where'd the bent arm come from anyway?

[uspta990770809]

Tennis and the Tao

Narburg,
Just so you know, nobody here understands what you mean by your terminology: FH1, FH2 etc. Why? Because you have never clearly elucidated it.
Thanks for your sympathy regarding posterior pain. 8-)
As for martial arts: To the untrained or relatively untrained eye/mind, you can see open skill in fighting and closed skill in kata (hyung in Korean). To the very sophisticated eye/mind, both open and closed skills are visible in both free fighting and hyung.

As I've mentioned before, you can learn inside/out or outside/in. Form can follow function or function can follow form (as in classical eastern martial arts). Or, put differently, students of different martial arts are much more different than are masters of different martial arts. Students argue about the best way to the top of the mountain. Masters enjoy the view from the top of the mountain and enjoy their journeys along the various paths to it.

All this and the way of the Tao from "Where's the bent arm come from".

In an earlier post in this thread, someone noted the "double-bent" structure is basically an observation from John Yandell. An observation, not a dictum. But back to the way to the top of the mountain...

[oliensis]

Just a few remarks. I have too little time to write more.

Because the straight arm is only a caracteristic let us use the terms FH1 and FH2 TILL WE FIND A BETTER NAME WHICH WILL COVER THE LOAD. I think most of you are now willing to believe that Verdasco’s FH is not Federer’s or Nadal’s.

I do not buy the story of carrerakent concerning the training session he saw. In this training session Federer is using FH1/FH2 at random. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymUFb...68976&index=20
There is no doubt about that he saw it. But he is making it a little better than it was or don’t know the difference about the two.

All the people who want to bash carrerakent you just have to meisure the actual speed of a FH2 and compare that with FH1. From empiric experience I believe FH2 is a just a little slower. You maintain good power but the advantages lie elsewhere. (Kent I am so arrogant to say that I can hit FH2 and also FH2A (Nadal). So I never disagreed with you for that matter. But I also believe that FH1 is just as valid and important. And because you can see Federer hit 20-60 FH variations I think Federer also believes in FH1 as well.)

GBA is not a method. It is the way of thinking with the ITF and all the national tennis associations for 10 (?) years now. It is about the acceptance of tennis being an open skill instead of being a closed skill. Functional-technical training (new school) versus ideal technical training (old school). Most assumptions made here about GBA were very wrong and said a lot about the posters of these assumptions.

John Yandell’s school? Oh that is why a lot of you are -old school- and only thinking in caracteristics. I start to say that sometimes, sometimes, sometimes you can start with just the caracteristics. Some people are able to fill in the feeling themselves. But in 99% Forms Follow Function to get the feeling in a stroke. Coaches there for should know what the function goals are and only use the caracteristics to mainly give themselves feedback in how to change training programs if they don’t reach the function they want to see.
Two examples: imo the Gavin Rossdale Forehand stays an empty shot. It meets the caracteristics but the important things in a FH I do not see here. The other example is about the serve. The caracteristics John Yandell wants you to believe that will give you the serve (racket drop, cp etc.) are very right. No discussion about that. But he is very wrong in saying that teaching these caracteristics will give you the serve. Imo it is even slowing down the process if you focus on these caracteristics. You should only use these caracteristics to analyse what is going on. (In that way I find it always hilarious when John tells stories about these –stubborn- coaches who are not listening to him.) So like carrerakent I am very greatfull about this website. I learned a lot but I only see it as a means and not a goal in itself. But I am afraid he and his school will never see it that way. (Even a so called modern tennis teacher will be an old fashioned one one time.)

To mr. O (I like that one),
How is your butt? I am a foreigner and you are constantly talking about your pain in your ass. I looked in the dictionary and am very sorry for you.

To you I want to say the famous words of THE BUDDHA:
-There is no way to happiness, happiness is the way.-

And for you as a martial arts person. Open skill you can see in a free fight. Closed skill you can see in a kata. Do you agree?

Narburg,
Just so you know, nobody here understands what you mean by your terminology: FH1, FH2 etc. Why? Because you have never clearly elucidated it.
Thanks for your sympathy regarding posterior pain. 8-)
As for martial arts: To the untrained or relatively untrained eye/mind, you can see open skill in fighting and closed skill in kata (hyung in Korean). To the very sophisticated eye/mind, both open and closed skills are visible in both free fighting and hyung.

