TheCanadian
Semi-Pro
I heard that Vic Braden's 2000 book on tennis technique is pretty good.
What's the best book on tennis technique?
- Thread starter TheCanadian
- Start date
CoachingMastery
Professional
First a quick thanks to 5263 for mentioning my book.
Second, while most books offer a reasonable amount of correct information, I would caution you to avoid any instructional component that instructs players to use an initial pattern that MUST change for the player to progress to higher skilled levels. Of the 117 books I own on tennis, the majority have one major flaw...they all say something like this:
"The beginning player may use ________grip for the serve or volley...but the advanced player will use __________grip for these shots."
In other words, they promote a rudementary pattern/technique for players to be basically rudementary players with the assumption that they can at some later date change this initial learning method to a more advanced method.
This is not only about as frustrating for both the player and for me as a teaching professional, because the vast majority of players will find making changes ONCE THEY HAVE STARTED TO PLAY (meaning playing some level of competition), not only is indeed frustrating, but it is ofte impossible.
Thus, of the thousands of players I've taught (and thousands more I've witnessed playing), the majority of players who first went out and learned tennis using either more simplistic or easier techniques end up reverting back time and time again to their basic initial methods.
This pattern is one of the most debilitating--if not most--pattern of learning preventing millions of players who are fully capable and even have the desire to learn, end up with a lifetime of play below their potential and wishing they could change their techique.
Obviously, there is much more to learning than just this one concept, but it is the single most important concept for those who sincerely want to reach their potential...
This concept, called the Advanced Foundation, is the corner stone of both my books, Tennis Mastery and Coaching Mastery.
Best of luck in reaching all your goals!
Second, while most books offer a reasonable amount of correct information, I would caution you to avoid any instructional component that instructs players to use an initial pattern that MUST change for the player to progress to higher skilled levels. Of the 117 books I own on tennis, the majority have one major flaw...they all say something like this:
"The beginning player may use ________grip for the serve or volley...but the advanced player will use __________grip for these shots."
In other words, they promote a rudementary pattern/technique for players to be basically rudementary players with the assumption that they can at some later date change this initial learning method to a more advanced method.
This is not only about as frustrating for both the player and for me as a teaching professional, because the vast majority of players will find making changes ONCE THEY HAVE STARTED TO PLAY (meaning playing some level of competition), not only is indeed frustrating, but it is ofte impossible.
Thus, of the thousands of players I've taught (and thousands more I've witnessed playing), the majority of players who first went out and learned tennis using either more simplistic or easier techniques end up reverting back time and time again to their basic initial methods.
This pattern is one of the most debilitating--if not most--pattern of learning preventing millions of players who are fully capable and even have the desire to learn, end up with a lifetime of play below their potential and wishing they could change their techique.
Obviously, there is much more to learning than just this one concept, but it is the single most important concept for those who sincerely want to reach their potential...
This concept, called the Advanced Foundation, is the corner stone of both my books, Tennis Mastery and Coaching Mastery.
Best of luck in reaching all your goals!
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I agree 100%.
mightyrick
Legend
I'd say your view of this "flaw" is flawed.
There is nothing wrong with teaching someone to do something one way and then teaching them another way to do it later on. Nothing wrong with that at all. In fact, this is done many subject areas from children's education all the way up to sports.
People can learn. People can re-learn. People can adjust. People can re-adjust. It takes effort. It takes patience. It takes reinforcement. But people are learning and adapting creatures.
I understand why you are saying what you are. But people have to adjust all the time to new situations, get rid of old behaviors, adopt new behaviors... for changing results. It's fine.
I'm not a professional in the matter. I do have to say that it takes a special person to be able to re-learn a technique or ability. This person has to be able to convince themselves what they are currently doing is not optimal, not wrong, and change it in to good results. I find that those willing to learn and willing to mold themselves to get better results are much more fun to play with.
I'd say your view of this "flaw" is flawed.
There is nothing wrong with teaching someone to do something one way and then teaching them another way to do it later on. Nothing wrong with that at all. In fact, this is done many subject areas from children's education all the way up to sports.
People can learn. People can re-learn. People can adjust. People can re-adjust. It takes effort. It takes patience. It takes reinforcement. But people are learning and adapting creatures.
I understand why you are saying what you are. But people have to adjust all the time to new situations, get rid of old behaviors, adopt new behaviors... for changing results. It's fine.
I have to agree with Dave Smith.
I've been playing for less than two years and was determined to learn things "the right way".
Thus, unlike many friends at our club, I now have a proper flat and kick serve. Meanwhile many of these other 3.0s/3.5s who have played for years have a really hard waiter serve they hit long or into the net 80% of the time followed by a dinker waiter serve that floats gently through the air.
Even my wife, who has played for years, says that I've avoided picking up bad habits that she has and which she has found difficult to change.
