Lansdorp in action

[pjnewbury]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AEvpQyXVWs

[uspta146749877]

Any comments?

Any comments about a choice of forehand taught?

[sejsel]

Any comments about a choice of forehand taught?

Just to be sure, could You be more specific? What part of forehand?

[uspta146749877]

Follow through

Just to be sure, could You be more specific? What part of forehand?

Let us talk about follow through,please
If you prefer an E-mail I am at juliantennis@comcast.net
Thank you

I can phrase a question differently.
Say

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_woman/maria_sharapova/ms_forehand/ms_fh_wide/ms_fh_wide.html?MSFHWideRear1.mov

describes a forehand taught by Lansdorp.
Which parts of a follow through are good/OK/efficient/correct biomechanically?

[sejsel]

Let us talk about follow through,please
If you prefer an E-mail I am at juliantennis@comcast.net
Thank you

I can phrase a question differently.
Say

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_woman/maria_sharapova/ms_forehand/ms_fh_wide/ms_fh_wide.html?MSFHWideRear1.mov

describes a forehand taught by Lansdorp.
Which parts of a follow through are good/OK/efficient/correct biomechanically?

I suspected this...

I hope You are familiar with the article on tennisplayer.net from Robert himself on different types of followthrough and some of the stuff in the article on how he evolved as a coach over the years watching pro tennis and incorporating some of the things he observed in his work.

Here's the link:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/famouscoach/robert_lansdorp/lansdorp_three_forhand_finishes/lansdorp_three_forhand_finishes.html

The stuff written in the article might save us some time; however if there still are some questionmarks regarding any details, then we can continue.

Regarding the followthrough on the link with Sharapova, do notice one important detail: the extension part of the stroke/followthrough (prior to low-wrap up finish) is abbreviated alltogether (Sharapova in that particular situation on court); contrary to what Robert is doing with the kid at the practice session (there he still insists on the stroke being a full drive with full extension, prior to this particular finish he is developing with the kid in this phase of kid's development).

Remember, see always the stroke as a whole, and keep in mind that much of what is done in technical terms in stroke production in dictated by situation/intention - on the court/with the particular shot.

Practice feeds kinesthetic sense, and gives the tools necessary for execution.

Match play / situation in the match dictated what Maria did, probably going for shorter angled shot.

What we see in pro tennis today somewhat defeats the construction of your last question in the post - all of the followthroughs in pro tennis today are bound to be ok, biomechanically correct (more or less) and do serve a certain purpose at a given time, in "dry" technical terms.

Effectiveness is a tough issue - what kind of forehand is most effective (profficient) for what purpose?

Do you want to emulate, say, Jim Couriers forehand if time machine brought you back to '94, when you want to get to the net behind forehand, or do you want to have Pete Sampras kind of followtrough (courtesy Vic Braden, Tennis Magazine 'bout '94)?

What has 3D biomechanicall study of these two players done at that time shown - in comparison, and what conclusion can be drawn - even regarding Roberts work?

Many questionmarks, but exploring the answers gives far, far more than just simply serving answers...

[uspta146749877]

Speed of a followthrough

Hi,
thank you for your reply.
Couple simple thoughts below.You mentioned a 3D analysis in your post above.
3 D analysis has one major deficiency.
It needs a number/metrics to evaluate against.
Example being is a speed of a racket when analysing seve.
It is much harder in the case of a forehand followthrough.

[sejsel]

Hi,
thank you for your reply.
Couple simple thoughts below.You mentioned a 3D analysis in your post above.
3 D analysis has one major deficiency.
It needs a number/metrics to evaluate against.
Example being is a speed of a racket when analysing seve.
It is much harder in the case of a forehand followthrough.

Thanks for the reply;
That particular 3D analysis was coupled with something else given in numerical terms: the position of both player in question after the shot in regard to the net (distance after the shot to the net, provided that the start position for the forehand was identical). Often overlooked issue.
Also, it has been said that the difference in the distance to the net can prove to be very costly if there is any intention whatsoever to come to the net behind the forehand, particularly on clay (!).

Racquet speed is a tricky issue, see latest article on the subject (about the issue with racquet head speed) on serve from John Yandell.

It is also unclear to me how do you refer to "speed of a racket" in forehand followthrough - how is this quantified in terms of math/physics, and what significance this speed has in followthrough phase.

Bear in mind, these issues might be trickier than it appears at first.

Terminology of commentators of tennis matches on tv can be an endless source of frustration for anyone seriously involved in tennis teaching and research, and I wouldn't like to conduct any sort of debate in anything near such terms.

I do however, like and appreciate the interest in this subject, it feels really good to see that people think about this particular issue, and not just take things for granted.
I feel that I have a lot to learn, somehow far more interesting subject would be methodics.

There is a vast amount of material even at forum on forehand and the issue or racket head/racket speed.

[uspta146749877]

I hate to say ...