As I've mentioned before, you can learn inside/out or outside/in. Form can follow function or function can follow form (as in classical eastern martial arts). Or, put differently, students of different martial arts are much more different than are masters of different martial arts. Students argue about the best way to the top of the mountain. Masters enjoy the view from the top of the mountain and enjoy their journeys along the various paths to it.

[uspta990770809]

Gba

For others like me, not explicitly familiar with GBA, I just searched and came up with

http://www.gbatennis.com/

and
Louis Cayer.
I knew Grant and Glenn and Nestor as they were developing in the 90s, but I never got to know Cayer.

Interesting stuff.

[nabrug]

Let's show carrerakent is wrong.

Just a few remarks. I have too little time to write more.

Because the straight arm is only a caracteristic let us use the terms FH1 and FH2 TILL WE FIND A BETTER NAME WHICH WILL COVER THE LOAD. I think most of you are now willing to believe that Verdasco’s FH is not Federer’s or Nadal’s.

I do not buy the story of carrerakent concerning the training session he saw. In this training session Federer is using FH1/FH2 at random. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymUFb...68976&index=20
There is no doubt about that he saw it. But he is making it a little better than it was or don’t know the difference about the two.

All the people who want to bash carrerakent you just have to meisure the actual speed of a FH2 and compare that with FH1. From empiric experience I believe FH2 is a just a little slower. You maintain good power but the advantages lie elsewhere. (Kent I am so arrogant to say that I can hit FH2 and also FH2A (Nadal). So I never disagreed with you for that matter. But I also believe that FH1 is just as valid and important. And because you can see Federer hit 20-60 FH variations I think Federer also believes in FH1 as well.)

GBA is not a method. It is the way of thinking with the ITF and all the national tennis associations for 10 (?) years now. It is about the acceptance of tennis being an open skill instead of being a closed skill. Functional-technical training (new school) versus ideal technical training (old school). Most assumptions made here about GBA were very wrong and said a lot about the posters of these assumptions.

John Yandell’s school? Oh that is why a lot of you are -old school- and only thinking in caracteristics. I start to say that sometimes, sometimes, sometimes you can start with just the caracteristics. Some people are able to fill in the feeling themselves. But in 99% Forms Follow Function to get the feeling in a stroke. Coaches there for should know what the function goals are and only use the caracteristics to mainly give themselves feedback in how to change training programs if they don’t reach the function they want to see.
Two examples: imo the Gavin Rossdale Forehand stays an empty shot. It meets the caracteristics but the important things in a FH I do not see here. The other example is about the serve. The caracteristics John Yandell wants you to believe that will give you the serve (racket drop, cp etc.) are very right. No discussion about that. But he is very wrong in saying that teaching these caracteristics will give you the serve. Imo it is even slowing down the process if you focus on these caracteristics. You should only use these caracteristics to analyse what is going on. (In that way I find it always hilarious when John tells stories about these –stubborn- coaches who are not listening to him.) So like carrerakent I am very greatfull about this website. I learned a lot but I only see it as a means and not a goal in itself. But I am afraid he and his school will never see it that way. (Even a so called modern tennis teacher will be an old fashioned one one time.)

To mr. O (I like that one),
How is your butt? I am a foreigner and you are constantly talking about your pain in your ass. I looked in the dictionary and am very sorry for you.

To you I want to say the famous words of THE BUDDHA:
-There is no way to happiness, happiness is the way.-

And for you as a martial arts person. Open skill you can see in a free fight. Closed skill you can see in a kata. Do you agree?

[jperedo]

Six months ago my coach taught his top male player and me on the same day to center our weight more between our legs before the forward motion of the racket to the ball and as the shoulders turn and the racket begins coming forward we actually shifted our weight kind to the back hip and kind down into the hip, resulting in a slight tilt backwards with the torso. Result? Immense amounts of more power for both of us! We were sold.


I taught students for years to drive everything forward. Now I now how that teaching caused a break down of the kinetic chain. I talked to my physiologist structural guy about it, (he knows nothing about tennis by the way) and he said, "of course, the shoulder structure will generate much more power to the arm and racket by tilting the torso a little back because that allows a natural axis upon which the ball can be driven forward"...AND, he said, "being perfectly straight upward with your torso, and shoulder directly over your hips with natural axis turn will result in driving the ball into the bottom of the net." Remember, this guys knows nothing about tennis.

