective from which they came.
It's great to have alternate points of view and to get other angles to understand the game from. It's especially helpful for teaching. You never know what is going to finally help the light turn on for someone.
(I wonder what the response would have been to Yandell's finish dictator had it come from a less respected name? (That's finish with one 'n' and a lower case 'f'. I have no knowledge of any puppet governments in the possession of Mr. Yandell or any other TW Forum participants.))
Last edited:
That's a problem with bad teaching, not a problem with the concept behind the windshield wiper motion. Coaches who try to teach advanced techniques before teaching the basic foundations of tennis. Your argument is that the windshield wiper analogy and motion are bogus. This is simply not true.
Again, try learning to understand other people's point of views before putting them down and ignoring them. Your problem lies within coaches themselves and the application of the Windshield Wiper. Poor application results in poor form. That's obvious to anyone. You haven't posted one thing that makes the Windshield Wiper "bogus" at all.
This thread should be locked due to the negative connotations of the OP. This whole topic was created in a way to attack a well respected member in the tennis community and to attack a well known and established advanced concept in tennis. He has posted nothing of use in this thread. His problem lies within the application of a certain technique. There is nothing wrong or bogus about the Windshield Wiper motion.
Last edited:
JohnYandell
Hall of Fame
If you haven't experimented with it, it's worth a try. Find the point in the model stroke where the racket has reached max forward and upward extension. Close your eyes and make an image of it. Watch the ball and visualize the mental image of the model finish. Boom. Results in incredible consistency and yet can be varied for different angles--and YES--more windshield wiper!
naylor
Semi-Pro
The extension, for me, is the key
I'm prone to being late and get pinned with my right elbow close to and slightly behind my body, and as a result my forehand often ends as my forearm rotating around my elbow (in a shallow WW), with no forward extension. So, I get some spin, but limited by the low racket-head speed, and little pace. I get away with it in doubles - a nice dipper over the net or at the server's feet - but I get killed in singles, as the ball sits up short of the baseline.
All I'm working on is to ensure on the backswing I move my elbow away from my side, so that on the forward swing my elbow and forearm can push forward past my side and extend through the ball to create and pass the forward momentum onto the ball. Then, as a natural result of the follow-through, forearm and racket will come around WW-like, but my hand will be nearly a full arm extension in front of my chest, rather than barely in front.
I'm prone to being late and get pinned with my right elbow close to and slightly behind my body, and as a result my forehand often ends as my forearm rotating around my elbow (in a shallow WW), with no forward extension. So, I get some spin, but limited by the low racket-head speed, and little pace. I get away with it in doubles - a nice dipper over the net or at the server's feet - but I get killed in singles, as the ball sits up short of the baseline.
All I'm working on is to ensure on the backswing I move my elbow away from my side, so that on the forward swing my elbow and forearm can push forward past my side and extend through the ball to create and pass the forward momentum onto the ball. Then, as a natural result of the follow-through, forearm and racket will come around WW-like, but my hand will be nearly a full arm extension in front of my chest, rather than barely in front.
Ballinbob
Hall of Fame
I don't think so....The windshield wiper motion is not confusing at all, and every coach/pro I've seen teaches it. For the average player this is a good motion to use as the topspin generated from it really helps with consistency. It's a simple technique that improves consistency/spin and I think its stupid not to learn it. Using a WW motion doesnt mean your hitting really spinny shots at the service line. It's just a finish used to get more topspin, that's all.
I'm not sure why you think its a bad technique/idea. Very simple and very effective. What more can you ask for?
No problem.
Also, what you say in your second paragraph is what I have been alluding to.
As for the girl, her coach in the written descriptions say she is using a semi-western grip, so while you do not think it is semi-western, he does and so do I. It seems not everyone is on the same page when it comes to understanding or identifying the grips. These differences seem to me to represent different schools of thought, rather than one person being right and the other wrong, much like the fact the English spell 'labour', say, with a u and Americans without.
Similar threads
