The Traditional Forehand: A Living Model

[johnyandell]

Let's hear your thoughts on Scott Murphy's article "The Traditional Forehand: A Living Model".

[sfrazeur]

Reading this there were 3 solid fundamentals that came to mind that exist between very good and beyond "Modern" type players and "Classic" players: Early preparation, positioning and extension.

[bottle]

What a great article! I really appreciate Murphy's own narrative, which makes the ideas compelling and real. And the "telescoped" portrait of Karsten Popp within this narrative.

I guess the jury will always be out on the technical questions raised here. My objection to modern instruction but not to modern tennis is the imposition of anything on anybody.

Learning persons should, fairly early on, be encouraged to explore and decide, I think, or keep options open depending on how many they can realistically prevent from disrepair?

[tennislearningforlife]

Awesome Article

It is a awesome article and this is what is exactly I am talking about

I believe not only Players but i would say more to coaches get into this "Modern Game Trap" To be honest, I did get a lot of tips from modern games. But I have a lot of time to play and also i would say i am more athletic compare to majority of my students. Just like Mr. Welby said make sure learn how to walk before you run. And that's exactly right.. I tell my students " You can build second floor without first floor" Well, someone of the athletic people already has 1 st and 2 nd floor .. maybe they played other sports before and etc....

Well, a lot of coaches .. well maybe just me thought "why do we have to teach flat stroke or close stance to students ?? they will never hit like that in the future anyway" but this is completely wrong concept. Actually Pete Sampras could have hit like Federer if he wanted or that swing was dominated his time.

Pete sampras and Federer both have great length on swing. Their grip isn't really huge different. Just path of the swing is different.

However, if you can learn hit through the ball then rest is pretty easy....
All you got to do is change the path of the swing to more wiper shape and you will generate more spin. Acutally Sampras do have wiper swing, just not as visible as Nadal or Djorkovic.


Anyhow, this is great article. And I believe great to all the coaches.

Well, the reason why I do put more respect to "traditional teaching" is that from there you can move to "modern swing" easy.
I believe that all the coaches' desire to make student better and that's my first priority. Therefore, if I figure out traditonal lesson will make students better then I will do it right away.

Thank you

[10splayer]

I would venture to say that it is not the traditional emphasis that still makes Karsten a great club player, but rather that he has been a border line world class player in the past....Would he be better if he had modern componants to his game?

[gsheiner]

I think that the optimal shot ( style) sometimes depends on intention. For example, I have been having good success recently attacking second serves to my forehand after having studied Sampras's technique. Both the simple swing path without any arm rotation and the footwork. I find it more effective for me than loading up like aggassi and trying to rip a winner.

Sampras second serve return

Off the ground, I think there are times when the modern ball may be more advantageous, especially on slow courts, especially from deep in the court. Particularly if you find that you can break someone down with heavy topspin. But, it seems that the closer one is to the net, the more advantageous the classical style.

Of course, this is the greatness of Federer. He has the unique ability to play whichever style he wants, especially off the forehand side.

[tennislearningforlife]

Your athletic ability has to be there

I believe that in order to get "modern swing" at first you have to be ready physically. If you are not strong or not really athletic then it is better stay away from modern swing. It can just kill students' progressive big time.

Just like Gymnastic, if you are not ready for this move and you try to do it then you will hurt yourself.

I always thought traditional coaching and style is very effective ones. But i just never thought traditional swing will lead to modern swing.

I would say most important for tennis learning is having great follow through. I mean stance and take back and foot work is important but if you don't have racket go out then our tennis is pretty much screwed. I mean if you watch any players i mean today or classic players. They all have great length on the swing and which is key for this game.


and back to subject.. it is so much easier for starter players ( 100%) to start with classical style instead of modern swing. Hitting relatively flatter swing is easier for them to understand follow through. From here I can introduce mild wind shield wiper swing for more spin.. Hit top spin with hitting through the ball.. From here students can jump off the page little bit.. you can add bit of wrist here and there without getting damage done...


"Modern Swing" is actually a lot more complicated than what we think and it is extremely challenging for people to teach.

