The Inner System - Jennifer Capriati

[nabrug]

Within the traditional FH1 I recently discovered that the inner system for the big FH hitters is different than the FH from minor players. It is defenitely the same family of inner system. But there are just different connections. Let's call them FH1-X for the normal connection. FH1-Y for the Del Potro's and Gonzalez's (BTW Roddick too). Most of the men only use FH1-X.

But the news in my opinion is the fact that Jennifer Capriati is the only woman from the women I screened so far who is/was using the same inner system like the big FH men. I also saw clips with BH1-Y! But also clips with BH1-X.

I have never seen her play. Was her FH in comparison like Del Potro, Gonzalez etc.?

[nabrug]

My defenitions.

My defenitions.

---I leave Nadal out of all my statements---

FH1 is used by every player. From the flattest stroke till the roundest ball trajectories. With wiper, without wiper, straight arm, double bend, they all share the same inner system.

When history will be written about this era I think they will acknowledge it all started with FH1-X.

The real big FH hitters of today created an evolution in finding a better way of The Inner System of FH1. I call that FH1-Y.

In pro tennis you can see now:
1. The group with only FH1-X are only hitting with this inner system.
2. A group which can really hit big with FH1-Y but also use FH1-X on other shots (Del Potro f.e.)
3. A group which only use FH1-Y inner system (Capriati f.e.; in all the clips I could find I never saw her use FH1-X, but maybe I did not see enough.)

FH2 is only used by Federer. He uses the same inner system on the BH. Since a week I totally understand and can produce this kind of shots. IT IS WONDERFUL! Such a unique, though simple way of approaching the ball. Amazing. Once you will be able to hit it you know it is so different than FH1 and you will wonder why you never came to this solution yourself.

The naming of FH1 and FH2 is imo actually quite good. But FH1-X,Y are terrible. I could give short descriptions but than I give away to much of The Inner System. I think I worked hard enough to hang on to that secret a little longer.

[airforce1]

glad you cleared this up

[uspta990770809]

Showing my age

In the inimitable words of Artie Johnson: "Very interesting"

[oliensis]

Naburg,
You've finally stated clearly what's at the bottom of why people can't stand you: your explicit wish to "keep your brilliance a secret."

You're either far too precious with yourself, a genius, an utter bullshit-artist, or delusional...or some combination of the above...and I believe I know which...but I'm going to keep it a secret.

[10splayer]

My defenitions.

---I leave Nadal out of all my statements---

FH1 is used by every player. From the flattest stroke till the roundest ball trajectories. With wiper, without wiper, straight arm, double bend, they all share the same inner system.

When history will be written about this era I think they will acknowledge it all started with FH1-X.

The real big FH hitters of today created an evolution in finding a better way of The Inner System of FH1. I call that FH1-Y.

In pro tennis you can see now:
1. The group with only FH1-X are only hitting with this inner system.
2. A group which can really hit big with FH1-Y but also use FH1-X on other shots (Del Potro f.e.)
3. A group which only use FH1-Y inner system (Capriati f.e.; in all the clips I could find I never saw her use FH1-X, but maybe I did not see enough.)

FH2 is only used by Federer. He uses the same inner system on the BH. Since a week I totally understand and can produce this kind of shots. IT IS WONDERFUL! Such a unique, though simple way of approaching the ball. Amazing. Once you will be able to hit it you know it is so different than FH1 and you will wonder why you never came to this solution yourself.

The naming of FH1 and FH2 is imo actually quite good. But FH1-X,Y are terrible. I could give short descriptions but than I give away to much of The Inner System. I think I worked hard enough to hang on to that secret a little longer.

Oh no, your talking that talk again. Now there is a sub-category of FH1 and FH2? When can we expect the square root versions of these variations?

[johnyandell]

Guys, Let's remember the new guidelines now...

Nabrug, my suggestion is that you post some urls of clips from the Stroke Archive as examples of all the variations you are talking about.

I think it's clear from above that there is still wide skepticism in the Forum about your posts--so why not give some eivdence?

John Yandell

[nabrug]

Open skill - from inner system to outside caracteristic.

A racket trajectory in the end fase says a lot about the preparation and/or the main fase of the racket. Like that example an outer caracteristic has an inner source. The outer caracteristic must come from somewhere within the body. That is what I call the essence of the stroke or the inner system. Professional dancers are trained in this way. Probably because they have to perform an innumerous amount of different moves again and again. An education from caracteristics to essence for dancers would be ridiculous. The way from essences to caracteristics is much shorter and far more effective. Since I consider tennis as an open skill sport (GBA) the more I am convinced about this way.

Because I know that every outer movement has an inner source I was looking for years to find the inner sources in tennis. I recently discovered the inner system of nowadays tennis stroke production. Synchronisations or coordination patterns of bodyparts which have set relationships with each other. After years I finally discovered it. I wanted to "understand" the stroke like I "understand" dance.

The inner system of stroke production is the sum of the relationships which parts of the body must have. Actions of parts of the body must be synchronised and/or flow out of each other. In nowadays tennis the inner system for the groundstrokes, smash and service is a push-in-push system. This principle follows the kinetic chain. From the ground up and from the inside to the outside like tennis teachers learn in their education. This stays like it is. Only that does not mean that the inner system follows the kinetic chain step by step. The inner system, derived from the pro’s, showed me that there must occur synchronisations/connections of lower and higher body parts. By “skipping” some bodyparts the kinetic chain gets faster and more efficient because the transfer is directer.

FH1-X or Y share the same roots. They only make different connections. The connection within FH1-Y are directer than the classical other one. FH2 is just a brilliant complete different inner system.

[oliensis]

An education from caracteristics to essence for dancers would be ridiculous.

... After years I finally discovered it. I wanted to "understand" the stroke like I "understand" dance.

Ummm...you mean like in Ballet, which is taught outside/in and has been for generations? It's the same as teaching people religion, or language (let's stay away from God...too controversial and loaded). You start with some simple forms (you teach the letters/building blocks). Then you learn the functions of the forms (sounds of the letters). Then you learn to combine the letters...how they work together (sounds and syllables). Then you learn to read short words...then sentences...and one day, you go, holy crap, I'm reading!! Later on, you learn expository writing, and, once you have some facility, you can become creative!

If you just dive into writing free verse poetry before you understand letters, syllables, words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, rhymes, rhythms, meters, rhyming schemes, assonance, dissonance, consonance, alliteration...etc... ...well, it might be amusing, but it's gonna have a hard time being art!


Back to dance:
My wife is a ballet dancer (was w/ Joffery and Ft. Worth Ballet, also in original cast of Crazy for You on Bway, among other shows). She now teaches ballet, tap, jazz, & modern. My sister was a modern dancer. Now teaches Feldenkrais technique. (Look it up.) I got my black belt in Tae Kwon Do in 1985. Studied Indian and Chinese martial arts as well, for years.

All of us, my wife, my sister, and I, would all tell you that a physical education (or a spiritual one, for that matter) from characteristics to essence (for dancers, athlets, martial artists, priests, rabbis, ministers, shamans and sufis--and humans of all sorts) is not, nor would it be, ridiculous.

The Koreans, Chinese, Indians, and the Europeans (ballet as well as Savate...and even TENNIS players) have been learning in both directions for eons.

The only way I can imagine that you can't understand this point, and that you would be stuck on the inside/out approach, is if you have a learning disability. My sympathies.

[nabrug]

Just one example of proving my point.

http://www.being-in-movement.com/index.htm

Feldenkrais etc..