CK - I mentioned something similar in a thread on rotation. Is this the leaning back motion you're referring to? Are you taught to do it on all strokes, including neutral stance forehands and short balls?

http://www.tennisplayer.net/bulletin/showpost.php?p=8898&postcount=26

[tennisplayer]

i appreciate your effort, but i wonder if you adjusted your contact point much further from your body to hit "straight arm". if you didn't then that explains your observations and comments.

the extended forehand (as you are calling "straight arm") does not employ either the deltoids or the tripceps. that is where the difference in an "extended forehand" like federer's is different than what is perceived to be a "straight arm" forehand.

Small correction - I said biceps, not triceps.

(deleting rest of post for brevity)

Carrerakent, I can't say I disagree with you since you obviously are on to something, but I cannot fathom exactly what it is from your posts. Perhaps you could post some videos to make things more explicit.

MR. O,

True...

[oliensis]

Carrera...these quotes from you...

I admit that I started out with these threads with a chip on my shoulder. I've apologized for that. ....I have been angry for decades for trusting and paying so many experts that taught me so much stupid stuff...
My arrogance, which i admit is present, is only here because what i am saying has been proven to me.
My wife says, "you are too passionate to a fault." I won't argue with that.

It is possible to be passionate, enthusiastic, assertive AND let go of the chip on your shoulder. You know, all your teachers were doing the best they could. Just as you are doing the best you can...and as are all the other people on these boards (except maybe Narburg, who refuses to articulate his brilliant insights with sufficient clarity to help even one person understand what he's talking about).

It is a mark of maturity to recognize every step on the journey as necessary to arriving at where you are...even if it's not been in a straight line.

The arrogance has nothing to do w/ who taught you what. There are plenty of people who've been taught stuff that is sub-optimal and are not arrogant. You gotta own the arrogance yourself...and then let it go. Nobody here as deceived you. And you would be a lot better received if you remain open to the possibility that yours is not the only way to do things.

Hell, I would give a lot to have Agassi's crummy old inefficient forehand.

Let me share w/ you something. I have studied Chinese, Indian, Korean, and modern martial arts. The teachers of each style believe that theirs is the best, most efficient, "only" way to do things. They're all right...when you're in their school. But none of them is right out on the street.

You're in Yandell's school here. There are a lot of smart, committed, curious people with a lot to contribute and learn from. When you are arrogant, you only diminish yourself...and anyone else's capacity to be stimulated by dialogue with you.

[tennisplayer]

Tennisplayer you said there is less rotation with the straight arm, but if you watch Yandell's videos on the straight arm he emphasizes it requires MORE body rotation which is why it might be too extreme for a regular player.

Hi tsonga, I don't recall any such assertion from John - but I would consider John's statements to be the authoritative ones. I am merely a 4.5 level amateur with a keen interest in the sport and a desire to understand the game even more than I do now.

Jeff, i fail to see how you don't see the sharing dialogue between the few posters and myself. i would happen to guess that those guys are open minded. just a guess.

i pay for this site. therefore i think i have the right to demand quality for my money. hmmm, i guess that's arrogance. forums are for praise, complaint, criticism, asking questions, and sharing. at least that was my web forum understanding.

[jeffreycounts]

Kent,

I read through all of the posts. I agree with John - either propose an article for the site, start your own site, or stop the "I know everything and you don't" mentality. A forum is about bouncing ideas off each other and discussing the content of the site. Differences of opinion are encouraged, but nobody appreciates it when one person starts claiming they have the one golden key to the universe and everyone must listen to them. Your agenda is more appropriate for a blog or your own site - not the forum on someone else's site.

I do like the "hop on a truck" line though. Makes me even more convinced that a straight arm is the key to tennis nirvana.

Jeff

I was wrong - it's not just your arrogance that annoys me. It's actually the weakenss of your arguments. To make your point you resort to these wonderful modes of reason:

1) Hyperbole and personal experience instead of scientific method:
ex) I taught an 80 year old how to hit an amazing straight armed forehand

2) Invalid comparisons
ex) Throwing a ball is just like hitting a forehand (yeah except one doesn't involve a racket).

3) delusion
ex) If only I had taught Tsonga, Murray, Agassi, etc they would have been so much better. If only I taught all aspiring tennis players then all future players would have superior forehands.

ex) All coaches out there just don't know the secret ingrediant I do.

4) misunderstading of terms:
ex) your belief that an elite tennis player ranked top 20 in the world is considered the "majority" of tennis players.

5) pure association to bolster your argument:
ex) I watched Federer play in person therefore I know things you don't

6) lack of logic:
ex) MY techinque is the most natural, yet all the best players in the world don't do it!