[johnyandell]

SF,

You nailed it in a sentence. I was particularly struck with Karsten's backswing which basically is in the Brian Gordon position. They didn't have 3D in those days--but that goes to show what good players naturally feel...

And yes! The set up and the extension. As a veteran of the TW wars you may agree that the articial dichotomy between classic and modern is that--artificial. It's really more of a continuum.

It would be easy for Karsten to add more wiper and more body rotation and that would be seemless with his rock solid "classic" foundation.

[klacr]

tennis players and World class Chefs -Masters of the Basics

I really enjoyed reading this article.

I think its great there is a tennis player like Karsten, I know there are many more like him. This article is a great provider of endless discussion and I applaud Scott Murphy for writing this great piece.

People talk about modern or traditional, open stance or closed or neutral or whatever. As magnificent as Federer and Djokovic and Nadal and Murray are, I'm sure the reason they are capable of these techniques is because they learned and mastered the basics. The advanced stuff is built on the foundation of the basics. If you notice, Karsten has the great preparation, an adequate and consistent swing path, the feel of the contact point, an extension he is comfortable with. So do all the top players. I'm sure if you ask Roger, Novak, Rafa and Andy to hit a few balls with a conservative grip and a neutral stance they could do it with a rather respectable display. If Karsten was taught a "modern" game, how would it benefit him? He already hits the ball consistently, with pace, depth and accuracy. If he was to be taught the "modern" way, would it dramatically effect his entire game?

A tennis player is only capable of amazing consistency, spins, and power when he understands all the points that it takes to get there. Do they know or will they be able to tell exactly how they hit? probably not. But they do have a physical and nuerological understanding of how to hit a tennis ball, the athletic foundation, and the skills to adapt in a given situation. This is through years of hard work, training and walking before they can run. They are all talented, which helps, but what is talent without the effort and skills to let that talent shine?

I'm a big food guy so I'll put it this way, what tastes better, modern/contemporary cuisine or rustic/peasent dishes? Can't they both be delicious? Of course they can. A dinner at a 5-star "tweezer food" type of place is comparable to a simple lunch in the hills of a Tuscan village with lots of olive oil and shards of bread. A chef cannot create these foams and gels and spherical olives and other foods that are out of this world before they understand the processes it takes to get to that point. I know John Yandell is based in Northern California so I'll use this as an example...Nothern California, especially Napa Valley has some really extraordinary restaurants. One of them is in Yountville, CA called The French Laundry. the Chef is Thomas Keller. Many people consider this to be one of the finest restaurants in the world. Before Thomas Keller was able to create his "Oysters and Pearls" dish ( A sabayon of pearl tapioca w/ fresh oysters and sturgeon caviar) he had to spend alot of time understanding the subtleties of the components, flavor profiles and it's reaction to other components. basic stuff but absolutely neccessary in order to create successful and composed dishes. He didn't start out making "Oysters and Pearls", instead, as a young cook, he started chopping up alot of celery, alot of onions, alot of carrots to make mirepoix. And he did this over and over and over again. He has executed the basics so much that his understanding and foundation is so secure and fastened, he is able to change, manipulate, and coax flavors out of ordinary and turn into extraordinary.

If you don't know the best way to cook a steak medium rare, medium, well done and Pittsburgh Style, and you do not know the chemical reactions that occur when you fry, mash or steam potatoes then how can you possibly open up a successful award winning steakhouse. Fact is, you can't. Mastering the rudimentary skills in order to create flexiblility, diversity and your own "style" requires a foundation of basic priniciples.

For everyone, mastering the basics should be required, for the select few, taking those basics to new heights and levels unseen is a different ball game but a glorious and fascinating one to watch. For Karsten, his "traditional" forehand is great. Is it stylish, dynamic, one of a kind, not really. But his understanding, comfort and simplicity with this shot allows him to be great at it.

Hope this post made some sense and had flow. Not suspensed and disjointed like an early Police album because Gordon Sumner couldn't sing and play guitar at the same time. Took me the greater part of my monday to compose it as I'm in between teaching and administrative responsibilities.

if you made it through, thanks for reading.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[tennis_chiro]

Light, but satisfying

I really enjoyed reading this article.