The downside to what I've gone through: it takes a lot more time and patience to learn things the right way. While others are dinking away during their one match each week you're on the court at lunchtime or after the kids are in bed to practice serves or hit the wall.
To Mr. Smith's point, I believe it can be tough to break bad habits. On the other hand, it's very convenient and easy to pick up bad tennis habits (eg arming the ball and hitting dinker waiter serves) because so much less time and effort are required.
I've been playing for less than two years and was determined to learn things "the right way".
Thus, unlike many friends at our club, I now have a proper flat and kick serve. Meanwhile many of these other 3.0s/3.5s who have played for years have a really hard waiter serve they hit long or into the net 80% of the time followed by a dinker waiter serve that floats gently through the air.
Even my wife, who has played for years, says that I've avoided picking up bad habits that she has and which she has found difficult to change.
The downside to what I've gone through: it takes a lot more time and patience to learn things the right way. While others are dinking away during their one match each week you're on the court at lunchtime or after the kids are in bed to practice serves or hit the wall.
To Mr. Smith's point, I believe it can be tough to break bad habits. On the other hand, it's very convenient and easy to pick up bad tennis habits (eg arming the ball and hitting dinker waiter serves) because so much less time and effort are required.
CoachingMastery
Professional
I'd say your view of this "flaw" is flawed.
There is nothing wrong with teaching someone to do something one way and then teaching them another way to do it later on. Nothing wrong with that at all. In fact, this is done many subject areas from children's education all the way up to sports.
People can learn. People can re-learn. People can adjust. People can re-adjust. It takes effort. It takes patience. It takes reinforcement. But people are learning and adapting creatures.
I understand why you are saying what you are. But people have to adjust all the time to new situations, get rid of old behaviors, adopt new behaviors... for changing results. It's fine.
No problem with your disagreement...however, either you have never taught tennis very long or you have never taught tennis and observed the commonalities with this philosophy you embrace.
Of course, theoretically, people can change, re-learn, adjust. But, as you said, it takes effort, patience, reinforcement...and, most importantly, it takes a degree of sacrifice people seldom are willing to accomodate.
First off, to argue your point...I don't know ANY other sport or even hobby or even children's education that teaches FLAWED patterns of learning (as it applies to learning or mastering a skill that is NOT LIMITED in its execution by the practicioner.) Piano students are taught to play with all their fingers from the start, (instead of plucking notes with their two index fingers which is MUCH easier to play a rudementary song for beginners...but no piano teacher of worth would teach piano this simpleton way!), golf students are taught a grip, swing, stance that is well within the context of a skilled swing rather than just letting a student swing anyway they feel comfortable just to make contact and hit the ball 50 yards, (and saying, we'll change you later!), basketball players are NOT taught to granny a ball up to the hoop just to make a basket. (Yes, beginners MIGHT do this because they know no other way...but it would NEVER be taught!) We teach math, science, reading etc., within what is understood as correct or optimal methods.
In tennis, not only does teaching 'skills' that are fundamentally rudementary (such as eastern grips on the serve or volley, pushing the groundstroke so that the ball goes in a straight line towards an intended target, etc.) cause players to become comfortable in their use, but they find that making changes after they begin using said form in competition makes them revert back to these patterns even when they KNOW they should be using a more effective grip, stroke, stance or footwork pattern.
There is a striking difference between the theory of "change" and the actual implementation of change in humans.
Having taught over 3500 players, I've seen this resistance to change in so many players, (students and other players taking from numerous pros around the country), that it is in my opinion the NUMBER ONE cause for players to stagnate at levels far below their ability. Among the hundreds of fellow pros I talk with have recognized this in equal examples.
The point I think you are truly missing is that inferior methods of tennis, while certainly ALLOW a player to hit a ball over the net, fail to allow the player to progress to higher levels of skilled play unless they go through the frustratingly difficult and usually unsuccessful for many, making both the technical change AS WELL AS the tactile, kinestetic change that such changes create for anyone. There is a relationship between limiting confidence as a player TRIES to impliment new methods; they don't feel as comfortable, thus they are seldom familiar with new methods, and thus you have a player who usually reverts back to their most comfortable pattern EVEN as they know it is not as effective as what they know they should be working towards.
So, while the belief in your idea that people can relearn is certainly true in theory, it will in all likelihood prevent you and others like you from actually mastering advanced skills as you progress if indeed you chose to learn flawed patterns from the start in tennis.
Last edited:
Another vote for Dave Smith. Learn the right grips and swing paths from the start. Things can be abbreviated in certain ways to start, but don't learn to serve or volley with an E. fh grip. Unlearning it is harder than just learning it correctly in the beginning.
Some strokes, like the fh, can start at E. and progress, or not, to more western grips. But in that case the basic swing path is still the same.