Look, the list goes on and on. Let's just say that your thought process and ability to reason and reach conclusions would get you an F in any college classroom. I don't don't your enthusiasm or your conviction. I don't even doubt that Nadal's forehand is an amazing shot. But your ability to reason is really compromised.

Wow, that's pretty good fiction. You'd make a good politician with all of the idea and out of context twisting. Good bye for the rest of my life. Go hop in your truck.

[jeffreycounts]

It has been a head scratcher for me in the past two years why Fed is missing more. His movement does not look as good as in the past. Since the mano thing in early 2008, he just hasn't been the same.

I have noticed his hip alignment to his target is more lazy, aka lazy movement... maybe? Technically that would account, in my opinion, why he's not getting the penetration with his forehand and not hitting his targets as wel as in the past.

Back to your question...my initial response is so obvious to what I think is better, but i want to take a step back and try to break apart my answer.

One thing I haven't seen on this site, although I haven't been reading the threads for very long, is the ability of power/energy transfer by actually NOT going "through" the ball as we traditionally think.

Six months ago my coach taught his top male player and me on the same day to center our weight more between our legs before the forward motion of the racket to the ball and as the shoulders turn and the racket begins coming forward we actually shifted our weight kind to the back hip and kind down into the hip, resulting in a slight tilt backwards with the torso. Result? Immense amounts of more power for both of us! We were sold.

Now, Jeffrey Counts, chime in and tell me how my baseball comparison is stupid. For maximum drive, batters assume pretty much the same body posture as I tried to describe above. Some of you physio/physics guys can jump in and explain the opposing forces being generated.

I taught students for years to drive everything forward. Now I now how that teaching caused a break down of the kinetic chain. I talked to my physiologist structural guy about it, (he knows nothing about tennis by the way) and he said, "of course, the shoulder structure will generate much more power to the arm and racket by tilting the torso a little back because that allows a natural axis upon which the ball can be driven forward"...AND, he said, "being perfectly straight upward with your torso, and shoulder directly over your hips with natural axis turn will result in driving the ball into the bottom of the net." Remember, this guys knows nothing about tennis.

I cannot say if Fed is falling away a little on purpose. I think he is. I think he is feeling something we don't understand. Of course as you say, how often can one set up exactly perfectly to a pro hit ball. But I just went back and watched the older videos and the 2009 ones. Take out the one's that are a little off balance and I do like his 2009 shots where he falls out as you say. his fall out or away to me is not fall out or away, but instead his body is doing what the follow through of the racket does...following the natural path around the axis.

Back to my answer: I think solution #2 is way worse. Solution #1 may be more beneficial than we think. But, I choose #1 because adjustment away maintains integrity of the entire structure and swing path. Solution #2 causes a kinetic memory (if i may steal that from someone) and trust in your kinetic memory hiccup.

I would never advocate that someone use solution #2 because solution #1 will make the future set ups to the ball more correct. Solution #2 is what I believe has caused all of the majority of great players to not be able to compare in part towhat Roger Federer accomplishes with that racket and a tennis ball.

Door #1 please...

I was wrong - it's not just your arrogance that annoys me. It's actually the weakenss of your arguments. To make your point you resort to these wonderful modes of reason:

1) Hyperbole and personal experience instead of scientific method:
ex) I taught an 80 year old how to hit an amazing straight armed forehand

2) Invalid comparisons
ex) Throwing a ball is just like hitting a forehand (yeah except one doesn't involve a racket).

3) delusion
ex) If only I had taught Tsonga, Murray, Agassi, etc they would have been so much better. If only I taught all aspiring tennis players then all future players would have superior forehands.

ex) All coaches out there just don't know the secret ingrediant I do.

4) misunderstading of terms:
ex) your belief that an elite tennis player ranked top 20 in the world is considered the "majority" of tennis players.

5) pure association to bolster your argument:
ex) I watched Federer play in person therefore I know things you don't

6) lack of logic:
ex) MY techinque is the most natural, yet all the best players in the world don't do it!

Look, the list goes on and on. Let's just say that your thought process and ability to reason and reach conclusions would get you an F in any college classroom. I don't don't your enthusiasm or your conviction. I don't even doubt that Nadal's forehand is an amazing shot. But your ability to reason and to draw helpful, meaningful conclusions is really compromised.