I hate to say that but I used to have a Ph.D (in physics)

[sejsel]

I hate to say that but I used to have a Ph.D (in physics)

Who knows, I do not remember all details from the discussion on this issue (mass/weight of the racquet , racquet/racquet head speed, and contribution of these factors to the speed of the ball of the racquet face), but You might have been one of the people who posted equations in that debate?

Nevertheless; I would have to find that thread again and read again some of the stuff there. It was really interesting and fascinating read

I hope that John Yandell or Bruce Elliot (biomechanics) would find it interesting to jump to the party and point to some links with the stuff they've written, if not more.

Someone with PH.D in physics should certainly be well "equipped" to understand peculiarities of forehand, I have outmost respect for that title.
I'm just trying to "provoque" more on the issue with my style of writing.

I have some work to do until I get my degree. I'm just trying to "provoque" more on the issue with my style of writing.

[uspta146749877]

What is a role of folow through?

Probably there are more students of a subject to contribute.
One of them is BG.
There is a belief that a trajectory of a ball is established at a moment
of a contact.It is more or less governed by equations of motions here
Therefore a question is:
what is a purpose of a follow through?

One of possible answers is :
1.to relax a muscles/tendon system
AFTER a ball is gone
2.to get ready for a next shot/shots
in terms of a court position ( as you mentioned)
or a racket vs a body position

I am NOT sure whether an article by RL referenced by you addresses
a question above to a full depth.

The first answer DOES NOT relate well to what is described by you
as a 3D analysis.
It is NOT very obvious how to get JY involved in a current current convesation.

[sejsel]

Probably there are more students of a subject to contribute.
One of them is BG.
There is a belief that a trajectory of a ball is established at a moment
of a contact.It is more or less governed by equations of motions here
Therefore a question is:
what is a purpose of a follow through?

One of possible answers is :
1.to relax a muscles/tendon system
AFTER a ball is gone
2.to get ready for a next shot/shots
in terms of a court position ( as you mentioned)
or a racket vs a body position

I am NOT sure whether an article by RL referenced by you addresses
a question above to a full depth.

The article mentioning 3D analysis conducted is a different article, written by Vic Braden in Tennis Magazine, more than 15 years ago, not RL-s article I mentioned as well in slightly different context, I do apologize if I was unclear on this. And both do address many questions to some nice depth.

The first answer DOES NOT relate well to what is described by you
as a 3D analysis.

First of all, what did I describe as a 3D analysis, or what was the point of mentioning it in this context?

It was the debate on what type of forehand could easier to follow, and "better" as a model for all-court type of game, as well as biomechanically more efficient, raging at the time. Among other things, but primarily these issues.

I mentioned only a hint to the conclusion suggested by Vic Braden, and a hint of my own on who ends up closer to the net.

Second, I firmly do not agree with your conclusion on muscular relaxation, no, it doesn't have to be tied to the certain type of followthrough, I see the reasons behind your assumption on the issue, and again, even reality proves it wrong.

Points 1 and 2 made by You don't actually have to cancell each other out (I do not imply You're saying this, I'm kind of "on my own" now), some (or many) of the pros are doing ok/well combining these points.
I'm not sure though how much awareness or importance pros have or give on/to this issue

It is NOT very obvious how to get JY involved in a current current convesation.

I was referring to the work of both persons in regard to this debate, whether anyone is interested in being involved in debate is really at their own discretion.
I just said I hoped they would find it interesting, I never claimed it was obvious that they could or should.

[sejsel]

Probably there are more students of a subject to contribute.
One of them is BG.
There is a belief that a trajectory of a ball is established at a moment
of a contact.It is more or less governed by equations of motions here
Therefore a question is:
what is a purpose of a follow through?

One of possible answers is :
1.to relax a muscles/tendon system
AFTER a ball is gone
2.to get ready for a next shot/shots
in terms of a court position ( as you mentioned)
or a racket vs a body position

The one of the purposes of the followthrough - important to mention - is that is has something to do with "guiding" the ball direction- and depth-wise.
Some pros (Brenda Schultz at the time, for ex.) implied this, when explaining on court (this from one tennis website).

[uspta146749877]

Brenda Schultz vs Julian-Julian lost 0-6 0-6 0-6

A standard way of reasoning AGAINST Brenda Schultz is as follows:
1.A follow through is DEFINED as a part of movement AFTER a
contact

2.A ball is gone after a contact-bye bye ball

ergo we cannot guide a ball after a contact
UNLESS we rephrase her statement a bit


julian


PS On a bit more serious note:
if you say that initial conditions ARE defined at THE MOMENT of a contact THEN
equations of motions plus initial conditions AT A CONTACT describe uniquely what will happen to a ball AFTER a contact
The situation is a bit more complex because a contact time is NOT
exactly ZERO miliiseconds

[uspta146749877]

Vic Braden

Is Vic Braden article one of the links quoted below

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&client=hp&q=%22Vic+Braden%22%2B%22forehand%22%2B%223D%22%2B%22tennis+magazine%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=e6a647c08c5cebc9

I think an answer is : NO

[uspta146749877]

Abbreviation

As You probably guessed BG meant to refer to Brian Gordon