I taught both of my kids the proper grips for serving and volleying. My daughter was one of the few kids on her JV team that was comfortable and effective at net. My son actually can serve and volley. They both have good serves. It took awhile at first and I wish I knew some of the learning techniques that help new players get comfortable with the grips, but we got through it and neither one had to relearn anything later.
Some strokes, like the fh, can start at E. and progress, or not, to more western grips. But in that case the basic swing path is still the same.
I taught both of my kids the proper grips for serving and volleying. My daughter was one of the few kids on her JV team that was comfortable and effective at net. My son actually can serve and volley. They both have good serves. It took awhile at first and I wish I knew some of the learning techniques that help new players get comfortable with the grips, but we got through it and neither one had to relearn anything later.
Chas Tennis
G.O.A.T.
Technique Development in Tennis Stroke Production, B. Elliott, M. Reid & M. Crespo
The science of tennis stroke analysis has changed significantly in the last 20 years especially in the area of biomechanics. One of the leading researchers is Bruce Elliott.
This book takes each stroke and discusses the important characteristics that are present in each. It puts the new research results into readable form. It also has coaching information, for example, on the ages that certain skills can be introduced to serious young players based on the stage of the young player's strength development.
Technique Development in Tennis Stroke Production(2009), B. Elliott, M. Reid and M. Crespo
Suppliers Amazon, Barnes & Noble, etc. all list it as ‘out of stock’. No wonder I had not heard of this 2009 biomechanics book on tennis stroke techniques. I found it for sale at the ITF Store. $20 + $8 shipping. (ITF, get some book retailers!)
International Tennis Federation store -
https://store.itftennis.com/category.asp?cid=12&lid=3&previousscript=/category.asp
Chapter titles:
1 Talent Development: A Progressive Approach
2 Biomechanical and Anatomical Principles
3 'Heaviness' in Stroke Production
4 Variability an Integral Feature of Stroke Development
5 Service Mechanics
6 Forehand Mechanics (including return of serve)
7 Backhand Mechanics
8 Net Play Mechanics
9 Contemporary Coaching of Technique
Includes a section identifying the joint motions. Very readable. Overall and detailed perspectives. Extensive references for each chapter.
Best tennis book that I've seen, a great reference book!
The science of tennis stroke analysis has changed significantly in the last 20 years especially in the area of biomechanics. One of the leading researchers is Bruce Elliott.
This book takes each stroke and discusses the important characteristics that are present in each. It puts the new research results into readable form. It also has coaching information, for example, on the ages that certain skills can be introduced to serious young players based on the stage of the young player's strength development.
Technique Development in Tennis Stroke Production(2009), B. Elliott, M. Reid and M. Crespo
Suppliers Amazon, Barnes & Noble, etc. all list it as ‘out of stock’. No wonder I had not heard of this 2009 biomechanics book on tennis stroke techniques. I found it for sale at the ITF Store. $20 + $8 shipping. (ITF, get some book retailers!)
International Tennis Federation store -
https://store.itftennis.com/category.asp?cid=12&lid=3&previousscript=/category.asp
Chapter titles:
1 Talent Development: A Progressive Approach
2 Biomechanical and Anatomical Principles
3 'Heaviness' in Stroke Production
4 Variability an Integral Feature of Stroke Development
5 Service Mechanics
6 Forehand Mechanics (including return of serve)
7 Backhand Mechanics
8 Net Play Mechanics
9 Contemporary Coaching of Technique
Includes a section identifying the joint motions. Very readable. Overall and detailed perspectives. Extensive references for each chapter.
Best tennis book that I've seen, a great reference book!
Last edited:
mikeler
Moderator
Agree with some of things you say but need to point out the following
1. Young kids who can't manage all 5 fingers are taught with less; only the ones they can managed so they can learn and ENJOY the piano. Forcing to kid to learn 5 fingers because its good practice isnt going to keep the kid interested. Sister who is an AMUS and myself started at 5; We both learnt 3 to 5 fingers within a few a year.
2. Golf which I learnt during the teens; I was not taught a full swing only a 1/2 and 3/4 swing till I got the foundations. I had to later change my swing to accommodate a fuller stroke.
Points are;
a. Context - age appropriate learning and capacity
b. Relearning - good foundations create better avenues for relearning. Moving from a double backhand to a single handed backhand etc etc
c. Everything sport, any ability, any skill and knowledge is a consistent processing of learning. Saying that you should be taught right way or not be taught at all is elitist. People have to start somewhere, learn from somewhere.
Last edited:
Chas Tennis
G.O.A.T.
Another good book is
Biomechanical Principles of Tennis Technique, (2005), D. Knudson
Several informative discussions and insights such as the wrist angle used in the one hand backhand by pros as opposed to amateurs and the injury implications.
mightyrick
Legend
You don't? Children's education (especially in the United States) teaches using especially flawed techniques when it comes to things like mathematics and reading comprehension. Children's education depends on rote memorization, using fingers to count, sight words, and a bunch of other nonsense. They teach children to memorize theorems without actually having to prove them. Therefore, children don't even understand what they are "learning".
