where'd the bent arm come from anyway?

[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

[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?

[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.

[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]

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...

[johnyandell]

Regarding feeling and strokes.

I believe kinesthetics and visuals are two halves of the same whole. The image or the position leads to the feeling. I've said that repeatedly and written it in my book.

Still waiting to see the two forehands. Seriously why don't you video yourself and send them in.

[nabrug]

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.

FH1 is where you talk about and FH2 is were carrerakent talks about. I do NOT understand you (plural) when you talk about straight arms because both techniques use them. So the distinction does not lie there. I just reread Jeff Counts articles concerning this. Jeff you placed so many question marks. You know that it is much more plausible that there are two techniques than Federer is using a variation of FH1.

You can bend it the way you pleases it to make your story complete. Be my guest. You say that you are the master. But you and I know that what I stated is in simple words the difference about fight and kata. And that somebody can punch you in the face with a -wrong- technique (like you mentioned).

And that inside out learning etc. being equal is nonsense concerning open skill learning. And I very doubt it is the same for martial arts. But I am not going to discuss that with somebody who showed no whatsoever knowledge about GBA.

[carrerakent]

Nabrug,

don't know where you got the federer work out session, but that's not what i was referring to.

i want to reply to some of your things later when i have time. i agree with the idea that Fed uses some of FH1 and FH2. i didn't mean to imply that he only uses FH2, but I do believe he intends to naturally because as i've said, as a three year old he hit the FH2 that i do not think any other humans besides my coach actually hit so freely. There are surely those out there, I just haven't seen them.

later...

[nabrug]

Regarding feeling and strokes.

I believe kinesthetics and visuals are two halves of the same whole. The image or the position leads to the feeling. I've said that repeatedly and written it in my book.

Still waiting to see the two forehands. Seriously why don't you video yourself and send them in.

Do you really think so? I do not believe that. By the way if it is in a book it is not necessarily the truth. Is there also in the book that on every incoming ball and to every game situation you use the same stroke? If so than get rid of the book. There is not one ideal technique. Goodbye old school.

Mr. O. can show you the difference between an empty punch and one with his body behind it. You will not see the difference, but you will defenitely feel it. And so why are you and others here not able to do what Federer is doing. The caracteristics are on your website. My conclusions are only based on what I saw on your website. So we started from the same position. But it did not give me the stroke either. I had to look for what I call the essence(s) of the stroke. So what you say about kinesthetics and visuals is in that aspect total nonsense.

Look at Jeff Counts third article comparison Philipousis vs. Federer. FH1 versus FH2 with a straight arm. Voila the two forehands.

After what Jeff Counts, CarreraKent and others tell you and what you have put on your website yourself isn't it much more plausible that there are two techniques and that Federer mixes them up? Come on be a man and tell me that it is really much more plausible. I will be a man than as well and only tell it half of the world that you were wrong. Just kidding. By doing so we can at least silence that arrogant and abrasive mr. know all carrerakent.

[nabrug]

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.

GBA in 10 sentences. I was more thinking about:

http://acepreview.debo.webfactional.com/media/article_pdfs/Moving_to_a_Game-based_approach_.pdf

http://www.acecoach.com/

[BrianGordon]

Carrerakent-

I agree that just because the pros do it does not necessarily make it right – clearly the evolution of technique in all sports is evidence of that - I, like you, like to think outside of the box – further, I appreciate innovative thinking and actually have quantitative evidence that there are clear benefits of “extending” the hitting arm into a straighter configuration for those that are capable of pulling it off.

I admit I’m a bit skeptical of your method because your rationale shares little in common with my data and the mechanical concepts you have put forth are foreign to my understanding. What you seem to be describing is a generalized theory (more physics than biomechanics) that is among the oldest I can recall in my training – no one I know would consider applying it to something as complex as a forehand – but I’m more than open to hearing a concise and complete description.

Therefore I have a suggestion - because you have mentioned many times that your method is validated in terms of the science of biomechanics, why don’t you send me your research data that provides the proof you mentioned and I will review it (I am experienced in reviewing biomechanical research). I will, in turn, provide an unbiased report to the readers – this should put to rest the skepticism I’ve read in this thread.