I think its great there is a tennis player like Karsten, I know there are many more like him. This article is a great provider of endless discussion and I applaud Scott Murphy for writing this great piece.

People talk about modern or traditional, open stance or closed or neutral or whatever. As magnificent as Federer and Djokovic and Nadal and Murray are, I'm sure the reason they are capable of these techniques is because they learned and mastered the basics. The advanced stuff is built on the foundation of the basics. If you notice, Karsten has the great preparation, an adequate and consistent swing path, the feel of the contact point, an extension he is comfortable with. So do all the top players. I'm sure if you ask Roger, Novak, Rafa and Andy to hit a few balls with a conservative grip and a neutral stance they could do it with a rather respectable display. If Karsten was taught a "modern" game, how would it benefit him? He already hits the ball consistently, with pace, depth and accuracy. If he was to be taught the "modern" way, would it dramatically effect his entire game?

A tennis player is only capable of amazing consistency, spins, and power when he understands all the points that it takes to get there. Do they know or will they be able to tell exactly how they hit? probably not. But they do have a physical and nuerological understanding of how to hit a tennis ball, the athletic foundation, and the skills to adapt in a given situation. This is through years of hard work, training and walking before they can run. They are all talented, which helps, but what is talent without the effort and skills to let that talent shine?

I'm a big food guy so I'll put it this way, what tastes better, modern/contemporary cuisine or rustic/peasent dishes? Can't they both be delicious? Of course they can. A dinner at a 5-star "tweezer food" type of place is comparable to a simple lunch in the hills of a Tuscan village with lots of olive oil and shards of bread. A chef cannot create these foams and gels and spherical olives and other foods that are out of this world before they understand the processes it takes to get to that point. I know John Yandell is based in Northern California so I'll use this as an example...Nothern California, especially Napa Valley has some really extraordinary restaurants. One of them is in Yountville, CA called The French Laundry. the Chef is Thomas Keller. Many people consider this to be one of the finest restaurants in the world. Before Thomas Keller was able to create his "Oysters and Pearls" dish ( A sabayon of pearl tapioca w/ fresh oysters and sturgeon caviar) he had to spend alot of time understanding the subtleties of the components, flavor profiles and it's reaction to other components. basic stuff but absolutely neccessary in order to create successful and composed dishes. He didn't start out making "Oysters and Pearls", instead, as a young cook, he started chopping up alot of celery, alot of onions, alot of carrots to make mirepoix. And he did this over and over and over again. He has executed the basics so much that his understanding and foundation is so secure and fastened, he is able to change, manipulate, and coax flavors out of ordinary and turn into extraordinary.

If you don't know the best way to cook a steak medium rare, medium, well done and Pittsburgh Style, and you do not know the chemical reactions that occur when you fry, mash or steam potatoes then how can you possibly open up a successful award winning steakhouse. Fact is, you can't. Mastering the rudimentary skills in order to create flexiblility, diversity and your own "style" requires a foundation of basic priniciples.

For everyone, mastering the basics should be required, for the select few, taking those basics to new heights and levels unseen is a different ball game but a glorious and fascinating one to watch. For Karsten, his "traditional" forehand is great. Is it stylish, dynamic, one of a kind, not really. But his understanding, comfort and simplicity with this shot allows him to be great at it.

Hope this post made some sense and had flow. Not suspensed and disjointed like an early Police album because Gordon Sumner couldn't sing and play guitar at the same time. Took me the greater part of my monday to compose it as I'm in between teaching and administrative responsibilities.

if you made it through, thanks for reading.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

Just for the record, I thought it was an excellent post. Light, but satisfying and hinting at a much greater depth of understanding and knowledge!

don

[don_budge]

me too...klacr

Moi aussi...Chef de cuisine LaCroix.

Exquisite in taste...I would say. Your post, I mean. I love it when people use experiences that are personal in nature and relate them to the tennis...it amounts to sharing. I think that this method is particularly effective in a teacher/student relationship. Using music or any other sensory images within or even outside of the normal spectrum of human experience amount to artistic expression of which I feel there is lacking in the tennis world. It is all being boiled down to numbers...it seems.