This is HIGHLY flawed and quite honestly, can cause some students great problems once they reach high school and actually have to comprehend things and break things down.
But "teaching" using these methods is important in order to get people the basics. To give them a chance at understanding the subject area.
This really isn't related. A person without "professional" training can be a professional musician. Unlike tennis, where a person without professional training really has no chance of being a professional.
And I certainly don't discount your experience. I myself work for one of the largest and oldest companies in the world (Top 20). A large part of my job is to work with groups of people all over the world and help them transform the way they do business to accommodate changing business environment. You can't do things the way you did 20 years ago and be successful in today's world. It doesn't work.
In my job, I don't have the luxury of teaching "beginners". On a daily basis, I have to deal with people who come with years of ingrained experience, knowledge, and behavior. And many times, much of that behavior has to be entirely undone or changed -- over time -- to accommodate changing times. And believe me, MENTAL HABIT can be every bit as hard to break and physical habit.
For me to be successful, I have had to learn techniques and approaches to teaching these kinds of people. Different ways to nudge people's behavior. Methods to help them start to think differently. Ways to keep them motivated. My job forces me to teach "veterans".
I don't think teaching veterans is impossible. I do think it is a different skill than teaching beginners.
However, to me, the approach largely depends on the goal. If someone wants to be a professional, then by all means... I think advanced skills up front are necessary. However, if someone doesn't have that goal... and they can play happily and healthily using more basic techniques... then I don't understand what is wrong with that.
5263
G.O.A.T.
Good post that highly supports what Dave says.
Only problem I see is that some of the basic skills taught to beginners are not
really basics at all.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
CoachingMastery
Professional
Well, the way I understand the question is, "If I want to learn the skill to the highest degree." If I want to just learn a skill as a cursory level of skill attainment, then sure, I can avoid teaching anyone the associated skills related to mediocre achievement.
The issue of whether we are talking about enjoyment or whether a kid will stay with a lesson/sport isn't part of this question. No one asked about teaching within the context of making something "fun" or full of frills, and hit and giggle mentality.
However, along this point I'll argue again from experience, that kids and adults both enjoy learning skilled patterns. Those who find the effort of learning new grips, swing patterns, and footwork patterns too taxing won't stay with the sport regardless.
I've never cared one bit if a kid doesn't stay in tennis. Why would I expect kids to stay in tennis any more than I would expect kids to stay in gymnastics, karate, music, dance, soccer, etc? Kids drop out of those sports in higher numbers than tennis, (Mainly because there are generally higher numbers involved in those sports to begin with.)
But, what I've found is that when you provide a quality program that cares about the individual, that gives them the opportunity to KNOW they are capable of becoming more skilled, that they are progressing and achieveing more out of themselves, regardless of how demanding or difficult some aspects of that program might involve, more kids stay involved LONGER than programs that are indeed focused on hit and giggle, and fun-over-fundamental programs.
There are plenty of programs that are willing to teach "wrong" methods so they don't challenge the player or possibly create frustration in fear of those students quiting. For 35 years I chose to teach proper patterns associated with high level or advanced foundation principles and in the process have had incredible success both in terms of the numbers of players who stay in my programs as well as the quality of achievement by those--to the point that the vast majority of players reached well beyond the 4.0 and 4.5 levels, hundreds becoming ranked, state champions, regional champions, or even world ranked players.
I won't apologize once for this and the long term response of players thanking me, appreciating the fact that they were NOT taught inferior methods under some assumption that I beleived they were not capable.
And since I also teach golf, I'll comment on what you were taught: teaching a short swing in no way is not part of an advanced foundation. If you were taught a poor grip or stance or swing mechanics within the short swing then I would say you were taught poorly. If you were taught the progression of using the proper stroke mechanics and first started with short swings, (which is exactly what I do in both golf and tennis), then your comment follows my principles exactly.
CoachingMastery
Professional
Exactly... that some believe that basic skills are actually techniques that while provide some level of "success" in terms of hitting a ball high enough and hard enough to get over the net and land in the court, if those 'basic' patterns end up HAVING to change to something that is associated with more advanced play, than this is what I have a problem with.
Teaching progressions that lead to advanced patterns that don't require specific grip changes, stance changes, etc., are part of what I call the Advanced Foundation principles.
There are many ways to teach these principles so that it is fun, productive, and doesn't compromise the foundation itself, which I know you agree with 100%.
Thanks for the comments!
Narcissist
Semi-Pro
Vic Braden's book is very outdated in areas, you don't see anyone on the pro tour using firm straight locked wrists and things.