[nabrug]

Carrerakent-

I agree that just because the pros do it does not necessarily make it right – clearly the evolution of technique in all sports is evidence of that - I, like you, like to think outside of the box – further, I appreciate innovative thinking and actually have quantitative evidence that there are clear benefits of “extending” the hitting arm into a straighter configuration for those that are capable of pulling it off.

I admit I’m a bit skeptical of your method because your rationale shares little in common with my data and the mechanical concepts you have put forth are foreign to my understanding. What you seem to be describing is a generalized theory (more physics than biomechanics) that is among the oldest I can recall in my training – no one I know would consider applying it to something as complex as a forehand – but I’m more than open to hearing a concise and complete description.

Therefore I have a suggestion - because you have mentioned many times that your method is validated in terms of the science of biomechanics, why don’t you send me your research data that provides the proof you mentioned and I will review it (I am experienced in reviewing biomechanical research). I will, in turn, provide an unbiased report to the readers – this should put to rest the skepticism I’ve read in this thread.

Nice try, but it is too obvious. The cynism I mean, or was it sarcasm? Oh I always mix them up.

Can't you just measure the ball speed of the different strokes? Than we can proove he is wrong. This ugly and mean man. As a biomechanist do you know if ego's can be hurt by somebody who really believes in what he is saying. I think that can only happen if you have doubts about your own work. Why bother it says sg. about him not about you.

Sorry that I react but I see a returning form of ego's clashing and not about the actual issue. Is there a difference in ball speed?

[carrerakent]

Carrerakent-

I agree that just because the pros do it does not necessarily make it right – clearly the evolution of technique in all sports is evidence of that - I, like you, like to think outside of the box – further, I appreciate innovative thinking and actually have quantitative evidence that there are clear benefits of “extending” the hitting arm into a straighter configuration for those that are capable of pulling it off.

I admit I’m a bit skeptical of your method because your rationale shares little in common with my data and the mechanical concepts you have put forth are foreign to my understanding. What you seem to be describing is a generalized theory (more physics than biomechanics) that is among the oldest I can recall in my training – no one I know would consider applying it to something as complex as a forehand – but I’m more than open to hearing a concise and complete description.

Therefore I have a suggestion - because you have mentioned many times that your method is validated in terms of the science of biomechanics, why don’t you send me your research data that provides the proof you mentioned and I will review it (I am experienced in reviewing biomechanical research). I will, in turn, provide an unbiased report to the readers – this should put to rest the skepticism I’ve read in this thread.

Mr. Gordon, i really did have to chuckle at your request. The best biomechanical validation i can provide should also be to other's satisfaction that want video. The validation and video is already here. All of those videos of Federer. I am not sure how people on here get/got the idea that I'm describing something other than what he does. I only use his example at about every other paragraph.

After some thought I still scratch my head. If what I'm saying is not proven in every single sport where an object is hit or thrown, then how would any other evidence shed light for you guys? I am truly puzzled. I cannot help but answer you all with questions. And please Mr. Gordon, please do answer these for me so that I know whether or not I have a very messed up perception of biomechanics and muscle physiology...

why do nba three point shooters not shoot with a bent arm?
why do pro QBs go from a bent arm to a straight one?
why are golf clubs flexible?
why don't shot putters keep the ball tucked in to release?
the science is in your own answers to these questions. right?

do these questions not help shed some light on the kinetic chain that I keep talking about? do you really need some kind of scientific mumbo jumbo that cannot account for all of the mechanics Federer is actually pulling off. I doubt any physiologist, kinesiologist, or other can come close to describing all of those mechanisms and then come even close to describing the "feel" aspects of his stroke.

If Roger Federer did not exist, the skeptics on this site would tell me there is no evidence that an extended forehand like his is even remotely feasible. But, thank goodness he came along so that we can see things more out of the box.

I am just trying to describe what I have experienced that more closely resembles what Federer is doing and I am discounting some of the analysis of things that are no more than effects of the true causes.

Respectfully.

[johnyandell]

Nabrug,

You need to moderate your tone, now and in the future. I'm tired of the continuous personal attacks not only on myself. If you can't then you are going to be out. Stick to the issues. Period.

John Yandell

[johnyandell]

Carerra,

That goes for you too. I am posting some new forum rules. Read them and observe.

John Yandell