This business about the food tying in with the tennis is something that is individual to you. It's really very entertaining to read about and I think that you were very successful in making the point that you cooked up the other night...the relationship between modern forehands vs. the classic. At times you seemed to be side stepping into the other thread submitted by learningtennisforlife. The one about teaching the pro game to fledglings or not. I like that too...not being confined to the question at hand. Deviating from the thread also has its merits. Your remark about The Police and Gordon Summers is an interesting one...it makes me think, "what is he talking about here...Outlandos D'amour? Regatta de Blanc?" Does that mean that you have digressed? That's ok...it made me think. That's what good teachers do. They make you think...long and hard. They strike a chord...by hook or by crook.

There is within every student and a teacher experiences that can be shared to help the teaching process, to serve as a catalyst in order to form a bond between the two...at least I find it to be that way. That is sort of a chemical reaction too.

[klacr]

tennis_chiro and don_budge,

I appreciate the kind comments.
Sorry if I digressed off the main topic.

I think I was just getting deeper into what sfrazeur stated earlier in the thread.

At the end of the day, what Karsten has in his swings every great player has. But the great players put their own unique style on things. I'm sure many of us would gladly take Karsten's forehand. It is effective and assuming he's comfortable with it, which he seems to be, then it is successful. Karsten could explore other ways and methods and ideologies on how to hit his forehand, but I'm pretty sure if he completely changed his swing he would still have early preparation, great body positioning, good extension.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[bmonsour]

Fortunate to have Scott Murphy as coach

I happen to live in Marin County, CA and when we moved here a few years ago, I found Scott's website, connected with him and began to work with him.

Over the last couple of years, I had gone through wanting to hit a more modern stroke and Scott walked me through all that that meant. Unfortunately for me, I had some shoulder issues (at first, my non-racquet arm, and later my racquet arm). I had to step away from the game for a few months earlier this summer due to cataract surgery, but when I returned just a few weeks ago, Scott began to help me again with what had been my floundering forehand. He started me back to basics and with much of what he outlined in the article.

On Sunday, when John emailed about the new issue of TP.net I learned that my subscription had lapsed. However, I saw that Scott had an article in this issue so I had to immediately resubscribe.

I read the article with great pleasure as it spoke to many of the things Scott and I had been working on. I've also had the pleasure of meeting Karsten a couple of times and have seen him hit with Scott. The guy doesn't miss and he's got plenty of power. While I'm a little older than Karsten, the idea of simplifying my strokes to the more traditional end of the continuum appealed greatly.

I had recently been sharing with Scott that I've finally decided to rely more on my far more reliable slice backhand than continue to frustrate myself with my lack of consistency with a flat/topspin backhand. The removal of that extra mental friction on grip change, backswing, etc. has worked well for me and has also given me a lot more confidence overall.

The other thing that I'd point out is that on the forehand side, I know that I was falling victim to trying too hard to mimic the wiper without the necessary extension. So again, I moved toward simplicity and got back to basics with an emphasis on the extension. It has improved both my consistency and power.

I was at Scott's court today for a session and it all seems to be coming together.

I'm glad to hear that others have found it useful too.

Regards,
-Bob

[lobndropshot]

to me this classic vs modern debate is like someone arguing modern prose style is better than Shakespeare. It is all about the plot of the story and not about the style the ball is hit with.

[scottmurphy]

Thanks to all of you who have posted so thoughtfully and eloquently on this first installment of my article on Karsten. You all get it. Whatever else we do with our games we'll always be the better for having mastered certain fundamentals i.e. proper preparation, good positioning, contact point and extention. Although I haven't had the opportunity to discuss their beginnings with Roger, Rafa, Novak, Andy etc., I'm certain their current games were built on the simple, fundamental principles that Karsten and all of us learned initially.

Would Karsten be a better player if he modernized his game? Maybe, but having played him countless times I can tell you he's so good with the relatively straight forward game he possesses there's just no need. From time to time he has occasion to hit with players currently on the ATP Tour and even at that he holds his own.

In any event I'm glad the article has struck a cord with all of you and I hope you enjoy those that follow...

Scott Murphy