I admit that I started out with these threads with a chip on my shoulder. I've apologized for that. I have been angry for decades for trusting and paying so many experts that taught me so much stupid stuff...most of which I think John has dismantled himself on this site. I started out my subscription three years ago with these words to John:

John,

I've been studying your website for several days now and I have to confess that you are brilliant! Your use of high speed video for analysis is a great idea, but that's not what I'm talking about. Your insight into differentiating between key elements of a tennis stroke and the non-key elements that are merely a result of key elements lends so much insight into truly understanding the principles of tennis versus the practices that so many players and teaching pros mistakenly focus upon.

My game has improved tremendously in the past week alone simply by becoming more aware of the elements you emphasize on your website.

Thank you for creating the best learning tool I have ever witnessed. I tell every tennis player that I know about your website.Kent

Since that time I have learned so many things that I have faith are beyond what I see and read here. I'm just trying to share it and argue so that I feel good about myself.

I have repeatedly said that all of those pros could be better with better set up to the ball and an elongated stroke. In some threads I tried to emphasize that duplication aka consistency is a key factor here because less brute force is required for the same power and spin.

My arrogance, which i admit is present, is only here because what i am saying has been proven to me. I went from a one bend forehand to one that give me more power, more spin, and better placement over and over in ONE day with my coach. I am so excited for the world to experience the amazement and joy that I felt.

My wife says, "you are too passionate to a fault." I won't argue with that.

BTW, I'm not the genius, my coach is. I only talk what he has taught me and then I taught my students and they all value from it.
He may soon prove to be the first person able to truly teach what Federer does. No one else that I've heard or read is even close to doing that. We just have to find the right method to get it out there.

I think this site and people's response have been a litmus test for me to see how much rejection there is...there's about the amount I suspected.

Let's try to think back when Fed starting wowing everyone. It was in how effortless he created a shot so heavy that noone had seen before and he did it repeatedly. That's all I'm trying to attain...in doing that myself as much as possible and teaching people how to do it.

Mr. O's question...

It has been a head scratcher for me in the past two years why Fed is missing more. His movement does not look as good as in the past. Since the mano thing in early 2008, he just hasn't been the same.

I have noticed his hip alignment to his target is more lazy, aka lazy movement... maybe? Technically that would account, in my opinion, why he's not getting the penetration with his forehand and not hitting his targets as wel as in the past.

Back to your question...my initial response is so obvious to what I think is better, but i want to take a step back and try to break apart my answer.

One thing I haven't seen on this site, although I haven't been reading the threads for very long, is the ability of power/energy transfer by actually NOT going "through" the ball as we traditionally think.

Six months ago my coach taught his top male player and me on the same day to center our weight more between our legs before the forward motion of the racket to the ball and as the shoulders turn and the racket begins coming forward we actually shifted our weight kind to the back hip and kind down into the hip, resulting in a slight tilt backwards with the torso. Result? Immense amounts of more power for both of us! We were sold.

Now, Jeffrey Counts, chime in and tell me how my baseball comparison is stupid. For maximum drive, batters assume pretty much the same body posture as I tried to describe above. Some of you physio/physics guys can jump in and explain the opposing forces being generated.

I taught students for years to drive everything forward. Now I now how that teaching caused a break down of the kinetic chain. I talked to my physiologist structural guy about it, (he knows nothing about tennis by the way) and he said, "of course, the shoulder structure will generate much more power to the arm and racket by tilting the torso a little back because that allows a natural axis upon which the ball can be driven forward"...AND, he said, "being perfectly straight upward with your torso, and shoulder directly over your hips with natural axis turn will result in driving the ball into the bottom of the net." Remember, this guys knows nothing about tennis.

I cannot say if Fed is falling away a little on purpose. I think he is. I think he is feeling something we don't understand. Of course as you say, how often can one set up exactly perfectly to a pro hit ball. But I just went back and watched the older videos and the 2009 ones. Take out the one's that are a little off balance and I do like his 2009 shots where he falls out as you say. his fall out or away to me is not fall out or away, but instead his body is doing what the follow through of the racket does...following the natural path around the axis.

Back to my answer: I think solution #2 is way worse. Solution #1 may be more beneficial than we think. But, I choose #1 because adjustment away maintains integrity of the entire structure and swing path. Solution #2 causes a kinetic memory (if i may steal that from someone) and trust in your kinetic memory hiccup.

I would never advocate that someone use solution #2 because solution #1 will make the future set ups to the ball more correct. Solution #2 is what I believe has caused all of the majority of great players to not be able to compare in part towhat Roger Federer accomplishes with that racket and a tennis ball.

Door #1 please...